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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, WERNER GARTNER, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annual report onForm 20-F of NovAtel Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The Company’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theCompany 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 Company, 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 the Company’s disclosure controlsand 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

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by theannual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.               The Company’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

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

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting.

 

 

Date:                    May26, 2004

 
|   | /s/ WERNER GARTNER                              |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|   | Werner Gartner *(Principal  Financial Officer)* |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,





As Adopted Pursuant to





Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Ronald S. McIntyre, Chairman, President, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of Hyperview Ltd.  (the “Company”), certify, that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 of the Company (the “Report”):





1.      The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Date: October 21, 2010





/s/  Ronald S. McIntyreName:
Ronald S. McIntyreTitle:
Chairman, PresidentChief Executive andChief Financial Officer(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
#### Com. v. Mitchell

10/27/2015

402 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 449
#### Sonya Martirosyan, Appellant, v Hirant Antreasyan, Respondent.

[57 NYS3d 404]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), entered June 14, 2016, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover for the personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell while walking down two steps in the backyard of the defendant’s house. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, inter alia, that he maintained his premises in a reasonably safe condition. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

In support of the motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the parties, which was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that he maintained his premises in a reasonably safe condition and that the plaintiff’s accident was not caused by any defect in the steps *(see Wilks v City of New York,*144 AD3d 673, 674-675 [2016]; *Alexis v Motel Oasis,*143 AD3d 926, 927 [2016]; *Zamor v Dirtbusters Laundromat, Inc.,*138 AD3d 1114, 1115 [2016]; *Witkowski v Island Trees Pub. Lib.,*125 AD3d 768, 770 [2015]; *Lezama v 34-15 Parsons Blvd, LLC,*16 AD3d 560 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact by the submission of her *617expert’s affidavit, since “[e]xpert opinions which are speculative, conclusory, and unsubstantiated are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment” *(Reddy v 369 Lexington Ave. Co., L.P.,*31 AD3d 732, 733 [2006]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Leventhal, J.P., Barros, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano,

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.

October 1, 2014 

# Order

Octo ber 1 , 2014

148617 ( 5 9 )

KENNETH J. SPEICHER

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

,

v

COLUMBIA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES

and COLUMBIA TOWNSHIP PLANNING

COMMISSION

, Defendant s

- Appell ants

. SC: 148617

COA: 306684

Van Buren CC: 11

- 600857

- CZ

________________________________________ _ _

/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants

- appellants for leave to file

a responsive brief in opposition to the amicus curiae brief filed by Outside Legal

Counsel, PLC, and attorney Philip L. Ellison is GRANTED. The brief submitted on

September 23 , 2014 , is accepted for filing.
#### Karma EE., Matter of (Evelyn EE.)

3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1120 (Proceeding Nos. 3, 5 and 6)

denied*

*

 Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.
/ 

\ 

Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA-

'lJ; f Ll.- .v ,v1.- .2 o5- A-3> 

Directorate Identifier: -AD 

If you make changes to the values in the table below. you must ensure the totals update accordingly. (f 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., '"'P"';~ propeller, appliance) 

replacement Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

Do not inclut/.e n- (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

/'(!Ondition cos~e access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Forward Passenge~ \? CompartmentPotable Water 

System Coupling 12.0 $83 2 

Inspection and 

Replacement / 

(Part 1) / ~ 

l~.t!lr- 1-r ,ld_AI) ... .k._ ... 

fi! ..... 

l 

L 

~ 

,_., - I 

l&J~ /2. .. ra ,_,..... &'0 

f /I ...J 

The known number of products in campi iance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $2,206 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: U 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

7 

• 
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to e;rp/ain warranty costs): 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a " significant regulatory action"? @ 

YES* 0 NO [8] 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: • 

Is the AD significant? G 

YES* 0 NO [8] 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. 0 

YES 0 NO IZI 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: ~ ... f "l .:.a. 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to includ!l specifi<; requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only ~dJ~ft}ci ~ortat io ? ·.G 

YES* 0 NO IZI 

*Explanation : 

8
```

[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15787]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: United States Enrichment Corporation.

SUBJECT: Board of Directors.

TIME AND DATE: June 9-10, 1998, commencing at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 
June 9, 1998.

PLACE: Chicago/O'Hare International Airport Executive Center.

STATUS: Portions of the Board meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: Privatization of the Corporation.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elizabeth Stuckle at 301/564-3399.

    Dated: June 9, 1998.
William H. Timbers, Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-15787 Filed 6-9-98; 4:45 pm]
BILLING CODE 8720-01-M
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2321 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2321

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to make eligible for burial in 
  the national cemeteries the spouses of veterans who predecease the 
                               veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 26 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

 Mr. Rockefeller (by request) introduced the following bill; which was 
     read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to make eligible for burial in 
  the national cemeteries the spouses of veterans who predecease the 
                               veterans.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR BURIAL IN NATIONAL CEMETERIES OF SPOUSES WHO 
              PREDECEASE VETERANS.

    Section 2402(5) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking out ``The surviving spouse,'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
``The spouse, surviving spouse,''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Thomas Trinajstic, Respondent, v St. Owner, LP, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. St. Owner, LP, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants, v Q’s Marble & Stone Inc., Third-Party Defendant, and Pat Pellegrini Flooring Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (And a Second Third-Party Action.)

[50 NYS3d 866]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered August 16, 2016, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendants St. Owner, LP and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and on their third-party claim for common-law indemnification against third-party defendant Pat Pellegrini Flooring Corporation (Pellegrini), and denied the motion of *632Pellegrini for summary judgment dismissing the third-party action as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly found that questions of fact as to whether workers employed by Pellegrini, a flooring refinisher at defendants’ premises, created the dust that allegedly contributed to plaintiff’s fall barred dismissal of his claim pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) *(see*12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [d], [e]). Plaintiff, a laborer for the general contractor on a gut renovation project at the premises, was in the process of placing protection over the newly refinished floors at the time of his fall, and was thus entitled to the protections of the Labor Law *(see Bajor v 75 E. End Owners Inc.,*89 AD3d 458 [1st Dept 2011]; *TornelLo v Beaver Brook Assoc., LLC,*8 AD3d 7 [1st Dept 2004]). The fact that plaintiff’s job duties on the project also included some cleaning and debris removal does not bar his claim, as the record indicates that he was not engaged in cleaning the dust or broken tiles that caused him to fall *(see Lopez v Fordham Univ.,*69 AD3d 532, 533 [1st Dept 2010], *lv dismissed*15 NY3d 821 [2010]).

The court also correctly determined that summary resolution of defendants’ claim for common-law indemnification against Pellegrini would be premature. While the record contains evidence that plaintiff’s fall was caused by the presence of dust created by Pellegrini, plaintiff also pointed to broken tiles as a cause of his fall, tiles unrelated to Pellegrini’s work. In any event, defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of a lack of any negligence on their part (see *Martins v Little 40 Worth Assoc., Inc.,*72 AD3d 483, 484 [1st Dept 2010]).

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2014-0230

Directorate Identifier: 2013NM242AD

A300-54-6034, R02 --- 8/26/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
160 A.3d 1276

#### IN THE MATTER OF DAVID N. SAMSON, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 221991965)

May 25, 2017

ORDER

DAVID N. SAMSON, formerly of WEST ORANGE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1965, and who has been temporarily suspended from the practice of law since July 28, 2016, having tendered his consent to disbarment as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that DAVID N. SAMSON is disbarred by consent, effective immediately; and it is further

*218ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that he be permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing or hereinafter deposited in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by DAVID N. SAMSON pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6 shall be restrained from disbursement except on application to this Court for good cause shown and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court, who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
No. 09-10496.

#### Yuecai Meng, Petitioner v. Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services.

562 U.S. 845, 131 S. Ct. 84,

178 L. Ed. 2d 54,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6017,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina denied.

Same case below, 363 N.C. 804, 690 S.E.2d 703.
EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION  I, Glenn M. Dobbs, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Mines Management, Inc. (the registrant); 2. Based on my knowledge, 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 respect to 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 the registrant 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 registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls 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 others within 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 and procedures, 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially 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 control over 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 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:  August 11, 2006 /s/ Glenn M. Dobbs  Glenn M. Dobbs Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.3


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Scottish Annuity & Life Holdings,
Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Scott E. Willkomm, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Scott E. Willkomm


Scott E. Willkomm
President
August 6, 2002
No. 09-10945.

#### Dorez Whittsette, Petitioner v. Rich Gansheimer, Warden.

562 U.S. 856, 131 S. Ct. 123,

178 L. Ed. 2d 75,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6063.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
#### Seymour Camins, Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 247]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered September 22, 2016, which granted plaintiff’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This appeal involves a claim of negligence against defendant for injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained on November 23, 2015, at approximately 2:45 p.m. On that date, plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a defect in a concrete sidewalk in front of 3033 Middletown Road, a housing project owned and maintained by defendant.

A court, after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances, has the discretion to extend the time to serve a notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). Here, we find that the motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the application to file a late notice of claim 22 days after the statutory deadline had passed, as the 22-day period was still well within the one year and 90 days within which to commence an action against defendant under CPLR 217-a. In so finding, we note that plaintiff was in the hospital from his alleged accident on November 23, 2015 until November 30, 2015, and on the latter date was transferred to a nursing home, where he remained until December 23, 2015. Thus, plaintiff was physically incapacitated for 30 days after his alleged accident (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]).

Plaintiff sustained his initial burden of showing that the late notice of claim will not substantially prejudice defendant, as the record demonstrates that defendant fixed the allegedly defective condition on its premises the day after plaintiff’s fall *590
      *(see Matter of Newcomb v Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist.,*28 NY3d 455, 467 [2016]).

By contrast, defendant did not rebut plaintiff’s showing of lack of substantial prejudice, and therefore cannot convincingly argue that it was prejudiced by any delay in serving the notice of claim. On the contrary, even had plaintiff timely served his notice, the allegedly defective condition would no longer have existed by the time of service, as that condition had already been repaired by the day after the incident. Defendant therefore cannot now be heard to say that the late notice of claim prejudiced its ability to conduct an investigation of the premises *(see e.g. Matter of Beary v City of Rye,*44 NY2d 398, 412 [1978]).

Similarly, although defendant notes that its security recordings were erased from the database in the normal course of business, it notably fails to mention how often those recordings were actually erased. If recordings were erased, for example, every 30 days, even timely service could have prejudiced defendant, as the recordings would already have been erased even had a notice of claim been timely served 45 days (or even fewer) after the incident.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.
No. 10-5083.

#### Gary B. Martin, Petitioner v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

562 U.S. 902, 131 S. Ct. 393,

178 L. Ed. 2d 159,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6135.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied.

Same case below, 2010 Ark. 164.
No. 09-11351.

#### Elijah H. Harris, III, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 875, 131 S. Ct. 183,

178 L. Ed. 2d 110,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6487.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.