alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2  Certification Pursuant to pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended  I, Hui Lin, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AIDA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (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 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. As the registrant's certifying officer, I am 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 I 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 my 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 period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the  registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  5. As the registrant's certifying officer, I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of 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.   /s/ Hui Lin Hui Lin Chief Financial Officer  Date:  November 14, 2007
### §14702. Nondiscrimination

An individual in the United States shall not, because of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance under this subtitle.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1278.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 14702 | 40 App.:223 note. | Pub. L. 92–65, title II, §214, Aug. 5, 1971, 85 Stat. 173. |

Section
#### § 971.210 Determination whether application is complete for further processing.

Upon receipt of an application, the Administrator will review it to determine whether it includes information specifically identifiable with and fully responsive to each requirement in § 971.201 through § 971.209. The Administrator will notify the applicant whether the application is complete within 60 days after it is received. The notice will identify, if applicable, in what respects the application is not complete, and will specify the information which the applicant must submit in order to make it complete, why the additional information is necessary, and a reasonable date by which the application must be completed. Application processing will not begin until the Administrator determines that the application is complete.
### Part D—Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas
### **[CHAPTER 3—REPEALED]**
#### In the Matter of the Application and Petition of Seth Low and Others, Constituting the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners, etc., for the Appointment of Commissioners of Appraisal, etc.

Motionto require acceptance of the notice of appeal dated April 8, 1915, on behalf of the Public Service Commission granted, without costs. Present—Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
#### Philip Schneider, Appellant, v. New York and Long Island Traction Company, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton, Mills and Rich, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ProUroCareMedical Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Richard C. Carlson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, RichardB. Thon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of ourknowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that:

 

(1)           the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperation of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Richard C. Carlson  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Richard C. Carlson      |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
| November 13, 2009  |   |
|                    |   |
|                    |   |
| /s/ Richard B. Thon     |   |
| Richard B. Thon         |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| November 13, 2009  |   |
|                    |   |

 

----
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 on Form 10-Q of Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the "Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Michael J. OHanlon, as Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, Steven P. Grimes, as Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company and James W. Kleifges as Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge: (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. /s/ Michael J. OHanlonName:Michael J. OHanlonChief Executive Officer and PresidentDate:May 13, 2009/s/ Steven P. GrimesName:Steven P. GrimesChief Operating Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDate:May 13, 2009/s/ James W. KleifgesName:James W. KleifgesChief Accounting OfficerDate:May 13, 2009
### SUBCHAPTER XV—HEALTH INFORMATION AND HEALTH PROMOTION
#### Amar S. Daulat, Appellant, v Helms Bros., Inc., Respondent.

[819 NYS2d 557]

*411In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated July 15, 2005, which denied his motion, in effect, to vacate an order of the same court dated November 4, 2004, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim upon his failure to oppose the motion.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing on the issue of whether the plaintiff was properly served with the defendant’s motion, and a new determination of the plaintiffs motion to vacate thereafter.

The failure to provide proper service of a motion is a sufficient and complete excuse for a default on a motion and deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion *(see Bianco v LiGreci,*298 AD2d 482 [2002]; *Welch v State of New York,*261 AD2d 537 [1999]; *Golden v Golden,*128 AD2d 672 [1987]; *Adames v New York City Tr. Auth.,*126 AD2d 462 [1987]). The parties submitted conflicting evidence with respect to the issue of whether the plaintiff received the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, a hearing on that issue is necessary *(see LPN Consulting Corp. v Hamm,*202 AD2d 479 [1994]; *Adames v New York City Tr. Auth., supra; Sport-O-Rama Health & Fitness Ctr. v Centennial Leasing Corp.,*100 AD2d 584 [1984]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Luciano, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ, concur.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 28, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1412

Lower Tribunal No. F04-22267

________________

Cordero Otistroy Blair,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge.

Cordero Otistroy Blair, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The undersigned  executive officers of the Registrant hereby certify to the
best of their  knowledge  that  this  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB  for the
quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the "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 the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



Date: August 8, 2006               By:  /s/ William M. Tandy
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name: William M. Tandy
                                        Title:Chief Executive Officer




Date: August 8, 2006               By:  /s/ Michael D. Wortham
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name: Michael D. Wortham
                                        Title:Chief Financial Officer
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-14-0046 - Fifth 6-Month Status Update on Response to Lessons Learned From Japan's March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami

Accession Number: ML14064A520

Date Released: Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML14064A523 - SECY-14-0046 - Fifth 6-Month Status Update on Response to Lessons Learned From Japan's March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami (6 page(s), 4/17/2014)
    - ML14064A529 - SECY-14-0046 - Enclosure 1 - Update on Tier 1 Activities (12 page(s), 4/17/2014)
    - ML14064A531 - SECY-14-0046 - Enclosure 2 - Update on Tier 2 Activities (2 page(s), 4/17/2014)
    - ML14064A535 - SECY-14-0046 - Enclosure 3 - Update on Tier 3 Activities (6 page(s), 4/17/2014)
    - ML14064A538 - SECY-14-0046 - Enclosure 4 - Update on Activities Not Within a Tier (5 page(s), 4/17/2014)
    - ML14064A539 - SECY-14-0046 - Enclosure 5 - Charter for the Japan Lessons Learned Steering Committee (3 page(s), 4/17/2014)
    - ML14064A544 - SECY-14-0046 - Enclosure 6 - Proposal to Consolidate Post-Fukushima Rulemaking Activities (6 page(s), 4/17/2014)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
No. I-09-032 

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331 

June 9, 2009 

E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

NRC BEGINS SPECIAL INSPECTION AT GINNA NUCLEAR PLANT 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has dispatched a special inspection team to the R.E. 

Ginna nuclear power plant in Ontario, N.Y. The four-member team will look into recent failures 

of the turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump. 

 The auxiliary feedwater system is a backup system that provides water to the steam 

generators. In the event of an accident, it is one of multiple methods designed to remove heat 

from the reactor when it is shutdown. 

 On May 26th, the auxiliary feedwater pump tripped, or automatically shut down, while 

workers were performing a routine quarterly test of the pump. Workers repeated the test several 

hours later with the pump tripping again. Constellation Energy, which operates the plant, 

conducted extensive troubleshooting. The company did identify and correct a number of issues 

with the system, but did not find the definitive cause of the trips. The system has since been 

successfully tested and declared operable. 

 “Although public health and safety was not at risk, it is important for us to understand the 

problems with the auxiliary feedwater pump,” said Regional Administrator Samuel J. Collins. 

“Our special inspection team is also tasked with reviewing the company’s corrective actions to 

re-establish the reliability of the pump.” 

 The NRC is conducting a special inspection because the turbine-driven auxiliary 

feedwater pump had also failed during a quarterly test on December 2, 2008. That failure was 

attributed to a stuck linkage in the system that controls turbine speed. An independent review by 

NRC inspectors found that the company had not adequately implemented its maintenance 

program. Yesterday (June 8), the NRC cited the company for a violation of NRC requirements 

for the December 2 failure. The NRC also assessed the significance of the issue and determined 

it to be “white,” or of low to moderate safety significance. The agency plans to conduct a 

separate supplemental inspection to verify the adequacy of the company’s corrective actions 

associated with the December 2 failure. 

 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region I 

475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov
The NRC will issue a report within 45 days of the completion of the special inspection. 

### 

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Scientific Research Corporation ) ) Under Contract Nos. N00014-05-C-0080 ) FA9453-05-C-O 177 ) DAAB07-03-C-K615 ) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59745

Thomas A. Lemmer, Esq. Kelly P. Garehime, Esq.

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP Denver, CO E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Douglas R. Jacobson, Esq.

Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Bloomington, MN ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 28 May 2015
/" MARK N. STEMPLER Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59745, Appeal ofScientific Research Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
CL I

NI QUE LAB ORATORI ES, I NC., Plaintiff,
v. TH E U NI TE D ST AT ES, De fe nd ant. SLIP OP . 07-27 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Be fore : CARM AN , J u d ge Court No. 94-00284 (c onsolidated)

JUDG MENT The Court, on its own motion, having c onsidered the ag e of the prese nt liti g ation and that the par ties first repr esente d to it that they would file a stipulation a judg ment for some or all of the e ntr ie s invo lve d in

thi s li tig atio n n o late r t

ha n M ay 24 , 2 00 6, wh ic h d e a dli ne wa s e xten de d to August 30, 2006; the parties havingbeen or dere d to file such stipulation of judgme nt no later tha n O c tob e r 3 0, 20 06 ; th e pa rt ie s h avin g no t c omp lie d w iththi s Co ur t’ s o rd e r; the la st communication from the pa rties havingbeen D ece mber 14, 2006; and the parties having g iven no ind ic atio n to thi s Co ur

t th at th e y int e nd to p ro c e e d w iththi s c a se in t he re g ula r c ours e ; it

is here by ORDERED that pursuant to USCI T Rule 41(b)( 3) this case is dismi ssed, without prejudice ; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a motion to reinstate this ca se no later than Marc h 23, 2007. /s/ Greg ory W. C arma

n Gre g ory W. C arma

n Dated: Fe bruar

y 27, 2007 New Y ork, Ne w York
Exhibit 10.2



 





EXHIBIT 10.2




AMENDMENT TO CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This FIRST AMENDMENT TO CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”),
dated as of July 31, 2007, is between La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company, a Delaware corporation, with
its principal place of business located at 6455 Nancy Ridge Drive, San Diego, California 92121 (the
“Employer”), and Deirdre Y. Gillespie (the “Employee”).




	WHEREAS, the Employee is currently employed as President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Employer under a Chief Executive Officer Employment Agreement dated as of March 15, 2006 (the
“Agreement”); and	 	 
	 
	WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Employer, pursuant to Board approval on
July 26, 2007, has authorized an increase in the lump sum severance payment that Employee is
entitled to receive upon Employer’s termination of Employee’s employment without Cause or upon
Employee’s termination of employment due to a Constructive Termination, and the parties hereto
consider it appropriate that the Agreement be amended to reflect such arrangements;	 	 
	 
	NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the Employer and the
Employee agree to the following amendment to the Agreement. Capitalized terms used in this
Amendment that are not otherwise defined shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement, provided
that the terms “Employer” and the “Company” shall be used interchangeably in the Agreement and this
Amendment.	 	 
	 
	1. Amendment. Section 5.3 (b) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following:	 	 





          Severance Payment. In the event the Company terminates Executive’s employment without
Cause or if Executive terminates her employment due to a Constructive Termination, and provided
that Executive timely executes and delivers a Release Agreement to the Company, Executive shall be
entitled to a lump sum severance payment equal to one and one-half times Executive’s then current
annual base salary (the “Standard Severance Payment”).



2. No Other Amendment. Except as otherwise set forth herein, the Agreement shall not be
otherwise amended and remains in full force and effect.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer and Employee have executed this Amendment as of the day set
forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	LA JOLLA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Craig R. Smith
 	 
	 	 	Craig R. Smith 	 
	 	 	Chairman of the Board of Directors 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE

 	 
	 	 	/s/ Deirdre Y. Gillespie
 	 
	 	 	Deirdre Y. Gillespie
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2382
TERRY A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusEQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; TOGO D. WEST, JR., Secretary of the Army, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1109-2) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Anita K. Henry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing Appellant's employment discrimination suit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. EEOC , No. CA-95-1109-2 (E.D. Va. July 29, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
### SUBCHAPTER IV—ADMINISTRATION AND COORDINATION
### Part B—Missing Children Procedures in Public Buildings

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Part was enacted as part of the Code Adam Act of 2003 and also as part of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003, also know as the PROTECT Act, and not as part of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 which comprises this chapter.
### Part B—Incentives for the Use of Health Information Technology
(October 5, 1951.)

#### Joseph C. Parlato et al., Doing Business under the Name of Parlato Real Estate, Respondents, v. Albert L. Brinkman et al., Doing Business under the Name of Brinkman Bros., Appellants.

Memorandum: The terms on which the seller listed the property for sale with the plaintiffs were not accepted by the proposed purchaser. The seller was not obliged to accept any different terms or to negotiate on any new terms. All concur, Me Cum and Vaughan, JJ., in result only, in the following memorandum: The complaint and bill of particulars when read together do not show that the plaintiff produced a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy on the defendants’ terms. Obviously the listing set forth in the bill of particulars does not include the complete terms. Essential terms remained therefore for later determination. (See *Arnold*v. *Schmeidler,*144 App. Div. 420; *House*v. *Hornburg,*267 App. Div. 557.) (Appeal from an order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Wheeler, JJ.