alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

I, Zacharias Bernardus Swanepoel, the Chief Executive Officer of Harmony Gold
Mining Company Limited, certify that:

1     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Harmony Gold Mining
      Company Limited;

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(s) 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 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)   [Reserved]

(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, summarise 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.

Date: November 2, 2005

/s/ Zacharias Bernardus Swanepoel
Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:10cr46-SPM-GRJ

JAMES RANDELL COOPER,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF GUILTY PLEA

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, and subject to

the Court’s consideration of any Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

11(e)(2), the plea of guilty of the defendant, JAMES RANDELL COOPER, to

Count One of the information is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear

before this Court for sentencing as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of October, 2010. 

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1
 GRACECHURCH CARD FUNDING (NO. 11) PLC
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, and all reports on
Form 6-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 11) PLC;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
reports is included in these reports;4.
    
    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and
based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required
under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the
servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and5.
    
    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicers compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement.
  Name: Jonathon William Albright
Title: Director
Date: June 27, 2007
 - 26 -
----

----

| (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  March 1, 2011 | /s/ Robert K. Moskovitz                                                                            |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                           | Name: Robert K. Moskovitz                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|                           | Title: Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |

----

----
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:10cr17-SPM

KARLOS ELEBY,

 

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant proposed to enter a guilty plea to Count One of this indictment. The

district judge referred this matter to me for purposes of hearing Defendant's proposed

change of plea pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 and to enter a report and recommendation

as to whether to accept the change of plea. All parties consented to this procedure, and

the written consent has been entered. After hearing, it is found that:

1. Defendant understands the nature of the charge or charges as to which the

plea is offered.

2. Defendant understands the right to trial by jury, to persist in a plea of not

guilty, to assistance of counsel at trial, and to confront and cross examine adverse

witnesses, and understands the right against compelled self-incrimination.

3. Defendant understands the maximum possible sentence if the guilty plea is

accepted, including the effect of a supervised release term, understands that the
Page 2 of 3

sentencing guidelines are advisory, and understands that the court has discretion to

depart from those guidelines and sentence up to the statutory maximum sentence.

4. The plea of guilty by the Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made,

and is not the result of force or threats, or of promises except for promises contained in

the written plea agreement between the parties.

5. Defendant is competent to plead guilty.

6. Defendant understands that answers given by the Defendant during the plea

colloquy, which were under oath, may be later used against the Defendant in

prosecution for perjury or false statement.

7. There is a factual basis for Defendant's guilty plea.

8. There is a plea agreement which should be accepted by the court. Defendant

understands the terms of the plea agreement.

9. Defendant has voluntarily consented to go forward with this plea of guilty

before me. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily has waived the ten day period for filing

objections to this report and recommendation, and agrees that written objections, if any,

must be filed within twenty-four hours from receipt of a copy of this report and

recommendation. The United States also consents to this procedure, including the

shorter period for objections.

Case No. 4:10cr17-SPM
Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the court ACCEPT the plea agreement

and defendant's plea of guilty.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on November 15, 2010. 

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 24 hours after receiving a copy of this report and

recommendation.

Case No. 4:10cr17-SPM
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Export-Import Bank of the United States

# ACTION:

Notice of a Partially Open Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

# TIME AND PLACE:

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.

# OPEN AGENDA ITEMS:

Item No. 1: Ex-Im Bank Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee for 2008.

# PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

The meeting will be open to public participation for Item No. 1 only.

      ( print page 64628)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Office of the Secretary, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571 (Tel. No. 202-565-3957).

Howard A. Schweitzer,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 07-5733 Filed 11-14-07; 12:38 pm]

BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DONALD JAMES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-259-RS-GRJ

REYNALDO GEERKEN, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 77). 

No objections have been filed.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is 

approved and incorporated in this Order.

2. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 43 & 49) are 

GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on February 24, 2012.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-00259-RS-GRJ Document 81 Filed 02/24/12 Page 1 of 1
FlUEDtN

tercouRTOFWPe**

MAY24Z018

Brief #01-18-00156-CV .^

I Porche Phillips (defendant) demand that Cullen Park

Apartments (plaintiff) produce all paper work, receipts,

and demand letters to vacate the property. When I

received the packet that I had given the (plaintiffs) most

of the receipts were gone. I also demand all computer

records from Plaintiffs both from non-payments and

eviction notices. I will subpoena for monthly

reconciliation of accounts from the property. The question

arises that if I did not pay for a year, why was I not

evicted. I never received any notice: however, see

attached case #177200446450 that judgement for Plaintiff

on 10/10/2017 was denied.

9 <yi-5-/^03^5"
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RITA BETY GARCIA

- PEREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 73099

Agency No. A095

- 723

- 208

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 18, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Rita Bety Garcia

- Perez , a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to

reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.

Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 73099

petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia

- Perez’s motion to

reopen as untimely where it was filed more than three years after the order of

removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Garcia

- Perez failed

to establish materially changed country conditions in El Salvador to qualify for the

regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen

, s ee 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmab adi , 597 F.3d at 987

- 90 (evidence must

be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening) ; Toufighi v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d

988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence with

motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed). Garcia

Perez’s argument that the BIA failed to properly consider the evidence is

unpersuasive.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s de cision not to reopen proceedings

sua sponte because Garcia

- Perez has not raised a claim of legal or constitutional

error

. See Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has

jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited3 18

- 73099

purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional

error.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 1 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 2 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 3 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 4 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 5 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 6 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 7 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 8 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 9 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 10 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 11 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 12 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 13 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 14 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 15 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 16 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 17 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 18 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 19 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 20 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 21 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 22 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 23 of 24Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 23-8 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 24 of 24
# C_2010126EN.01000401.xml

| 18.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 May 2010

2010/C 126/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2349 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 114,17 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4405 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85540 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6035 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4014 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7220 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,560 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 277,82 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7074 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0195 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1926 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9039 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4043 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2792 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6324 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7619 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7162 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 424,88 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3232 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,4315 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2530 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 273,27 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9856 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,814 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 37,6260 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,055 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2313 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 15,6557 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 56,3360 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2349

JPY

Japanese yen

114,17

DKK

Danish krone

7,4405

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85540

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6035

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4014

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7220

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,560

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

277,82

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7074

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0195

RON

Romanian leu

4,1926

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9039

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4043

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2792

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6324

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7619

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7162

KRW

South Korean won

1 424,88

ZAR

South African rand

9,3232

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,4315

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2530

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 273,27

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9856

PHP

Philippine peso

55,814

RUB

Russian rouble

37,6260

THB

Thai baht

40,055

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2313

MXN

Mexican peso

15,6557

INR

Indian rupee

56,3360

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Melinda Flint

Appellate case number: 01-18-00026-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-54382

Trial court: 309th District Court of Harris County

Relator, Melinda Flint, has filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and in the 

Alternative, Petition for Writ of Mandamus” challenging the trial court’s order contempt and 

commitment order. The Court requests that real party in interest file a limited response addressing 

the following issues asserted in the petition:

Issue 1b. The Judgment of contempt and the commitment order pertaining to 

Violation No. 1 are void because Respondent, the Honorable Sheri Y. Dean, abused 

her discretion when she found relator in contempt for two allegedly contemptuous 

acts when only one act allegedly occurred.

Issue 2b. The Judgment of contempt and the commitment order pertaining to 

Violation No. 3 are void because Respondent, the Honorable Sheri Y. Dean, abused 

her discretion when she found relator in contempt for two allegedly contemptuous 

acts when only one act allegedly occurred.

Issue 3a. The judgment of contempt and the commitment order pertaining to 

Violation No. 5 are void because they grant relief which was not plead [sic] in the 

motion for contempt.

Issue 4a. The judgment of contempt and the commitment order pertaining to 

Violation No. 6 are void because they grant relief which was not plead [sic] in the 

motion for contempt.

Issue 5b. The judgment of contempt and the commitment order pertaining to 

Violation No. 7 are void because they grant relief which was not plead [sic] in the 

motion for contempt.

The response shall be due within 20 days of this order.

It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually 

Date: January 30, 2018
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PERRY GENE VANDERFORD,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv494/MCR/EMT

WARDEN R. TIFFT, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated March 15, 2011 (Doc. 17). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of

the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply 

with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of April, 2011.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE