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



EXHIBIT 11 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Pierre Masse, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Ivanhoe Mines Ltd.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;4.
    
    The issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 issuer 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
issuer, 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 issuer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 issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control
over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuer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 issuer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 issuers internal
control over financial reporting. Date: April 30, 2004 By:
    /s/ Pierre MassePierre MasseChief Financial Officer
#### STATE v. OWEN

No. 422P98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 505

Motion by Attorney General to dismiss appeal allowed 5 November 1998. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 November 1998.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Fish and Wildlife Service

# AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces a meeting of the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force, established under the authority of the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 460ss*et seq.*). The meeting is open to the public.                    

# DATES:

The Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force (Task Force) will meet from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on June 21, 2001, and from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. on June 22, 2001.

# PLACE:

The meeting will be held at the Shilo Inn, 2500 Almond Street, Klamath Falls, Oregon.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Phil Detrich, Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1829 South Oregon Street, Yreka, California 96097, telephone (530) 842-5763.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    For background information on the Task Force, please refer to the notice of their initial meeting that appeared in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25639).                

Jill Parker,

Acting California/Nevada Operations Manager, California/Nevada Office, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 01-13048 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-145918 and 333-116978 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 16, 2010,
relating to the financial statements of
Republic Airways Holdings Inc. and subsidiaries and the effectiveness of
Republic Airways Holdings Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting,
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory
paragraphs referring to Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements that
substantially all fixed-fee service revenues are derived from code-share
agreements with US Airways, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., AMR Corp., the parent
of American Airlines, Inc., United Air Line, Inc., and Continental Airlines,
Inc.), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Republic Airways Holdings
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009.
 
 
 /s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 Indianapolis,
Indiana
 March 16,
2010
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 23, 2013

s1016 

# Order

Clerk October 23, 2013

147522

SC: 147522

In re AJR, Minor

. COA: 312100

Kent CC Family Division:

12

- 024817

- AY

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall

address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals properly interpreted the statutory phrase “the

parent having legal custody of the child” in the stepparent adoption statute, MCL

710.51(6), as necessarily referring to “ the ” sole parent with legal custody; (2) whether the

phrase “legal custody” in § 51(6) is synonymous with the concept of joint custody in the

Child Custody Act, MCL 722.26a(7)(b), whereby “the parents share decision

- making

authority as to the important decisi ons affecting the welfare of the child”; and (3) if the

Court of Appeals did not err in interpreting the statute, what, if any, remedy is available

to the petitioners in this case that is consistent with the general purposes of the Adoption

Code, MCL 710.2 1a.

The State Bar of Michigan Family Law Section and the Michigan Chapter of the

American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers are invited to file briefs amicus curiae.

Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this

case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ALFREDO ROMERO-CHAVEZ, AKA 

Alfredo R. Chavez, AKA Alfredo Romero 

Chavez, AKA Alfredo Chavez-Romero, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-10290 

D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00152-SPL-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Steven P. Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 18, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Alfredo Romero-Chavez appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 27-month sentence for reentry of a 

removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-10290 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Romero-Chavez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there 

are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. 

We have provided Romero-Chavez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental 

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Romero-Chavez waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our 

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United 

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss 

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 10.1

                            WOODHEAD INDUSTRIES, INC.
                            -------------------------

                           Board Compensation Summary
                           --------------------------





Compensation Elements                            Amount
---------------------                            ------

        o   Annual Retainer                      $20,000
            (Pd. in quarterly installments)

        o   Meeting Fees (Board                  $  1,500
            and Committee)

        o   Equity Grants

            - Appointment Grant                  Restricted Stock
                                                 2,000 shares
                                                 (2 yr. Ratable vesting)

            - Annual Grant                       Restricted Stock
                                                 2,000 shares
                                                 (1 yr. Vesting)

        o   Additional Retainer for
            Committee Chairs (All)               $ 5,000

        o   Additional Retainer for              $ 10,000
            Lead Director



Note: Meeting fees will be paid for Board and committee meetings that are held
telephonically. No fees will be paid for teleconferencing updates.


All of the above will be effective January 3, 2006.
---

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sierra Ventures,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter and nine months ended February
28, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Periodic Report), I, Ian Jackson, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. | the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: April 14, 2009

/s/ Ian Jackson

Ian JacksonChief Financial
Officer

---
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

---

FORM 8-K

---

CURRENT REPORT



Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



Date of Report: May 15, 2006

(Date of earliest event reported)

---

IMAGE SENSING SYSTEMS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



Commission File Number: 0-26056

|Minnesota                                      | 41-1519168                       
|---------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------
|(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification No.)



500 Spruce Tree Centre

1600 University Avenue West

St. Paul, Minnesota 55104

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)



(651) 603-7700

(Registrants telephone number, including area code)



Not Applicable

(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

---



Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:



oWritten communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)



oSoliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))





---

Item 8.01  Other Events.

As previously disclosed, Image Sensing Systems, Inc. (the Company) received a letter from The Nasdaq Stock Market (Nasdaq) indicating that the Company failed to comply with the nominating committee requirements for continued listing set forth in Marketplace Rule 4350(c)(4). On May 15, 2006, the Company received a letter from Nasdaq stating that the Nasdaq staff has determined that the Company complies with Marketplace Rule 4350(c)(4) and that the matter is closed.



Item 9.01  Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(d)  Exhibits.



| | 99.1 | Press Release, dated May 18, 2006, of Image Sensing Systems, Inc.
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------



SIGNATURE



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



| | IMAGE SENSING SYSTEMS, INC.
| | ---------------------------
| |                            
| |                            





Date:  May 18, 2006

---

EXHIBIT INDEX

|ExhibitNumber |  | Description                                                      
|------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|99.1          |  | Press Release, dated May 18, 2006, of Image Sensing Systems, Inc.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Jack DAVIS, Also Known as Twin, Appellant.

No. 09-3045.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

April 28, 2010.

John Paul Gidez, Assistant U.S., Roy W. McLeese, III, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Manuel J. Retureta, Retureta & Nassem PLLC, Washington, DC, for Appellant.

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was presented to the court, and briefed and argued by counsel. The court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. *See*D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and the case remanded.

Appellant Jack Davis appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial based upon “newly discovered evidence,” Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, following his conviction for narcotics violations. Find*20ing no merit in appellant’s contentions, we affirm the district court’s denial of his new trial motion. Neither appellant’s assertions regarding the traffic stop leading to his arrest nor his allegations relating to juror confusion satisfies the standard for “newly discovered evidence” warranting a new trial, *see United States v. Johnson,*519 F.3d 478, 487 (D.C.Cir.2008), or an evidentiary hearing, *see*Fed.R.Evid. 606(b); *Tanner v. United States,*483 U.S. 107, 127, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987); *United States v. Stover,*329 F.3d 859, 865 (D.C.Cir.2003) (holding that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) “precludes taking testimony from the jurors ... regarding their belated misgivings”).

Davis also alleges that the district court erred in failing to consider his eligibility for a sentencing reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on a Sentencing Guidelines amendment that lowered the base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses, U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 706 (Nov. 1, 2007). Appellant’s district court filings discussed the issue but did not clearly request resentencing. Rather, they stated that Davis sought to “preserve” his right to file for resentencing once the amendment became retroactive, which it did on March 3, 2008, U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 713 (Mar. 3, 2008). Pursuant to our established procedure, we remand to permit appellant to submit a motion for a reduced sentence based on the Guidelines amendment. *See United States v. Jones,*567 F.3d 712, 719 (D.C.Cir.2009).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
[928 NE2d 683, 902 NYS2d 499]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John P. Daly, Appellant.

Argued March 22, 2010;

decided May 4, 2010

*849APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Law Offices of Thomas F. Liotti,*Garden City *(Thomas F. Liotti*and *Drummond C. Smith*of counsel), for appellant.

*Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney,*Mineola *(Andrea M. DiGregorio*and *Tammy J. Smiley*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Whether violations of *People v Rosario*(9 NY2d 286 [1961]) and/or *Brady v Maryland*(373 US 83 [1963]), resulting in the reversal of convictions on certain counts, also require reversal of convictions on other, jointly tried counts is a question to be resolved on a case-by-case basis. Reversal of the jointly tried counts is required only if there is a “reasonable possibility that the evidence supporting the . . . tainted counts influenced the guilty verdicts on the other [counts]” *(People v Baghai-Kermani,*84 NY2d 525, 532 [1994]).

Here, there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence supporting the tainted counts, which related to a robbery and *850shooting at an off-track betting parlor, had a spillover effect on the other guilty verdicts, relating to an attempted robbery and shooting at a gas station. The documents that the People failed to disclose related exclusively to the off-track betting parlor counts. Moreover, there was strong, independent proof of the defendant’s guilt on the gas station counts, including evidence that the defendant’s revolver was the source of the bullet removed from the shooting victim; that the owner of the gas station and the victim identified defendant; that the owner, the victim and an attendant all recognized the perpetrator as a person they had previously seen at the gas station, who drove a pickup truck with the same identifying features as the defendant’s truck; and that the defendant was identified in a lineup as the perpetrator of the gas station crimes. A thorough review of the record reveals no reasonable possibility that the *Rosario*and *Brady*violations had an impact on defendant’s ability to defend against the gas station counts or otherwise influenced the verdicts on those counts.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

-----------------------------------------------------------x

ASHLEY GRANATA and 

AUTUMN DEVA GINGSBURG,

Plaintiffs, 

- against - 

JERRY JACOBS, ALAN ROSEN, 

358 BROADWAY LLC, and 

358 BROADWAY REALTY, LLC, 

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------x

Case No. 07-CV-5830 (CM) (KNF) 

AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY } 

 }ss.: 

COUNTY OF OCEAN } 

MARSHALL WEISMAN, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

1. I am a member of the defendant 358 Broadway Realty, LLC ("Realty"), and 

I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this action, as well as the underlying 

New York Civil Court proceeding as set forth below. 

2. This affidavit is submitted in opposition to plaintiffs' motion, brought on July 

16, 2007, seeking a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to stay the 

landlord-tenant proceeding currently pending in Civil Court, New York County, entitled 358 

Broadway Realty, LLC v. Ginsberg/Granata, Index No. L&T 77240/2007 (the "landlordtenant proceeding"). (A copy of the notice of petition and petition in the landlord-tenant 

proceeding is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A".) 

PERTINENT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

3. Realty purchased the subject building, 358 Broadway, New York, New York 

(the "building"), pursuant to a contract of sale entered into on April 4, 2005, between 358 

Broadway LLC ("358") as seller and 358 Broadway-Franklin Acquisition, LLC as purchaser 

(a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit "B"). 

Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-2 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-2 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-2 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 3 of 3