alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.1**Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, James Murdoch, Chief Executive Officer of British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (the “Company”),certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of British Sky Broadcasting Group plc; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the Company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting;5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Company’s ability to record, process, summarise and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: 7 October 2005JAMES MURDOCHChief Executive Officer
#### Antonette T. McFarlane, Respondent, v County of Suffolk et al., Appellants.

[875 NYS2d 581]—

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for assault and battery, false arrest, and false imprisonment, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated June 16, 2008, which denied their motion to compel the plaintiff to fully respond to their notice for discovery and inspection by furnishing authorizations for certain medical records.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its broad discretion in denying their motion to compel the plaintiff to furnish the requested authorizations for certain medical records *(see generally Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh,*45 AD3d 531 [2007]; *Walsh v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,*289 AD2d 842 [2001]). The court properly determined that the records sought by the defendants were totally unrelated to the plaintiffs claims and the injuries sued upon, so the plaintiff did not waive the physician-patient privilege with regard to those records *(see generally Wojtusiak v Elardo,*43 AD3d 436 [2007]; *Sadicario v Stylebuilt Accessories,*250 AD2d 830 [1998]; *Zappi v Pedigree Ski Shop,*244 AD2d 331 [1997]). Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
CIRCUIT COURT OF LANCASTER COUNTY

#### Coleman v. Ambler

November 20, 1991

By JUDGE JOSEPH E. SPRUILL, JR.

This is in response to your motions to set aside the jury verdict and order a new trial.

The plaintiff in this action was a front seat passenger in a single vehicle accident in which plaintiff suffered a broken neck and incurred medical expenses of $2S,2S4.61. He sued the defendant operator for negligence. The defendant, who herself was clearly negligent, claimed the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and assumed the risk of his injury by purchasing beer for the defendant and remaining in her vehicle when he knew or should have known that she, the defendant, was intoxicated.

On October 9th, a jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor of $12,627.30, which was one-half the amount of the medical expenses proven at trial.

Plaintiff moves to set aside the verdict and order a new trial limited to the issue of damages only because the verdict is inadequate.

Defendant moves to set aside the verdict and order a new trial on all issues because the fact that the jury awarded precisely one-half the medical expenses shows this was a compromise verdict.

Counsel have submitted briefs citing authorities supporting their respective positions. With a single exception, *DeWald v. King,*233 Va. 140 (1987), all cases cited by both counsel refer to *Rawle v. McIlhenny,*163 *516Va. 735, 177 S.E. 214 (1934), which seems to be the leading Virginia case on this issue.

*Rawle*describes five separate sets of circumstances or classes of cases in which this issue arises. The case at hand belongs in the fifth class, which are those "cases of conflicting evidence, in which there is sufficient evidence to support a verdict in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant, but in which there is no clear preponderance of the evidence in favor of either.”

In this case, there was evidence to support a verdict in favor of either party. The defendant was drinking at the time of the accident, and the trooper testified that her actions immediately after the accident indicated intoxication. She was too young to purchase beer. The plaintiff was approximately twice her age and had been with defendant for some considerable time prior to the accident. It is apparent that the jury here did not want either party to "win." As stated in Rawle, "the evidence with reference to liability has probably exerted a material influence upon the jury in determining the amount of the verdict, or the evidence warrants the inference that, instead of deciding the question of liability, the jury has arbitrarily determined to make both parties bear a part of the burden of the injury.”

This was not a complicated case, and the record does not warrant an inference that the size of the verdict was the result of any misconduct or misconceptions on the part of the jury.

For the foregoing reasons, the verdict of the jury will be set aside, and a new trial will be granted on all issues.
Exhibit 10.2





THIRD AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE




THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE (this "Amendment") is made and entered into as of October 28, 2010 by and between COVENANT GROUP OF CHINA INC., a Nevada corporation (the "Maker"), and SUI GENERIS CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "Payee" and, collectively with Maker, the “Parties”).




BACKGROUND




A.           On April 22, 2010, Maker and Payee executed a Promissory Note, whereby Maker promised to repay the principal sum of $120,000 in connection with a Bridge Loan Agreement entered into by the Parties of even date (the "Original Note").




B.           On June 30, 2010 Maker and Payee sought to amend the Original Note and entered into a First Amendment to Promissory Note (“First Amendment”).




C.           On August 30, 2010 Maker and Payee sought to amend the Original Note and entered into a Second Amendment to Promissory Note (“Second Amendment”).




D.           Maker and Payee now desire to amend the Original Note as set forth herein.




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:




1.  All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Original Note.




2.  The second paragraph of the Original Note, as amended by the Second Amendment, reading, “The entire principal balance will be payable in full three (3) months from August 13, 2010[,]” is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:




“The entire principal balance will be payable in full four (4) months from October 28, 2010.”





3.  Except as expressly modified in this Amendment, all of the remaining terms and conditions of the Original Note and the First Amendment shall continue in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed.




[signature page follows]


















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the date first written above.







COVENANT GROUP OF CHINA INC.





By:         /s/ Justin D. Csik


Justin D. Csik, CFO and General Counsel








SUI GENERIS CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC





By:         /s/ Robert Benedict


Robert Benedict, Managing Member
| 1.     | Such      Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008,      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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for      the period ended June 30, 2008, fairly represents in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Kraig      Biocraft Laboratories, Inc. |

| Date:       August 18, 2008              |
|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                          |
| Kraig      Biocraft Laboratories, Inc.        |
|                                          |
| By: /s/      Kim      Thompson                |
| Kim      ThompsonChief      Executive Officer |
```

[Federal Register: February 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 8347]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18fe05-46]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, March 18, 2005.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered: Surveillance matters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-3283 Filed 2-16-05; 11:00 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 29, 2010

d0125 

# Order

January 29, 2010

139417

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139417 COA: 290730 Wayne CC: 80-005947 LOUIS MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 25, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
| 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 represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Kraig Biocraft Laboratories, Inc. |

| Date:  May 24, 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| Kraig Biocraft Laboratories, Inc.                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| By: /s/ Kim Thompson                                    |
| Kim ThompsonChief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                               |
```

[Federal Register: December 28, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 72650]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28de99-76]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, January 28, 2000.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW, Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-33754 Filed 12-23-99; 11:50 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1







                             ACCOUNTANT'S CONSENT




The Board of Directors
American Communications Services, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-99964 and No. 333-19089) on Form S-8 of American Communications Services,
Inc. of our report dated February 14, 1997, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of American Communications Services, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
June 30, 1995 and 1996 and December 31, 1996 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for
the years ended June 30, 1995 and 1996 and the six months ended December 31,
1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1996, annual report on Form
10-KSB of American Communications Services, Inc.




                                /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


                                
                                KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Washington, DC
March 28, 1997
| DOCUMENT        NUMBER: | 7 |
|--------------------------|---|

|  | Petition        Under Section 4[c] of the London Clearing House, Limited, Exhibit        17 |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DATE: |  | 6/15/98 | PAGES: |  | 93 | PDF SIZE: |  | 3360        KB | PDF LINK: |
|-------|--|---------|--------|--|----|-----------|--|-----------------|-----------|

| **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT        NUMBER: | 8 |
|--------------------------|---|

|  | Petition        Under Section 4[c] of the London Clearing House, Limited, Exhibits 18 -        25 |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DATE: |  | 6/15/98 | PAGES: |  | 42 | PDF SIZE: |  | 1522        KB | PDF LINK: |
|-------|--|---------|--------|--|----|-----------|--|-----------------|-----------|

| **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT        NUMBER: | 9 |
|--------------------------|---|

|  | Petition        Under Section 4[c] of the London Clearing House, Limited, Exhibits 26 -        29 |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DATE: |  | 6/15/98 | PAGES: |  | 36 | PDF SIZE: |  | 895        KB | PDF LINK: |
|-------|--|---------|--------|--|----|-----------|--|----------------|-----------|

| **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT        NUMBER: | 10 |
|--------------------------|----|

|  | Petition        Under Section 4[c] of the London Clearing House, Limited, Exhibits 30 -        38 |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DATE: |  | 6/15/98 | PAGES: |  | 34 | PDF SIZE: |  | 1016        KB | PDF LINK: |
|-------|--|---------|--------|--|----|-----------|--|-----------------|-----------|

| **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

First
    Previous
Next
Last
12/4/08
 FIRST AMENDMENT AGREEMENT
TO
PALLADIUM AND RHODIUM SALES AGREEMENT
     Definitions; Interpretation
 Terms
Defined in Agreement
 Interpretation
 Amendments to the Agreement
 Amendments
  except that
 [**]
    
    Denotes language for which Stillwater Mining Company has requested confidential
treatment pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.




---



##### 



References Within Agreement
 Conditions of Effectiveness
 Agreement
 Miscellaneous
 Agreement Otherwise Not Affected
 No Reliance
 Binding Effect
 Governing Law
 Counterparts
  [**]
    
    Denotes language for which Stillwater Mining Company has requested confidential
treatment pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
 2




---



##### 



STILLWATER MINING COMPANY
    
    
    
    GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ John R. Stark
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ David DrouillardName:
    
    John R. Stark
    
    
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    David DrouillardTitle:
    
    Vice President
    
    
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Purchasing Director
 [**]
    
    Denotes language for which Stillwater Mining Company has requested confidential
treatment pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
 3
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 ***
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Pretoria Resources Two, Inc., (the
        “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”)
        pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of
        Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C.§ 1350),
        Gail Davis, the President, principal executive officer and principal financial
        officer of the Company, hereby certifies that, to the best of my
        knowledge:
  1. The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
  2. The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the
        period
        covered by the Periodic Report.
  Date:
                  November 12, 2008
                By:
                /s/
                Gail
                  DavisGail DavisPresident, Chief Executive
                  Officer(Principal
                  Executive Officer andPrincipal
                  Financial Officer)
 *  This
        certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
        by
        reference into any filing of Pretoria Resources Two, Inc. under the Securities
        Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
        (whether made before or after the date of the Periodic Report), irrespective
        of
        any general incorporation language contained in such filing.