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

I, James Ivchenko, certify that:

     1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Epolin, Inc.;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue  statements 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 registrant 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 in Exchange Act  Rules  13a-
15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

           (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or  caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under  our  supervision,  to  ensure  that  material  information
relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries,  is  made  known  to  us  by  others  within  those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report  is
being prepared;

           (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business
issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report  our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls  and procedures, as of the end of the period covered  by
this report based on such evaluation; and

           (c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the small
business issuer's internal control over financial reporting  that
occurred  during the small business issuer's most  recent  fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely  to
materially  affect, the small business issuer's internal  control
over financial reporting; and

     5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s)
and  I  have  disclosed, based on our most recent  evaluation  of
internal  control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuer's 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 reasonable  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:  January 11, 2005          By: /s/ James Ivchenko
                                  James Ivchenko,
                                  President (Principal Financial
                                  Officer)
§ 4.36 Disclosure of non-public OCC information. ( a ) *Discretionary disclosure of non-public OCC information.* The OCC may make non-public OCC information available to a supervised entity and to other persons, that in the sole discretion of the Comptroller may be necessary or appropriate, without a request for records or testimony.
( b ) *OCC policy.* It is the OCC's policy regarding non-public OCC information that such information is confidential and privileged. Accordingly, the OCC will not normally disclose this information to third parties.
( c ) *Conditions and limitations.* The OCC may impose any conditions or limitations on disclosures under this section, including the restrictions on dissemination contained in § 4.38, that it determines are necessary to effect the purposes of this section.
( d ) *Unauthorized disclosures prohibited.* All non-public OCC information remains the property of the OCC. No supervised entity, government agency, person, or other party to whom the information is made available, or any officer, director, employee, or agent thereof, may disclose non-public OCC information without the prior written permission of the OCC, except in published statistical material that does not disclose, either directly or when used in conjunction with other publicly available information, the affairs of any individual, corporation, or other entity. Except as authorized by the OCC, no person obtaining access to non-public OCC information under this section may make a copy of the information and no person may remove non-public OCC information from the premises of the institution, agency, or other party in authorized possession of the information.
[63 FR 62929, Nov. 10, 1998, as amended at 64 FR 29216, June 1, 1999]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 198 (Thursday, October 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 52963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24794]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD


Renewal of FASAB Charter

AGENCY: Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Board Action: Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules of 
Procedure, as amended in April, 2004, notice is hereby given that under 
the authority and in furtherance of the objectives of 31 U.S.C. 
3511(d), the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of OMB, and the 
Comptroller General (the Sponsors) have established and agreed to 
continue an advisory committee to consider and recommend accounting 
standards and principles for the Federal government.
    For Further Information, or to Obtain a Copy of the Charter, 
Contact: Wendy Payne, Executive Director, 441 G St., NW., Mail Stop 
6K17V, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

    Authority:  Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463.

    Dated: October 9, 2009.
Charles Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-24794 Filed 10-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
MYL_EX10.3_2015.03.31-10Q




Exhibit 10.3


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into on April 10, 2015, to be effective as of January 1, 2015 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Mylan Inc. (the “Company”) and Anthony Mauro (“Executive”).


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive as parties to that certain Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement dated as of October 24, 2011 and effective as of January 1, 2012 (the “Agreement”);


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive wish to amend and extend the term of the Agreement, as set forth below;


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:


		
	1.
	The reference to “December 31, 2014” in Section 2 (Effective Date: Term of Employment) is hereby amended to read “December 31, 2015”.




		
	2.
	The reference to “Four Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($460,000)” in Section 3(a) (Annual Base Salary) is hereby amended to read “Six Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($625,000)”.




		
	3.
	The reference to “75% of Annual Base Salary” in Section 3(b) (Annual Bonus) is hereby amended to read “115% of Annual Base Salary”.




		
	4.
	(a)      The parties acknowledge and agree that this Amendment is an integral part of the Agreement.  Notwithstanding any provision of the Agreement to the contrary, in the event of a conflict between this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall control.




(b)    Except as expressly set forth herein, the terms and conditions of the Agreement are and shall remain in full force and effect.


(c)    The Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, sets forth the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof and hereof.







2


(d)    This Amendment shall be governed by, interpreted under and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.


(e)    This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same document.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed and delivered as of the day and year first above written.


	
				
	 
	MYLAN INC.,
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	     by:
	/s/ Robert J. Coury
	 

	 
	 
	 Name:  Robert J. Coury
	 

	 
	 
	Title:     Executive Chairman
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	EXECUTIVE,
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	     by:
	/s/ Anthony Mauro
	 

	 
	 
	Anthony Mauro
42594.

#### TITSHAW v. CARNES et al.

Eberhakdt, Judge.

Otis L. Davis filed an application for appointment of a guardian for Clark Logan, an alleged mentally ill person, in the Court of Ordinary of Douglas County. J. T. Carnes was appointed guardian, and Davis entered an appeal to the superior court contending that he, as county guardian, should have been appointed guardian rather than Carnes, the deputy clerk of the superior court. Carnes moved to dismiss the appeal on various grounds, and subsequently Ray Golden Titshaw filed an application for intervention, alleging that Logan was not incompetent and seeking to set aside the appointment of a guardian. The superior court entered an order allowing the intervention, but subsequently dismissed the appeal of Davis and the intervention of Titshaw.

Titshaw, the only appellant in this court, “appeals to the Court of Appeals from the order dismissing the appeal from the court of ordinary to the superior court on motion to dismiss filed by J. T. Carnes, appellee.” The only error set forth in the enumeration of errors is that “The trial court erred in dismissing the appeal on the grounds: [set forth by Carnes in his motion to dismiss Davis’ appeal].”

Carnes has filed a motion in this court to dismiss Titshaw’s appeal on the grounds, among others, that the error enumerated relates to the dismissal of Davis’ appeal and not to the dismissal of Titshaw’s intervention. *Held:*

Assuming, but not deciding, that Titshaw as intervenor has standing in this appeal to contest the dismissal of Davis’ appeal by the superior court, a reversal would not benefit Titshaw since he has not enumerated as error or argued in his brief the dismissal of his intervention. Any error not enumerated must be disregarded *(Cross v. Miller,*221 Ga. 579 (2) (146 SE2d 279); *Wall v. Rhodes,*112 Ga. App. 572 (1) (145 SE2d 756); *Pinyan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,*113 Ga. App. 130, 133 (147 SE2d 452); *Nathan v. Duncan,*113 Ga. *217App. 630, 637 (5) (149 SE2d 383)), and consequently we can not consider the dismissal of the intervention. A reversal would not benefit Titshaw since he is no longer a party to the case, and since an appeal must be dismissed where the appellant would derive no benefit from a reversal *(Kelton v. John,*220 Ga. 272 (138 SE2d 316); *Wright v. Savannah Transit Authority,*110 Ga. App. 710 (140 SE2d 149)), the appeal is

*Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur.*

Submitted February 6, 1967

Decided February 14, 1967.

*Alton T. Milam,*for appellant.

*Noland & Coney, John L. Coney, Otis L. Davis, Ben S. Atkins,*for appellees.

*Dismissed.*
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Senior Judges Cole and Duff 

CINDY H. THOMASSON 

v. Record No. 1792-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

SARA LEE KNIT PRODUCTS, MARCH 12, 1996 

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, 

PLUMA, INC. AND 

HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Peter McIntosh; Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, 

Rasmussen & Tweel, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Dale W. Webb; Monica L. Taylor; Gentry, 

Locke, Rakes & Moore, on brief), for 

appellees Sara Lee Knit Products and 

Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois. 

 No brief for appellees Pluma, Inc. and 

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company. 

 Cindy H. Thomasson appeals a decision of the Workers' 

Compensation Commission denying her application seeking 

compensation for an occupational disease. Upon reviewing the 

record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this 

appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the 

commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 This appeal is controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in 

The Stenrich Group v. Jemmott, ___ Va. ___, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 

___ (1996) (holding that "job-related impairments resulting from 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

cumulative trauma caused by repetitive motion, however labeled or 

however defined, are, as a matter of law, not compensable under 

the present provisions of the Act"). 

 Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.
59–008 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–213 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (H.R. 2829) MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT 

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2008, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

JUNE 26, 2007.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. WELCH of Vermont, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 517] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 517, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2829), 

the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act 

for FY 2008, under an open rule. The resolution provides for one 

hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 

The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of 

the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The resolution waives 

points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 

with clause 2 of rule XXI. During consideration of the bill for 

amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the Congressional Record. The resolution provides one motion to recommit with 

or without instructions. Finally, the resolution permits the Chair, 

during consideration of the bill in the House, to postpone further 

consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

Although the rule waives all points of order against consideration 

of the bill (except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI), the Committee is 

not aware of any points of order against consideration. The waiver 

of all points of order against consideration is prophylactic in nature. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
2 

The waiver of clause 2 of rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill) 

against provisions in the bill is included because the bill contains 

unauthorized appropriations and legislative provisions. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to 

report, together with the names of those voting for and against, are 

printed below: 

Rules Committee record vote No. 230 

Date: June 26, 2007. 

Measure: H.R. 2829. 

Motion by: Mr. Dreier. 

Summary of motion: To not waive points of order arising under 

clause 2 of rule XXI with respect to section 106 in the bill. 

Results: Defeated 2 to 8. 

Vote by Members: Hastings (FL)—Nay; Matsui—Nay; Cardoza—

Nay; Welch—Nay; Castor—Nay; Arcuri—Nay; Sutton—Nay; 

Dreier—Yea; Diaz-Balart—Yea; Slaughter—Nay. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-81741, 333-114933, 333-133846, and 333-152043 on Form S-8of our reports dated April 13, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Perry Ellis International, Inc*.*, and the effectiveness of Perry Ellis International Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Perry Ellis International, Inc. for the year ended January 30, 2010. 

/s/ Deloitte & ToucheLLP 

Miami, Florida 

April 13, 2010
§ 308.173 Prevailing party. ( a ) *General rule.* An eligible applicant who, following an adversary adjudication has gained victory on the merits in the proceeding is a “prevailing party”. An eligible applicant may be a “prevailing party” if a settlement of the proceeding was effected on terms favorable to it or if the proceeding against it has been dismissed. In appropriate situations an applicant may also have prevailed if the outcome of the proceeding has substantially vindicated the applicant's position on the significant substantive matters at issue, even though the applicant has not totally avoided adverse final action.
( b ) *Segregation of costs.* When a proceeding has presented a number of discrete substantive issues, an applicant may have prevailed even though all the issues were not resolved in its favor. If such an applicant is deemed to have prevailed, any award shall be based on the fees and expenses incurred in connection with the discrete significant substantive issue or issues on which the applicant's position has been upheld. If such segregation of costs is not practicable, the award may be based on a fair proration of those fees and expenses incurred in the entire proceeding which would be recoverable under § 308.175 if proration were not performed, whether separate or prorated treatment is appropriate, and the appropriate proration percentage, shall be determined on the facts of the particular case. Attention shall be given to the significance and nature of the respective issues and their separability and interrelationship.
§ 324.207 Specific risk. ( a ) *General requirement.* An FDIC-supervised institution must use one of the methods in this section to measure the specific risk for each of its debt, equity, and securitization positions with specific risk.
( b ) *Modeled specific risk.* An FDIC-supervised institution may use models to measure the specific risk of covered positions as provided in § 324.205(a) (therefore, excluding securitization positions that are not modeled under § 324.209). An FDIC-supervised institution must use models to measure the specific risk of correlation trading positions that are modeled under § 324.209. ( 1 ) *Requirements for specific risk modeling.* ( i ) If an FDIC-supervised institution uses internal models to measure the specific risk of a portfolio, the internal models must: ( A ) Explain the historical price variation in the portfolio;
( B ) Be responsive to changes in market conditions;
( C ) Be robust to an adverse environment, including signaling rising risk in an adverse environment; and
( D ) Capture all material components of specific risk for the debt and equity positions in the portfolio. Specifically, the internal models must: ( 1 ) Capture event risk and idiosyncratic risk; and
( 2 ) Capture and demonstrate sensitivity to material differences between positions that are similar but not identical and to changes in portfolio composition and concentrations.
( ii ) If an FDIC-supervised institution calculates an incremental risk measure for a portfolio of debt or equity positions under § 324.208, the FDIC-supervised institution is not required to capture default and credit migration risks in its internal models used to measure the specific risk of those portfolios.
( 2 ) *Specific risk fully modeled for one or more portfolios.* If the FDIC-supervised institution's VaR-based measure captures all material aspects of specific risk for one or more of its portfolios of debt, equity, or correlation trading positions, the FDIC-supervised institution has no specific risk add-on for those portfolios for purposes of § 324.204(a)(2)(iii).
( c ) *Specific risk not modeled.* ( 1 ) If the FDIC-supervised institution's VaR-based measure does not capture all material aspects of specific risk for a portfolio of debt, equity, or correlation trading positions, the FDIC-supervised institution must calculate a specific-risk add-on for the portfolio under the standardized measurement method as described in § 324.210.
( 2 ) An FDIC-supervised institution must calculate a specific risk add-on under the standardized measurement method as described in § 324.210 for all of its securitization positions that are not modeled under § 324.209.
# C_2022452EN.01001501.xml

| 29.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/15

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

28 November 2022

(2022/C 452/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0463 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 144,90 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4367 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86606 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,8973 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9872 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 146,70 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,3640 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,348 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 408,87 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6938 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9246 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 19,4844 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5632 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4062 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,1782 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6827 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4375 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 396,56 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,9376 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,5326 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5488 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 440,45 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6874 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,210 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,285 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,6354 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,2200 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,4370 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0463

JPY

Japanese yen

144,90

DKK

Danish krone

7,4367

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86606

SEK

Swedish krona

10,8973

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9872

ISK

Iceland króna

146,70

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,3640

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,348

HUF

Hungarian forint

408,87

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6938

RON

Romanian leu

4,9246

TRY

Turkish lira

19,4844

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5632

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4062

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,1782

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6827

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4375

KRW

South Korean won

1 396,56

ZAR

South African rand

17,9376

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,5326

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5488

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 440,45

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6874

PHP

Philippine peso

59,210

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

37,285

BRL

Brazilian real

5,6354

MXN

Mexican peso

20,2200

INR

Indian rupee

85,4370

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---