alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
  The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for thecompany and have:
  procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
  this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
  occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and
  The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of thecompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     Kandimathie Christine RamonChief Financial officer
##### 



(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 R.H.
Donnelley, Inc. as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ David C. Swanson
    
    /s/ Steven M. BlondyDavid C. Swanson
    
    Steven M. BlondyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
    
    SVP and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 9, 2005
    
    November 9, 2005
  82
Exhibit
31.3



CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER

THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



I,
Bruce Horowitz, certify that:



1.
I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 of Provectus Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc.; and



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.





|Date:
    May 9, 2019 | By: | /s/
    Bruce Horowitz                                   
|--------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------
|                      |     | Bruce
    Horowitz                                       
|                      |     | Chief
    Operating Officer (principal executive officer)
#### In the Matter of Morris O. Alprin, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner. In the Matter of Maurice Haas, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

June 28, 1962.

*Eric Nightingale (Michael Franck*with him on the brief), attorney for petitioner.

*Michael Kaminsky*for Morris O. Alprin, respondent.

*Louis Bender*of counsel *(Lloyd A. Hale*with him on the brief), for Maurice Haas, respondent.

*521
      *Per Curiam.*

The attorneys in this disciplinary proceeding were admitted to the Bar, the respondent Alprin in 1931 in the Second Department and the respondent Haas in 1926 in this Department. In 1955, both respondents were convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of conspiracy to defraud the United States by obstructing the Treasury Department in its function of collecting income taxes. They were sentenced to prison terms of three and two years respectively, and each served approximately one year of the terms. They also paid fines of $6,000 and $4,000 respectively. The convictions were affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in an opinion which describes in detail the underlying facts *(United States*v. *Klein,*247 F. 2d 908, cert. denied 355 U. S. 924).

The convictions arose out of respondents’ participation, as principals and attorneys, in a complex business venture extending over many years. The principal defendant in the criminal case was a former client who had amassed a huge fortune, but successfully avoided paying taxes on much of the accumulation. Respondents’ personal tax liabilities were not involved, nor was any actual evasion of taxes proven. In substance, the crimes consisted of so conducting the venture and so disposing of the benefits received by the attorneys as to make it difficult for the Treasury Department to determine what taxes, if any, were due. As the trial court observed, the crime was unique.

For purposes of section 90 of the Judiciary Law, concerning discipline of attorneys, the crime was a misdemeanor, but one arising in connection with professional representation. It is, therefore, subject to disciplinary condemnation. Apart from the convictions, respondents’ conduct as members of the Bar, each for more than 30 years, has not been questioned. Moreover, in view of the sentences served by respondents, the need for additional sanctions is greatly limited.

Accordingly, respondents should be suspended for six months.

Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ., concur.

Respondents suspended for a period of six months.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          85,586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,571,318
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (238,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  7,117,163
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,334,907
<PP&E>                                       3,708,510
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,465,394)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,030,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,892,474
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       201,970
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,258,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,030,025
<SALES>                                     15,812,667 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,812,667
<CGS>                                       12,826,387
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,507,862
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             405,667
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 72,751 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             72,751 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    72,751 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
#### Florence Subin et al., Respondents, v. Robert S. Thaw, Appellant.

Order entered on January 31,1962, granting motion to open default and vacating dismissal unanimously reversed, without costs, and application remanded to Backer, J. Where a motion has previously been noticed and heard by one Judge, any subsequent application on the same facts, either by way of reargument or renewal, must be heard by the same Judge *(Grassi*v. *Emkay Motor Renting Co.,*233 App. Div. 700; *Parks*v. *Welsch,*230 App. Div. 734). Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
### §3346. Time limitation

(a) Except in the case of a vacancy caused by sickness, the person serving as an acting officer as described under section 3345 may serve in the office—

(1) for no longer than 210 days beginning on the date the vacancy occurs; or

(2) subject to subsection (b), once a first or second nomination for the office is submitted to the Senate, from the date of such nomination for the period that the nomination is pending in the Senate.

(b)(1) If the first nomination for the office is rejected by the Senate, withdrawn, or returned to the President by the Senate, the person may continue to serve as the acting officer for no more than 210 days after the date of such rejection, withdrawal, or return.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a second nomination for the office is submitted to the Senate after the rejection, withdrawal, or return of the first nomination, the person serving as the acting officer may continue to serve—

(A) until the second nomination is confirmed; or

(B) for no more than 210 days after the second nomination is rejected, withdrawn, or returned.

(c) If a vacancy occurs during an adjournment of the Congress sine die, the 210-day period under subsection (a) shall begin on the date that the Senate first reconvenes.

(Added Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title I, §151(b), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–612.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3346, Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 426, provided for details to subordinate offices, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title I, §151(b), (d)(1), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–611, 2681–616, effective 30 days after Oct. 21, 1998. See section 3345 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 30 days after Oct. 21, 1998, and applicable to any office that becomes vacant after such effective date, with certain exceptions, see section 151(d) of Pub. L. 105–277, set out as a note under section 3345 of this title.
### Part A—Program Controls
§ 1908.01 Authority and purpose. ( a ) *Authority:* This part is issued under the authority of and in order to implement section 3.5 of E.O. 13526 (or successor Orders); the CIA Information Act of 1984), as amended (50 U.S.C. 431; section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 403); and section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 403g).
( b ) *Purpose:* This part prescribes procedures, subject to limitations set forth below, for members of the public to request a declassification review of information classified under the Executive Order 13526 or predecessor Orders. Section 3.5 of Executive Order 13526 and these regulations are not intended to and do not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
[76 FR 59033, Sept. 23, 2011]
#### BRANTINGHAM, Appellant, v. PRENTICE et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 22, 1903.)

Action by May Thorne Brantingham against William P. Prentice and the Printing Telegraph News Company.

No opinion. Appeal withdrawn by consent of the parties.
#### §§ 1906.112-1906.129 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 32.B

















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 for the period ending June 30, 2010, of El Paso Natural Gas Company (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John R. Sult, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.










/s/ John R. SultJohn R. SultExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)El Paso Natural Gas CompanyAugust 6, 2010




























A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Paso Natural Gas Company and will be retained by El Paso Natural Gas Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.2(a)
                                                            
                                                            
                 Executive Protection Policy
                              
                              DECLARATIONS

                              EXECUTIVE PROTECTION POLICY

                              Policy Number  8132-05-32B

                              Federal Insurance Company, a stock
                              insurance company, incorporated            
                              under the laws of Indiana, herein          
                              called the Company.

Item 1.   Parent Organization:
          ROUNDY'S, INC.

          23000 ROUNDY DRIVE
          PEWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
          53072

Item 2.   Policy Period:      From 12:01 A.M. on NOVEMBER 01, 1995
                              To   12:01 A.M.    NOVEMBER 01, 1996
                              Local time at the address shown in
                              Item 1.

Item 3.   Coverage Summary
          Description
          GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
          EXECUTIVE LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION

Item 4.   Termination of
          Prior Policies:

THE EXECUTIVE LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION, FIDUCIARY
LIABILITY, OUTSIDE DIRECTORSHIP LIABILITY AND EMPLOYMENT
PRACTICES LIABILITY COVERAGE SECTIONS (WHICHEVER ARE
APPLICABLE) ARE ALL WRITTEN ON A CLAIMS MADE BASIS.  EXCEPT
AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED, THESE COVERAGE SECTIONS COVER ONLY
CLAIMS FIRST MADE AGAINST THE INSURED DURING THE POLICY
PERIOD.  PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.

In witness whereof, the Company issuing this policy has
caused this policy to be signed by its authorized officers,
but it shall not be valid unless also signed by a duly
authorized representative of the Company.

                  FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
                              
HENRY A. GULICK                         DEAN R. OFFURE
_______________________                 ______________________
Secretary                               President


NOVEMBER 8, 1995                        JOHN S. BAIN
_______________________                 ----------------------
Date                                    Authorized
                                        Representative
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Douglas E. McCann, Sr., Deceased. Douglas E. McCann, Jr., et al., Appellants; Dixon Allo, as Executor of Douglas E. McCann, Sr., Deceased, Respondent.

In a probate proceeding, the contestants appeal on the law and the facts from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, entered May 23, 1962 on the verdict of a jury upon framed issues, which *inter alla*admitted the propounded instrument to probate as decedent’s will and revoked letters of administration previously issued. Decree reversed on the law and the facts, with costs to the contestants payable out of the estate; contestants’ motion to set aside the jury’s verdict and to deny probate to the propounded instrument granted; verdict set aside, petition dismissed, probate denied and letters of administration reinstated as matter of law; and proceeding remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for the entry of a decree accordingly. In our opinion, the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s findings, and thus is equivalent to no evidence *(Matter of Case,*214 N. Y. 199, 203). On the basis of all the proof adduced, this court finds as a matter of law that the propounded instrument is not a valid will because of the failure of due execution, the lack of testamentary capacity, and the constructive fraud and undue influence exercised upon the decedent; hence, the motion to set aside the jury’s verdict and to deny probate may properly be granted by this court (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, §§ 69, 309; cf. *Matter of Ward,*10 A D 2d 309, affd. 9 N Y 2d 949; *Matter of Wells,*248 App. Div. 191, affd. 272 N. Y. 667). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
§ 516.29 Federal statutes and regulations. ( a ) *Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).* (28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671-2680). A waiver of sovereign immunity which, with certain exceptions, makes the United States liable for tort claims in the same manner as a private individual.
( b ) *Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of l988 (FELRTCA or the Westfall Act, Pub. L. No. 100-694, 102 Stat. 4563 (1988) (codified at and amending 28 U.S.C. 2671 , 2674 , 2679 ).* FELRTCA, by amending the Federal Tort Claims Act, makes the FTCA the exclusive remedy for common law tort claims arising from actions taken by Federal employees acting within the scope of employment. The law was passed to eliminate problems caused by *Westfall* v. *Erwin,* 484 U.S. 292 (1988).
( c ) *10 U.S.C. 1089 (Defense of certain suits arising out of medical malpractice).* This provision, commonly referred to as the Gonzales Act, makes the FTCA the exclusive remedy for suits alleging medical malpractice against a military health care provider.
( d ) *28 CFR 50.15 (Representation of Federal officials and employees by Department of Justice attorneys [. . .] in civil, criminal, and congressional proceedings in which Federal employees are sued, subpoenaed, or charged in their individual capacities).* These DOJ regulations set out the policy and procedures for requesting representation in individual liability cases. See also 28 CFR part 15 (Defense of Certain Suits Against Federal Employees, etc.).
( e ) 28 CFR 50.16 (Representation of Federal employees by private counsel at Federal expense).
### §312503. Survey and recovery by Secretary

(a) In General.—The Secretary, on notification, in writing, by any Federal or State agency or appropriate historical or archeological authority that scientific, prehistorical, historical, or archeological data are being or may be irrevocably lost or destroyed by any Federal or federally assisted or licensed project, activity, or program, shall, if the Secretary determines that the data are significant and are being or may be irrevocably lost or destroyed and after reasonable notice to the agency responsible for funding or licensing the project, activity, or program—

(1) conduct or cause to be conducted a survey and other investigation of the areas that are or may be affected; and

(2) recover and preserve the data (including analysis and publication) that, in the opinion of the Secretary, are not being, but should be, recovered and preserved in the public interest.

(b) When Survey or Recovery Not Required.—No survey or recovery work shall be required pursuant to this section that, in the determination of the head of the responsible agency, would impede Federal or federally assisted or licensed projects or activities undertaken in connection with any emergency, including projects or activities undertaken in anticipation of, or as a result of, a natural disaster.

(c) Initiation of Survey.—The Secretary shall initiate the survey or recovery effort within—

(1) 60 days after notification pursuant to subsection (a); or

(2) such time as may be agreed on with the head of the agency responsible for funding or licensing the project, activity, or program in all other cases.

(d) Compensation by Secretary.—The Secretary shall, unless otherwise agreed to in writing, compensate any person, association, or public entity damaged as a result of delays in construction or as a result of the temporary loss of the use of private or nonfederally owned land.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3255.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 312503 | 16 U.S.C. 469a–2. | Pub. L. 86–523, §4, as added Pub. L. 93–291, §1(3), May 24, 1974, 88 Stat. 174. |

Section
#### In the Matter of Edward Connolly, Appellant, v Helen Connolly, Respondent.

[831 NYS2d 918]

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), entered June 30, 2006, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Miklitsch, S.M.), dated February 28, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to an order of the Support Magistrate denying his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation set forth in a stipulation of settlement incorporated but not merged in the parties’ judgment of divorce. The father failed to demonstrate an unreasonable and unanticipated change in circumstances since the time of the stipulation to justify a modification *(see Matter of Silver v Akerson,*34 AD3d 487, 488 [2006]), or that his change in circumstance was not of his own making *(see Matter of Terjesen v Terjesen,*29 AD3d 705 [2006]; *Matter of Heyward v Goldman,*23 AD3d 468, 469 [2005]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.E, Krausman, Covello and Garni, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.4








[Rurban Financial Corp. Letterhead]








March 31, 2011





Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, NE


Washington, D.C. 20549





Re:
Rurban Financial Corp. – Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010





Ladies and Gentlemen:





Rurban Financial Corp., an Ohio corporation (“Rurban”), is today filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Rurban for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (“Rurban’s 2010 Form 10-K”).





Pursuant to the instructions relating to the Exhibits in Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, Rurban hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon request, copies of instruments and agreements defining the rights of holders of long-term debt and of the long-term debt of its consolidated subsidiaries, which are not being filed as exhibits to Rurban’s 2010 Form 10-K.  None of such long-term debt exceeds 10% of the total assets of Rurban and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.





Very truly yours,





RURBAN FINANCIAL CORP.





/s/ Anthony V. Cosentino





Anthony V. Cosentino


Executive Vice President and


Chief Financial Officer