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

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS OF CFO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
  ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Seid Sadat, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Transnational
  Automotive Group, Inc. (formerly Apache Motor Corporation);

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 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.

May 30, 2006

/s/ Seid Sadat
  Seid Sadat, 
  Acting Chief Financial Officer

---
##### 



|                                                                                                                                                                     |  |  |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|AMENDED AND RESTATED CANWEST NEWS SERVICES AGREEMENT                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                                                                    
|Exhibit 10.9                                                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                                                                    
|Amended and Restated CanWest News Services Agreement, dated February 14, 2003,
between CanWest Publications Inc. and Brantford Expositor Group Inc.                 
|                                                                                                                                                                    
|Amended and Restated CanWest News Services Agreement, dated February 14, 2003,
between CanWest Publications Inc. and Niagara Newspaper Group Inc.                   
|                                                                                                                                                                    
|Amended and Restated CanWest News Services Agreement, dated February 14, 2003,
between CanWest Publications Inc. and Flamborough Review Newspaper Inc.              
|                                                                                                                                                                    
|Amended and Restated CanWest News Services Agreement, dated February 14, 2003,
between CanWest Publications Inc. and Peninsula Newspaper Group Inc.                 
|                                                                                                                                                                    
|Amended and Restated CanWest News Services Agreement, dated February 14, 2003,
between CanWest Publications Inc. and Southern Ontario Community Newspaper
Group Inc.
|                                                                                                                                                                    
|Amended and Restated CanWest News Services Agreement, dated February 14, 2003,
between CanWest Publications Inc. and St. Catharines Standard Group Inc.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benito Millan CARLOS, a.k.a. Benito Carlos Millan, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50707.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 6, 2010.

Michael L. Stern, Esq., Becky S. Walker, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Fredricco Mccurry, Esq., Van Nuys, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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 **

Benito Millan Carlos appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Carlos’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are *216no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ENACTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2016 (the Report) of Burcon NutraScience
Corporation (the Company), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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 results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: July 27, 2016

/s/ Jade ChengName: Jade ChengTitle: Chief Financial Officer


---
ex10-5.htm











Exhibit 10.5


 


Director Fee Arrangements


 


The non-employee directors of Sunshine Savings Bank receive compensation for their service on the board of directors of the Bank.  In setting their compensation, the board of directors considers the significant amount of time and level of skill required for director service.  Director compensation is reviewed annually by the compensation committee, which makes recommendations for approval by the board of directors of the Bank.  As of June 30, 2010, board compensation consisted of fees of $300 for each board meeting attended, for all non-employee directors except the chairman, who receives $375 per board meeting attended.  In addition, members of the audit committee and compensation committee each receive $75 for each committee meeting attended.  Except as set forth above, the directors are not paid additional fees for service on various board committees of the Bank.  Directors who are also employees of Sunshine Savings Bank do not receive any compensation for their service on the Board of Directors.


 


The board of directors of Sunshine Financial, Inc., the holding company for Sunshine Savings Bank, is identical to that of the Bank.  No board fees are paid for service on the board of directors of Sunshine Financial, Inc.
# C_2020222EN.01001301.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz — Germany) — Stadtwerke Neuwied GmbH v RI

(Case C-765/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/55/EC - Common rules for the internal market in natural gas - Consumer protection - Article 3(3) and point (b) of Annex A - Transparency of contractual terms and conditions - Obligation to give consumers adequate notice directly of an increase in charges)

(2020/C 222/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Koblenz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stadtwerke Neuwied GmbH

Defendant: RI

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, read in conjunction with points (b) and (c) of Annex A thereto, must be interpreted as meaning that, where tariff changes which have not been personally notified to customers are implemented by a gas supplier of last resort with the sole aim of passing on the increase in the cost of acquisition of natural gas without any profit being sought, it is not a condition for the validity of the tariff changes in question that that supplier fulfil the obligations of transparency and information referred to in those provisions, provided that the customers are able to terminate the contract at any time and have the appropriate remedies available to obtain compensation for damage that may have been incurred as a result of the failure to notify the changes personally.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---
Exhibit 10.6

Form of Amendment of October 8, 2006 to CNS,
Inc. 1987 Employee Incentive Stock Option Plan, CNS, Inc. 1990 Stock Plan, CNS, Inc. 1994 Amended Stock Plan and CNS, Inc. 2000
Stock Option Plan.

Notwithstanding anything in the Option Agreement
to the contrary, in the event of the merger of the Company with another entity in which the shareholders of the Company will
receive consideration in a form other than shares of the successor or surviving entity: (a) this Option shall be exercisable as to
all shares remaining under the option without regard to any vesting or installment exercise provisions otherwise contained therein
immediately prior to the effective time of the merger; and (b) if this Option is then outstanding on and remains unexercised as to
any shares as of the effective time of the merger, then this Option shall be cancelled as of such effective time and the Optionee
shall receive, as the sole and complete consideration for the cancellation of the Option and in lieu of any and all interest in,
and right to receive the common stock of the Company or any substitute option or right in the common stock of its successor or
survivor following the merger, with respect to all of the shares of common stock subject to such cancelled options as of the date
of such cancellation, cash in an amount equal to the net amount of (i) the product of the excess, if any, of the merger
consideration over the exercise price per share multiplied by the number of shares subject to the Option, less (ii) any applicable
tax withholding. If the exercise price per share of this Option equals or exceeds the merger consideration, the cash amount shall
be zero. [Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, any Optionee who, as of the effective time of the merger, has not
elected to exercise any Option shall be deemed to have consented to the cancellation of the Option in exchange for the merger
consideration as set forth above if and to the extent the cancellation and payment of the spread is deemed an amendment to the
Option.]



[Bracketed language included in the amendment to
the CNS, Inc. 1990 Stock Plan, CNS, Inc. 1994 Amended Stock Plan, and CNS, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan]

---
Exhibit 32.1  Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350 (Section 906
of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002)  In connection with
the filing by Five Star Quality Care, Inc. (the Company) of the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report),
each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:  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 results
of operations of the Company.  /s/ Bruce J. Mackey Jr.Bruce J. Mackey Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Francis R. Murphy IIIFrancis R. Murphy IIITreasurer and Chief Financial Officer  Date:   March
2, 2009
**Exhibit21**

 

Ergo ScienceCorporation

 

SUBSIDIARIES

 
| **Subsidiary**                                   | ** ** | **Jurisdiction  of Incorporation** |
|--------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------|
|                                             |       |                               |
| Ergo Holdings, Inc.                              |       | Nevada                             |
| Ergo Science  Development Corporation            |       | Delaware                           |
| Ergo Research  Corporation                       |       | Nevada                             |
| Ergo Texas Holdings,  Inc.                       |       | Delaware                           |
| Lampcycle Limited                                |       | United Kingdom                     |
| Nexus Holdings Ltd                               |       | United Kingdom                     |
| Nexus Media  Communications Ltd                  |       | United Kingdom                     |
| Nexus Business Media  Ltd                        |       | United Kingdom                     |
| Nexus Commercial Media  Ltd                      |       | United Kingdom                     |
| Harpers Wines &  Spirits Ltd                 |       | United Kingdom                     |
| International Wine  & Spirit Competition Ltd |       | United Kingdom                     |
| Columbus Travel  Publishing Ltd                  |       | United Kingdom                     |
| Nexus Business Ltd                               |       | United Kingdom                     |
| Nexus Business  Communications Ltd               |       | United Kingdom                     |

 

----
# C_2010245EN.01000301.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/3 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Winding-up proceedings

Decision to open winding-up proceedings (Voluntary winding-up following a decision of the extraordinary general meeting of the mutual enterprise Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń Wzajemnych Bezpieczny DOM concerning the winding-up of the insurance undertaking)

(Publication made in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

2010/C 245/03

| Insurance undertaking | Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń Wzajemnych Bezpieczny Dom ul. Żurawia 32/34 00-515 Warszawa POLSKA/POLAND | Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń Wzajemnych Bezpieczny Dom | ul. Żurawia 32/34 | 00-515 Warszawa | POLSKA/POLAND |
| -------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------- | --------------- | ------------- |
| Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń Wzajemnych Bezpieczny Dom | | | | | |
| ul. Żurawia 32/34 | | | | | |
| 00-515 Warszawa | | | | | |
| POLSKA/POLAND | | | | | |
| Date, entry into force and nature of the decision | 22 July 2010, Decision No 2 of 22 July 2010 adopted by extraordinary general meeting of the mutual enterprise Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń Wzajemnych Bezpieczny Dom concerning the opening of winding-up proceedings in respect of Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń Wzajemnych Bezpieczny Dom | | | | |
| Competent authorities | General Meeting of Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń Wzajemnych Bezpieczny Dom | | | | |
| Supervisory authority | Financial Supervision Commission (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego) Pl. Powstańców Warszawy 1 00-950 Warszawa POLSKA/POLAND | Financial Supervision Commission (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego) | Pl. Powstańców Warszawy 1 | 00-950 Warszawa | POLSKA/POLAND |
| Financial Supervision Commission (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego) | | | | | |
| Pl. Powstańców Warszawy 1 | | | | | |
| 00-950 Warszawa | | | | | |
| POLSKA/POLAND | | | | | |
| Liquidator appointed | Mr Dariusz Lucjan Poniewierka, Mr Jacek Krzysztof Bielecki ul. Żurawia 32/34 00-515 Warszawa POLSKA/POLAND | Mr Dariusz Lucjan Poniewierka, Mr Jacek Krzysztof Bielecki | ul. Żurawia 32/34 | 00-515 Warszawa | POLSKA/POLAND |
| Mr Dariusz Lucjan Poniewierka, Mr Jacek Krzysztof Bielecki | | | | | |
| ul. Żurawia 32/34 | | | | | |
| 00-515 Warszawa | | | | | |
| POLSKA/POLAND | | | | | |
| Applicable law | Poland: Article 192 of the Insurance Activity Act (ustawy o działalności ubezpieczeniowej) of 22 May 2003 (Journal of Laws 2010, No 11, item 66, as amended) | | | | |

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 75**  **6 2** 

NOAH ELISHA WATSON , P etitioner

– Appellant ,
v. GENE M. JOHNSON , Respondent

– Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eas tern Distric t of Virginia , at Alexandria
. T. S . Ellis, III , Senior District Judge. ( 1 :0 8

- cv - 00 684

- TSE

- TRJ )

Submitted : August 27, 2010 Decided: September 8 , 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING , and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinio n .
Noah Elisha Watson , Appellant Pro Se . Benjamin Hy man Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Noah Elisha Watson seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the di strict court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner m ust demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Watson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSE D