alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2



CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Robert G. Berry, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Gameplan, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4. The registrant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)) for the registrant and we 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 registrant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



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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: March 26, 2008 |  | /s/ Robert G. Berry    
|                     |  | Robert G. Berry        
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### ANDERSON v. MANN

No. 34 PC.

Case below: 9 N.C. App. 397.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 3 November 1970.
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 12-11 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 12-11 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 12-11 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 12-11 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 12-11 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 12-11 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 12-11 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 12-11 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 12-11 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 9 of 9
First Amendment to Supply Agreement, dated June 28, 2009



 Exhibit 10.28 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUPPLY AGREEMENT 
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUPPLY AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made
and entered into effective as of June 28, 2009 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Cree Hong Kong Limited (formerly known as Cotco Luminant Device Limited) (“Seller”), a Hong Kong company with its principal offices at 3/F,
Photonics Centre, No. 2 Science Park East Avenue, Hong Kong Science Park, Shatin, Hong Kong, and Light Engine Ltd., a Hong Kong company with its principal place of business at 6/F, Photonics Centre, No. 2, Science Park East Avenue, Hong
Kong Science Park, Hong Kong (“Buyer”). 
 RECITALS 
 A. Seller and Buyer are parties to that certain Supply Agreement dated and effective as of March 30, 2007 (the “Agreement”). 

B. The parties wish to extend the term of the Agreement as described herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and covenants and undertakings herein contained, the parties mutually agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Section 4.1(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to extend the term of the Agreement through June 26, 2011. 

  

	 	2.	Except as amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused this First Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized representative effective as of the Effective Date.

  

									
	 CREE HONG KONG LIMITED
	 		 	 LIGHT ENGINE LTD.

					
	 By:
	 	 /s/    RICHARD Y. T.
SY
	 		 	 By:
	 	 /s/    SIMON SUA


	 Name:
	 	 Richard Y. T. Sy
	 		 	 Name:
	 	 Simon Sua

	 Title:
	 	 Managing Director
	 		 	 Title:
	 	 Managing Director

	 Date:
	 	 July 2, 2009
	 		 	 Date:
	 	 July 6, 2009
Case 1:07-cv-03361-LAK Document 5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03361-LAK Document 5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### PEEDE v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP.

No. 324 PC.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 10.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 October 1981.
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

NOVEMBER 4, 2014 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 84.16(b). 

 1. SD31517 PABLO DAN HALOG and CINDY F. HALOG, Plaintiffs-Respondents 

 vs. 

 SIBYL ENGLAND and DANNY JOE ENGLAND, Defendants-Appellants
Case 1:06-cv-15082-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ISOMET CORPORATION 
10-QSB, DATED 03/31/1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,240
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,625
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,031
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,601
<PP&E>                                           2,621
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,047
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,928
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,581
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,882
<SALES>                                          2,571
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,589
<CGS>                                            1,790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,111
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    478
<INCOME-TAX>                                       177
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                301
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       301
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 14-7      Filed 06/01/2007     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 14-7      Filed 06/01/2007     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 14-7      Filed 06/01/2007     Page 3 of 3
##### 



Exhibit 10.28
 FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE
IRWIN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
AMENDED AND RESTATED SHORT TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
    1.
    
    Section 3(g) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
 (g)
    COVERED OFFICER means any employee who is an executive officer (as defined under SEC
Rule 3b-7) of the Company.
 2.
    
    Section 5 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
  a)
    
    The Committee is responsible for, and shall have full power to, administer the
Plan subject to the requirements of applicable law. The Committee shall have the right
to make rules and regulations as it deems appropriate to administer the Plan, to
construe and interpret the Plan, to decide all questions of eligibility, and to
determine the amount and time of payment of benefits hereunder to the fullest extent
provided by law and in its sole discretion. Any interpretations or decisions made in
good faith by the Committee will be conclusive and binding on all persons having any
interest in the Plan.b)
    
    The Committee may delegate (i) to one or more of its members such of its
duties, powers and responsibilities as it may determine; (ii) to the Board the power to
grant Awards to Participants who are not Covered Officers as of the time of grant, and
(iii) to such other individuals as it determines such ministerial tasks as it deems
appropriate. In the event of any delegation described in the preceding sentence, the
term Committee shall include the person or persons so delegated to the extent of such
delegation.c)
    
    The Committee and each member thereof, and any person acting pursuant to authority
delegated by the Committee, shall be entitled, in good faith, to rely or act upon any
report or other information furnished by any Covered Officer, other officer or employee
of the Company or a parent, subsidiary or affiliate, the




---



##### 



Companys independent auditors, consultants or any other agents assisting in the
administration of the Plan. Members of the Committee, any person acting pursuant to
authority delegated by the Committee, and any officer or employee of the Company or
a parent, subsidiary or affiliate acting at the direction or on behalf of the
Committee or a delegee shall not be personally liable for any action or
determination taken or made in good faith with respect to the Plan, and shall, to
the extent permitted by law, be fully indemnified and protected by the Company with
respect to any such action or determination.
 3.
    
    Section 6(b) is hereby amended by adding the following sentence after the first sentence
thereof:
  4.
    
    This First Amendment shall be effective for all Performance Periods beginning on or after
January 1, 2007.5.
    
    Capitalized terms not defined in this First Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the
Plan.6.
    
    Except as modified and amended by this First Amendment, the Plan remains in full force and
effect.
  IRWIN FINANCIAL CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Thomas D. WashburnIts:
    
    Executive Vice President
 Attest:/s/ Ellen Z. Mufson, Assistant SecretaryDate: May 18, 2007
#### Willie M. RAWLS, Jr., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 05-3102.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: March 4, 2005.

ORDER

Order Vacated, See 126 Fed.Appx. 963.

The petitioner having failed to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

*290ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
January 13, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KIMBERLY MITCHELL, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00928-CV V.

CHASE BANK, TARAD RASHAWN BESSARD, TANYA JOHNSON, 

Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order 

purportedly signed by the court below on November 14, 2014. Having considered 

the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Kimberly Mitchell.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Platinum Group Metals
Ltd. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended August 31, 2011, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Frank R. Hallam, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted 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 results of
      operations of the Company.

/s/ Frank R.
HallamFrank R. Hallam Chief Financial Officer and Director
November 21, 2011

---
16140
      SAND CANYON AVE., SUITE 100


IRVINE,
      CALIFORNIA 92618


**H** **ALL** **&** **C** **OMPANY** **** *Certified
      Public Accountants, Inc* *.*  (949)
      910-HALL (4255)


TAX,
      FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES  FAX
      (949)
      910-4256

















**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**





We
      consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 10-KSB (File No.
      000-27753) of our report dated September 21, 2005 on our audits of the financial
      statements of Brek Energy Corporation as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and
      for
      the years then ended.








/s/
      Hall & Company


Hall
      & Company


Irvine,
      California


March
      31,
      2006
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Waldo J. Morse, Jr., Appellant, *v.*Eugene M. Travis, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.

*People ex rel. Morse*v. *Travis,*181 App. Div. 964, affirmed.

(Argued October 3, 1918;

decided October 22, 1918.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 17, 1918, which unanimously confirmed, on certiorari, a determination of the comptroller of the state of New York revoking the license of the relator as a private detective. The sole question on appeal was whether the deputy state comptroller had jurisdiction to hear and determine the charges which resulted in the revocation of the relator’s license.

*Frederick C. Hunter*for appellant.

*Merton E. Lewis, Attorney-General (Charles T. Dawes*and *Edward G. Griffin*of counsel), for respondent.

*William A. Purrington,*amicus curise.

Order affirmed, .with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frank Kriegbaum, Respondent, *v.*Buffalo Wire Works Company, Incorporated, et al., Appellants. State Industrial Commission, Respondent.

*Kriegbaum*v. *Buffalo Wire Works Co.,*182 App.. Div. 448, affirmed.

(Argued October 2, 1918;

decided October 22, 1918.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered March 14, 1918, unanimously affirming an award of the state industrial commission made under the Work*622men’s Compensation Law. Kriegbaum was in the employ of the Buffalo Wire Works, Company, Inc., and on July 20, 1914, sustained an injury which resulted in the loss of the sight of his right eye. On September 8, 1914, the commission awarded Kriegbaum 128 weeks’ compensation at six dollars and forty-two cents a week, being for partial permanent disability, namely, the loss of the right eye, and the total amount of such compensation was paid to the claimant. At the time this award was made, on September 4, 1914, the papers before the commission showed that Kriegbaum had prior to this accident to his right eye, namely, in the year 1901, practically lost the sight of his left eye. In 1917, on claimant’s application, the case was reopened and the commission, notwithstanding the objections duly made by the attorney for the carrier and employer after the first award had been paid in full, made an award for compensation at the same weekly rate, but for total disability to date from the ■ date of the last payment under the first award. The question was whether, under the circumstances, the state industrial commission had authority to reopen the case and make the additional award.

*Neile F. Towner*for appellants.

*Merton E. Lewis, Attorney-General (E. G. Aiken*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch, J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 23.1 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
ARTISTdirect, Inc.: We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-122027, No.
333-53208, No. 333-38104, No. 333-63572 and No.333-68396) on Forms S-8 of ARTISTdirect, Inc., of
our report dated March 1, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of ARTISTdirect,
Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2003 and 2004, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders equity (deficiency) and
cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2004 Annual Report on
Form 10-K of ARTISTdirect, Inc. Our report indicates a change in method of accounting for the Companys investment in its record
label joint venture, ARTISTdirect Records, LLC, as of December 31, 2003. Our report dated March 1, 2005 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has
incurred substantial operating losses and negative cash flows from operations to date, which raises
substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial
statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. /s/ GUMBINER SAVETT INC. Santa Monica, California
May 13, 2005 111
#### STATE v. POLK

No. 683P82.

Case below: 59 N.C. App. 557.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 28 January 1983.
#### Jorgie A. ORTIZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-56095.

D.C. No. CV-03-01583-JTM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 13, 2005.

Jorgie A. Ortiz, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

Stephen J. Beaton, Esq., Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, Orange, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jorgie A. Ortiz appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for lack of proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the question of whether venue is proper. *Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,*805 F.2d 834, 841 (9th Cir.1986). We review for abuse of discretion dismissals for improper venue, *Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin.,*122 F.3d 1251, 1253 (9th Cir.1997), and decisions on discovery issues, *Childress v. Darby Lumber, Inc., 357*F.3d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

Venue lies in the judicial district where the defendant resides, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), or “a substantial part of the events ... giving rise to the claim occurred,” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The district court properly dismissed Ortiz’s action for lack of venue because no defendant resides in, nor did any of the alleged events take place in, the Southern District of California. *See King v. Russell,*963 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action rather than transferring it to another district, given the allegations in the complaint and the history of litigation between these parties. *See id.*(where justice would not be served, a district court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing rather than transferring an action).

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Ortiz’s motion to compel discovery responses from defen*906dants because the parties had not met and conferred under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) and Local Rule 16.5(k). *See Childress,*357 F.3d at 1010.

Ortiz’s remaining contentions lack merit.

Ortiz’s Motion to Strike Appellees’ Excerpts of Record is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case 1:06-cv-15153-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-15132-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1