alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12.2
 Certification
 
 
 I, Jim Moskos, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Northcore Technologies Inc.
 
 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 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 maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company 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 Company, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding reliability of financial reporting and preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 
 c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’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
 
 d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company'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 or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Dated:  March 31, 2011                                                            -sd/-
 Jim Moskos
----

Exhibit 99.13

CONSENT OF PINCOCK, ALLEN & HOLT 

We hereby consent to the use of our name in connection withthe following report and documents, which are being filed as exhibits to andincorporated by reference into the registration statement on Form 40-F of GammonGold Inc. (the "Company") being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission: 

-  The technical report dated November 25, 2002 entitled  "Guadalupe y Calvo Gold-Silver Project, Chihuahua, Mexico," (the "Guadalupe  Report"); and  The Annual Information Form of the Company dated March 25,  2009, which includes reference to Pincock, Allen & Holt in connection with  information relating to the Guadalupe Report, and the properties described  therein. 
Date: March 25, 2009 

/s/ Barton G. Stone, C.P.G.                  **BARTON G. STONE, C.P.G.**Chief Geologist
Levi STACKHOUSE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6097.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 12.1**

**Computationof Ratio of Earnings To Fixed Charges**

| ** **                          | ** ** | **Successor Company**         | ** ** | **Predecessor Company**                                   | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                          | ** ** | **Year  Ended  December 31,** | ** ** | **Period from  March 15 to  December 31,** | ** ** | **Period from  January 1 to  March 14,** | ** ** | **Years  Ended December 31,** | ** ** |
| ** **                          | ** ** | **2005**                           | ** ** | **2004**                                                       | ** ** | **2004** | ** ** | **2003** | ** ** | **2002** | ** ** | **2001** | ** ** |
| Net income (loss) before taxes      |       |                               | $          | (433)                                                          |       |   |   | $ | (16,814 | ) |   |   | $ | (12,453 | ) |   | $ | 17,971 |   | $ | 15,244 |   | $ | 13,032 |   |
| Fixed Charges:                      |       |                               |       |                                                           |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest Expense                    |       |                               | 18,741     |                                                           |       |   | 13,597 |   |   |   | 2,513 |   |   | 13,119 |   | 12,402 |   | 13,015 |   |
| Interest Factor of Operating Rents  |       |                               | 356        |                                                           |       |   | 271 |   |   |   | 70 |   |   | 334 |   | 290 |   | 316 |   |
| Total Fixed Charges                 |       |                               | $          | 19,097                                                         |       |   |   | $ | 13,868 |   |   |   | $ | 2,583 |   |   | $ | 13,453 |   | $ | 12,692 |   | $ | 13,331 |   |
| Adjusted Earnings                   |       |                               | $          | 18,664                                                         |       |   |   | $ | (2,946 | ) |   |   | $ | (9,870 | ) |   | $ | 31,424 |   | $ | 27,936 |   | $ | 26,363 |   |
| Ratio of Earnings  to Fixed Charges |       |                               | 1.0        |                                                           |       |   | (a | ) |   |   | (a | ) |   | 2.3 |   | 2.2 |   | 2.0 |   |

----

(a)           Earnings in 2004were insufficient to cover fixed costs.

----
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF John L. SAMPSON.

No. D-2974.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 25, 2017.

Disbarment order entered.
# L_2014310EN.01006901.xml

| 30.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 310/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 310/69

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 101/2014

of 16 May 2014

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Decision 2013/806/EU of 17 December 2013 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for imaging equipment (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Decision 2013/806/EU of 17 December 2013 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for imaging equipment (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point is inserted after point 2zj (Commission Decision 2013/641/EU) of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘2zk. | 32013 D 0806: Commission Decision 2013/806/EU of 17 December 2013 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for imaging equipment (OJ L 353, 28.12.2013, p. 53).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘2zk.

32013 D 0806: Commission Decision 2013/806/EU of 17 December 2013 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for imaging equipment (OJ L 353, 28.12.2013, p. 53).’

Article 2

The texts of Decision 2013/806/EU in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 17 May 2014, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 16 May 2014.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Gianluca GRIPPA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 353, 28.12.2013, p. 53.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF Richard Carl MOENNING.

No. D-2990.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 25, 2017.

Disbarment order entered.
Edward BYAM, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-284.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4344 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to allow the Securities 

and Exchange Commission to seek and Federal courts to grant 

disgorgement of unjust enrichment, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2019 

Mr. MCADAMS (for himself and Mr. HUIZENGA) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to allow 

the Securities and Exchange Commission to seek and 

Federal courts to grant disgorgement of unjust enrichment, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL RELIEF. 

4 Section 21(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

5 (15 U.S.C. 78u(d)) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(7) ADDITIONAL RELIEF.— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4344 IH

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In any action or pro2 ceeding brought or instituted by the Commis3 sion under any provision of the securities laws, 

4 the Commission may seek, and any Federal 

5 court may grant the following additional relief: 

6 ‘‘(i) Disgorgement in the amount of 

7 any unjust enrichment obtained as a result 

8 of act or practice with respect to which the 

9 Commission is bringing such an action or 

10 proceeding. 

11 ‘‘(ii) Injunctions, including officer and 

12 director bars. 

13 ‘‘(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Addi14 tional relief sought under this paragraph may 

15 not be construed to be a civil fine, penalty, or 

16 forfeiture subject to chapter 163 of part VI of 

17 title 28, United States Code.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Bernadine RED BEAR, aka Bernadine Shields, as Administrator of the Estate of Darelle Red Bear, Deceased, petitioner, v. SESDAC, INC.

No. 17-548.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Dakota denied.
Michael Ed ERIKSON, petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA, et al.

No. 17-404.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000854709
<NAME> DAYTON SUPERIOR CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,608
<INVENTORY>                                     38,361
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,753
<PP&E>                                          66,151
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 267,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,741
<BONDS>                                        133,735
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,353
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,777
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   267,295
<SALES>                                         68,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,196
<CGS>                                           44,771
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,096
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   101
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,975
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (646)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (291)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (355)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (355)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
DESERT WATER AGENCY, et al., petitioners, v. AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS, et al.

No. 17-42.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 27, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

June 5, 2019

t0529 

# Order

Clerk June 5, 2019

157417

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 157417

COA: 334063

Wayne CC: 15

- 007041

- FC

FRANKLYN DIMUN GARRISON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 30, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Wayne County

Prosecuting Attorney to answer Issue VI in the application for leave to appeal within 28

days after the date of this order.

The application for leave to appeal remains p ending.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE :

MELISSA BUCKELY, §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 224

- C R

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2 0190D03405 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Melissa Buckley has filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of this appeal from

a habeas corpus action that has since been resolved between her and the State

. See T EX .R.A PP .P.

42. 2 (a). The motion is granted, and t his appeal is dismissed.

March 31, 2021

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4258 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the 

Supreme Court Police to protect the Justices, employees, 

and official guests of the Supreme Court outside of the 

Supreme Court grounds, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4258 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reauthorizing Security 

3 for Supreme Court Justices Act of 2019’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROTECTION AUTHORITY OF MARSHAL OF THE SU5 PREME COURT AND SUPREME COURT PO6 LICE. 

7 Section 6121 of title 40, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (a)— 

10 (A) in paragraph (2), in the matter pre11 ceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘any 

12 State’’ and inserting ‘‘any location’’; and 

13 (B) in paragraph (3)— 

14 (i) by striking ‘‘violation of federal or 

15 state law’’ and inserting ‘‘violation of Fed16 eral or State law’’; and 

17 (ii) by striking ‘‘regulation under fed18 eral or state law’’ and inserting ‘‘regula19 tion under Federal or State law’’; and 

20 (2) in subsection (b)— 

21 (A) by striking paragraph (2); 

22 (B) by striking ‘‘ADDITIONAL REQUIRE23 MENTS’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Duties 

24 under’’ and inserting ‘‘AUTHORIZATION TO

25 CARRY FIREARMS—Duties under’’; and 
3 

•HR 4258 EH

1 (C) by striking ‘‘any State’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘any location’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 

2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4258 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Marshal of the Supreme Court 

grounds, and for other purposes. preme Court outside of the Supreme Court tices, employees, and official guests of the Suand the Supreme Court Police to protect the Jus-
EXHIBIT 10.19  2003
Executive Incentive Compensation Package Latitude
Communications   This
announces your 2003 Executive Incentive Compensation Package, an integral part
of your total compensation for the year. 
This package has 2 key elements Executive
Bonus Plan Executive
Expense Reimbursement  These
plans are summarized below.  Executive Bonus Plan Each executive of the Company is eligible on
a quarterly basis for a cash-based incentive bonus payout on an individualized
target amount.  Target
Payout for the bonuses are defined as follows:  Quarter
  
  Q1
  
  Q2
  
  Q3
  
  Q4
  
  TotalTarget Payout
  
  10%
  
  20%
  
  30%
  
  40%
  
  100%  Payout, in the Corporate
Bonus Plan is based on quarterly pre-tax profit.  If the Company: Meets pre-tax
profitability target, the Company will pay out 100% of the quarterly target
payout.  In order to meet pre-tax
profitability, the total costs of the bonuses for the Company must be included
in the cost structure.  Exceeds pre-tax
profitability target,
the Company will pay out 50% of above-plan pre-tax profits to the bonus
pool.  Bonus plan participants will
share proportionally in the increased pool amount based on target bonus.  The total bonus payout is capped at 300%.  Does not meet pre-tax
profitability target,
the bonus pool will be reduced by the amount necessary for the Company to meet
the target profitability and any remaining amounts will be shared by bonus plan
participants as described above.  ** Pre-tax profitability
excludes special charges or income as such as restructuring charges.  Bonus Plan Summary Bonus Payout Bonus Plan calculations will be performed following the end of each
Quarter and paid to youin the next possible payroll cycle, usually one
month after Quarter end.   
    Employee Terminations If an employee leaves the
company before the end of a complete Quarter, regardless of whether the
departure is a voluntary resignation or involuntary termination, all bonus
amounts that would have been earned will be forfeited.  If an employee leaves after a complete
Quarter, but before bonuses are paid out, he/she will receive any earned bonus
amount once payments have been done.  Changes to Bonus Plans The company reserves the
right to change your bonus plan, including the factors and targets, or
eliminate it in its entirety, after notice to you.  Additionally, your annual target incentive, listed above, may be
modified based on business conditions, market salary data, a change in your
position or other reason the company deems appropriate.   Expense Reimbursement As an additional part of
your 2003 Executive Compensation Package, you will be eligible to receive up to
$1,500 in reimbursed expenses.  Expenses
eligible for this reimbursement include the cost of income tax preparation or
estate planning and an annual physical examination.  You are free to choose your own tax preparation, estate planning
or medical service providers.  To
receive reimbursement, simply submit an expense report to Julie Paulsen for
approval.  Expenses exceeding $1,500
will be your personal responsibility.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Parsons Government Services, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 63147

)

Under Contract No. W56KGY-17-C-0006 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Marc Radin, Esq.

 Counsel

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

 Army Chief Trial Attorney

MAJ Weston E. Borkenhagen, JA

CPT Timothy M. McLister, JA

 Trial Attorneys

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: December 8, 2022

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63147, Appeal of Parsons 

Government Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: December 12, 2022

STEPHANIE CATES-HARMAN

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CHARLES RAY MOORE, Jr., a.k.a.

C.K. Mo, a.k.a. Lil Mo, a.k.a. Mo,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-50332

D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00410-PSG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2014** 

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Charles Ray Moore, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction

for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in the form of crack cocaine, in violation

FILED

APR 14 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and distribution of cocaine base in the form of crack cocaine,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii). We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Moore contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) by failing to make findings regarding a factual dispute that

Moore raised for the first time during the sentencing hearing. We review the

district court’s compliance with Rule 32 for plain error. See United States v.

Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir. 2013). We need not decide whether

Moore’s oral objection was sufficient to trigger the district court’s obligation under

Rule 32(i)(3)(B), or whether the court met any obligation that it had under that

provision by adopting the presentence report, because Moore has not shown a

reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence absent the

alleged error. See id. at 1101-02.

Moore also contends that the district court erred procedurally by failing to

consider his mitigating arguments and explain the sentence adequately. We review

for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th

Cir. 2010), and find none. The record shows that the district court heard Moore’s

mitigation arguments and sufficiently explained the below-Guidelines sentence. 

See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 12-50332