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

CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen B. Waters, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on

Form 10-KSB/A No. 1

 of National Property Investors 8;

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(s) 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 small business issuer 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(s) 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 the 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:  

February 22, 2008

/s/Stephen B. Waters

Stephen B. Waters

Vice President of NPI Equity Investments, Inc., equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership
EXHIBIT 23.2





                            CONSENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL





         We hereby consent to the use, in the Prospectus as outlined in
Securities and Exchange Commission Form S-8, of our name as special tax counsel
to General Communication, Inc. in the preparation of the Prospectus.




                                          HARRIS, MERICLE & WAKAYAMA, P.L.L.C.


                                          /s/


Seattle, Washington

June 23, 2003
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GPS Industries, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 operation of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to GPS Industries, Inc. and
will be retained by GPS Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date: August 18, 2006             By:/s/ ROBERT C. SILZER, SR.
                                     ---------------------------
                                     Robert C. Silzer, Sr.
                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                     (Duly Authorized Officer)
### §2904. Oath; administered without fees

An employee of an Executive agency who is authorized to administer the oath of office required by section 3331 of this title, or any other oath required by law in connection with employment in the executive branch, may not charge or receive a fee or pay for administering the oath.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 412.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 16a(a) (1st 9 words after last comma). | June 26, 1943, ch. 145, §206 (1st 9 words after last comma), 57 Stat. 196. |
| | | Sept. 30, 1961, Pub. L. 87–332 (so much of par. under "General Provision" as inserted "(a)"), 75 Stat. 743. |
| | 5 U.S.C. 20. | Aug. 29, 1890, ch. 820, §1 (2d sentence under "Fourth Auditor's Office"), 26 Stat. 371. |

Statutes at Large

The section is restated to combine former sections 16a(a) (1st 9 words after last comma) and 20. The prohibition is restated in positive form. The words "officer" and "clerk" are omitted as included in "employee". Reference to oaths taken on promotion is omitted as unnecessary.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0353 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2008-SW-029-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
§ 174.2 Applicability. This part applies to: ( a ) The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities in the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the “DoD Components”).
( b ) Installations in the United States selected for closure or realignment under a base closure law.
( c ) Federal agencies and non-Federal entities that seek to obtain real or personal property on installations selected for closure or realignment.
#### ROTHSCHILD, Appellant, v. DREYFUS, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by Victor H. Rothschild against Isaac Dreyfus.

B. Tuska, for appellant.

J. C. Guggenheimer, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 4.1


                       INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
                          COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA



NUMBER                                                                 SHARES
SPECIMEN                                                               SPECIMEN


                                 ALKERMES, INC.
                   2002 Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock

                             3,000 Shares Authorized
                                 $.01 Par Value


THIS CERTIFIES THAT         SPECIMEN              is the registered holder of
_______________________________________________________________ Shares of the
2002 Redeemable Convertible Exchangeable Preferred Stock of ALKERMES, INC.
transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person
or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

         In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to
be signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto
affixed this ______________ day of _______________________, A.D. _______.



____________________________________        ____________________________________
                           Secretary                     Chief Executive Officer

                                     [SEAL]



<PAGE>


              For Value Received, ____________________________ hereby sell,

assign and transfer unto _______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________Shares

represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and

appoint:

__________________________________________________________________ Attorney to

transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full

power of substitution in the premises:

Dated: ______________________

              In presence of ___________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________










NOTICE. THE SIGNATURE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS
WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT
ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
### §2703. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–66, div. C, title XXXI, §3146(g)(3)(A), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 1079

Section, Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLVI, §4603, formerly Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [div. C, title XXXI, §3136], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–458; renumbered Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLVI, §4603, and amended Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(i)(4), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1777, related to employee incentives for employees at closure project facilities.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.4

       AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE ROYAL APPLIANCE MFG. CO. CHANGE IN CONTROL
                           SEVERANCE COMPENSATION PLAN

      This Amendment No. 1 (this "Amendment"), dated as of December 16, 2002, to
the Royal Appliance Mfg. Co. Change In Control Severance Compensation Plan (the
"Plan").

      WHEREAS, the Company proposes to enter into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of December 16, 2002 (as amended, supplemented, modified or
replaced from time to time, the "Merger Agreement"), among Techtronic Industries
Co., Ltd., a Hong Kong corporation ("Parent"), RAMC Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Acquiror"), TIC Acquisition
Corp., an Ohio corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Acquiror ("Merger
Sub"), and the Company;

      WHEREAS, the Board of Director of the Company has determined that the
Merger Agreement and the terms and conditions set forth therein and the
transactions contemplated thereby, including, without limitation, the Merger (as
defined in the Merger Agreement), are advisable and are fair to and in the best
interests of the Company and its shareholders;

      WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has determined, in
connection with its contemplation of the Merger Agreement, that it is necessary
and desirable to amend the Plan;

      WHEREAS, Section 8.2 of the Plan provides that the Company may amend the
Plan by resolution adopted by a majority of the members of the Board of
Directors of the Company;

      WHEREAS, by resolution adopted on December 9, 2002, the Board of Directors
adopted a resolution to amend the Plan in the manner set forth below;

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises Section 8.1 of
the Plan shall be amended to read as follows:

      8.1 Duration: (a) This Plan shall expire on March 31, 2006, unless sooner
terminated as provided in Section 8.2 hereof, or unless extended for an
additional period or periods by resolution adopted by the Board at any time.

            (b) Upon expiration of this Plan, all rights of Participants will
terminate and no Participant will be entitled to any benefit under the Plan as a
result of his or her termination of employment subsequent to March 31, 2006,
regardless of whether or not a Change in Control has occurred on or prior to
March 31, 2006; provided that any Participant who is entitled under Section 4.4
hereof to receive a payment because of his or her termination of employment
prior to March 31, 2006 shall continue to be entitled to receive such payment.



                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Richard G. Vasek, Chief Financial Officer
                                    Royal Appliance Mfg. Co.
#### Herbert W. Pearson and others *vs.*City of Duluth.

May 7, 1889.

N egligence — Evidence.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, *Stearns,*J., presiding, refusing a new trial. The action was to recover damages for the flooding of plaintiffs’ merchandise through the alleged negligence of defendant in maintaining insufficient and improper gutters along the public highway in front of plaintiffs’ premises. Upon the trial the defendant objected and excepted to the admission of evidence of the condition of the gutters at other times than during the particular storms mentioned in the complaint.

*S. L. Smith,*for appellant.

*Allen & Parkhurst,*for respondents.

*By the Court.*

The single exception taken on the trial was without merit, and an examination of the record satisfies ns that the evidence justified the verdict.

Order affirmed.
F3CCCCF3HH
No. 8284.

#### Village of Mt. Gilead *v.*Hayden.

(Decided December 15, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Morrow county.

*Mr. Benjamin Olds,*for plaintiff in error.

*564*Messrs. James, Millard & Powell; Mr. J. E. Ladd*and *Messrs. Harlan & Wood,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
### SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2019—Pub. L. 115–435, title I, §101(a)(1), Jan. 14, 2019, 132 Stat. 5529, inserted subchapter heading.
§ 77.1008 Relocation of drills; safeguards. ( a ) When a drill is being moved from one drilling area to another, drill steel, tools, and other equipment shall be secured and the mast placed in a safe position.
( b ) When a drill helper is used his location shall be made known to the operator at all times when the drill is being moved.
#### Harry Masson, Appellant, v. Irwin P. Sacks, Respondent.

Application by motion to set aside and annul an order, Special Term, Sullivan County, granting summary judgment dismissed.
§ 7.29 Approval marking. ( a ) Approved brattice cloth shall be legibly and permanently marked with the assigned MSHA approval number at intervals not exceeding ten feet. If the nature of the material or method of processing makes such marking impractical, permanent paint or ink may be used to mark the edge with an MSHA-assigned color code.
( b ) Approved ventilation tubing shall be legibly and permanently marked on each section with the assigned MSHA approval number.
( c ) An approved product shall be marketed only under a brand or trade name that has been furnished to MSHA.
#### Emerson J. Cary, Respondent, *v.*The Massachusetts Paper Company, Frank Ryder, Appellant.

(Submitted January 31, 1882;

decided February 28, 1882.)

*Sedgwick, Ames da Kmg*for appellant.

Waters, *MoLennam da Dillceye*for respondent.

Agree to affirm ; no opinion.

All concur..

Order affirmed.
#### TOBIN, Respondent, v. NORTH JERSEY ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 10, 1905.)

Action by Joseph Tobin against the North Jersey Street Railway Company. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed by default, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AT JUNE 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,617
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (260)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,435
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,511
<PP&E>                                          15,553
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,244
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            97
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,495
<SALES>                                          3,846
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,846
<CGS>                                            1,965
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,965
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   961
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,006
<INCOME-TAX>                                        31
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                975
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       975
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack C. Bridges, Executive Vice-President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  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.



/s/ Jack C. BridgesJack C. BridgesExecutive Vice-PresidentMay 17, 2004Date




8
#### State of New York, Respondent-Appellant, v Moses Braunstein et al., Appellants-Respondents.

In an action to recover for the payment of improper claims for Medicaid reimbursement, defendants appeal from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 17, 1978, as (a) ordered them to produce certain documents for examination, (b) ordered Moses Braunstein to appear for an examination before trial, and (c) permitted the plaintiff to serve a new complaint within 15 days after said oral examination and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated June 14, 1978, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination. (Plaintiff has, apparently, abandoned its cross appeal.) Appeal from order dated March 17, 1978 dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order of June 14, 1978. Order dated June 14, 1978, reversed insofar as appealed from without costs or disbursements, and provisions requiring the defendants to produce certain documents for examination and requiring Moses Braunstein to appear for an examination before trial are deleted, with leave to plaintiff to make an application for similar relief, in accordance herewith. In November, 1977, the State of New York served a summons and complaint on appellants and others, charging them jointly and severally with making improper claims for Medicaid reimbursement on HE-2P forms filed by the Oxford Nursing Home during the period 1969 to 1973. Upon motion, Special Term dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as against the appellants for failure to state a cause of action, with leave to serve a new complaint. Also, the court, *sua sponte*(1) ordered appellants to produce all records regarding the relationship between them and the Oxford Nursing Home and (2) ordered Moses Braunstein to appear for oral examination regarding the relationship between the appellants and the Oxford Nursing Home. We find that Special Term’s order of discovery, pursuant to CPLR 3102 (subd [c]), constituted an abuse of discretion. It is well established that in order to obtain an examination to frame a complaint, plaintiff should present facts fairly indicating a cause of action against the adverse party *(Matter of Simpson [Traum],*63 AD2d 583; *L-Tron Corp. v Davco Systems,*60 AD2d 25; *Newell v Makhuli,*50 AD2d 1060; *Matter of Schenley Ind. v Allen,*25 AD2d 742). Such an examination will not be allowed where what is sought is to ascertain whether facts supporting a cause of action exist *(Matter of Simpson [Traum], supra).*Accordingly, plaintiff can only obtain the discovery in question upon a showing that it has sufficient information to frame a complaint against the appellants. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.