alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.a

906 CERTIFICATION OF 20-F REPORT

OF

KIMBER RESOURCES INC

FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2008



In connection with the annual report of Kimber Resources Inc. on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2008 (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code: 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 Kimber Resources Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification is executed as of September 26, 2008.





| |                                                                      
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Gordon Cummings
________________________________                 
| | Gordon Cummings
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)





| |                                                                                   
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Lyn B. Davies
________________________________                                
| | Lyn B. Davies
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
#### § 891.695 Operating cost standards.

The requirements for the operating cost standards are provided in § 891.150.
EX-10.2


  Exhibit 10.2

  AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO LYRA THERAPEUTICS, INC.

  2022 EMPLOYMENT INDUCEMENT AWARD PLAN

   

  THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE LYRA THERAPEUTICS, INC. 2022 EMPLOYMENT

   

  INDUCEMENT AWARD PLAN (this “Amendment”) is made and adopted by Lyra Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan (as defined below).

  WHEREAS, the Company has adopted the Lyra Therapeutics, Inc. 2022 Employment Inducement Award Plan (the “Plan”).

  WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan as set forth below.

   

  NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Company hereby amends the Plan as follows:

  1.Section 11.28 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:


   

  11.28 “Overall Share Limit” means 1,813,002 Shares.

   

  2.This Amendment is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the Plan. All other terms of the Plan shall remain unchanged except as specifically modified herein. The Plan, as amended by this Amendment, is hereby ratified and confirmed.


   

   

  ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS: September 10, 2022
### §31309. General civil penalty

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person violating this chapter or a regulation prescribed under this chapter is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000.

(Pub. L. 100–710, title I, §102(c), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4741.)

| Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
| --- | --- |
| 31309 | New |

Section 31309 provides for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for a violation of this chapter or a regulation prescribed under this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1989, with certain exceptions and qualifications, see section 107 of Pub. L. 100–710, set out as a note under section 31301 of this title.
#### § 891.833 Monitoring and review.

HUD shall monitor and review the development during the construction and operational phases in accordance with the requirements that HUD prescribes. In order for units assisted under the 202 and 811 programs to continue to receive project rental assistance, they must be operated in accordance with all contractual agreements among the parties and other HUD regulations and requirements. It is the responsibility of the mixed-finance owner and Nonprofit Organization to ensure compliance with the preceding sentence.
#### § 902.111 Sanctions for troubled small rural PHAs.

The sanctions for small rural PHAs with troubled public housing programs that remain troubled as required by § 902.108 will be the same as those sanctions for PHAs assessed under PHAS as described in § 902.83.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONCEPTUS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HOLOGIC, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-02280 WHA

NOTICE REGARDING 

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

TUTORIAL AND HEARING

Due to an ongoing trial, the claim construction tutorial has been rescheduled. The tutorial

will now occur at the same time as the claim construction hearing at 1:30 P.M. ON MARCH 10.

Each side will have a total of one hour and ten minutes to present the tutorial and argue proposed

constructions. For example, each side may allocate 20 of its minutes to the tutorial and 50 of its

minutes to oral argument. The parties, however, shall coordinate with each other so that both

sides have equal time for the tutorial and argument. Notice is being given now so that

presentations (if any) may be adjusted accordingly to fit these time constraints.

Dated: March 2, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02280-WHA Document 167 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 599.201 Initiation of application process. ( a ) *Federal Register notice.* To initiate the nomination process for Renewal Communities, HUD will publish a notice inviting applications for the designation of Renewal Communities in the Federal Register.
( b ) *Contents.* The notice inviting applications will include specific information as to due dates and submission requirements.
Editorial Note on Part 30
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 30 appear at 87 FR 8197, Feb. 14, 2022.

§ 30.50 GNMA issuers and custodians. ( a ) *General.* The President of GNMA, or his or her designee, may initiate a civil money penalty action against a GNMA issuer or custodian that knowingly and materially violates any provision of 12 U.S.C. 1723i(b), title III of the National Housing Act, or any implementing regulation, handbook, guaranty agreement, or contractual agreement, or participant letter issued by GNMA, or fails to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement with GNMA.
( b ) *Continuing violation.* Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate violation.
( c ) *Amount of penalty.* The maximum penalty is $12,249 for each violation, up to a limit of $2,449,575 during any one-year period. Each violation shall constitute a separate violation with respect to each pool of mortgages.
[61 FR 50215, Sept. 24, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 12788, Mar. 17, 2003; 72 FR 5588, Feb. 6, 2007; 78 FR 4059, Jan. 18, 2013; 81 FR 38935, June 15, 2016; 82 FR 24524, May 30, 2017; 83 FR 32793, July 16, 2018; 84 FR 9453, Mar. 15, 2019; 85 FR 13044, Mar. 6, 2020; 86 FR 14373, Mar. 16, 2021; 87 FR 24420, Apr. 26, 2022; 88 FR 9748, Feb. 15, 2023; 89 FR 13616, Feb. 23, 2024]
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 24 - 0096

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOHN D RUNKLE,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to John D Runkle, to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Matthew J . Cuffe , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 24 2024

07/24/2024
Case Number: DA 24-0096
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 5, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40789 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
ALEJANDRO DEL BOSQUE,
Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(M-02-CR-842-1)

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Alejandro Del Bosque appeals his

conviction on his guilty plea to a charge of possession with intent

to distribute approximately two kilograms of cocaine. The district

court sentenced Del Bosque to sixty mont hs imprisonment and four
years supervised release.

Del Bosque asserts that the district court’s failure to inform

him at F ED
. R. C RIM
. P. 11 colloquy th at he was subject to a

statutory minimum senten ce was plain error that affected his2

substantial rights. He argues that we should vacate his plea
because the error is of constitutional magnitude and rendered his
plea invalid.

Del Bosque’s Rule 11 challenge is raised for the first time on
appeal and is subject to r eview for plain error only. U nited

States v. Vonn , 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002)

. Accordingly, he must show:
(1) an error, (2) that is clear and obvious, and (3) that affects

his substantial rights. U nited States v. Reyes , 300 F.3d 555, 558
(5th Cir. 2002). Even if these factors are established, however,

we will not correct the forfeited error unless, in our discretion,

we conclude that “the error seriously affects t he fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

Rule 11(b)(1)(I), F ED
. R. C RIM
. P., requires the district court

to advise a defendant of the mandatory minimum penalty provided by

law. We have held previously that an omission during the F E D
. R.

C RIM
. P. 11 colloqu y of the applicable mandatory minimum sentence
may constitute reversible error. See United States v. Still , 102

F.3d 118, 122 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Watch , 7 F.3d 422,
429 (5th Cir. 1993). Such an omission does not, however, require

automatic reversal. S ee , e.g. , United States v. Johnson , 1 F.3d

296, 303-04 (5th Cir. 1993) ( en banc ). The determination is a fact
sensitive inquiry. See Johnson , 1 F.3d at 303 n.31.

Under the cir cumstances presented in the instant case, the

distr ict court’s omission does not warrant reversal. Del Bosque

has not sho wn that the error “ s eriously affects the fairness,3

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Reyes , 300 F.3d at 558. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court
is, in all respects,

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001021444
<NAME>                        THINKING TOOLS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5
<PP&E>                                         23
<DEPRECIATION>                                 21
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1268
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1254)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   24
<SALES>                                        82
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               82
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             238
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (551)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (551)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (551)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.12)



</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

ERSKINE & TULLEY

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

MICHAEL J. CARROLL (St. Bar #50246)

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 303

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 392-5431

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SHEET METAL

WORKERS, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

 

vs. 

SOUTH CITY REFRIGERATION, etc., 

Defendant. 

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. C 09 2311 CRB

ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

IT IS ORDERED that the Case Management Conference in this

case set for June 25, 2010 be continued to August 13, 2010 at 8:30

a.m. in Courtroom No. 8, 19rd Floor, San Francisco, CA. 

Dated:_________________ 

 _______________________________

 Honorable Charles R. Breyer

June 21, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:09-cv-02311-CRB Document 42 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMTo the Board of DirectorsMDwerks, Inc.

We hereby consent to the use in Form 10KSB of our report dated January 25, 2006, except for the second paragraph in Note 6 to the consolidated financial statements, as to which the date is February 1, 2006 and the fifteenth paragraph of Note 6 to the consolidated financial statements, as to which the date is February 13, 2006 on the consolidated financial statements of MDwerks, Inc. and Subsidiaries which appear in the December 31, 2006 Annual Report of MDwerks, Inc. and Subsidiaries.

/s/ Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP

GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLPNew York, New York March 21, 2007

----
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2009\2220\Judgment.wpd

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIE MEAUNRIT,

Plaintiff,

    v.

CONAGRA FOODS INC.,Defendants.

                                                                      /

No. C 09-2220 CRB

JUDGMENT

The Court, having granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, enters judgment in favor

of Defendant against Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02220-CRB   Document 58   Filed 07/22/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-09T03:56:55-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3114 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3114

           To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 2005

   Mr. Kirk introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on certain flags.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN FLAGS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.09.56      Flags, whether or   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         not put up in                                                      31/2008
                         sets, put up for
                         mail order retail
                         sale, and each
                         weighing not over
                         1.36 kg together
                         with their retail
                         packaging
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         6307.90.98)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ronald W. Tompkins, an Infant, by Alvah J. Tompkins, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, v. Kenneth R. Leitz, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiffs appeal from a resettled order of the City Court of Yonkers, dated April 29, 1960, which upon reargument denies their motion: (1) to strike as sham and frivolous certain denials contained in the defendant’s answer; and (2) to strike out as insufficient in law three affirmative defenses, the last of which is also labeled a counterclaim. Order modified by striking out from the decretal paragraph the provision denying the motion and by substituting therefor: (1) a provision granting the motion as to the third separate defense and counterclaim; (2) a provision denying the motion in. all other respects; and- (3) a provision granting leave to defendant, if so advised, to serve an amended answer.-' As so modified, *801order affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs. Defendant may serve his amended answer within 20 days after service of a copy of the order entered hereon. In our opinion, as it presently stands the third defense and counterclaim is insufficient in law (Civ. Prae. Act, §§ 61, 241, 261, 266), in that it fails properly to set forth new matter or an independent claim or cause of action for money damages based upon any legally cognizable ground. Beldock, Acting P. J., Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joshaway Jackson, Appellant.

— Motion granted to prosecute appeal on original papers and five handwritten copies of brief. Application for counsel denied, (See *People*v. *Breslin,*4 N Y 2d 73.)
#### James C. Heaney, Respondent, v. Edward J. Desmond et al., Doing Business as Desmond *&*Drury, Appellants.

Motion to dismiss appeal brought by notice of motion dated August 23, 1960 and motion made by further notice dated September 2, 1960 to enjoin appellants from arguing appeal are both denied, records and briefs having been filed, and, by oral direction of the court, the ease having been added to the calendar, argued and decided.
§ 3286.507 Verifying installation. ( a ) *Verification by inspector.* When an inspector is satisfied that the manufactured home has been installed in accordance with the requirements of this part, the inspector must provide verification of the installation in writing and return the evidence of such verification to the installer.
( b ) *Certification by installer.* ( 1 ) Once an installation has been inspected and verified, the installer is permitted to certify the installation as provided in § 3286.111. The installer must provide a signed copy of the certification to: ( i ) The retailer that contracted with the purchaser for the sale of the home;
( ii ) The purchaser; and
( iii ) Any other person that contracted to obtain the services of the installer for the installation work on the home.
( 2 ) The installer must retain records in accordance with § 3286.413.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Richard V. Secord, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Computerized Thermal
Imaging, Inc. ("CTI");

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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and;

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 15, 2004

/s/ Richard V. Secord
-------------------------
Richard V. Secord
Acting Financial Officer