alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2

MANAGEMENT'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING

Management of Sasol is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in
Rule 13a-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under Section 404 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, management is required to assess the effectiveness of the
Company's internal control over financial reporting as of the end of each fiscal year and report, based on that assessment, whether the Company's internal control over financial reporting is
effective.

Sasol's
internal control over financial reporting is a process designed under the supervision of the chief executive and chief financial officer to provide reasonable assurance as to the
reliability of Sasol's financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Internal
control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of our assets; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in
accordance with generally accepted accounting practice, and that receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorisations of our management and directors; and
(iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorised acquisition, use or disposition of assets that could have a material effect on the financial
statements.

Because
of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can
provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.

Management
assessed the effectiveness of Sasol's internal control over financial reporting as of 30 June 2010. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by
the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in "Internal ControlIntegrated Framework". Based on our assessment, we believe that, as of 30 June 2010,
Sasol's internal control over financial reporting was effective.

KPMG Inc.,
an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an opinion on the effectiveness of Sasol's internal control over financial reporting as stated in their
report which appears herein.

Date: 28 September 2010By:

/s/ LAWRENCE PATRICK ADRIAN DAVIESLawrence Patrick Adrian Davies Chief ExecutiveDate: 28 September 2010By:

/s/ KANDIMATHIE CHRISTINE RAMONKandimathie Christine Ramon Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 1626 New York
Associates Limited Partnership and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                          DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                  9,531,000  <F1>
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           1,499,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                             (748,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                0
<PP&E>                                                265,935,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (130,617,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        163,647,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           0
<BONDS>                                               276,302,000  <F2>
<COMMON>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                           (123,782,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          163,647,000
<SALES>                                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       44,826,000
<CGS>                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          37,556,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     25,756,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (19,128,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (19,128,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        14,419,000
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (4,709,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           (5,739.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (5,739.55)
<FN>
<F1> Cash includes $9,406,000 of restricted cash.
<F2> Includes $256,171,000 to a related party.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
§ 516.20 Habeas Corpus. ( a ) *General.* A soldier may file a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his continued custody (usually in a post court-martial situation) or retention in the Army. As is the case with injunctive relief in the preceding paragraph, installation SJAs and legal advisers must take immediate action.
( b ) *Notification to Litigation Division and U.S. Attorney.* The SJA or legal adviser will notify Litigation Division and the responsible U.S. Attorney's Office immediately upon learning that a petition for writ of habeas corpus has been filed. All relevant documentary evidence supporting the challenged action should be assembled immediately.
( c ) *Procedures in habeas corpus.* Upon the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court will dismiss the petition, issue the writ, or order the respondent to show cause why it should not be granted. If a writ or order to show cause is issued, the SJA or legal adviser should be prepared to assist the responsible Litigation Division or DOJ attorney in preparing a return and answer. If so directed, the SJA will also prepare a memorandum of points and authorities to accompany the return and answer. The government's response should cover the following: whether the Army has custody of petitioner; whether respondent and petitioner are within the judicial district; and, whether appellate or administrative remedies have been exhausted.
( d ) *Writs or orders issued by state courts.* No state court, after being judicially informed that a petitioner is in custody under the authority of the United States, should interfere with that custody or require that petitioner be brought before the state court. A deserter, apprehended by any civil officer having authority to apprehend offenders under the laws of the United States or of any state, district, territory, or possession of the United States, is in custody by authority of the United States. If a writ of habeas corpus is issued by a state court, the SJA or legal adviser will seek guidance from Litigation Division.
( e ) *Foreign court orders.* A foreign court should not inquire into the legality of restraint of a person held by U.S. military authority. If a foreign court issues any process in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus, the SJA or legal adviser will immediately report the matter to the appropriate U.S. forces commander and to Litigation Division.
#### § 1662.17 U.S. District Court action.

If the Director of Selective Service, upon review, affirms the denial of the Chief FOIA Officer's determination of items specified in § 1662.9(a), requesters may ask a U.S. District Court to review that denial. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B).
### SUBCHAPTER II—PRODUCTION FLEXIBILITY CONTRACTS
#### Verna Frick, as Administratrix of the Estate of Gerald R. Frick, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*Nancy L. Horton, as Administratrix of the Estate of Murray R. Horton, Deceased, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Third Department,

May 27, 1964.

*213
      *Grasper & Kirsch (Vincent F. Kirsch*of counsel), for appellant.

*O’Connell, McEwan S Du Pre (Thomas E. DuPre*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The defendant administratrix appeals from the denial of her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to her on the ground that the action, which is to recover damages for decedent’s death, occurring in the course of his employment through the alleged negligence of movant’s intestate, his fellow employee, is barred by section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law.

It has been adjudicated that decedent’s death was an industrial accident and his widow and minor child, as dependents, have been given a workmen’s compensation award. *(Matter of Frick*v. *Rouse Constr. Corp.,*19 A D 2d 685.) Subdivision 6 of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, provides that, had he lived, plaintiff’s intestate could not have sued his coemployee for injuries arising in and out of the course of employment. Section 130 of the Decedent Estate Law, pursuant to which this action is brought, gives the decedent’s representative the right to sue only such parties as the decedent could have sued had he lived. Since decedent could not have sued his coemployee, an action brought for the benefit of his next of kin may not be maintained under the express wording of section 130 of the Decedent Estate Law.

The same result would follow if, without reference to section 130, we were to consider only the fabric of the Workmen’s Compensation Law itself. In substituting certainty of compensation for the hazards of litigation of work-connected injuries, it is too clear to require discussion that the act was intended to comprehend and govern *all*the interacting relations of employee, follow employee and employer. (Cf. *Naso*v. *Lafata,*4 N Y 2d 585, 591; *Rauch*v. *Jones,*4 A D 2d 572, 575, affd. 4 N Y 2d 592.) It is inconceivable that the Legislature intended to deprive a coemployee such as appellant’s intestate of his common-law rights, in the event he should sustain an industrial accident, while leaving him exposed to suit and damage, however limited the basis, at the *214behest of the legal representative of a fellow employee injured in the very same accident.

To the extent that the decisions in *Van Wormer*v. *Arnold*(255 App. Div. 233) and *Lundeby*v. *Doty*(256 App. Div. 1105) may afford authority to the contrary, we are unable to follow them.

The order should be reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion granted.

Gtbson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Atjlisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to appellant granted, without costs.
January 10, 2011

Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1-Infected Adults and Adolescents Page 14 

Table 9a. Trough Concentrations of Antiretroviral Drugs for Patients Who Have Drug-

 Susceptible Virus (Updated January 10, 2011)

Drug Concentration (ng/mL)

Suggested minimum target trough concentrations in patients with HIV-1 susceptible to the ARV drugs [2-9]

Fosamprenavir (FPV)

400

(measured as amprenavir concentration)

Atazanavir (ATV) 150

Indinavir (IDV) 100

Lopinavir (LPV) 1,000

Nelfinavir1 (NFV) 800

Saquinavir (SQV) 100–250

Efavirenz (EFV) 1,000

Nevirapine (NVP) 3,000

1

Measurable active (M8) metabolite

Table 9b. Trough Concentrations of Antiretroviral Drugs for Treatment-Experienced 

 Patients with Virologic Failure (Updated January 10, 2011)

Drug Concentration (ng/mL)

Suggested minimum target trough concentrations for ART-experienced patients who have resistant HIV-1 

strains 

Maraviroc (MVC) >50

Tipranavir (TPV) 20,500

Median (Range) Trough Concentrations from Clinical Trials [12-14]

Darunavir (DRV) (600 mg twice daily) 3,300 (1,255–7,368)

Etravirine (ETR) 275 (81–2,980)

Raltegravir (RAL) 72 (29–118)
Phantom Pre-Flight Checklist

Prior to flight

 Ensure area/zone of intended flight path is clear of other aerial traffic

 Ensure area/zone of intended flightpath is clear of any electrical/power lines

 Ensure atmospheric conditions are optimal for safe operation of UAS

Pre-Flight checklist

 Visual inspection for defects

 Batteries fully charged and checked-transmitter, UAS, IPhone, approved/compatible

 Props tightened and locked

 SD card in camera

 Lens cap removed

 Antennae up and parallel

 Transmitter turned on

 WII FI turned on

 UAS Turned on

 DJI Pilot app turned on, no other apps running

 Calibrate compass

 Wait for minimum reception of seven satellites

 Verify home point established

 Area clear of people/obstructions

Flight Check list

 Hover close for 20 seconds. Look/listen for defects

 Confirm expected stick operation

 Monitor battery power

 Monitor signal strength

 Verify satellite reception/minimum seven

 Keep line of sight with UAS at all times
#### State of Minnesota, *ex rel.*Uriah Williams and others, *vs.*A. R. Holman, Justice of the Peace.

April 17, 1889.

Vacation of Highway — Appeal.—The rule in *Schuster*v. *Town of Le~ mond,*27 Minn. 253, and *State*v. *Barton,*36 Minn. 145, that one not specially affected by the vacation of a highway cannot appeal from the proceedings of the supervisors vacating it, followed and applied. Proceedings on such appeal set aside.

*Certiorari,*to review the action of a jury summoned by the respondent, a justice of the peace, reversing an order of the relators, supervisors of the town of Sumner, in Fillmore county, discontinuing a highway, the appeal from such order having been taken by John D. Gregory. The supervisors moved before the justice for a dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the appellant had no interest in the highway, and was not aggrieved by the order, which motion was denied, and they excepted.

*Chas. C. Willson,*for relators.

*H. B. Wells,*for respondent.

Gilfillan, C. J.

So far as relates to the right to appeal from the action of the supervisors discontinuing the road to a justice of the peace and a jury, the case is not essentially different from that of *State*v. *Barton,*36 Minn. 145, (30 N. W. Rep. 454.) In that case the party appealing was a farmer, and the change in the road made the distance to the city, where he marketed the proceeds of his farm, *370half a mile greater than before, and the new road was, from the character of its soil, and other conditions, much more difficult to travel than the old one. In this case the party appealing owned a hotel near the end of the road sought to be vacated, and the vacation makes the distance to be travelled somewhat greater from his hotel to a point at the other end of the vacated road, on the road running from Bochester to. Spring Valley, so that any one going to or from his hotel, or past it, to or from the country north or west of it from or to any point on said last-mentioned road south of the point at which the vacated road intersected it, had further to go, and had also to use a road not so good as that vacated. From this he claims that the change in the road will decrease the value of his property, and injure him in the business of his hotel. The disadvantages to him from the change are such in kind, though they may be greater in degree, as are common to all having occasion to pass between the country north and west of him and the Bochester and Spring Valley road by means of the new road. They are not special or peculiar to him, and, under the rule laid down in *Schuster*v. *Town of Lemond,*27 Minn. 253, (6 N. W. Rep. 802,) and followed in the *Barton Case,*they do not give him the right to appeal from the proceedings of the supervisors. The proceedings before the justice must be set aside. Let judgment be entered accordingly.

Note. So much of the judgment entered in accordance with the opinion, as, awarded costs against the respondent, was vacated by subsequent order of the court.
#### In the Matter of Curtis McRae, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 824]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated December 28, 2004, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J), dated September 6, 2005, which granted the respondent’s motion, in effect, pursuant to, inter alia, CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the proceeding and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. A proceeding to vacate an arbitration award must be commenced within 90 days of receipt of the arbitrators’ determination *(see*CPLR 7511 [a]). Here, the petitioner’s union received a copy of the arbitrator’s determination, at the latest, on December 30, 2004, the operative date from which to measure the 90-day statute of limitations *(see Matter of Case v Monroe Community Coll.,*89 NY2d 438, 441-442 [1997]; *Matter of Pender v New York State Off. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities,*27 AD3d 756, 757 [2006]). This proceeding, however, was commenced by the filing of a petition on or about April 25, 2005. Therefore, the proceeding was untimely commenced *(see Matter of Pender v New York State Off. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities, supra; Matter of Rodriguez v New York City Tr. Auth.,*269 AD2d 600, 601 [2000]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the petitioner’s *862remaining contentions. Crane, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Dillon, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
TIMBERLINE SOFTWARE CORPORATION'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ITS ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,128,703
<SECURITIES>                                 1,447,521
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,872,353
<ALLOWANCES>                                   178,674
<INVENTORY>                                    308,751
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,641,038
<PP&E>                                       7,236,600
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,969,984
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,042,227
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,316,286
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       364,368
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,550,449
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,042,227
<SALES>                                     14,983,122
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,659,031
<CGS>                                        3,513,987
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,489,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,925
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,053,623
<INCOME-TAX>                                   870,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,183,623
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,183,623
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39

        


</TABLE>
### §8522. Assignment of Federal service and wages

Notwithstanding section 8504 of this title, Federal service and Federal wages not previously assigned shall be assigned to the State in which the claimant first files claim for unemployment compensation after his latest discharge or release from Federal service. This assignment is deemed an assignment under section 8504 of this title for the purpose of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 591; Pub. L. 94–566, title I, §116(e)(5), Oct. 20, 1976, 90 Stat. 2673.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 42 U.S.C. 1371(e). | Aug. 28, 1958, Pub. L. 85–848, §3 "Sec. 1511(e)", 72 Stat. 1088. |
| | | Sept. 13, 1960, Pub. L. 86–778, §542(c)(2), 74 Stat. 986. |

Statutes at Large

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

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–566 struck out "or to the Virgin Islands, as the case may be," after "shall be assigned to the State".

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

#### Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–566 applicable with respect to benefit years beginning on or after later of Oct. 1, 1976, or first day of first week for which compensation becomes payable under an unemployment compensation law of Virgin Islands which is approved by Secretary of Labor under section 3304(a) of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, see section 116(f)(3) of Pub. L. 94–566, set out as a note under section 3304 of Title 26.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<LEGEND>
                              EAC INDUSTRIES, INC.
                                   EXHIBIT 27
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X

The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
consolidated  financial statements for the six months ended July 31, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               jan-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    jul-31-1999
<CASH>                                  621,419
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           216,280
<ALLOWANCES>                            20,000
<INVENTORY>                             62,460
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        991,251
<PP&E>                                  393,553
<DEPRECIATION>                          180,386
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          1,484,249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   386,142
<BONDS>                                 245,583
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                289,282
<OTHER-SE>                              563,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            1,484,249
<SALES>                                 754,748
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        754,748
<CGS>                                   487,359
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           805,465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      2,830
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (32,079)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (32,079)
<DISCONTINUED>                          205,482
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            173,403
<EPS-BASIC>                           .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .06



</TABLE>