alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| a)   | all      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,      process, summarize and report financial information;  and |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| b)   | any      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control      over financial reporting. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | May 12,      2009 | /s/ Ronald H.      Braam     |
|--------|-------------------|------------------------------|
|   |              | Ronald      H. Braam         |
|   |              | Chief      Executive Officer |
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



Subsidiaries of the Registrant


   1.  Internet Security Systems Gmbh (Germany)
   2.  Internet Security Systems Iberia Sl (Spain)
   3.  Internet Security Systems, Inc. (Georgia)
   4.  Internet Security Systems KK (Japan)
   5.  Internet Security Systems Latin America, Inc. (Florida)
   6.  Internet Security Systems Ltd. (United Kingdom)
   7.  Internet Security Systems Ltda. (Brazil)
   8.  Internet Security Systems Nordic AB (Sweden)
   9.  Internet Security Systems NV (Belgium)
   10. Internet Security Systems Pty. Ltd. (Australia)
   11. Internet Security Systems, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mexico)
   12. Internet Security Systems Sarl (France)
   13. Internet Security Systems Srl (Italy)
   14. ISS Group, Inc. (Delaware)
   15. ISS Investment Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
   16. ISSX Internet Security Systems AG (Switzerland)
   17. Network ICE Corporation (California)
Opinion issued August 20 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 19
- 00048
- CV

——————————— JAMES H. JOHNSON , Appella nt

V. CROCKETT POLICE , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2013
- 34029

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, James H. Johnson, attempts to appeal the trial court’s dismissal of the underlying case in a judgment signed on July 8, 2014. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction because appellant’s notice of appeal filed over four years later,

on January 8, 2019, was untimely.2

Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the judgment is signed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended to ninety days after the date the judgment is signed if, within thirty days after the judgme nt is signed, any party timely files a motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or, under certain circumstances, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1(a); T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329b(a), ( g). The time to file a notice of appeal may also be extended if, within fifteen days after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, a party properly files a motion for extension. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.5(b), 26.3.
A ppellant’s January 8, 2019 notice of a ppeal was untimely filed over four years after the deadline. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.1. On June 6, 2019 , the Clerk of this Court notified appe llant that this appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless he demonstrated this Court had jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant failed to file a response. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Landau, and Countiss

.
---

Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Donald R. Willoughby, Chief Financial Officer of Getty Copper Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



(i)

the Amended Annual Report on Form 20-F/A-1 of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

the information contained in the Amended Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|       |                        
|------ | -----------------------
|By:    | Donald R. Willoughby 
|Name:  | Donald R. Willoughby   
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:  | December 22, 2008      





This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.







---
**Exhibit31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Christopher J. Willi, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sherwood Brands,Inc. (the “Registrant”);

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have:

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of theRegistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation;

 

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: October 28, 2004         |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |   |
|                                |   |
| /s/  CHRISTOPHER J. WILLI |   |   |   |
| Christopher J.  Willi               |   |   |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer            |   |   |   |

 

----
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ JERRIDENE H. MOORE, Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEM S PROTECTION BOARD , Respondent.

______________________

2014

- 3089

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. AT

- 0752

- 11

- 0881 -I- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Jerridene H. Moore moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Social Security Administration
moves to rec a ption this matter to designate the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) as the respondent, and for an extension of time for the Board to file its brief.
Accordingly

, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Case: 14-3089 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 06/03/2014MOORE v. MSPB 2

(1) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
(2) The motion to reca ption is granted. The revised official caption is reflected above.
(3) The motion for an extension of time is granted. The Board shall file its response brief within 21 days of the date of this order.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s24 Case: 14-3089 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 06/03/2014
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3329 

AN ACT 

To enhance the ability of community financial institutions 

to foster economic growth and serve their communities, 

boost small businesses, increase individual savings, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3329 EH

1 SECTION 1. CHANGES REQUIRED TO SMALL BANK HOLD2 ING COMPANY POLICY STATEMENT ON AS3 SESSMENT OF FINANCIAL AND MANAGERIAL 

4 FACTORS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Before the end of the 6-month pe6 riod beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 

7 the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 

8 shall publish in the Federal Register proposed revisions 

9 to the Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement on 

10 Assessment of Financial and Managerial Factors (12 CFR 

11 Part 225 Appendix C) that provide that the policy shall 

12 apply to bank holding companies and savings and loan 

13 holding companies which have pro forma consolidated as14 sets of less than $1,000,000,000 and that— 

15 (1) are not engaged in any nonbanking activi16 ties involving significant leverage; and 

17 (2) do not have a significant amount of out18 standing debt that is held by the general public. 

19 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

20 171(b)(5)(C) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

21 Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5371(b)(5)(C)) is 

22 amended by inserting ‘‘or small savings and loan holding 

23 company’’ after ‘‘any small bank holding company’’. 

24 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

25 or the amendments made by this Act may be construed 

26 as limiting the authority of the Board of Governors of the 
3 

•HR 3329 EH

1 Federal Reserve System to exclude a bank holding com2 pany or a savings and loan holding company from the pol3 icy statement described under subsection (a), if such ac4 tion is warranted for supervisory purposes. 

5 (d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section: 

6 (1) BANK HOLDING COMPANY.—The term 

7 ‘‘bank holding company’’ has the meaning given that 

8 term under section 2 of the Bank Holding Company 

9 Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841). 

10 (2) SAVINGS AND LOAN HOLDING COMPANY.— 

11 The term ‘‘savings and loan holding company’’ has 

12 the meaning given that term under section 10(a) of 

13 the Home Owners’ Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a(a)). 

Passed the House of Representatives May 6, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3329 

AN ACT 

To enhance the ability of community financial instidividual savings, and for other purposes. communities, boost small businesses, increase in- tutions to foster economic growth and serve their
Related cases: H ea lth r e l a ted c ases:

Co ncem l eve l s : Type of Concer n: Level of Concer n: Health 1- 2
Persistence 1 1 3

Ex po s ure Based Review: Health: Ecotox:N o Route s of exposure:

Keywords : 

### SAT Report PMN Number : P -15-0109 SAT Date : 12 / 12 / 2014 Print Date : 10 / 1 / 2015

- Ye s

Eco Comments

2
Bioaccum 1 1 1 Toxicity 2 2 2 Comments

Health : Drinkin g Water Inhalati o n Ecotox: All r e l ea ses to water Fate: ·
Keywords: RETINOPATHY; DEVEL ; MUTA ; ON C O ; AQUAT OX S ummary of Assess ment : Fate:

l og K ow = 1 .2 3 (E) l og K oc = 1 .5 0 (E) l og Fi s h B C F = 0. 5 0 (E ) l og Fi s h BAF = 0.09 FATE: E s tima tion sl og Ko w = 2
. 39 (E) l og Koc 

### = 2 .40 (E ) l og F i s h B CF = 0
. 50 (E) l og F i s h BAF 

### = 0
. 5 4 F A TE : E st imat i on s l og Kow = 1. 59 l og Koc 

### = 3.33 (E ) l og F i s h B CF = 0
. 72 (E) l og F i s h BAF 

### = 0
. 60 (E ) P MN S ub stan ce: So lid S > 1 giL at 25 

## o c (E ) V P < 1
. 0E

- 6 t on at 25 

## o c ( E ) BP > 4 00 

## o c (E ) H < 1. 00 E- 8 ( E ) POTW re m oval (%) =

H ealth: H ealth S umm a r y: N ot a b so rbe d fr om th e s ki n , m od erat e a b s mpti on fr o m th e GI t r act and goo d a b s mpti on fr o m th e lun g . Co n ce m f or · , mu t age ni c i ty , o n coge n i c ity ,**ty** f or t h e ; d eve l opme n t a l t oxic i ty f o r the

- . Ec oto x : T es t Tes t T es t E nd Pr e dicte d Me a s ure d C omm e nt s Or g ani s m T ype Point fi s h 96 -h L C5 0 > 1 00 daphnid 4 8

- h L C5 0 7.3 g re e n a l g al 96 -h EC5 0 10 .4 fi s h c hronic 0 .58



## - v alue daphnid chro nic 0
. 11



## - v alu e a l g al



## - chro nic 2.6 v alu e**~** 3- h EC5 0



## -**lud ~** 

### ewag~ S ludg 

# I C hronic 

# I V alue Ec otox V alu es C omments : Pr edictions are ba sed o n SARs fo r-- SAR c h em i ca l cla ss =--

### so**li d**  wit h unkn own mp ( P ); log Kow = 1. 6 (P,

- S = > 1000 mg/L at 20 C ( P , _.-pH 7 ; effective co n cent r ati o n s ba se d o n 100% acti ve ingredient s and mean mea s ured co n ce n t r atio n s ; hardne ss < 150
. 0 mg/L as CaC03; and TOC < 2.0 mg/L ; C omments 

## • • . I 

## • • • I I

I I I I 

## • I I 

## ••• I I • I • I



### . I
"' !I Ec otox F actor s C omment s :

SAT C hair: Fat e a ss e ss or:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Umawa Imo v. Prince Uchechi Nwakanma and Prince & Associates, 

PC.

Appellate case number: 01-13-00699-CV

Trial court case number: 2012-32324

Trial court: 270th District Court of Harris County

On February 21, 2014, appellants filed a Motion to Abate or Extend Time to File 

Appellants’ Brief, indicating a settlement may have been reached between the parties. The 

motion is GRANTED, and appellants’ brief is due on March 10, 2014. Given the number of 

previous extensions, there will be NO further extensions granted, and the appeal may be 

dismissed for want of prosecution if a brief is not filed by March 10, 2014.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 25, 2014
From: Skip Jansen [mailto:skip@jijcorp.com] 

### Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:44 PM To: O'toole, catherine (OST) 

### Subject: RE: Rugby application -last question (hopefully) Katie, 

# OST- 2.009

-- 

# Dl00

As discussed with you overthe phonethis morningthe 

### $112,783 in cash shown on Our 

### 11/30/09statement includesthe 

### $100,000 in Frontier Bank. Based upon your letterof November 17th we increased the 

### $100,000to 

### $120,000to be set aside as working capital. Yourotherquestion related to pre-operatingexpenses. Since we purchased an on-going operation we didn't really incur any pre-operating expenses. Any costs related to upgradingthe certificate were absorbed and paid for duringthe ongoing operations. I hopethis clears things up. Please don't hesitateto contact me ifyou have anyfurther questions. Thanks, Skip

From: catherine.O'toole@dot.gov [mailto:Catherine.O'toole@dot.gov] 

### Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:32 AM To: Skip Jansen 

### Subject: RE: Rugby application -last question (hopefully)
Ialso wanted to make sure Iwas not double counting the amount of cash that Rugby indicates it has. The latest balance sheet Rugby submitted (dated Sept 30,2009) shows approximately $112,783 in cash. There is also adocumentfrom Frontier Bank dated Nov25,2009, that shows that Rugby has $120,000 available in its bank balance. It is not readily clearto me that these amounts are separate amounts, so Iwas hoping you can confirm this. Give me a call if you wantto discuss. 202-366-9998 Katy

From: O'toole, catherine (OST) 

### Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:57 AM To: 'Skip Jansen' 

### Subject: RE: Rugby application
HI Skip Iam writing to ask you a question regarding any pre-operating expenses you may have incurred with the FAA side of things while you are upgrading from being an airtaxi to becoming a commuter.Has there been any costs involved with the upgrade? These would count as pre-operating costs, and if you have already paid them, we would need to know that, too. While your application states there are no costs, Ijust wanted to confirm that. Thanks

- Katy Katy O'Toole U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Aviation Analysis Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56) phone: 202.366.9998 fax: 202.366.7638 Catherine.OToole@dot.gov
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 11

                   NUMBER NINE VISUAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

     STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE (1)(2)

                     (in thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED            SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                          JUNE 28, 1997   JUNE 29, 1996   JUNE 28, 1997   JUNE 29, 1996
                                          --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------
 
HISTORICAL
<S>                                       <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Common Stock Outstanding, beginning of            9,081           8,940        9,053           8,758
 the period                                                                                 
Weighted average cheap stock                          -               -            -               -
Weighted average redeemable common stock              -               -            -               -
Weighted average number of common stock              20              53           36             154
 issued                                                                                     
Weighted average of common stock                      -               -            -               -
 equivalents                                                                                
Less:  assumed purchase of treasury                   -               -            -               -
 shares                                         -------         -------    ---------        --------
                                                                                            
Weighted average number of common and                                                       
 common                                                                                     
  equivalent share outstanding                    9,101           8,993        9,089           8,912
                                                =======         =======    =========        ========
                                                                                            
Net income (loss)                               $(9,629)        $(8,763)   $( 11,986)       $( 9,333)
                                                =======         =======    =========        ========
                                                                                            
Net income (loss) per common and common                                                     
  equivalent share outstanding                  $ (1.06)        $ (0.97)   $   (1.32)       $  (1.05)
 
</TABLE>
(1)    Primary and fully diluted calculations are substantially the same.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 9, 2015

a1202

Order 

Clerk

December 9, 2015

150227

SURRY FRY,

Claimant-Appellant,

v SC: 150227

COA: 321239

Wayne CC: 13-009031-AE

SAFE MANAGEMENT OF MICHIGAN,

LLC,

Employer-Appellee,

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND

REGULATORY AFFAIRS, 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 

AGENCY,

Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 2, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.