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

               CERTIFICATION OF ACTING PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Mary E. Thomas, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Le@P Technology, Inc.

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
      statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
      make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
      statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
      this annual report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
      information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
      respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
      the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
      report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-4 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
      have;

      a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
            material information relating to the registrant, including its
            consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
            those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual
            report is being prepared;

      b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
            and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
            of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c)    presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
            effectiveness of disclosure controls and procedures based on our
            evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
      our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
      committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
      equivalent functions):

      a)    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
            controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
            record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
            identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
            internal controls; and

      b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
            other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
            internal controls; and

<PAGE>

6.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
      annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls
      or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
      subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
      corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
      weaknesses.

Date: March 22, 2004


/s/ Mary E. Thomas
Mary E. Thomas
Acting Principal Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KEVIN NATHANIEL WILLIAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 83 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of July, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
```

Frontier Oil Corporation
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                              Exhibit 12.1

                                                    2000      1999      1998
                                                  -------   -------   -------
Income (loss) from continuing operations .....     39,281   (15,196)   18,968
Add:
  Interest ...................................     34,738    11,481     8,320
  Less: Interest capitalized .................       --        --         101
                                                  -------   -------   -------
Earnings as defined ..........................     74,019    (3,715)   27,187

Interest expense (Net) .......................     31,374     9,947     6,732
Interest income ..............................      3,364     1,534     1,487
Interest capitalized .........................       --        --         101
                                                  -------   -------   -------
  Fixed charges as defined ...................     34,738    11,481     8,320
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ...........        2.1        NM       3.3
Amount of  deficiency ........................        N/A    15,196       N/A
```
#### In the Matter of Allison Neumann et al., Appellants, v Mary Ellen Heyman, as Town of Irondequoit Supervisor, et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 805]

*1337Memorandum: Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding alleging, inter alia, that respondents violated Civil Service Law §§ 72, 80 and 81 by placing petitioner Allison Neumann on an involuntary leave of absence and by then abolishing her position and terminating her employment. Supreme Court dismissed the petition based on the “second objection in point of law” set forth in respondents’ answer, i.e., the failure of petitioners to exhaust their administrative remedies pursuant to the grievance procedures set forth in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA). We agree with petitioners that the court erred in dismissing those parts of the petition asserting claims under sections 72, 80 and 81 of the Civil Service Law inasmuch as they do not concern a grievance within the meaning of the CBA, i.e., “a dispute . . . involving the interpretation or application of any provision of [the CBA].” Those claims therefore are not subject to the CBA’s grievance procedure (see *Matter of Kaufmann v Board of Educ.,*275 AD2d 890 [2000]; *Matter of Moses v Rensselaer County,*262 AD2d 697, 699-700 [1999]; *cf. Matter of Hall v Town of Henderson,*17 AD3d 981, 982 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 714 [2005]). Contrary to respondents’ contention, we are unable to determine the merits of those statutory claims on the record before us (see *Matter of Rosenthal v Gilroy,*208 AD2d 748, 749 [1994]; *Matter of Hartman v Erie 1 BOCES Bd. of Educ.,*204 AD2d 1037 [1994]). Indeed, we note that respondents’ submissions in opposition to those statutory claims raise triable issues of fact (see *Hartman,*204 AD2d at 1037), and that respondents failed to address all of the allegations in those statutory claims. Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60071 Conference Calendar

DAVID JOE THOMAS Plaintiff-Appellant

v. MICHELLE JORDAN, Mississippi Department of Corrections Director of Records Department; WENDY POWER, Mississippi Department ofCorrections Director of Classification Department Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:06-CV-361
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * David Joe Thomas, Mississippi prisoner # 37145, pleaded guilty to burglary and was sentenced to five years in prison. Thomas filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, alleging that the defendants’ failure to classify him as a trusty deprived him of the opportunity to earn 260 days of good time credits. The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 21, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60071

2 concluding that it failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. This appeal followed. In reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e), this court employs the same de novo standard of reviewapplicable to dismissals made pursuant to F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 12(b)(6). H arrisv. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999). The district court’s dismissal was correct. There is no constitutionally protected interest in either a custodial classification or the possibility ofearning good-time credits. N ealsv. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). Thomas’s appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Therefore, we dismiss it as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR
. R. 42.2. Because Thomas was incarcerated at the time he filed his notice of appeal and at the time he filed his suit, the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the dismissal by the district court of Thomas’s suit both count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Thomas is cautioned that he has now accumulated two strikes and that, if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11


                            WINTHROP RESOURCES CORPORATION
                          COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


                                                   THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                      1996              1995   
                                                   ----------        ----------
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Weighted average common shares outstanding. . . .   8,600,300         7,871,525

Effect of dilutive options. . . . . . . . . . . .     300,887             *    
                                                   ----------        ----------
    Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8,901,187         7,871,525
                                                   ----------        ----------
                                                   ----------        ----------

Net earnings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $4,095,841        $3,134,598
                                                   ----------        ----------
                                                   ----------        ----------
Net earnings per common and
 common equivalent share. . . . . . . . . . . . .  $     0.46        $     0.40
                                                   ----------        ----------
                                                   ----------        ----------

FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Weighted average common shares outstanding. . . .   8,600,300         7,871,525

Effect of dilutive options. . . . . . . . . . . .     300,887             *    
                                                   ----------        ----------
    Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8,901,187         7,871,525
                                                   ----------        ----------
                                                   ----------        ----------

Net earnings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $4,095,841        $3,134,598
                                                   ----------        ----------
                                                   ----------        ----------
Net earnings per common and
 common equivalent share. . . . . . . . . . . . .  $     0.46        $     0.40
                                                   ----------        ----------
                                                   ----------        ----------

* Dilution is less than 3%; common equivalent shares are excluded.

                                       16
EXHIBIT 21

                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                                  ------------

                                            Jurisdiction of     Percentage Owned
Subsidiaries                                Incorporation         By Registrant
------------                                -------------         -------------

DCA Medical Services, Inc.                  Florida                   100%
DCA of Central Valdosta, LLC                Georgia                   100%
DCA of Fitzgerald, LLC                      Georgia                   100%
DCA of Homerville, LLC                      Delaware                  100%
DCA of SO. GA., LLC                         Delaware                  100%
DCA of Chevy Chase, LLC                     Maryland                   80%
Dialysis Services of NJ, Inc.-
               Manahawkin                   New Jersey                 80%
DCA of Vineland, LLC                        New Jersey                 51%
DCA of Cincinnati, LLC                      Ohio                       60%
Dialysis Services of PA, Inc. -
               Carlisle                     Pennsylvania               80%
Dialysis Services of PA, Inc. -
               Chambersburg                 Pennsylvania               80%
Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania,
               Inc. - Lemoyne               Pennsylvania              100%
DCA of Mechanicsburg, LLC                   Pennsylvania              100%
Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania,
               Inc. - Wellsboro             Pennsylvania              100%
Renal Services of Pa., Inc.*                Pennsylvania              100%
Dialysis Services of NJ, Inc. -
               Toms River*                  New Jersey                 80%

* inactive.
Cadish 

Pickering 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

MATTHEW TRAVIS HOUSTON, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

MANDALAY BAY CORPORATION, 

D/B/A MANDALAY BAY RESORT & 

CASINO, 

Res ondent. 

No. 85352 

,A.:11 L. 

....'-‘,.... ..o.21 f

SEP 2 2022 

tiPit Ehi F7 COURT 

CLEF6: 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is a pro se appeal. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark 

County; David M. Jones, Judge. 

Review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to 

NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, appellant fails to 

identify any appealable order. Accordingly, this court 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.' 

'Given this dismissal, this court takes no action in regard to the 

document filed by appellant on September 28, 2022. 

The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in this 

matter under a general order of assignment. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(op 19-17A '2_ oo) 
cc: Hon. David M. Jones, District Judge 

Matthew Travis Houston 

Bernstein & Poisson 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IE 1,147,1, 

2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 09, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 09, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21I0211. JESSICA EDENFIELD et al. v. SUSAN BRACK .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

SUCV2019000619
EXHIBIT
#10.19

    


    2008
EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM

    


    An
Executive Incentive Compensation Program ("Program") was implemented in January
of 2003. This Program pays incentives to the members of the Executive Management
team for Camden National Corporation (the "Company"), Camden National Bank and
Acadia Trust N.A. This Program is an integral part of an overall management
strategy that enables the CEO of the Company to encourage executives to reach
the fiscal targets in strategic and operating plans.

    


    The
incentive is based on net income before taxes (NIBT).   The
Program is set up so the incentive pool is added to target NIBT, so the
incentive pool is funded through increasing NIBT above the target
level.  This ensures the shareholders that they receive the results
that were originally planned.  The Program will pay out incrementally
when the named company hits 96% of budgeted NIBT. No incentive is paid if NIBT
does not reach 96%. The incentives increase incrementally up to 110% of NIBT
where it is capped. Each month an updated grid is produced showing current and
projected NIBT results for each company.

    


    Each
executive has a targeted incentive percentage based on that position’s
contribution to the overall results of the Company. An executive must have an
overall satisfactory performance rating on their individual performance and
goals before that executive is eligible to participate in the
Program.  Each executive’s payout will be based 60% on the named
company’s financial results (per the model) and 40% on each individual
executive’s attainment of their own goals as measured by the CEO of the
Company.

    


    After the
Company’s independent registered public accounting firm reviews the year-end
financial results, and the CEO and Compensation Committee have reviewed each
individual’s performance, the incentive amount, if any, will be
distributed.

    


    The
Compensation Committee reserves the right to modify the Executive Incentive
Compensation Program if unexpected anomalies result during the application of
the pre-defined grid.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 24, 2011 

d0516 

Order 

 

May 24, 2011 

139121(22) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139121 

 COA: 291724 

Wexford CC: 04-007370-FH 

CLIFFORD LEE-MARK WILKINSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s February 7, 

2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
#### FINNE et al. v. KONINKLIJKE LUCHT-VAART MAATSCHAPPIJ N. V.

Civ. No. 54-168.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

March 15, 1951.

Jacobson, Feingold & Falussy, New York City (Alfred Feingold, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs.

Condon & Forsyth, New York City (John H. Montgomery, Jr. and Austin P. *337Maguer, New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

S. H. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

This is a motion for an order striking the first cause of action alleged in the amended complaint for failure to plead the foreign law on which plaintiff’s right to recover is based.

The complaint sets forth five causes of action for wrongful death resulting from an'airplane accident at Prestwick Airport, Scotland. The first is brought by plaintiff as administratrix of decedent’s estate. The second is brought by plaintiff in her individual capacity as decedent’s widow. The remaining three are brought by plaintiff as guardian ad litem on behalf of decedent’s three children. In all but the first cause of action it is alleged that under the law of Scotland plaintiff has a cause of action against defendant.

The parties agree that whether or not plaintiff can bring an action as administratrix depends upon the law of the place of the alleged wrong—i. e., Scotland. Since this is foreign law, it must be pleaded. Empresa Agricola Chicama Ltda. v. Amtorg Trading Corp., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1944, 57 F.Supp. 649; see Rowan v. C. I. R., 5 Cir., 1941, 120 F.2d 515, 516; United States v. National City Bank of New York, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1946, 7 F.R.D. 241, 243; 1 Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 253; 2 Moore, Federal Practice 1667 (2d ed. 1948).

Because of uncertainty as to whether under the láw of Scotland the cause of action vests in the administratrix or in the widow and children, plaintiff urges that the motion should be denied without prejudice to renewal at the trial at the close of all th.e proof. Evidently plaintiff thinks she is now being called on to make an election as to the nature of the law of Scotland, and she fears- that all recovery will be barred if the wrong choice is made. Such fears are groundless. Under Rule 8 (e), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A., claims can be made in the alternative and without regard to consistency. If there is any reason to believe that the cause of action vests in the administratrix under the law of Scotland, plaintiff is not barred from so stating.

Motion granted with leave to plaintiff to amend within twenty days after notice of entry of an order herein. Settle order on notice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORM 10-K PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     123
<ALLOWANCES>                                       23
<INVENTORY>                                        79
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  222
<PP&E>                                            559
<DEPRECIATION>                                    508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             274
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (158)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      279
<SALES>                                           834
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  834
<CGS>                                             752
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     752
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  106
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    1
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 39
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (62)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (64)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    70
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        6
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0


</TABLE>