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

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Brooks Boveroux, Chief Financial Officer of Photogen Technologies, Inc. (“registrant”), certify that:

 

1.                    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the registrant;

 

2.                    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

 

3.                    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.                    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.                    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6.                    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 
| /s/  Brooks Boveroux     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Brooks  Boveroux         |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
| November  19, 2003       |

 

----
#### § 955.87 Amendments.

Amendments to this part may be proposed, from time to time, by the committee or by the Secretary.
#### BLUN, Respondent, v. MAYER et al., Appellants (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division .First Department.

June 25 1906.)

Actions by Ferdinand S. M. Blun Re becca Mayer and others.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

BUDDY GILL, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

vs. § Case No.: 1:06-cv-718

§

SORRELLS FUNERAL HOME, INC., §

and TERRY G. SORRELLS, §

§

Defendants. §

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL 

COMES NOW the Plaintiff and Defendants, by and through their attorneys of record, and stipulate 

and agree that the above styled case be dismissed, with prejudice, and with each party to bear their own 

costs.

DATED this the 20th day of February, 2007.

By: __s/ Elizabeth B. Glasgow_____

 Elizabeth B. Glasgow ASB-8348-S58E

 Attorney for Defendants

OF COUNSEL:

FARMER, PRICE, HORNSBY

 & WEATHERFORD, L.L.P.

Post Office Drawer 2228

Dothan, Alabama 36302

Tel: (334) 793-2424

Fax: (334) 792-6624

Email: eglasgow@fphw-law.com

S. Mark Andrews

Attorney for Defendants

Morris, Cary, Andrews, Talmadge & Jones, LLC

P. O. Box 1649

Dothan, Alabama 36302

Tel: (334) 792-1420

Case 1:06-cv-00718-MHT-SRW Document 20 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 1 of 2
Fax: (334) 673-0077

Email: MAndrews@MCATLaw.com

By: __s/ William R. Davis _____

 William R. Davis

 Attorney for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

DAVIS & HERRINGTON, L.L.C.

Park Place Center

8650 Minnie Brown Road, Suite 150

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

OF COUNSEL:

Andy Nelms

Attorney for Plaintiff

P.O. Box 5059

Montgomery, AL 36103

(334) 263-7733 

(334) 832-4390 (Fax)

Email: Andynelms@jaylewislaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 20, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the 

Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: 

William R. Davis, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff

Davis & Herrington, L.L.C.

Park Place Center 

8650 Minnie Brown Road, Suite 150

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

Andy Nelms

Attorney for Plaintiff

P.O. Box 5059

Montgomery, AL 36103

__s/ Elizabeth B. Glasgow_____

Of Counsel 

Case 1:06-cv-00718-MHT-SRW Document 20 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Walter E. Hyde, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered April 17, 1979, convicting him of promoting prison contraband in the first degree and escape in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Matter remanded to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith; appeal held in abeyance in the interim. Defendant has alleged, *inter alia,*that four correction officers, who subsequently appeared as witnesses at his trial, were present in the room as guards when he gave his testimony before the Grand Jury, and he contends that their presence inhibited his ability to testify freely and violated the secrecy of the Grand Jury proceedings and mandates a dismissal of the indictment (GPL 210.35, subd 5). Upon the present record we are unable to establish whether these allegations are true. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the County Court for further proceedings to clarify this issue. Damiani, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Order entered January 11 , 20 2 3

In The



### Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00901

- CR

PAUL GARY

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F 20

- 16883

- S

O RDER

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED and

the brief received January 9, 2023, is ORDERED filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
§ 986.55 Procedure. ( a ) The members of the Council shall select a chairman from their membership, and shall select such other officers and adopt such rules for the conduct of Council business as they deem advisable.
( b ) The Council may provide for meetings by telephone, or other means of communication, and any vote cast at such a meeting shall be confirmed promptly in writing. The Council shall give the Secretary the same notice of its meetings as is given to members of the Council.
( c ) *Quorum.* A quorum of the Council shall be any twelve voting Council members. The vote of a majority of members present at a meeting at which there is a quorum shall constitute the act of the Council; *Provided*, That: ( 1 ) Actions of the Council with respect to the following issues shall require a two-thirds (12 members) concurring vote of the Council: ( i ) Establishment of or changes to by-laws;
( ii ) Appointment or administrative issues relating to the program's manager or chief executive officer;
( iii ) Budget;
( iv ) Assessments;
( v ) Compliance and audits;
( vi ) Reestablishment of regions and reapportionment or reallocation of Council membership;
( vii ) Modifying definitions of grower and sheller;
( viii ) Research or promotion activities under § 986.68;
( ix ) Grade, quality and size regulation under § 986.69(a)(1) and (2);
( x ) Pack and container regulation under § 986.69(a)(3); and,
( 2 ) Actions of the Council with respect to the securing of commercial bank loans for the purpose of financing start-up costs of the Council and its activities or securing financial assistance in emergency situations shall require a unanimous vote of all members present at an in-person meeting; *Provided*, That in the event of an emergency that warrants immediate attention sooner than a face-to-face meeting is possible, a vote for financing may be taken. In such event, the Council's first preference is a videoconference and second preference is phone conference, both followed by written confirmation of the members attending the meeting.
1642.7001 Management agreement.

When it is in the best interest of FEHBP enrollees to continue a contract for an interim period after

the carrier discontinues its operations and has entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement (or

other descriptive term), but before a successor in interest has been recognized by OPM, the carrier

may submit for OPM approval a Management Agreement that enables it to continue a contract

through an agreement with a third party to administer the day-to-day performance of the contract.

Examples of situations in which a Management Agreement may be accepted by OPM are:

(a) When a transfer of assets does not meet the criteria for a novation;

(b) While a request for a novation is pending;

(c) While awaiting a decision on a request for a novation;

(d) As an interim measure, when the timing of a transfer of assets or the timing of a carrier's

withdrawal make administration of the contract inconvenient;

(e) When it is not in the interests of the Government to either recognize a successor in interest or to

immediately terminate the existing FEHBP contract.

Parent topic: Subpart 1642.70—Management Agreement (in Lieu of Novation Agreement)
#### In the Matter of Bernard Fuller, Appellant, v Charles Solomon, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Respondent.

Submitted July 30, 2007;

decided October 16, 2007

Reported below, 41 AD3d 256, 35 AD3d 241.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the issues presented have become moot. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
Annual Incentive Payment Criteria for Executive Officers



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 Annual Incentive Payment Criteria 
 For Executive
Officers 
 Annual incentives for executive officers, including the CEO, are paid through the Company Annual Incentive Pool, which is funded
based on an assessment of performance relative to key financial and strategic objectives. The starting point for the current year’s pool is the final pool from the prior year. This amount is then adjusted throughout the year for changes in
headcount and in business financial performance. 
 Financial performance is measured relative to the Company’s annual financial targets
for earnings per share (EPS) on an adjusted operating income (AOI) basis, pre-tax AOI, and operating return on average equity (ROE) on an AOI basis for the Financial Services Businesses. Adjustments may be made to published data on these metrics to
more accurately reflect the operating performance of the Company’s businesses and to take into account financial market performance relative to the assumptions used in establishing the targets. Performance relative to these targets provides an
initial pool amount before considering strategic factors and judgment. 
 The strategic factors are in the following categories: 
  

	 	1.	External, e.g., total shareholder return relative to a peer group of companies and the S&P 500 Index, comparative ratings, competitive pay positioning.


  

	 	2.	 Qualitative, e.g., net flows (and 1st year premiums) vs. history, persistency, new product activity and employees measures such as the employee opinion
survey results. 


  

	 	3.	Impacts on earnings, e.g., M&A and divestiture activity, credit losses, achievement of capital and risk targets and expense management. 

 Allocation of incentive bonuses among executives is discretionary with consideration given to the change in the size of the pool, performance of the
business(es) managed by the executive, individual performance and contributions, and value of the position in the marketplace. 
 *        *        *        * 
 “Adjusted operating income”, or “AOI”, referred to above, differs from, and should not be viewed as a substitute for, income from continuing operations or net income determined in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, but is the financial measure that the Company uses to analyze the operations of each segment in managing its Financial Services Businesses. EPS and ROE, referred to above, are determined on
the basis of after-tax adjusted operating income.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

V. ) CR. No.: 2:06cr196-MHT

)

NESTOR AMAIQUEMA-MACIAS )

NOTICE OF INTENT TO CHANGE PLEA

COMES NOW the Defendant, Nestor Amaiquema-Macias, by and through undersigned

counsel, Kevin L. Butler, and notifies the Court of his intent to change his previously entered

plea of not guilty to guilty. Defendant waives his right to plead in front of a district judge and

consents to do so before a magistrate judge.

Dated this 17 day of October 2006. th

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Kevin L. Butler

KEVIN L. BUTLER

First Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail: kevin_butler@fd.org

AZ Bar Code: 014138

Case 2:06-cr-00196-MHT-CSC Document 14 Filed 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

V. ) CR. No.: 2:06cr196-MHT

)

NESTOR AMAIQUEMA-MACIAS )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 17, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

following: 

David K. Cooke, Esquire

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Kevin L. Butler

KEVIN L. BUTLER

First Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail: kevin_butler@fd.org

AZ Bar Code: 014138

Case 2:06-cr-00196-MHT-CSC Document 14 Filed 10/17/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 1015.307 Mutual releases of the debtor and the Government.

In all appropriate instances, a compromise that is accepted by DOE will be implemented by means of a mutual release, in which the debtor is released from further non-tax liability on the compromised debt in consideration of payment in full of the compromise amount and the Government and its officials, past and present, are released and discharged from any and all claims and causes of action arising from the same transaction that the debtor may have. In the event a mutual release is not executed when a debt is compromised, unless prohibited by law, the debtor is still deemed to have waived any and all claims and causes of action against the Government and its officials related to the transaction giving rise to the compromised debt.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-22-00375-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

County Court at Law of Cooke County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV2101971

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS, Relator
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered (1) relator the State of Texas’s petition for writ of 

mandamus, (2) the real party in interest Kamy Real Property Trust’s response, and (3) 

the State of Texas’s reply.

Kamy Real Property Trust’s response and the State of Texas’s reply address 

arguments not raised in the trial court, and both require resolution of factual issues—

from whom Kamy Real Property Trust received actual notice that the special 

commissioners’ award had been filed in the trial court, when Kamy Real Property 

Trust received actual notice, whether the trial court clerk complied with Section 

21.049 of the Texas Property Code, and, if the trial court clerk did so, when. See Tex. 

Prop. Code Ann. § 21.049. 

“It is well established Texas law that an appellate court may not deal with 

disputed areas of fact in an original mandamus proceeding.” Brady v. Fourteenth Ct. of

App., 795 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding) (op. on reh’g); In re Wilson, 

421 S.W.3d 686, 690 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, orig. proceeding) (op. on 

reconsideration). 

Accordingly, the State of Texas’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: November 8, 2022
#### Yvon Lavoie, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Terry Lavoie, an Infant, Appellant, v Town of Ellenburg et al., Respondents.

— Appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered March 27, 1980 in St. Lawrence County, which denied the appellant the right to file a late notice of claim on his own behalf. The infant plaintiff was injured as the result of the crash of a car in which he was a passenger on July 22, 1979. On December 20, 1979 the appellant, the infant’s father, became aware that to maintain the instant action a notice of claim must ordinarily be filed within 90 days. On January 10, 1980 a motion to file a late notice of claim on behalf of both plaintiffs was made. Special *715Term denied the motion on behalf of the appellant father, but granted it as to the infant. The issue on appeal is whether Special Term abused its discretion in refusing to allow the filing of a late notice, pursuant to section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. The sole excuse afforded by the appellant in his affidavit was "because of my distress and concern, ignorance of my son’s possible rights, ignorance of the 90 day notice provision, and my efforts to run my household after the accident”. It should be noted that the affidavit also recites that the infant was in a coma and from the date of the accident until late November of 1979 and at the date of the affidavit, December 27, 1979, still could not talk or move much of his body. Inasmuch as there is no allegation that the distress (and such distress is not doubted) prevented the appellant from otherwise attending to his daily routine, the sole reason for not filing is ignorance of the 90-day requirement. It cannot be said that ignorance of the notice requirement compels that delay be excused. While we agree with the appellant that the purpose of the 1976 amendment to subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law was to give the court additional discretionary power to permit late filing (see *Bureau v Newcomb Cent. School Dist.,*74 AD2d 133), under the factual situation here presented it was not mandatory that the court find in favor of the appellant father. Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
```

[109th Congress Public Law 329]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ329.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 1769]]

Public Law 109-329
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
350 Uinta Drive in Green River, Wyoming, as the ``Curt Gowdy Post Office 
           Building''. <<NOTE: Oct. 12, 2006 -  [H.R. 5224]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CURT GOWDY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 350 Uinta Drive in Green River, Wyoming, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Curt Gowdy Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Curt Gowdy 
Post Office Building''.

    Approved October 12, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5224:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Sept. 25, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1643. CONFESOR CHAPARRO v. THE STATE.

In 2004, a jury found Confesor Chaparro guilty of four counts of aggravated

child molestation, and the trial court imposed a total sentence of 30 years in prison,

to be followed by 20 years on probation. We affirmed his judgment of conviction on

direct appeal. Chaparro v. State, 279 Ga. App. 145 (630 SE2d 645) (2006).

In September 2018, Chaparro filed a “Motion for ExtraordinaryRelief,” which

the trial court denied in November 2018.1

 Chaparro sought appellate review of the

November 2018 order by filing both a direct appeal – which has been docketed as the

instant case, No. A19A1643 – and an application for discretionary review, which we

dismissed on the ground that Chaparro’s September 2018 motion essentially sought

to vacate or modify his judgment of conviction, which is not an appropriate remedy

in a criminal case. See Chaparro v. State, No. A19D0224 (Dec. 19, 2018); see also

Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010); Harper v. State, 286 Ga.

216, 218 (1) (686 SE2d 786) (2009).

Because we rejected Chaparro’s challenge to the trial court order sought to be

appealed here in Case No. A19D0224, the current appeal is barred by the law of the

case. See Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 (713 SE2d 438) (2011) (“[A]ny issue

that was raised and resolved in an earlier appeal is the law of the case and is binding

on this Court . . . .”) (punctuation omitted); accord Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258,

261 (1) (649 SE2d 313) (2007) (a ruling on an application for discretionary appeal

1 Chaparro’s September 2018 motion was not included in the current record on

appeal.

April 10, 2019
acts as res judicata in later proceedings); see also Jackson v. State, 273 Ga. 320, 320

(540 SE2d 612) (2001) (a defendant “is not entitled to another bite at the apple by

way of a second appeal”). Consequently, there is nothing for this Court to review in

the instant appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Jackson, 273 Ga. at 320; Ross,

310 Ga. App. at 327-328.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/10/2019