alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.8**CERTIFICATIONS**I, David E. Fountain, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Tier Technologies, Inc.; 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:      a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;      b) [not applicable];      c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’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 affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: October 19, 2006 By:  /s/ David E. Fountain    David E. Fountain    **Chief FinancialOfficer**
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of enherent Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pamela Fredette, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company.



/s/    PAMELA FREDETTEPamela FredetteChairman, Chief Executive Officer and President


March 30, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting, the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherent Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Annual Report of Telecommunications Income Fund XI (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
J. Berthel, Chief Executive Officer of Commercial Power Finance, Inc., General
Partner 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 Company's 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.


March 15, 2005                      /s/  Thomas J. Berthel
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                         Thomas J. Berthel
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
                                         Commercial Power Finance, Inc.
                                         General Partner
                                         Telecommunications Income Fund XI, L.P.
STATE of North Carolina v. Anthony Tyrone McLEAN.

No. 255P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Anthony Tyrone McLean, for McLean, Anthony Tyrone.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina, for State of North Carolina.

A. Leon Stanback, District Attorney.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 21st of July 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
----

(2004/C 33 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1390/03

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject:   Application of agreements on dual nationality by certain Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany

The EU treaty provides for the existence of European citizenship.

On 19 September 2001, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany signed the European Convention on Nationality of 6 November 1997, and decided to withdraw from the Convention on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and on Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality of 6 May 1963.

The Act amending the German Nationality Act (Gesetz zur Reform des Staatsangehörigkeitsrechts) of 15 July 1999, which came into force on 1 January 2000, states that the granting of dual nationality to EU citizens resident in Germany must be subordinate to the principle of reciprocity.

On 25 May 2002, a ministerial decree of the Italian Republic stated that EU citizens may acquire Italian nationality without forfeiting their own citizenship, and vice versa, thereby fulfilling the conditions of reciprocity set out in the German legislation.

Following a bilateral agreement between Italy and Germany of 22 December 2002, the arrangement referred to in Article 87 (2) of the amended German Nationality Act became applicable, making it possible for Italians living in Germany who satisfy certain conditions to apply for German citizenship without having to give up their Italian citizenship. The Länder of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg have, however, interpreted the legislation restrictively, despite the reciprocity requirements that exist between Italy and Germany, as the Italian measure is not a law, but simply an administrative act.

In light of this information, what steps does the Commission intend to take to safeguard the rights of Italian citizens resident in these Länder and to standardise the rules governing nationality at European level in such a way as to resolve at the outset any judicial and political conflict that may arise between Member States in this area?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission would point out that the issues relating to double nationality and nationality laws raised by the Honourable Member are matters falling under the competence of Member States. This is confirmed by the Declaration on nationality of a Member State appended to the Treaty of Maastricht, which states that the nationality of Member States is entirely a matter for the Member States concerned. It does not fall under the competence of the Union. It is therefore for each Member State, having due regard to Community law, to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality (1), including rules concerning double nationality.

In these circumstances, the Commission is not able to take any initiatives relating to the subject matter.

----

(1)  See judgement of the European Court of Justice in case C-369/90 Micheletti of 7.7.1992, ECR 1992, p. I-4239.

----
# C_2023205EN.01002801.xml

| 12.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 6 March 2023 — Omya CZ s.r.o. v Generální ředitelství cel

(Case C-133/23, Omya CZ)

(2023/C 205/31)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Omya CZ s.r.o.

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Question referred

Should indent five of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 2003/96 (1) be interpreted to the effect that electricity used to power machines used in the processing of quarried limestone, in the form of multi-stage grinding and crushing down to specific grain size, both in the quarry where the quarrying takes place, and in nearby processing facilities, constitutes electricity used for mineralogical processes?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).

---
#### Brian Cannon, Respondent, v Ireland's Own, Inc., Doing Business as Ireland's Own Bar, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[799 NYS2d 492]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered January 24, 2005, which, insofar as appealable, denied defendants’ motion to renew a prior order, same court and Justice, entered August 18, 2004, denying their motion to vacate the default judgment entered against them, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, to grant renewal, and, upon renewal, the motion to vacate the default judgment granted upon condition that defendants’ prior counsel pay plaintiff $250 within 10 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, and, should he fail to do so, that defendants pay plaintiff $250 within 20 days of such service. Appeal from the order of August 18, 2004 unanimously *265dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order of January 24, 2005.

Notwithstanding defendants’ prior counsel’s repeated failure to appear at court conferences and delay in moving to vacate the subject default judgment, the record tends to support his claim that his last nonappearance, the one that precipitated the order reinstating the prior default judgment against defendants, was due to his honestly held belief that he and opposing counsel had orally agreed to adjourn the conference from February 7 to March 21, not March 20. Persuasive in this regard is a written stipulation that prior counsel prepared, signed and forwarded to opposing counsel on February 6 adjourning the conference to March 21, and to which opposing counsel apparently did not respond. We note that while the court’s “appearance detail” of the case shows that the matter was adjourned on March 20 to March 21, opposing counsel does not respond to prior counsel’s representation that when the latter called the former on March 20 to discuss what he then believed was the next day’s conference, he was told that the matter already had been finally disposed of earlier that day because of his nonappearance. Under the circumstances, a money sanction against prior counsel is a more appropriate penalty than a default judgment against his former clients. We note that plaintiff does not presently argue that defendants lack a meritorious defense. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
# CE2004078EN.01076601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/766 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/766

---

(2004/C 78 E/0815)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2918/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) and Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Council

(2 October 2003)

Subject:   Case of Italian citizen Maurizio Trotta, imprisoned in Romania

Subject:

On 2 August 2002, Mr Maurizio Trotta, an Italian citizen from Reggio Emiliano, was arrested in Romania on charges of international drugs trafficking for possession of 11 grammes of hashish, found in his rented apartment in Craiova.

Mr Maurizio, who has been held in Craiova prison since his arrest, was tried in a court of first instance and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, following the withdrawal of the charge of international trafficking, which is punishable by up to 25 years' imprisonment.

Having received a two-year sentence, and in the light of his good conduct, Mr Trotta ought to be released in December 2003. However, following an appeal against the sentence of the court of first instance lodged by the public prosecutor's office, the case is to be re-tried, with the result that the outcome is highly uncertain and Mr Trotta is still in prison.

In the meantime, Mr Trotta's family has spent substantial sums on visiting Romania and on the fees of Italian lawyer Mr Liborio Catagliotti and the succession of Romanian lawyers assigned to the case.

There is no knowing how long the case will last or what the eventual sentence will be and there have been reports of substantial bribes being requested by those seeking to take advantage of the situation.

After making the necessary enquiries with the Romanian authorities, will the Council say whether it considers that the fundamental rights established under the EU treaties may have been infringed in this case?

Will the Council provide details of the response from the Romanian authorities and say what possible steps might be taken?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

(4 March 2004)

The Honourable Parliamentarian of the European Parliament is informed that the Council can not take a position in respect of an ongoing criminal procedure.

As the Honourable Parliamentarian are certainly aware, the EU is pressing for reform of the judiciary in Romania in view of EU accession. The EU has continuously stressed that the establishment of an independent, reliable and efficient judiciary is of paramount importance for Romania and has strongly invited Romania to strengthen the independence of the judiciary vis-à-vis the executive.

---
**Exhibit 99.12****CONSENT OF I. GOTZ**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following document, which isbeing filed as an exhibit to and incorporated by reference into the registration statement on Form40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission: 1. The annual information form of the Company dated March 25, 2008, whichincludes reference to my name in connection with information relating to the PorcupineMine, and the properties described therein.Date: March 28, 2008         /s/ Imola Gotz   Name:  Imola Gotz, P. Eng.   Title:  Chief Engineer
DALENKO v. COLLIER.

No. 274P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

John T. Benjamin, Jr., Raleigh, for Collier.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of June 2008 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of June 2008."
EXHIBIT 14.(a).1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-139021 and 333-111932) and Form F-3 (No. 333-128847) of our report dated June 23, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Tefron Ltd. included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2010.





/s/ Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kasierer


-----------------------------------------------


Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer


A Member of Ernst & Young Global





Haifa, Israel


June 23, 2011
<Page>

                                  EXHIBIT 12.1

               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)


<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                   Fiscal Year Ended
                                            -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                            August 30,     August 29,  August 28,     August 26,   August 25,
                                               1997          1998         1999          2000          2001
                                             --------      --------     --------      --------      --------
<S>                                          <C>           <C>          <C>           <C>           <C>
Fixed charges:
      Interest expense                       $  9,235      $ 10,346     $ 13,831      $ 18,614      $ 19,139
      Amortization of debt expense                661           681        1,382         2,043         2,332
      Rental expense included in fixed
        charges                                 3,802         3,721        8,481        10,793        10,352
                                             --------      --------     --------      --------      --------

           Total fixed charges               $ 13,698      $ 14,748     $ 23,694      $ 31,450      $ 31,823
                                             ========      ========     ========      ========      ========

Earnings:
      Pre-tax (loss) income                  $   (921)     $  3,579     $ (3,452)     $(15,218)     $(41,519)

      Plus: fixed charges                      13,698        14,748       23,694        31,450        31,823
                                             --------      --------     --------      --------      --------

           Total earnings                    $ 12,777      $ 18,327     $ 20,242      $ 16,232      $ (9,696)
                                             ========      ========     ========      ========      ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges              n/a           1.2          n/a           n/a           n/a
</Table>
# CE2004088EN.01011801.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/118 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/118

---

(2004/C 88 E/0125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2884/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   Persecution of Christians in Egypt

Subject:

Is the Commission aware of the recent arrest at Cairo airport of two Egyptian Christians, Malak Cuirguis Fahmay and his wife Sarah Mikhail Lahzy (formerly known as Naglaa Hussein Ibrahim), a convert to Christianity, on the grounds that she had forged her identity card in order to reflect her new identity as a Christian as a result of the official policy of preventing converts from Islam to Christianity from changing their name and religion in their papers? Does the Commission regard such a policy as a fundamental breach of human rights and, if so, has the Commission raised this with the Egyptian government as well as the arrests at the airport and the treatment of the accused?

Is the Commission also aware of concern on the part of the Egyptian Coptic community about systematic intimidation directed against members of their community and of the failure of the government to and police to offer proper protection, of which the murder of twenty-one Christians in El-Kosheh in January, 2000 was the most tragic expression, and, if so, has the Commission raised with the Egyptian government the issue of the safety of the Coptic community in Egypt?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

(21 October 2003)

In previous answers to Written Question E-2086/03 by Mrs Kinnock (1) and E-2557/03 by Mr Evans (2), the Commission has reiterated its awareness of the problems faced by the Egyptian Christian community and in particular of the case of Malak Cuirguis Fahmay and his wife Sarah Mikhail Lhazy. They were accused of having illegally altered her identity documents to reflect her change of faith. The Commission understands that the Criminal Court of Northern Cairo will examine their case by the end of October 2003.

1

2

The Commission, together with the Member State Embassies in Cairo, have made representation to the Egyptian Government on several occasions with respect to human rights issues involving the Egypt Coptic community. The Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission will continue to follow their case and to raise these issues with the Egyptian Authorities when and as appropriate.

---

(1)  See page 65.

1

(2)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 257.

2

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50505

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ENRIQUE MARQUEZ SANCHEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CR-167-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Enrique Marquez Sanchez has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sanchez has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
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 April 28, 2009

d0420 

# Order

April 28, 2009

137846

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137846 COA: 278138 Saginaw CC: 06-027522-FH MCKINNEY MUSHATT, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 14, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of People v Idziak (Docket No. 137301) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER th at the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.