alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.2
I, Jeremy Darroch, certify that:
1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of British Sky BroadcastingGroup plc;
2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.     The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:
(a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the company, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
(b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by theannual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the company’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5.     The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thecompany’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Date: 26 October 2004
JEREMY DARROCH
Chief Financial Officer
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice 01-006] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of prospective patent license.

# SUMMARY:

NASA hereby gives notice that Nascent Technology Solutions, LLC, of Hampton, VA, has applied for an exclusive license to practice the invention disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 5,393,980 entitled “QUALITY MONITOR AND MONITORING TECHNIQUE EMPLOYING OPTICALLY STIMULATED ELECTRON EMISSION,” which has been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent to Langley Research Center. 

# DATES:

Responses to this notice must be received by March 19, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Helen M. Galus, Patent Attorney, Langley Research Center, Mail Code 212, Hampton, VA 23681-2199; telephone (757) 864-3227. 

Dated: January 9, 2001.

Edward A. Frankle,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01-1472 Filed 1-17-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
| **Material Released     Pursuant to FOIA Requests Which** |
|------------------------------------------------------------|

| **has Been, or is Likely     to Be, the Subject of Future** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|

| **FOIA     Requests** |
|------------------------|

| **____________________________________________** |
|--------------------------------------------------|

| Documents which do not have     PDF links are availabe on request to [email protected] by using the |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| electronic request form.     Electronic distribution of the documents is possible, depending on the     requester's |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ability to receive them.     Paper copies of documents are available within the Washington, D.C., area     through |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| the Commission's Public     Reading Room and outside the area through use of the electronic request form. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Fees of 15 cents per page     apply to paper copies |
|------------------------------------------------------|

| **Request Form** | **If you are unfamiliar with PDF files, click here for     help** |
|------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **____________________________________________** |
|--------------------------------------------------|

| FILE NUMBER: | **RF05-008** | PLACED ON THE PUBLIC     RECORD: | 11/23/2005 | CATEGORY: | **C** |
|--------------|--------------|-----------------------------------|------------|-----------|-------|

| **REFCO, LLC, CFTC FORM     1-FR-FCM FOR THE PERIOD 03/01/2004 -** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **02/28/2005 (AUDITED     ANNUAL REPORT)** |
|---------------------------------------------|

| **____________________________________________** |
|--------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT NUMBER: | 1 |
|------------------|---|

|  | Refco, LLC, CFTC Form     1-FR-FCM for the Period 03/01/2004 - 02/28/2005 |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 05/25/2005 | PAGES: | 4 | PDF SIZE: | 74 KB | PDF LINK: |
|-------|------------|--------|---|-----------|-------|-----------|

| **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 660, Misc.

#### Gryger *v.*Burke, Warden.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Andrea Fehsenfeld, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Boreal
     Productions Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of May, 2008.


/s/ Andrea Fehsenfeld
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: LOUIS ROMOFF 

DOCKET NUMBER: 166 

DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 1972 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 166 

Name: Louis Romoff 

Effective On or about February 16, 1972 

ORDER 

(a) Respondent, Louis Romoff, shall cease and desist from failing to file, in 

accordance with the Commodity Exchange Act and the regulations thereunder, such 

reports as he is required to file under such Act and regulations. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

February 11, 1972 

Donald A. Campbell 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000934383
<NAME>                        Hosiery Corporation of America, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                             4,327
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                     25,628
<ALLOWANCES>                       1,448
<INVENTORY>                       15,158
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  46,063
<PP&E>                            34,281
<DEPRECIATION>                    17,020
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   100,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             33,608
<BONDS>                           69,423
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                464
<PREFERRED>                       37,398
<COMMON>                              14
<OTHER-SE>                      (109,495)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     100,600
<SALES>                          178,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 178,682
<CGS>                             50,469
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     82,119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  10,791
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                18,109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   17,835
<INCOME-TAX>                       6,242
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               11,593
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                      11,593
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0



</TABLE>
# FCM Data December 2012

SELECTED FCM FINANCIAL DATA AS OF December 31,&KFF0000 &K0000002012FROM REPORTS FILED BY February 08,&KFF0000 &K0000002013	&P of &N
William Franklin NAJAR, petitioner, v. ARIZONA.

No. 15-8878.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

*370On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One for further consideration in light of *Montgomery v. Louisiana,* 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016).

Justice SOTOMAYOR concurs in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand. See *Tatum v. Arizona,* 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 11, --- L.E.2d ---- (2016) ( Sotomayor, J., concurring). Justice ALITO, with whom Justice THOMAS joins, dissents from the decision to grant, vacate, and remand. See *Tatum v. Arizona,* 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 11, --- L.E.2d ---- (2016) (Alito, J., dissenting).
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 Annual Report of Vyrex Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, G. Dale Garlow, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|                                                      
|/s/    G. DALE GARLOW                                 
|                                                      
|G. Dale Garlow, Chief Executive Officer March 28, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FOUNTAIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      288
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (13)
<INVENTORY>                                        307
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   933
<PP&E>                                             419
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (288)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,323
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                       (144)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,218
<SALES>                                          1,771
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,771
<CGS>                                              977
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,999
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (254)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  34
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (985)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (985)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (985)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.42)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Jewish Association for Services for the Aged Community Guardian Program, Respondent, v David Kramer, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 375]

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (John E. H. Stackhouse, J.), entered April 8, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, directed reimbursement of petitioner for $10,131.56 in temporary guardianship expenses and legal fees incurred in December 2007 in connection with an interim stay of the guardianship powers obtained by respondent’s appointed Mental Hygiene Legal Services counsel, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded for reevaluation of the legal fees to be imposed, if any.

Attorney fees were improvidently imposed without the requisite written decision setting forth the basis for the award (22 NYCRR 36.4 [b] [3]) and an explanation as to the reasonableness of the fees imposed *(Matter of Martha O.J.,*22 AD3d 756 [2005]; *cf. Matter of Freeman,*34 NY2d 1 [1974]). An evaluation de novo is further warranted as to whether the legal fees sought were occasioned by procedural mistakes possibly committed by respondent’s counsel. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
Amendment 

To the 

Statement of Intent 

The United States 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

Commodity Futur~s Trading Commission 

The Financial Services 

Agency of Japan 

Concerning Cooperation, Consultation 

And the Exchange of Information 

january 2006 

·····- •. ~--
AMENDMENT TO THE STATEMENT OF INTENT CONCERNING COOPERATION, 

CONSULTATION AND THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION 

The Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States and the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission of the United States, on the one hand 

and the Financial Services Agency of Japan, on the other hand, hereby amend 

the STATEMENT OF INTENT CONCERNING COOPERATION, 

CONSULTATION AND THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION, which was signed 

on May 17, 2002, as follows: 

In Paragraph 5 (b), the words "and financial derivatives" are inserted after 

the words "securities derivatives." 

FORTHESECUmTIESAND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

OFTH 

Chairman 

DAT~~~~fP 

FOR THE COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION 

~FTf~ U~~r·.~-~TATES 

llvL 2 'iS r_ Chairman 1 

-~ 

DATEJ '0 t < v-.~ 1.. 

FOR THE FINANCIAL 

SERVICES AGENCY 

OF JAPAN: 

-·~· ·····- ---------------·--·-·-·
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50352 Summary Calendar
JOANNE HARP, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:08-CV-655
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joanne Harp appeals f o l l owing the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the d e f

endant in her suit alleging that Liberty Mutual Insurance Company breached its duties under the Texas Insurance Code and acted in bad faith by denying and d e l ayi n g benefits for her workers’ compensation claim. Reviewing the record de novo, see Dickie Brennan & Co. v. Lexington I n s . Co . , U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 8 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-50352 Document: 00511689541 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2011No. 11-50352

636 F.3d 683, 685 (5th Cir. 2011), we AFFIRM essentially for the reasons given by the district court. 1. The undisputed record evidence shows that Liberty Mutual paid Harp temporary income benefits throughout the claims process. It also shows that Harp was provided with pr e s c ription medication, a surgical nerve block injection, and a walking boot for her compensable injury . Liberty Mutual disputed whether the extent of Harp’s foot injury included chronic femoral pain syndrome, a foo t c y s t, knee pain, bursitis, and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), but the record fails to show that specific medical treatment or income benefits were i mp rop erly de nied. Conclusory assertions by Harp’s t r e a t i n g physician that the carrier was denying all medical treatment and medications are belied by the record and fail to create a genuine issue of material fact. 2. We find no r e v e r s ible error in the district court’s refusal to consider evi d e n c e that Harp submitted for the first time in her objections to the magistrate j u d g e ’ s report. At most, the evidence constituted only a scintilla of evidence and is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp. , 37 F

. 3 d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Most of the evidence is also contradicted by the record s h o w i n g Liberty Mutual’s payment of medical and income benefits. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-50352 Document: 00511689541 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2011
Gregory Vincent SMITH, petitioner, v. Christopher PHILLIPS, et al.

No. 16-5884.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

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