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



                                                                     EXHIBIT 1.1

                          QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE FOR
                    SHORT FORM PROSPECTUS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

To:      Ontario Securities Commission

I, Tom J. Landa, the Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary of Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation (the "Corporation"), and Vice
President of GUSAP Partners, hereby certify that the Corporation satisfies the
criteria set forth in Section 2.2 of National Instrument 44-101, Short Form
Prospectus Distributions and the filing requirements thereunder. GUSAP Partners
has been granted exemptive relief from the Ontario Securities Commission from
compliance with the requirements of Part 2 of National Instrument 44-101, Short
Form Prospectus Distributions.

This certificate is given pursuant to the requirement set out in section
10.2(a)2 of the National Instrument and the filing by the Corporation and GUSAP
Partners, as co-issuers, of the preliminary short form prospectus dated
concurrently herewith.

DATED at Tampa, Florida this 5th day of December, 2003.



                                            GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORPORATION




                                            By:        s/ Tom J. Landa
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Tom J. Landa
                                                Vice President, Finance, Chief
                                                Financial Officer and Secretary



                                            GUSAP PARTNERS




                                            By:       s/ Tom J. Landa
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Tom J. Landa
                                                Vice President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

KENNETH ANDREW RUBIN

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 1476 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 192 DB 2008

Attorney Registration No. 71949

(Philadelphia)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2024, the Petition for Reinstatement is granted. 

Petitioner is ordered to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and 

processing of the Petition for Reinstatement. See Pa.R.D.E. 218(f).
I, James Steffey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this 10-Q of Tasa Products 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 the 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)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:

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

b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;

c. 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

d. 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
registrants 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 functions):

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summerize 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:  5-02-06


/s/James Steffey
Co-General Partner
##### 



FORM 6-K SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 Report of Foreign Private Issuer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the month of April, 2004 Commission File Number: 00-30082 Envoy Communications Group Inc.  
 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F. Form 20-F   x        Form 40-F   o Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Yes   o        No   x If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant
in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- Signatures Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. Envoy Communications Group Inc.
(Registrant)By:
    /s/ Geoffrey B. GenoveseName:
    Geoffrey B. GenoveseTitle:
    President, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer Dated: April 26, 2004




---



##### 



Exhibit Index Exhibit
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Bone Mass Regulation.                    

*Date:*                         January 14, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Alicja L. Markowska, Ph.D., DSC, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9666,                         *markowsa@nia.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 7, 2015.

Melanie J. Gray,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-00288 Filed 1-12-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Jesse Shannon, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 361]

Lahtinen, J.P.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Milano, J.), entered March 14, 2012, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim.

In January 2010, claimant, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules and he received a penalty of, among other things, 120 days in the special housing unit. After the matter was affirmed on administrative appeal, claimant commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging that determination. We granted the petition and annulled the determination on the basis that it was not supported by substantial evidence *(Matter of Shannon v Fischer,*84 AD3d 1614, 1615 [2011]). In July 2011, claimant brought this claim seeking monetary damages for his alleged wrongful confinement. Defendant thereafter moved to dismiss the claim, asserting that the claim was untimely and that defendant was immune from liability for the discretionary acts of its employees regarding an inmate disciplinary matter. Finding both defenses meritorious, the Court of Claims granted defendant’s motion. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. “The actions of correctional facility employees insofar as they relate to inmate discipline are quasi-judicial in nature and, unless they exceed the scope of their authority or violate applicable rules and regulations, are accorded absolute immunity” *(Davis v State of New York, 262*AD2d 887, 888 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 819 [1999] [citation omitted]; *see Arteaga v State of New York,*72 NY2d 212, 218-220 [1988]; *Loret v State of New York,*106 AD3d 1159, 1159 [2013], *lv denied 22*NY3d 852 [2013]). The claim fails to set forth sufficient facts to overcome defendant’s immunity defense and, in fact, our earlier decision annulling the determination of guilt was “based upon a finding that it was not supported by substantial evi*1078dence, not upon any finding that the correctional facility employees acted in excess of their authority or departed from any applicable statutory or regulatory direction” *(Loret v State of New York,*106 AD3d at 1159-1160). The remaining arguments are academic.

Stein, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
# ELECTRONIC RECORD PD-0842-15
COA # 05-13-00752-CR OFFENSE: 2.02 

### George Contreras v. TheState of 

## STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Dallas COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 282nd Judicial District Court DATE: 06/08/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: F-1231118-S



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS George Contreras v. TheState of STYLE: Texas / 

# watftN7T5 FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: ///oj/^y JUDGE: 

## f.lA C^AAUifPetition 

# CCA#: PD-0842-15 

# CCADisposition: ^rr3ml$ DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED:. PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC:. DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
KMT 6.30.2015 10K Ex 10.19






                                            
Exhibit 10.19




SCHEDULE OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WHO HAVE ENTERED INTO THE FORM OF INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT 10.18
NAME 
Carlos M. Cardoso
Peter A. Dragich
Martha Fusco
Steven R. Hanna
John H. Jacko, Jr.
Donald A. Nolan
Frank P. Simpkins
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> OPUR1
<CIK> 0000318819
<NAME> R. D. SIEVERS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    3,914,171
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    112,279
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         212,468
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       294,643
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  51,908
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,585,469
<COMMON>                                       100,756
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      350,895
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            768,307
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,219,958
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           78,567
<PREFERRED>                                     17,928
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         2,080,746
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              84,714
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   18,806
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,084,750
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,585,469
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      764,528
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            65,542
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     486,078
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     551,620
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        212,908
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               5,135
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 218,043
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       114,748
<NET-INCOME>                                   103,295
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      2,988
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  100,307
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        49,243
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      110,830
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         175,807
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.25
        

</TABLE>
second trial when an appellant court reverses a conviction due to an error

in the proceedings that led to the conviction. Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38 (1988); United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 465 (1964); United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 671-72 (1896).

Our order resolving petitioner's direct appeal concluded that the murder conviction must be reversed due to a trial error: The jury was erroneously instructed on one of the State's theories of criminal liability and therefore the jury's general verdict could not stand. Daniels v. State, Docket No. 44071 (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding, November 29, 2006). Because our order did not expressly or implicitly acquit petitioner of the murder charge, the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion, exercise its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or act without or in excess of its jurisdiction by denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the criminal information. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; International Game Tech. v. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 132, 142, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006); see also Glover v. Dist. Ct., 125 Nev. 691, 701, 220 P.3d 684, 692 (2009) (a writ of prohibition will issue to preclude a retrial that would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Gibbons

Saitta
'In light of this order, we deny Daniels' motion for a stay of the proceedings.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 23

cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge Gabriel L. Grasso, P.C. Oronoz & Ericsson Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A
Exhibit 32.1

       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES -0XLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Triad Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005,as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Linda Bryson, President of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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.

March 26, 2006                            /s/ Linda Bryson
                                            --------------------------
                                              Linda Bryson
                                              President
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

CELLECTIS,

Appellant

v.

SEATTLE CHILDREN'S R ESEARCH INSTITUTE,

Appellee

______________________

2019

- 1664

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 106,052.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

S ALVATORE J. A RRIGO

, III, Arrigo, Lee & Guttman LLP,

Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented

by H ARRY J OEL G UTTMAN

, S COTT M. K. L EE

.

E DWARD A NTHONY F IGG , Rothwell, Figg, Ernst &

Manbeck, PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also

represented by S ETH E DWARD C OCKRUM

, S HARON E. C RANE

, R OBERT D ANNY H UNTINGTON

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is Case: 19-1664 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2020O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, Chief Judge, C LEVENGER and

M OORE

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 10, 2020

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court Case: 19-1664 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 03/10/2020
EXHIBIT 10.4



|     |  |     
|---- |  | ----
|LOGO |  | LOGO

591 Camino de la Reina, Suite 418 San Diego, CA 92108 619.330.4000 fax 619.330.4002

www.mariposa-software.com



---

November 1, 2006

Jana
McKeag

Vice President, Governmental Relations



|Re: | Employment Terms
|--- | ----------------

Dear Ms. McKeag:

This letter confirms in writing the changes to your employment terms with Venture Catalyst Incorporation (VCAT) that were
approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of VCAT. Effective as of September 11, 2006, your annual base compensation was increased from $150,000 to $175,000 payable in accordance with VCATs normal payroll practices.
In addition, you were awarded a discretionary bonus of $17,000 that was paid on September 15, 2006. No other changes were made to your compensation.

Further, as of September 11, 2006, we agreed that you may seek to obtain and perform government relations work for other clients as a separate business outside of the time you work as a full time employee of
VCAT so long as (1) each prospective engagement does not interfere with the performance of your obligations to VCAT and VCATs clients, (2) each prospective new engagement is pre-approved in writing by the Chairman of the Board or
Chief Executive Office of VCAT, in their sole discretion, and (3) the prospective engagement is not inconsistent with your compliance with VCATs Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. You acknowledge that any work or services you perform
for other clients is independent of, and not within the scope of your employment with VCAT, and VCAT will have no responsibility for your performance of services for your separate clients or your acts or omissions in connection with such work. You
will not be covered by any VCAT insurance or indemnity agreements with respect to your separate business. You will be responsible for payment of all taxes and compliance with law in connection with your separate business. You agree that you will not
hold yourself out as working on behalf of VCAT when entering into any new engagement or performing any services for your separate clients. You further agree that you will not disclose to VCAT or use any confidential information of any separate
client in the course of performing any work or services on behalf of VCAT.

Except as set forth in this letter, no changes to the
terms and conditions of employment are being made hereby. You remain an at-will employee for VCAT as of the date hereof.

Sincerely,

/S/ Greg Shay

Greg Shay

CEO & President

Venture Catalyst
Incorporated