alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 12.5**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002**

 

I, Andrew Sukawaty, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 20-F of Inmarsat Investments Limited (the “Company”); 

 

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 thecircumstances 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, fairlypresent 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 forestablishing 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 bedesigned 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 beingprepared; 

 

(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 ofthe 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 ofinternal 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 andmaterial 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 notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
Exhibit 99.2



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 Quarterly Report of DDi Capital Corp.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce D. McMaster, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to
the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                  
|------------------
|Date: May 14, 2003
|                  



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to DDi Capital Corp. and will be retained by DDi Capital Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 13.5**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Investments Limited (the“Company”) for the annual period ended 31 December 2008 (the “Periodic Report”), I, Andrew Sukawaty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in thePeriodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Date: 29 April 2009
#### KOK FIE KOE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States.

No. 03-4138.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Dec. 14, 2004.

Decided Dec. 22, 2004.

Eleanor H. Chen, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.

Douglas E. Ginsburg, John D. Williams, United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: NYGAARD, ROSENN and BECKER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

BECKER, Circuit Judge.

Kok Fie Koe petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture Act (CAT). Koe, who is ethnically Chinese, submits that he had been forced to endure persecution and humiliation during his life in Indonesia from native Indonesians in the nature of extortion of mon*225ey, repeated threats, and a beating on the face (although he could not give a date for the beating incident). He says that these events had progressed to such a point that he no longer felt safe in Indonesia. He further submits that the finding of the Immigration Judge (IJ) that his testimony was not credible, affirmed by the BIA, is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

Koe’s brief, however, contains nothing more than an assertion that the IJ’s opinion, summarily affirmed by the BIA, was conclusory, and that discretion should have been exercised in his favor. His brief neglects to reference the recorded facts that he admitted that he came to the United States in order to find work and start a new life, and that his wife and family not only remain in Indonesia, but his wife sends him $1,000 every two months. Obviously, Koe’s second stated issue: “Whether Petitioner is deserving of a favorable exercise of discretion due to the fact that he has been a person of good moral character” is beyond our purview here. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002). His other challenge: “Whether the Immigration Judge’s finding that Petitioner’s testimony was not credible is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole” must also be rejected.

First, the IJ, as an alternative to his adverse credibility finding, assumed that Koe was credible but concluded that the evidence submitted in support of his claim was insufficient to meet Koe’s burden of proof. This is plainly correct. Koe’s meager allegations do not come close to the rigorous standard for the grant of asylum. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); *Dia v. Ashcroft,*353 F.3d 228 (3d Cir.2003); *Fatin v. INS,*12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (1993) (“ ‘persecution’ denotes extreme conduct”). Secondly, the IJ found that Koe’s out-of-time asylum application did not qualify for an exception to the time-bar for extraordinary circumstances. We agree.

The petition for review will be denied.
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 the Quarterly Report of DDi Corp.  (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June  30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce D. McMaster, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to
the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                    
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

|Date: August 19, 2003 | By: | /s/ BRUCE D. MCMASTER                     | 
|--------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------- | 
|                      |     |                                           | 
|                      |     | Bruce D. McMaster Chief Executive Officer | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to DDi Corp. and
will be retained by DDi Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE v. McCRAY

No. 248P97

Case below: 117 N.C.App. 465

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 23 July 1997.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Vornado
Operating Company (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|                 |  |        |                   |                         |  | 
|---------------- |  | ------ | ----------------- | ----------------------- |  | 
|November 5, 2003 |  |        | /s/ JOSEPH MACNOW
|                 |  |       
|                 |  | Name:  |                   | Joseph Macnow           |  | 
|                 |  | Title: |                   | Chief Financial Officer |  |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03952

Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal, without prejudice, as to the following Defendant(s) identified on Schedule A of the 

Complaint:

NO. DEFENDANT

112 WOLF ENEMY PUBG Gear Store

113 WOLF ENEMY Terminator Gear Store

114 WOLF ENEMY Wargame Gear Store

DATED: October 5, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt (Bar No. 6207971)

Keith Vogt, Ltd.

111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: 312-675-6079

E-mail: keith@vogtip.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case: 1:20-cv-03952 Document #: 43 Filed: 10/05/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:9406
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document was electronically filed on October 5, 2020 with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system, which will automatically send an email notification of such filing to all registered 

attorneys of record.

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt

Case: 1:20-cv-03952 Document #: 43 Filed: 10/05/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:9407
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Larry Stanley and Terri Stanley v. John McClanahan

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00 982

- CV

Tria l court case number: D

- 13

- 5,197

Trial court: County Court of Colorado County , Texas

On November 1, 2013 , appellant s

, Larry Stanley and Terri Stanley , filed an affidavit of indigence in th e trial c ourt in the above

- referenced matter. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(a)(2 )

. On
December 19, 2013 , the district clerk notified the Court that no contest to the affidavit of indigence was filed. Therefore the allegations in the affidavit are deemed true, and appellant s

are entitled to proceed without advance payment of costs. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(f).

The Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to make an entry in this C ourt’s records that appellants are indigent and are allowed to proceed on appeal without advance payment of costs.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(f) , (n)

.

A ppellant ’ s brief is ORDERED filed with this Court within 30 days of the date the reporter’s record is filed

. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a). Appellee’s brief, if any, must be filed

within 3 0 days after the date appellant’s brief is filed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6( b ).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: December 27 , 2013

1 The clerk’ s record was filed on November 14 , 201 3. The current deadline for the reporter’s record is December 27, 2013.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David J. Keefe, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this
annual report on Form 10-K of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this 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 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 the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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: March 26, 2008



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ David J. Keefe                  
|    |  | David J. Keefe                      
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for: 

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No 

 Yes No 

 Yes No 

 Yes No 

(See item 3 in instructions) 

Email Address: 

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case? 

Are you acting as local counsel in this case? 

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar? 

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel 

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel, are you 

a Federal Defender 

 CJA Panel Attorney 

______________________________________________________________________ 

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath. 

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/ 

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.) 

Revised 8/1/2015 

Lawrence H. Gress, et al. v.

Commonwealth Edison

Company, et al.

1:20-cv-04405

Commonwealth Edison Company and Exelon Corporation (defendants)

Nicole A. Allen

Jenner & Block LLP

353 N. Clark Street

Chicago, IL 60654

6295760 312-923-2868

NAllen@jenner.com

February 4, 2021

Nicole A. Allen

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 82 Filed: 02/04/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1520
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2523

KOJO OKATA,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A70-661-505)

Submitted: January 7, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall Lee Johnson, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Richard

Michael Evans, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Laura Marlene Friedman, David

V. Bernal, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals'

decision denying relief on his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Our review of the record discloses that the

Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without

reversible error. Okata v. INS, No. A70-661-505 (B.I.A. Aug. 5,

1996). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
```

                           CLAUDE JOBIN, P.ENG., M.SC.
                              PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

                                     CONSENT

TO:      NORTHWESTERN MINERAL VENTURES INC.

AND TO:  BERNS & BERNS, COUNSELORS AT LAW

AND TO:  U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION
         (THE "SECURITIES REGULATOR")

FROM:    CLAUDE JOBIN, P.ENG., M.SC.

RE:      TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT 43-101, NORTHWESTERN MINERAL VENTURES INC.
         URANIUM PROPERTIES, NIGER, WEST AFRICA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference is made to the technical report (the "TECHNICAL REPORT") dated 2 May,
2006 entitled "Technical Evaluation Report 43-101, Northwestern Mineral Ventures
Inc. Uranium Properties, Niger, West Africa", which we prepared for Northwestern
Mineral Ventures Inc. (the "CORPORATION").

We hereby consent to the filing of the Technical Report with the Securities
Regulator, and to the written disclosure of the Technical Report and the
inclusion of extracts therefrom or a summary thereof in the Corporation's Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 ("Form 20-F"). We
reserve the right to review such disclosures to ensure that our comments are
contextually accurate.

We further agree to being named as an expert in the Form 20-F.

Dated this      day of June, 2006.

                                            ---------------------------
                                            Claude Jobin, P.Eng., M.Sc.
                                            Professional Engineer

               159 Des Saules Ouest, Quebec, Quebec G1L 1E3 Canada
                              Tel-Fax: 418-623-4171
```
#### Edward Bondurant, etc., *v.*Andrew Jackson Ewing.

Vendor and Purchaser — Deficiency in Amount Too Small.

The deficiency of nine acres, if clearly shown to exist, is too small to entitle the purchaser to any relief for a mere mistake or error in judgment as to the quantity of land contained in the tract.

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

April 20, 1872.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin :

According to the written renewal of the contract, the sale was simply one in gross of all the land “supposed to contain 519 acres” for $40,000.

It is neither alleged nor proved that the vendor was guilty of fraud in making the sale by false representations of the quantity or otherwise; but the grounds of the defense presented in the answer (which is not, as assumed to be, a counterclaim) were, that by mistake, a verbal stipulation was left out of the writing, which, if inserted, would have made it optional with the appellee to take the land as containing 519 acres for the sum of $40,000, or have it surveyed and pay only for the number of acres he got at the rate of $40,000 for 519 acres; and that there were but 510 acres.

The evidence conduces to the conclusion that there are but 510 acres in the tract, and that Bondurant was at one time willing to adjust the price in the manner stated, if the appellee would then elect to have the land' surveyed; but it does not appear that the appellee then required or desired to have the land surveyed; and we are not satisfied from the evidence, that according to the contract he was entitled to that right, or, in other words, that there was anything omitted by mistake in reducing the terms of the agreement to- writing. And according to numerous -decisions of this court, the deficiency of nine acres, if clearly shown to exist, is too small to entitle the purchaser under such -a contract to any relief for a mere mistake or error in judgment as to the quantity of land contained in the tract.

The judgment is therefore deemed erroneous, in so far as *152it makes any deduction for deficiency in the quantity of the land.

*Huston, Turner & Cornelison, for appellants.*

*Apperson & Reid, for appellee.*

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed on the original appeal and the cause remanded for a judgment in conformity to this opinion; and it is *affirmed,*on the cross-appeal.