alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.9
 CONSENT OF CHRIS OSIOWY
   1.
    
    The technical report dated March 14, 2011, as amended March 30, 2011, entitled Red Lake Gold Operation, Ontario,
Canada, NI 43-101 Technical Report (the Red Lake Report); and2.
    
    The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection with information
relating to the Red Lake Report and the Red Lake Gold Mines, and the properties described
therein.
  Date: March 31, 2011/s/ Chris OsiowyName:
    Chris Osiowy, P. Geo.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         The undersigned, Peter Zachariou and David Lean, hereby jointly certify
as follows:

         1. They are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
respectively, of Diva Entertainment, Inc. (the "Company");

         2. To the best of their knowledge, the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") complies in all material
respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and

         3. To the best of their knowledge based upon a review of the Report,
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 audited.

SIGNATURE                     TITLE                      DATE


/s/ Peter C. Zachariou
-------------------------
PETER C. ZACHARIOU            Chief Executive Officer    September 30, 2002


/s/ David Lean
-------------------------
DAVID LEAN                    Chief Financial Officer    September 30, 2002
Exhibit 4.1





Exhibit 4.1




CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

TO THE

THIRD RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF

RRI ENERGY, INC.




Pursuant to Section 242 of the General

Corporation Law of the State of Delaware




RRI Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter called the “Corporation”), does hereby
certify as follows:



FIRST: Article FIRST of the Corporation’s Certificate of Incorporation is hereby
amended to read in its entirety as set forth below:




FIRST: The name of the corporation is GenOn Energy, Inc.
(hereinafter the “Corporation”).



SECOND: The foregoing amendment was duly adopted in accordance with Section 242 of
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be duly executed in its
corporate name this 3rd day of December, 2010.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	By:  	               /s/ Michael L. Jines
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Michael L. Jines 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Executive Vice President,

General Counsel and Corporate Secretary and Chief Compliance Officer
# C_2010246EN.01004002.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/40

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 Sotgia v Commission

(Case F-130/06) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Appointment - Members of the temporary staff appointed as officials - Candidates’ names included on a reserve list before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Grading pursuant to the new less favourable rules - Article 5(4) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

2010/C 246/69

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Stefano Sotgia (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: initially, T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers, and subsequently T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H Krämer, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority which took effect on 16 April 2006 and by which the applicant, a member of temporary staff classified in grade A*11 who was successful in open competition EPSO/A/18/04, was appointed as an official classified in Grade A*6, step 2, in accordance with Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application.

| 2. | Orders each party to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 86.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Vincent A. Tortorici, Jr., certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10- Q of Brown Jordan International, 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 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 periods presentedin this report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterlyreport is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented 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 registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: January 12, 2005 By:  */s/ Vincent A. Tortorici*    *Vincent A. Tortorici*  *Chief Accounting Officer*
Exhibit 31

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Nasser Nassiri, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Biocoral, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

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

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and have:

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b. evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this annual 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;

c. disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: May 18, 2004                         /s/ Nasser Nassiri
                                           ------------------
                                           Nasser Nassiri
                                           President, CEO, Chairman of the Board
                                           and Principal Accounting Officer
State v. David Michael Wilson

164P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 10, 2016

David Michael Wilson, For Wilson, David Michael.

Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of May 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

*927"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
# C_2008197EN.01003602.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/36

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2008 — Rossi v OHIM — K & L Ruppert Stiftung (Rossi)

(Case T-31/05) (1)

1

(2008/C 197/66)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

1

---
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

11 December 2008

Case F-148/06

**Laurent Collée**

**v**

**European Parliament**

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – Procedure for allocating merit points in the European Parliament – Examination of comparative merits)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Collée seeks annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 9 January 2006
allocating him two merit points under the 2004 promotion procedure.

**Held:**The Parliament’s decision of 9 January 2006 allocating Mr Collée two merit points under the 2004 promotion procedure is annulled.
The remainder of the action is dismissed. The Parliament is ordered to pay the costs.

**Summary**

*Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Procedures – Quantification of merits through the allocation
of points*

*(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)*

Where, in the procedure for allocating merit points, the administration has a limited number of points which it allocates
to officials on the basis of a consideration of their comparative merits, that comparison must be undertaken on a basis of
equality and the points must be allocated to the most deserving officials in descending order of merit, until the quota of
points has been exhausted. Where it is found, in the consideration of comparative merits undertaken, that certain officials
have equivalent merits, those officials must be allocated an identical number of merit points. Should there be an insufficient
number of points, the choice between those officials must be made on the basis of secondary considerations. While the level
of responsibilities may be a decisive factor in promotion, as provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, it is on
condition that that level is assessed in a comparison between officials with the same merit, and not in a comparison of an
official’s responsibilities from one year to the next.

Therefore, a decision to allocate only a certain number of merit points to an official solely on the ground that his merits
are not greater than those of officials who obtained more points infringes the principle of equal treatment and contravenes
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, since the administration thereby demands that that official’s level of performance should
not be equal to but greater than that of his colleagues.

(see paras 38-40, 45-47)

See:

T-311/04 *Buendía Sierra* v *Commission* [2006] ECR II‐4137, para. 93 in fine
# C_2010113EN.01003701.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council

(Case T-401/06) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Market economy treatment - Individual treatment - Sampling - Support of the complaint by the Community industry - Definition of the product concerned - Equal treatment - Injury - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2010/C 113/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd (Kowloon, China); Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd (Zhongshan, China); Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd (Guangzhou, China); and Risen Footwear (HK) Co., Ltd (Kowloon, China) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, acting as Agents) and Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by P. Vlaemminck, G. Zonnekeyn and S. Verhulst and subsequently by P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co., Ltd to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co., Ltd to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1725 

ROBERT EMERSON LAMB,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,

District Judge. (4:07-cv-000082-RBS-TEM)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Emerson Lamb, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Robert Emerson Lamb appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and

dismissing it for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2000) because it was not filed in a timely

manner. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Lamb v. Astrue, No. 4:07-cv-00082-RBS (E.D. Va. June 19,

2008). We deny his motion to expedite as moot. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23




                         Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on

         (i)   Form S-8 No. 333-71619
         (ii)  Form S-8 No. 333-71621
         (iii) Form S-3 No. 333-75839

of our report dated March 17, 1999 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of U.S. Vision, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended January 31, 1999.



                                                      /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
April 28, 1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DEVIN THOMAS COOPER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 330 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12th day of December, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6728

JONATHAN GRIFFIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

E. WRIGHT, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (1:06-cv-00402-LMB-LO)

Submitted: September 3, 2008 Decided: September 15, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Griffin seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Griffin has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Griffin’s motion

for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2008272EN.01002501.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/25

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 September 2008 — Gualtieri v Commission

(Case T-413/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Seconded National Expert - Order for referral - Decision against which an appeal may be lodged - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 272/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Claudia Gualtieri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Gualtieri and M. Gualtieri, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent, and G. Faedo, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 October 2006 in Case F-53/06 Gualtieri v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking the annulment of that order

Gualtieri

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ms Claudia Gualtieri to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Claudia Gualtieri to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Renal Care Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
M. Dill, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

   (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/ David M. Dill
-------------------------------------
David M. Dill
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
March 4, 2004