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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Douglas W. Cowan, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Retractable Technologies, Inc.; 

 

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 tomake 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 financialcondition, 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 officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange 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 itsconsolidated 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 effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on such evaluation; 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any changes in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth 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 controlsover financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’s othercertifying officers 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 significantdeficiencies 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 financialinformation; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 31, 2005
EX-31                                   Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION

                   RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Edward H. Webb, President, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of W-J
International, Ltd.;

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.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) [omitted pursuant to extended compliance period] 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)  [omitted pursuant to extended compliance period]

(c) 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

(d) 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.  I have disclosed, based on my 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.


Dated: February 10, 2004               By: /s/  Edward H. Webb
                                       Edward H. Webb, President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE FOURTH
QUARTER/FISCAL  YEAR END 10-K AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH 10-K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                            25,644,460
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>            11,496,026
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                  29,844,783
<TRADING-ASSETS>                           0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>      246,560,041
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>             6,550,442
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>               6,624,768
<LOANS>                          668,146,380
<ALLOWANCE>                        1,949,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 1,031,302,398
<DEPOSITS>                       689,541,345
<SHORT-TERM>                      12,112,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>               17,585,598
<LONG-TERM>                      167,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                              99,168
<OTHER-SE>                       144,981,787
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY> 1,031,302,398
<INTEREST-LOAN>                   49,508,126
<INTEREST-INVEST>                 18,446,211
<INTEREST-OTHER>                   1,778,933
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                  69,733,270
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                28,931,749
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                37,848,351
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>             31,884,919
<LOAN-LOSSES>                        674,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                   440,750
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                   19,522,804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   14,890,469
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>        14,890,469
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                       9,551,037
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                           1.00
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                          2.57
<LOANS-NON>                          523,671
<LOANS-PAST>                               0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                           0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                   1,296,451
<CHARGE-OFFS>                         20,774
<RECOVERIES>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                  1,949,677
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                        0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>            1,949,677
        


</TABLE>
#### Sharon Natale *v.*Mary White

Kins, C. J., Alcorn, House, Thim and Ryan, Js.

Argued October 9

decided October 28, 1969

*Charles L. Flynn,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Edward F. Piazza,*with whom was *Joseph F. Trotta,*for the appellee (defendant).

*619Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appealed from a judgment for the defendant following a defendant’s verdict in an action brought to recover for injuries the plaintiff allegedly sustained as the result of the negligence of the defendant in maintaining a Stairway. Principally at issue were questions of the negligence of the defendant and contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff’s assignments of error are directed to the court’s charge to the jury. Basically, it is the claim of the plaintiff that the charge does not meet the requirement that “[t]he instructions to the jury . . . must be accurate in law, adapted to the issues and adequate to guide the jury in reaching a correct verdict.” *Berniere*v. *Kripps,*157 Conn. 356, 358, 254 A.2d 496.

“The ultimate test of a court’s charge is whether it fairly presents the case to a jury in such a way that injustice is not done to either party under the established rules of law. *Cappella*v. *New York, N.H. & H.R. Co.,*154 Conn. 410, 414, 226 A.2d 394; *Lucier*v. *Meriden-Wallingford Sand & Stone Co.,*153 Conn. 422, 425, 216 A.2d 818.” *Szlinsky*v. *Denhup,*156 Conn. 159, 163, 239 A.2d 505.

Although the charge to the jury in the present case did contain all the necessary instructions and applicable principles of law correctly stated, intermixed with these proper instructions and principles were several material ones which were clearly erroneous. A jury of laymen in applying the law to the facts they found could not have been other than confused as to which of the conflicting instructions were correct. Under these circumstances justice requires a new trial.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and a new trial is ordered.
38994.

#### DALE’S SHOE STORE, INC. v. DALE.

Decided September 12, 1961.

*Howard P. Wallace, Charles L. Weltner,*for plaintiff in error.

*Beck, Goddard, Owen & Smalley, William II. Beck, Jr.,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

The only question in this case is whether the contract contended for by Mrs. Dale is definite enough to be enforceable. She contended by her evidence that authorized officers of the defendant corporation agreed to pay her for services rendered the corporation “when the store got on its feet and got to making a profit.” The quoted provision is a condition precedent and is an integral part of the contract. If it is not definite and understandable the whole contract must fall. There is no evidence of any kind in the case which throws any light on the meaning of the condition precedent. Therefore it becomes the duty of this court to fix its meaning, if possible, *372or to declare it unenforceable if it cannot be reasonably construed. In the absence of any evidence on the question of what the condition means or what the intention of the parties was we can see no basis upon which to place a reasonable, common sense conclusion. Even if the condition means simply that the payments were to be made when the defendant earned a profit the contract does not provide how much profit. If the condition is construed literally if the corporation earned $1.00 in profits for a year the amount proved to be reasonable would be due. The evidence in this case showed that the defendant made a profit of $3,000 in 1959, but it is not what actually occurs which determines the meaning and reasonableness of the condition but what possibly could have eventuated. The provision as to getting on its feet cannot be ignored. It was not in the contract for ornament. The corporation had an original net worth of at least $11,000. In the year the profit was made the net worth was much less than $11,000. It is argued by plaintiff in error that the corporation should not be said to be on its feet until the original net worth was regained. There is merit in this argument. The least that can be said is that the corporation could not be considered on its feet until the profits equaled a fair return on the original investment and that profits within the meaning of the term as used in this case meant a profit paying such a fair return plus an amount equal to the reasonable value of the plaintiff’s services. However, these are surmises and nothing more. It simply cannot be reasoned with any degree of certainty or reasonableness what the condition means. Good faith and regard for the interests of both parties must be presumed. The indefinite and uncertain condition nullified the whole contract and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial and the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Both judgments are reversed with direction that the court enter up judgment in accordance with the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

*Judgments reversed.*

*Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities Special Emphasis Panel; Loan Repayment Program for Health Disparities Research—Panel 1.                    

*Date:*                         March 18, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard 800, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Prabha L. Atreya, PhD, Chief, Office of Scientific Review, National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-8696,                         *atreyapr@mail.nih.gov*.                    

      ( print page 9422)    
Dated: February 23, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-4210 Filed 3-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 530.30 Extralabel drug use in nonfood animals. ( a ) Because extralabel use of animal and human drugs in nonfood-producing animals does not ordinarily pose a threat to the public health, extralabel use of animal and human drugs is permitted in nonfood-producing animal practice except when the public health is threatened. In addition, the provisions of § 530.20(a)(1) will apply to the use of an approved animal drug.
( b ) If FDA determines that an extralabel drug use in animals not intended for human consumption presents a risk to the public health, the agency may publish in the Federal Register a notice prohibiting such use following the procedures in § 530.25. The prohibited extralabel drug use will be codified in § 530.41.
§ 812.110 Specific responsibilities of investigators. ( a ) *Awaiting approval.* An investigator may determine whether potential subjects would be interested in participating in an investigation, but shall not request the written informed consent of any subject to participate, and shall not allow any subject to participate before obtaining IRB and FDA approval.
( b ) *Compliance.* An investigator shall conduct an investigation in accordance with the signed agreement with the sponsor, the investigational plan, this part and other applicable FDA regulations, and any conditions of approval imposed by an IRB or FDA.
( c ) *Supervising device use.* An investigator shall permit an investigational device to be used only with subjects under the investigator's supervision. An investigator shall not supply an investigational device to any person not authorized under this part to receive it.
( d ) *Financial disclosure.* A clinical investigator shall disclose to the sponsor sufficient accurate financial information to allow the applicant to submit complete and accurate certification or disclosure statements required under part 54 of this chapter. The investigator shall promptly update this information if any relevant changes occur during the course of the investigation and for 1 year following completion of the study.
( e ) *Disposing of device.* Upon completion or termination of a clinical investigation or the investigator's part of an investigation, or at the sponsor's request, an investigator shall return to the sponsor any remaining supply of the device or otherwise dispose of the device as the sponsor directs.
[45 FR 3751, Jan. 18, 1980, as amended at 63 FR 5253, Feb. 2, 1998]
§ 582.1087 Sodium acid pyrophosphate. ( a ) *Product.* Sodium acid pyrophosphate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HARBINGER CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          35,697
<SECURITIES>                                    29,844
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,418
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,425
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                95,640
<PP&E>                                          25,706
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,780
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,248
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      94,116
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,199
<SALES>                                         43,020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,245
<CGS>                                            6,766
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,112
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                76,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15,037)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       996
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (16,033)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      30
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16,091)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.69)


</TABLE>
# C_2016287EN.01001902.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — AF Steelcase v EUIPO

(Case T-652/14) (1)

1

((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Supply and installation of furniture and accessories at EUIPO’s head offices - Rejection of a tenderer’s tender - Action for annulment - Award decision - No direct concern - Inadmissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Proportionality - System for excluding tenders - Non-contractual liability - Material damage - Non-material damage))

(2016/C 287/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AF Steelcase SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: Rodríguez Bajón and A. Gómez-Acebo Dennes, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, N. Bambara and M. Paolacci, and subsequently N. Bambara and J. Crespo Carrillo, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of EUIPO’s decision of 8 July 2014 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of a call for tenders concerning the supply and installation of furniture and accessories at EUIPO’s head offices (OJ 2014/S 023-035020) and the decisions related to the decision rejecting the applicant’s tender, including, if necessary, the award decision, and an application for the tender procedure to be resumed at the stage before the decision of 8 July 2014 and, secondly, application under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders AF Steelcase SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AF Steelcase SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.

1

---