alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

I, Curtis J. Parker, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Cotelligent, Inc. certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this interim report on Form 10-Q ofCotelligent, Inc.; 

 

2.    Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 

 

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

 

4.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have: 

 

a)    Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially 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 controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol 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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:    August 14, 2003
**EXHIBIT - 31.2**

MOSSIMO, INC.

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVEOFFICER

I, Edwin Lewis, Vice Chairman and Co-ChiefExecutive Officer of the registrant, certify that:

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mossimo,Inc.;

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 otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and 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 is, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, made known to us by others, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(c)              Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)             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 first fiscal quarter) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)              All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controls 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, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
| /s/ EDWIN LEWIS                              |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Edwin Lewis                                  |
| Vice-Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer |
| August 14, 2006                              |

 

----
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 4.7
















CONSENT OF JOSÉE-ANNE LÉVESQUE







Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 29, 2012 (the “Annual Report”) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.




I, Josée-Anne Lévesque, staff member of the Company, participated in the preparation of the following reports:




-

“Technical Report and Recommendations, Summer 2011 Exploration Program, Lac Pau Project, Québec” completed in March 2012; and




-

“Technical Report and Recommendations, Reconnaissance and Trenching Program, Ashuanipi Project, Québec” completed in March 2012; 




concerning mineralized material in the Lac Pau and Ashuanipi properties (collectively the “Reports”) for the Company. Portions of the Reports are summarized, for the Lac Pau property, under headings “Item III – Description of the Business – 3.5.4 Geological Setting; 3.5.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.5.6 Mineralization”, and for the Ashuanipi property, under headings “3.6.4 Geological Setting; 3.6.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.6.6 Mineralization” in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 29, 2012 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein). 




I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.







Very truly yours,










	
	/s/  Josée-Anne Lévesque


	Name:  Josée-Anne Lévesque, B.Sc., P.Geo.



















May 14, 2012
#### CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. *v.*TOWN OF GROTON

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15797.

*Michael A. Zizka,*in support of the petition.

*James F. Brennan, Jr.,*in opposition.

Decided October 16, 1997

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 46 Conn. App. 514 (AC 16735), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the plaintiffs claim for inverse condemnation was not ripe for review and, therefore, was properly dismissed by the trial court?”
#### Mitchell THOMPSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 21041.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 21, 1966.

Michael D. Garvey, Seattle, Wash., for appellant.

Eugene G. Cushing, U. S. Atty., Gerald W. Hess, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.

Before MADDEN, Judge of the United States Court of Claims, and MERRILL and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

 This is an appeal from a conviction of the crime of robbery of a federally insured bank. 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). We find no error. It was not improper for the Government, which presented several witnesses who identified the appellant as the robber, to produce evidence that the appellant, shortly before the robbery, gave his landlady a check for a month’s rent, which cheek was rejected by the bank on which it was drawn because of insufficient funds, and that after the robbery the appellant paid two months’ rent in cash. See Hass v. United States, 344 F.2d 56, 63 (CA 8); Gill v. United States, 285 F.2d 711, 713 (CA 5). A vague reference by a Government witness to the appellant’s former “troubles” was of no significance, particularly since the appellant’s counsel in his opening statement had advised the jury of the appellant’s prior criminal record.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40092

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICARDO TIRADO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-155-3

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ricardo Tirado has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Tirado has filed responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us 

to make a fair evaluation of Tirado’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; 

we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-40092 Document: 00513079523 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
No. 14-40092

2

review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 

135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Tirado’s responses. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Tirado’s motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED.

 Case: 14-40092 Document: 00513079523 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
#### Chase HAYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NASSCO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-55396

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017

Chase Hayes, Pro Se

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Chase Hayes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hayes’s Title VII and ADA claims related to his layoff because such claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. *See*42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (Title VII complainant must file EEOC charge no later than 180 days, or authorized state or local agency charge no later than 300 days, after alleged unlawful practice occurred); *Douglas v. Cal. Dep’t of Youth Auth.,*271 F.3d 812, 823 & n.11 (9th Cir. *3132001) (same statute of limitations for ADA claims).

The district court properly dismissed Hayes’s Title VII and ADA claims related to NASSCO’s rejection of his employment applications because Hayes failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was treated less favorably than others outside of his protected class, or that he was disabled or perceived as disabled within the meaning of the ADA at the time he applied for these positions. *See Leong v. Potter,*347 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII); *Braunling v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*220 F.3d 1154, 1166 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth prima facie case of employment discrimination under ADA).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
454 A.2d 151

#### Commonwealth v. Canady, Appellant.

Argued March 3, 1982.

Marc Alan Krefetz, for appellant; Garold Tennis, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before WIEAND, BECK and HOFFMAN, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

WIEAND, J., concurred in the result.
### Swanson , Bria n (OST ) fior-OSTT - jOj^' V -iJpO B From : Curti s Hershberge r[curther@ttc-cmc.net ] Sent : Sunday , Januar y23 , 201 1 6:4 4 P M To : Devany , Denni s (OST) ; Swanson , Bria n (OST ) Cc : JerryMoline ; Bo b Simpson ; Dal e Chamberlain ; Darry l McKenzie ; Car l SeBStad Subject : Mt
. EA S Contrac t " " •:.' > z z Departmen t ofTransportatio n ' ^ ^O ^ Essentia l Ai rServic e Cg^ g Denni s DeVan yX ) ''^^~^ Brai n Swanso n :^<^ ^

—C- O Dea rSirs : x r Th e Lewistow n Airport Boar d woul d lik e t o mak e a commen t regardin g th e decisio n o fth e Montan a EA S Committe e t o recommen d Gulfstea m a s LWT' s ne wai rcarrier
. Th e LW TAirport Boar d di d no t mak e a recommendatio n t o ou rEA S tas k forc e membe rt o vote t o remov e Grea t Lake s a s LWT' s ai rcarrier
. Grea t Lake s ha s bee n a mov e forwar d i n ai rservic e fo r centra l Montan a wit h direc t flight s t o DE N fro m LWT
. Thi s trul yi s a goo d us e oftaxpaye rfund s t o connec t rura l communitie s t o commercia l ai rservice
. Grea t Lake s ha s lai d th e groun d wor k fo ra servic e syste m tha t ca n mov e int o a mor e sustainable syste m of ai rtrave l i n th e Bi g SkyStat e ofMontana
. Lewistow n ha s experience d wha t a LW Tt o BI L rout e wil l dra wfo rpassenger s an d know s tha t i t wil l no t b e successfu l t o retur n t o tha t typ e ofservice
. I n ligh t ofcurren t Federa l budge t concerns , wit h Grea t Lake s bein g th e lo wbidder , wit h fa rgreate rservic e fo rMontan a passenger s w e ca n no t support a switc h t o Gulfstrea m a t thi s time
. I n additio n t o th e los s ofservic e t o DEN , Lewistow n wil l stan d t o los e a n estimate d $250,00 0 t o th e loca l economy . Sincerely , Curti s Hershberge r Lewistow n Airport Boar d Chiarma n Lewistow n Airport 30 9 AStree t Lewistow n Mt
. 5945 7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          44,687
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,174
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    579,280
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         147,841
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           149,856
<LOANS>                                      1,379,962
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,277,725
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,546,974
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             40,735
<LONG-TERM>                                    499,133
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,483
<OTHER-SE>                                     125,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,277,725
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 79,256
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,818
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                36,537
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               119,611
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              44,720
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              66,599
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           53,012
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 985
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 58,398
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,970
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      11,970
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,023
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.33
<LOANS-NON>                                      9,662
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   788
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 9,024
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,100
<RECOVERIES>                                       119
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,543
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,543
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Jess GREEN v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-00197-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: February 20, 2018 Closed: May 10, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
#### Mollie Eagle, Appellant, *v.*Benjamin Cherney et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 5, 1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

*Morris Berler*for motion.

*Lawrence Levine*opposed.

Motion dimissed, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements on the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
In re V.O. Carden,

Jr.Appellant/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 7, 2014

No. 04-14-00154-CV

IN RE V.O. CARDEN Jr.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On March 6, 2014, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court is of the

opinion that a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further

consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real parties in interest

may file a response to the petition in this court no later than March 21, 2014. Any such

response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

It is so ORDERED on March 7th, 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13-0700176CVL, styled Brett Radcliffe, Robert Radcliffe and Mamba

Minerals, LLC v. Double Eagle Development, LLC and Tidal Petroleum, Inc., pending in the 218th Judicial District

Court, La Salle County, Texas, the Honorable Donna S. Rayes presiding.

FILE COPY
#### Western New York & Pennsylvania Railway Company, Appellant, *v.*City of Buffalo et al., Respondents.

Argued March 3, 1943;

decided April 8, 1943.

*704
      *Percy R. Smith*and *Harold J. Adams*for appellant.

*Andrew P. Ronan, Corporation Counsel (Herbert A. Hickman*of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
1500 CADER LANE, PETALUMA

Jon Tracy to: Dante Rodriguez 10/24/2011 08:52 AM

Cc: Samantha Baumgartner

History: This message has been replied to.

Hi Dante,

The notice entered on these two parcels is:

THIS IS AN EPA SUPERFUND SITE. 1,1-DCA CONTAMINATION STILL 

EXCEEDS DRINKING WATER LEVELS AS OF 10/24/2011. CONTACT 

DANTE AT: RODRIGUEZ.DANTE@EPA.GOV PRIOR TO ISSUING ANY WELL 

PERMITS.

Have a great day!

Jon Tracy

SDMS DOCID# 1138654
PROMISSORY NOTE


 


	Borrower:	American Rare Earths and Materials, Corp. of 200 Queen's Quay East, Unit 1, Toronto, Ontario M5A 4K9 (individually and collectively the "Borrower")
	Lender:	Zapfe Holdings Inc.


 


Principal Amount:$200,000.00


 





		1.	FOR VALUE RECEIVED, The Borrower promises to pay to Zapfe
Holdings Inc. at such address as may be provided in writing to the Borrower, the principal sum of two-hundred thousand ($200,000.00)
CAD, with interest payable on the unpaid principal at the rate of 10 percent per annum, calculated yearly not in advance.



 


		2.	This Note is repayable in full within 14 days of Zapfe
Holdings Inc. providing the Borrower with written notice of demand.



 


		3.	At any time while not in default under this Note, the
Borrower may pay the outstanding balance then owing under this Note to Zapfe Holdings Inc. without further bonus or penalty.



 


		4.	This Note will be construed in accordance with and governed
by the laws of the Province of Ontario.



 


		5.	This Note is made for business purposes and is a "business
agreement" as defined in the Consumer Protection Act (the "Act"). No limitation periods found in the Act, other
than the ultimate limitation period found in section 15 of that Act, will apply to this Note and to the obligations imposed by
this Note.



 


		6.	If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this
Note is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, it is the parties' intent that such provision
be reduced in scope by the court only to the extent deemed necessary by that court to render the provision reasonable and enforceable
and the remainder of the provisions of this Note will in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated as a result.



 


		7.	All costs, expenses and expenditures including, and without
limitation, the complete legal costs incurred by Zapfe Holdings Inc. in enforcing this Note as a result of any default by the
Borrower, will be added to the principal then outstanding and will immediately be paid by the Borrower.



 


		8.	This Note will enure to the benefit of and be binding
upon the respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Borrower and Zapfe Holdings Inc.. The Borrower
waives presentment for payment, notice of non-payment, protest and notice of protest.



 










 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly affixed their signatures
under seal on this 20th day of December, 2011.







 


 


	SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED

this 20th day of December, 2011.	 	American Rare Earths and Materials, Corp
	 	 	Per:	 	(SEAL)


 


 


	SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED

this 20th day of December, 2011.	 	Zapfe Holdings Inc.  
	 	 	Per: