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

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Linda  Ehlen,  certify  that:

1.  I  have  reviewed  this  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-KSB of FTS Group, 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 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  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  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  registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiary,  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  registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial  reporting  that  occurred  during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that  has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's  internal  control  over  financial  reporting;  and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most  recent  evaluation  of  internal  control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or  persons  performing  the  equivalent  function):

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  registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial  reporting.

               DATE:  April 5,  2005

               /s/  Linda  Ehlen
               ______________________________________
               By:  Linda  Ehlen
               Chief  Financial  Officer
               April  5,  2005
#### SCHUMACHER v SIEFERT

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10669.

Decided May 26, 1930

J. R. & H. R. Snyder, Cleveland, for Schumacher.

Fred C. Printy, Cleveland, for Siefert. MIDDLETON, PJ and MAUCK, J (4th Dist) and SHERICK, J (5th Dist) sitting

*432SHERICK, J.

A number of errors are complained of in this cause, but the only one strenuously insisted upon in this court is that the defendant in error is not entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages until she shall have first shown that she has been actually damaged by the trespass. We do not find that this question has been heretofore adjudicated by an Ohio Court; but the general rule .applicable to the question seems to have been considered in many other jurisdictions, and we believe it to be the general rule that, if a plaintiff has suffered no actual damages or actual loss, that he cannot maintain an'action merely to recover punitive and exemplary damages, for there must be some actual damages sustained and shown, although the elements otherwise authorizing the assessment of exemplary damages may exist. A plaintiff surely has no right to maintain an action merely for the purpose of inflicting a punishment upon another and exemplary damages are in no case a right of the plaintiff upon which an action may be founded in the absence of actual damage. There must be some actual damage, even if the same be no more than nominal to support such an action.

The trial court in its decision on the matter in question clearly states that there is no proof of nominal or actual damages shown in this case, but it is found that the acts complained of were done with malice. It rather seems to this court that the trial court carried the assumption that it was his duty to impose a fine for destroying a fence as provided in 12,483 GC, but it must be remembered that this was not a prosecution for a misdemeanor, but was an action in trespass for damages sustained to her estate.

We believe that the following authorities fully support the view herein announced, and we direct attention to the case of Gilhan vs. Deveraux, 67 Mont. 75; 214 Pacific, 606; 33 A. L. R. 381.

The note appended to the cases reported in A. L. R. at page 385 is exhaustive and lists many authorities.

The general rule is stated in the same language in 8 R. C. L. page 593, Section 137, and also in Sedgwick on Damages, 9th Edition, Volume 1, Section 361.

It is, therefore, the judgment of this court that this action be and the same is hereby reversed, and this court coming now to enter the judgment that the trial court should have entered, enters final judgment for the plaintiff in error and judgment is rendered against the defendant in error for costs. Exceptions may be noted.

Middleton, PJ, and Mauck, J, concur.
POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned Director and/or
officer of Kinark Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby
constitutes and appoints Paul R. Chastain the true and lawful agent and
attorney-in-fact of the undersigned with full power of substitution and
authority to sign for the undersigned, as Director or an officer of the
Company, or as both, the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the period
ended December 31, 1999, and any and all exhibits and amendments thereto to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C. pursuant
to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; hereby
ratifying and confirming all acts taken by such agent and attorney-in-fact as
herein authorized.

Dated: March 29, 2000                   /s/ John H. Sununu
                                        John H. Sununu
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 accompanying Annual Report of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, D. Michael Parker, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: July 8, 2005



/s/ D. Michael ParkerD. Michael Parker Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
§ 93.350 Definitions. For the purposes of this subpart only the following definitions apply: ( a ) *Local operation.* Any aircraft within the Hudson River Exclusion that is conducting an operation other than as described in paragraph (b) of this section. Local operations include but are not limited to operations for sightseeing, electronic news gathering, and law enforcement.
( b ) *Transient operation.* Aircraft transiting the entire length of the Hudson River Class B Exclusion, as defined in paragraph (d) of this section, from one end to the other.
( c ) *New York Class B airspace East River Exclusion* is that airspace below 1,500 feet MSL between the east and west banks of, and overlying, the East River beginning at lat. 40°38′39′′ N., long. 74°02′03′′ W., thence north along a line drawn direct to the southwestern tip of Governors Island, thence north along a line direct to the southwest tip of Manhattan Island, thence north along the west bank of the East River to the LGA VOR/DME 6-mile arc, thence counterclockwise along the 6-mile arc to the east bank of the East River, thence south along the east bank of the East River to the point of beginning at lat. 40°38′39′′ N., long 74°02′03′′ W.; and that airspace 1,100 feet MSL and below between the east and west banks of, and overlying the East River, from the LGA VOR/DME 6-mile arc to the north tip of Roosevelt Island.
( d ) *New York Class B airspace Hudson River Exclusion* is that area from the surface up to but not including the overlying floor of the New York Class B airspace area, between the east and west banks of, and overlying, the Hudson River within the area beginning north of LaGuardia Airport on the west bank of the Hudson River at lat. 40°57′45′′ N., long. 73°54′48′′ W. (near Alpine Tower), thence south along the west bank of the Hudson River to intersect the Colts Neck VOR/DME 012° radial, thence southwest along the Colts Neck 012° radial to the Hudson River shoreline, thence south along the shoreline to the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, thence east along the Bridge to the east bank of the Hudson River, thence north along the east bank of the Hudson River to lat. 40°38′39′′ N., long. 74°02′03′′ W., thence north along a line drawn direct to the southwesternmost point of Governors Island, thence north along a line drawn direct to the southwest tip of Manhattan Island, thence north along the east bank of the Hudson River to the LGA VOR/DME 11-mile arc, north of LaGuardia Airport, thence counterclockwise along the 11-mile arc to lat. 40°57′54′′ N., long. 73°54′23′′ W., thence to the point of beginning.
#### LEONARD v. BAKER.

(Decided December 1, 1916.)

Appeal from Walker Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. J. Curtis.

No counsel marked for appellant.

Finch & PENNINGTON, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
# EUR-Lex - 31996R2215 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996R2215

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2215/96 of 20 November 1996 providing for derogating measures in respect of 'Glühwein' **

*
Official Journal L 296 , 21/11/1996 P. 0030 - 0030 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2215/96 of 20 November 1996 providing for derogating measures in respect of 'Glühwein`

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91 of 10 June 1991 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of aromatized wines, aromatized wine-based drinks and aromatized wine-product cocktails (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2061/96 (2), and in particular Article 4 (4) thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2061/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 October 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of aromatized wines, aromatized wine-based drinks and aromatized wine-product cocktails, and in particular Article 2 thereof,

Whereas Article 2 (3) (f) of Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91 prohibits the addition of water to 'Glühwein`, except through sweetening; whereas Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2061/96 provides for the introduction of measures derogating therefrom in respect of that product for a transitional period extending to 31 January 1998; whereas, those derogating measures should be adopted;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are accordance with the opinion of the Implementation Committee for aromatized wines, aromatized wine-based drinks and aromatized wine-product cocktails,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. Without prejudice to operations involving sweetening, 'Glühwein` may be prepared with added water until 31 January 1998, provided that the minimum proportions of wine laid down for the preparation of aromatized wine-based drinks in accordance with Article 2 (1) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91 are complied with.

2. For the purposes of this Regulation, 'prepared` refers to a finished product which has been bottled and labelled and is intended for the final consumer.

3. Products prepared in accordance with paragraph 1 which have actually left manufacturers' plants and places of storage at 31 January 1998 may be held with a view to sale, placed on the market and exported until stocks are used up.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 November 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 149, 14. 6. 1991, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 277, 30. 10. 1996, p. 1.
EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 of American Sports Development Group Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, John Pope, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     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 result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ John Pope
-------------
John Pope
Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  May 20, 2003
#### Ward v. Southern Pennsylvania Bus Co.

*593
      *Paul C. Van Dyke,*for plaintiff.

*Robert W. Beatty,*for defendant.

November 10, 1958.

Diggins, J.,

— Plaintiff instituted suit in trespass after the statute had run and alleged in the complaint certain facts now urged as constituting promissory estoppel against defendant, tolling the statute. Defendant’s answer simply takes the position that this allegation, among others, requires no answer, but demands proof thereof at the trial, and in new matter specifically pleads the statute of limitations, to which plaintiff replies that since defendant did not answer the' allegation of 'promissory estoppel, it is taken as admitted.

Since this is an action in trespass, the only answer necessary is to deny agency and instrumentality or to set up an affirmative defense. Here the answer does, inter alia, set up the affirmative defense of the statute. We think that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to answer specifically the allegation of promissory estoppel is not to admit the fact, particularly where defendant demands proof: Pa. R. C. P. 1045.

With the pleadings in this position, defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings. We think such a motion premature since the motion is based on plaintiff’s failure to prove promissory estoppel and there are no facts on the record to enable a court to decide. Therefore, we make the following

*Amended Order*

And now, to wit, November 10, 1958, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be and the same is hereby dismissed, proof of the alleged promissory estoppel to be presented on an appropriate testimony list.
Form of Option issued under the April Purchase Agreement



 Exhibit 4.7 
  

					
	 


 ACN 009 232 026
	 		  	 REGISTERED OFFICE
 Level 12,
BGC Centre
 28 The Esplanade
 Perth WA
6000


  

			
	 [NAME]
	  	Certificate Number
	 [ADDRESS]
	  	
		  	Security Number
		  	C0000000908

 JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION: WESTERN AUSTRALIA 
   
  
 OPTION CERTIFICATE 
  

OPTIONS EXPIRING AT 5:00 PM (AWST) ON 5 APRIL 2011 
 EXERCISABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ISSUE AT AN 
 EXERCISABLE
PRICE OF A$0.2695 PER OPTION 
  

					
	 Date
	  	Transaction Type	  	Quantity
			
	 5 April 2007
	  	Allotment	  	

 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE NAMED IS THE REGISTERED HOLDER OF OPTIONS OVER FULLY PAID SHARES IN
PSIVIDA LIMITED ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMPANY. 
 Signed in accordance with the
constitution of the Company 
  

					
	Director	 		  	Company Secretary

 Share Registry: Computershare Investor Services Pty Limited 
 GPO Box D182 
 PERTH WA 6840 
 Enquiries (within Australia) 1300 557 010 
 (outside
Australia) 61 8 9323 2000 
 Facsimile 61 8 9323 2033 
 THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE SURRENDED TO THE COMPANY ON TRANSFER OF ANY OF THE ABOVE OPTIONS. 
  
  







 

 
 Application Form on Exercise of Unlisted Options Expiring 5 April 2011 
 To the Directors, pSivida Limited 
  

							
		 		 
	 I/We hereby exercise
	  	 	  	option(s) and hand you herewith my/our cheque for	  	 

  

					
		 	
	 being 0.2695 cents per share on application for  
	  	 	  	ordinary shares in the capital of the Company.

 I/We request that you allot me that number of shares and I/We agree to accept that number of shares
on the terms below and the Constitution of the Company, and I/We authorise you to place my/our name on the register. 
  

					
			 
	 My/Our Holder Number (as shown on my/our Certificate) is
	 		  	 

  
  
 Sign Here—This section must be signed for your instructions to be executed 
 I/We authorise you to act in accordance with my/our instructions set out above. 
  

									
	 Individual of Securityholder 1
  
	  		  	 Securityholder 2
  
	  		  	 Securityholder 3
  

	 		 		 
	 	  		  	 	  		  	 
	 Director
	  		  	Director/Company Secretary	  		  	 Sole Director and
 Sole
Company Secretary


  

							
	Note: when signed under Power of Attorney, the attorney states that they have not received a notice of revocation. Computershare Investor Services Pty Limited needs to sight a
certified copy of the Power of Attorney.	  	Day/Date	  	Month	  	Year
		 	 	 
		  	 	  	 	  	 

  
  
  
 Terms and 
 Conditions of 
 Options Attached
# EUR-Lex - 31998R0843 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R0843

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 843/98 of 22 April 1998 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/97 as regards the breakdown between the Member States of areas under apple trees, pear trees, peach trees and nectarine trees for which grubbing-up premiums can be granted **

*
Official Journal L 120 , 23/04/1998 P. 0010 - 0010 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 843/98 of 22 April 1998 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/97 as regards the breakdown between the Member States of areas under apple trees, pear trees, peach trees and nectarine trees for which grubbing-up premiums can be granted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/97 of 30 October 1997 on the improvement of the Community production of apples, pears, peaches and nectarines (1), and in particular Article 1(2) thereof,

Whereas Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/97 breaks down between the Member States the area in respect of which grubbing-up premiums as provided for in Article 1(1) of that Regulation can be granted; whereas Article 1(2) of that Regulation stipulates the limit and the procedure applying to amendments to that breakdown;

Whereas, according to information received by the Commission up to 1 April 1998, applications for grubbing-up premiums in certain Member States cover areas smaller than those mentioned in Article 1(2) of the abovementioned Regulation; whereas the total areas still available amount to 630 hectares in the case of apple trees and pear trees and 1 264 hectares in the case of peach trees and nectarine trees; whereas those areas should be allocated to Member States where the areas covered by applications exceed those mentioned in Article 1(2) of the abovementioned Regulation and, as a priority, to those Member States where withdrawals represent the highest percentages of production; whereas, however, transfers should not involve areas of less than about 50 hectares;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fruit and Vegetables,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The table in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/97 is hereby replaced by the following.

>TABLE>

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 April 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 303, 6. 11. 1997, p. 3.