alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.2



I, Judith T. Mazvihwa, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of:  Logan Resources Ltd.;



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

Annual 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) 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

(c) 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on

our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to

the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of

directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or

operation of internal control over financial reporting which are

reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record,

process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other

employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control

over financial reporting.





Date: October 17, 2006



Judith T. Mazvihwa

Chief Financial Officer
#### E. B. Reeder, etc., *v.*Maria Bell.

Trespass to Try Title — Tenant Estopped to Claim Adversely to Landlord.

Tbe proof in this case shows that the appellee entered upon the land in controversy, with her husband, under a lease from appellant; she is therefore estopped to claim possession adversely to them.

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT. .

September 27, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The appellants in this case show a connected chain of title from the commonwealth down, embracing the land in controversy. This title is perfect and complete. The location of the boundary line known as A. ,B., on the plat exhibited to the jury in this case between the Fields’ patent, under which the appellants claim, and the third survey in the division of lands belonging and covered by Plarris’s patent, seems to have been the principal question in this case. The testimony of four different surveyors aided by that of several persons living in the vicinity of the land in controversy, show, that the line A. B. on the plat is the true boundary between the two patents. These witnesses also state that the land in controversy is within the Fields’ patent boundary, and covered by the deeds to appellants. Appellants show their possession for many years by themselves and tenant, and at the time, Bell, the husband of the appellee, Maria Bell, entered upon this land and commenced cutting timber, he was notified by appellants’ tenant, then in possession, to cease the cutting, and was informed by Bell that he leased the land from appellants, and this statement the tenant found to be true upon inquiry made of them. Appellants also proved by seven or eight witnesses that during the time Bell was in possession *400he claimed to hold under them, and in fact the proof is conclusive upon this branch of the case. The widow also shows to have held in the same way after her death. The appellees, upon the trial, claimed to hold under Bryan and Slatter, and attempt to prove by Yates that Bell entered upon the land under a lease from Williamson, the agent of Bryan and Slatter. They also exhibit a patent to one Jacob Rubsamor, junior in date to the Fields’ patent, but failed to connect themselves by title or possession with either patent. In addition to all this it appears that the agent of Bryan and Slatter placed a man of the name of Petty within the alleged interference of these two patents and that appellants, brought suit for the possession against Petty and recovered. We perceive no testimony upon which the jury were authorized to find a verdict for the defendant. The cause is reversed with directions to the court below to set aside the verdict and judgment in the case and grant to appellant a new tidal and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

*Stevenson & Myers, for appellant.*

*Carlisle & O’Harra, for appellee.*
No. 87-6265.

#### Strickler *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
200533

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MICHELLE BOROUGHS, BRITTNEY 

CARLISLE, ARADIA CLARK and LORI 

LIBERA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

No. 1:20-cv-2727

Judge Edmond Chang

DEFENDANT, FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S 

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND 

SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WITHIN THE SAME FIRM

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Local Rule 83.17, Curtiss S. Schreiber of 

Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC withdraws his appearance for defendant, Ford Motor 

Company, and Emily E. Dory of Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC substitutes her 

appearance for said defendant.

DONOHUE BROWN MATHEWSON & SMYTH LLC

By: /s/ Emily E. Dory

Emily E. Dory

DONOHUE BROWN MATHEWSON & SMYTH LLC

Karen Kies DeGrand – ARDC # 06191140

Emily E. Dory – ARDC # 6323830

140 South Dearborn Street, Suite 800

Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 422-0900

service@dbmslaw.com; degrand@dbmslaw.com; dory@dbmslaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02727 Document #: 71 Filed: 01/03/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:917
- 2 -

NOTICE OF FILING AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 3, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by using the CM/ECF 

system. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service 

will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.

/s/ Emily E. Dory

DONOHUE BROWN MATHEWSON & SMYTH LLC

Karen Kies DeGrand – ARDC # 06191140

Emily E. Dory – ARDC # 6323830

140 South Dearborn Street, Suite 800

Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 422-0900

service@dbmslaw.com; degrand@dbmslaw.com; 

dory@dbmslaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02727 Document #: 71 Filed: 01/03/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:918
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM

 

As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to theincorporation of our report dated March 30, 2006 relating to the consolidated financialstatements of Vistula Communications Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries forthe year ended December 31, 2005 included in this Form 10-KSB, into the Company’spreviously filed Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-130805).

 

 
| /s/PKF,  Certified Public Accountants, A Professional Corporation |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                              |
| PKF,  Certified Public Accountants, A Professional Corporation    |

 

 

March30, 2006

NewYork, New York

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

Yen Cham Yung, 

Defendant(s).

Case No. 20-cr-231

Judge Robert M. Dow

ORDER

Arrest warrant issued to the United States Marshal and Any Authorized Officer as to Defendant, 

Yen Cham Yung. The Government's motion to seal complaint, affidavit, and arrest warrant is 

granted. Enter Order Attached. 

Date: 5/12/2020 /s/ Judge Dow
Specifications, Tolerances, and

Other Technical Requirements for 

Weighing and Measuring Devices

as adopted by the 104th National Conference on Weights and Measures 2019

John Barton

Breyanna Blackwell

Tina G. Butcher

Richard A. Harshman

G. Diane Lee

Dr. Douglas A. Olson, Chief

Office of Weights and Measures 

Physical Measurement Laboratory

This publication is available free of charge from: 

https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.HB.44-2020-upd1

July 2023

Includes updates as of 07-24-2023; See Appendix E.

U. S. Department of Commerce

Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dr. Walter Copan, NIST Director and Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology

NIST Handbook 44

2020 Edition

Supersedes NIST Handbook 44, 2019 Edition (October)
WASHINGTON: 2019

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an 

experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or 

endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, 

materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 44, 2020 Edition

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Handbook. 44, 2020 Ed., 555 pages (July 2023)

CODEN: NIHAE2
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 Annual Report of Kid Castle
Educational Corporation, a Florida Corporation (the “Registrant”), on Form 10-Q
for the fiscal period ending September 30, 2009 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission , the undersigned hereby certifies that:





1. To the
best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2. To the
best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Registrant.




DATE:
      November 13, 2009
                  BY:
                  /s/ Min-Tan YangMIN-TAN
      YANGCHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER




DATE:
      November 13, 2009
                  BY:
                  /s/ Suang-Yi PaiSUANG-YI
      PAICHIEF
      FINANCIAL
OFFICER
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10(u)    
    


 
 

THIRD AMENDMENT
  TO THE
  HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXCESS BENEFIT RETIREMENT PLAN    
    


        The Hewlett-Packard Company Excess Benefit Retirement Plan (the "Plan") is amended in the following respect, effective May 1, 2004: 


1.    New
paragraph 9(i) is added to read as follows: 


        (i)    Unpaid
Payments.    If any payment due to a person remains unpaid at his or her death, the payment will be made to (i) that
person's spouse; (ii) if no spouse is living at the time of such payment, then his or her living children, in equal shares; (iii) if neither a spouse nor children are living, then his or
her living parents, in equal shares; (iv) if neither spouse, nor children, nor parents are living, then his or her living brothers and sisters, in equal shares; (v) in none of the
individuals described in (i) through (iv) are living, to his or her estate. A person's domestic partner shall be considered a person's spouse for purposes of this paragraph. The Company
shall determine a person's status as a domestic partner in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner. Such a determination shall be binding and conclusive on all parties. 


This
Third Amendment is hereby adopted this 21st day of April, 2004. 



	 	 	HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
	

 	
 	

By	
 	

/s/  MARCELA PEREZ DE ALONSO      
 Marcela Perez de Alonso

Executive Vice President

Human Resources and Workforce Development













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10(u)


THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXCESS BENEFIT RETIREMENT PLAN
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________ NO. 09
- 1 3
- 00 02 7
- CV



### _________________

IN RE THEODORE R. KEHTEL AND JENNIFER C. KEHTEL

________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Theodore R. Kehtel and Jennifer C. Kehtel seek mandamus to compel the trial
court to vacate an order transferr ing venue . Relators have not established that they are entitled to the relief sought in their petition. See In re Kehtel , No. 09

- 12

- 00602

- CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 10760, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont Dec. 28, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Opinion Delivered January 31, 2013 Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Catherine E. Williams","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/cewilli3\/","title":"Lakiesha Hawkins","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pV9U2CiNgI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/lakiesha-hawkins\/\">Lakiesha Hawkins<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/lakiesha-hawkins\/embed\/#?secret=pV9U2CiNgI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Lakiesha Hawkins” — NASA\" data-secret=\"pV9U2CiNgI\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 89 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 89

 To require preemployment drug testing with respect to applicants for 
                          Federal employment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 1997

 Mr. Solomon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require preemployment drug testing with respect to applicants for 
                          Federal employment.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employment Applicant Drug 
Testing Act''.

SEC. 2. PREEMPLOYMENT DRUG TESTING.

    (a) In General.--All applicants for employment with the Federal 
Government shall be subject to preemployment drug testing in accordance 
with requirements which shall be prescribed by--
            (1) the President, with respect to applicants for 
        employment within the executive branch;
            (2) the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
        with respect to applicants for employment within the judicial 
        branch; and
            (3)(A) each House of Congress, with respect to applicants 
        for employment within such House; or
            (B) the appointing authority, with respect to applicants 
        for employment in any other office or agency within the 
        legislative branch.
    (b) Definition.--For purposes of this Act, the term ``drug'' means 
a controlled substance, as defined by section 102(6) of the Controlled 
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    Any rules or regulations necessary to carry out this Act shall be 
issued in time so that they may be implemented beginning not later than 
the 90th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Enos, Appellee, *v.*Enos, Appellant.

(No. 4022

Decided October 3, 1947.)

*Mr. Horace S. Kerr,*for appellee.

*Mr. B. N. Murray,*for appellant.

*139By the Court.

This is an appeal from a judgment •of the Common Pleas Court of Franklin county in which the plaintiff was granted a decree of divorce from the defendant and an order was made respecting .a division of property.

The notice of appeal states that the appeal is on “question of law and fact.” No appeal bond was given as required by Section 12223-6, General Code. Because of the failure to give an appeal bond as required by that section, the appeal is ineffective as an appeal on questions of law and fact.- The appeal is not dismissed but stands for hearing as an appeal on questions of law.

No bill of exceptions has been filed. When an appeal on questions of law and fact is ineffective and the •ease is retained as an appeal on questions of law, and no bill of exceptions has been filed, the reviewing court is required under the provisions of Section 11564, General Code, to fix a time for the preparation and settlement of a bill of exceptions, which shall not exceed 30 days. *Loos*v. *Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry Co.,*134 Ohio St., 321, 16 N. E. (2d), 467; *Parker*v. *Ingle,*56 Ohio App., 62, 10 N. E. (2d), 166; *Olsen*v. *Watson,*42 Ohio Law Abs., 411, 60 N. E. (2d), 621; *Krause*v. *Henry,*30 Ohio Law Abs., 386, 20 O. O., 351, 35 N. E. (2d), 169.

The court orders this case to stand as an appeal on questions of law and grants to defendant 30 days after the filing of the entry journalizing this decision within which to prepare and settle a bill of exceptions.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Wiseman, P. J., Miller and Hornbeck, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Prinzo & Associates, LLC

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03256

Honorable Gary Feinerman

BMO Harris Bank, N.A., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, July 28, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gary Feinerman:Given the 6/30/2020 order

[18], the initial status hearing set for 8/3/2020 [8] is stricken and re−set for 8/28/2020 at

9:00 a.m. Initial Status Report shall be filed by 8/21/2020. Please see Judge Feinerman's

web page (http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov) for details on the initial status hearing and initial

Status Report. Attorneys/Parties should appear for the 8/28/2020 hearing by calling the

Toll−Free Number: (877) 336−1828, Access Code: 4082461. Members of the public and

media will be able to call in to listen to this hearing (use toll free number). Please, please

be sure to keep your phone on mute when you are not speaking. Persons granted remote

access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing,

recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may

result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to

future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed

necessary by the Court. Mailed notice.(jlj, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-03256 Document #: 23 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:72
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 325

Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the

House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 13 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 12), 1997

Mr. SOLOMON submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating majority membership on certain standing

committees of the House.

1 Resolved, That the following Member be, and he is

2 hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the

3 House of Representatives:

4 COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERV5 ICES: Mr. Fossella of New York.

6 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRA7 STRUCTURE: Mr. Fossella of New York.

Æ
#### C. A. Chaplin *v.*James R. Hewlett.

Attorney — County Attorney — Fees Out of Fines Recovered — Amount Entitled to.

APPEAL PROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT.

November 2, 1870.

*McPherson, Bitter, for appellant.*

*Hewlett, for appellee.*

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters:

The precise question involved in this appeal came before this court in *Stone vs. Riddle, 5 Bush 349,*and it was held in that case that as the county atttorney prosecuted the accused, and had his recognizance taken, which was forfeited, .and the default occurred before the enactment of *“February 21, 1868,1 Sess. Acts 28,”*but that the judgment thereon was subsequent thereto, and the county attorney having aided in recovering it in the circuit court, he was entitled to fifteen of the thirty per cent, allowed by previous enactment to Commonwealth attorneys. The appellant was, therefore entitled to fifteen of the thirty per cent, collected by appellee. Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.