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

Section 302 Certification of Principal Financial Officer



I, Garry Wong, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dragon Pharmaceutical 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 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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 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 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonable 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 functions):

a.

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting.



|                       |                        
|---------------------- | -----------------------
|Date:  August 14, 2008 | /s/ Garry Wong         
|                       | Garry Wong             
|                       | Chief Financial Officer
Record of Contacts

 FDMS Docket No. FAA-2011-1416

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

Transport Canada Robert Farinas

(613) 952-4379

8/1/11 No Objections

Bombardier 

Aerospace

Alexandre StArnaud

855-5001 Ext 28482

8/1/11 No Objections

Regional Airline

Association

Connie Arnold

202-367-1252

Arnold@raa.org

8/1/11 No Objections
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JANUARY 30, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-10185

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 02-00599-CR-B-W

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

RANDALL BEVELLE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(January 30, 2006)

Before BLACK, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

Theresa A. Terrebonne, appointed counsel for Randall Bevelle in this direct
2

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Bevelle’s conviction and

sentence is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 10.8**

 

**AMENDMENT NO.****2**

**TO**

**2000 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ STOCK OPTION PLAN**

 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 by Tanox, Inc. (the “Company”),

 

**WITNESSETH:**

 

WHEREAS,the Company maintains the Tanox, Inc. 2000 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock OptionPlan, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto dated May 16, 2001 (the “Plan”);and

 

WHEREAS,the Company retained the right in Section 12 of the Plan for the Board ofDirectors of the Company to amend the Plan from time to time; and

 

WHEREAS,the Board of Directors approved resolutions on February 13, 2004, amending thePlan as set forth below;

 

NOW,THEREFORE, the Company agrees that, effective February 13, 2004, the Plan isamended as follows, subject in all respects to the approval hereof by thestockholders of the Company at the annual meeting of stockholders to be held in2004 and no Option awarded hereunder may be exercised unless and until suchapproval is granted:

 

1.  Section 2 of the Plan is hereby amended todelete the definition “Black Scholes Value.”

 

2.  Section 6 of the Plan is hereby amended toread as follows in its entirety:

 

**“6. Non-Discretionary Grants.**

 

(a) Initial Grant. After February 13, 2004, eachperson who is elected or appointed to be a Non-Employee Director for the firsttime automatically shall, upon the date of his or her election or appointment,be granted an Option to purchase 20,000 shares of Common Stock on the terms andconditions set forth herein.

 

(b) Subsequent Grant. Beginning with the 2004 annualmeeting of stockholders, each person who is a Non-Employee Director immediatelyfollowing any annual meeting of stockholders of the Company at which Directorsare elected, and who has not received a grant under Section 6(a) within thepreceding six months, shall automatically be granted, on the date of suchannual meeting, an Option to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock on theterms and conditions set forth herein.”

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this Amendment this 13th day ofFebruary 2004.

 
|   | TANOX, INC.                         |
|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   |                                |
|   |                                |
|   | By:                                 | /s/ Gregory P. Guidroz |   |
|   | Name: Gregory P. Guidroz            |
|   | Title: Vice  President—Finance |

 

1

----
#### § 780.914 “From the farm.”

The exemption applies only to employees whose work relates to transportation of fruits or vegetables “from the farm.” The phrase “from the farm” makes it clear that the preparation of the fruits or vegetables should be performed on the farm and that the first movement of the commodities should commence at the farm. A “farm” has been interpreted under the Act to mean a tract of land devoted to one or more of the primary branches of farming outlined in the definition of “agriculture” in section 3(f) of the Act. These expressly include the cultivation and tillage of the soil and the growing and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodities.
Hillsborough

No. 6596

#### James Bigwood *& a.*v. Town of Merrimack William Mullen v. Town of Merrimack

September 28, 1973

*539*Stein, Gormley & Morrill (Mr. Morris D. Stein*orally) for the plaintiffs.

*Leonard & Harkaway*and *William J. Groff (Mr. Groff*orally) for the defendant.

Per curiam.

In this petition for declaratory judgment the Trial Court, *Dunfey,*J., transferred without ruling on an agreed statement of facts the following question: “Does the Town of Merrimack have the authority to tax Mobile Homes and hold the Petitioners liable under the provisions of RSA 73:16-a, when the method for taxing Mobile Homes is specifically provided for under RSA 72:7-a?”

The plaintiffs are owners of mobile home parks in the town of Merrimack. Their land is divided into lots which are rented to the owners of mobile homes who place their homes on the lots and live in them. On termination of their tenancy, the owners remove their mobile homes. The defendant town has notified the plaintiffs that it intends to hold them responsible for the tax on the mobile homes so located in their respective parks. The town claims authority for its action under RSA 73:16-a, which provides in part that: “Whenever any person leaves upon the real estate of another person, with such person’s consent, any taxable personal property, the tax upon the same may be assessed to the owner of the land ... .” provided written notice is given to the landowner who is given a lien on the personal property for the tax paid.

RSA 72:7-a provides generally that a house trailer, travel trailer, or mobile home is taxable in the town where it is located on April 1 of each year. The town is given a lien on such trailer or mobile home for uncollected taxes.

The town notified the plaintiffs on April 1, 1971, of its intent to hold them responsible for the taxes on the mobile homes located in their parks under RSA 73:16-a and mailed them inventory forms.

*540The State tax commission for many years has consistently interpreted this statute as authorizing cities and towns to hold the landowners responsible for the tax on mobile homes located on their land and have so advised local taxing officials. Our examination of the legislative history of RSA 73:16-a and RSA 72:7-a convinces us that the legislature intended to give towns alternative methods of taxing mpbile homes and that RSA 72:7-a is not an exclusive method of taxation. Accordingly the answer to the transferred question is “Yes”.

*Declaratory judgment for the defendant in each case.*

Griffith, J., did not sit.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13687]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

May 23, 2000.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before July 3, 2000, 
to be assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1060.
    Form Number: IRS Form 8288-B.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Application for Withholding Certificate for Dispositions by 
Foreign Persons of U.S. Real Property Interest.
    Description: Form 8288-B is used to apply for a withholding 
certificate from IRS to reduce or eliminate the withholding required by 
section 145.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Individual or 
households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 5,079.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping.............................  2 hr., 4 min.
Learning about the law or the form........  2 hr., 2 min.
Preparing the form........................  1 hr., 1 min.
Copying, assembling, and sending the form   20 min.
 to the IRS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden: 27,782 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, Internal Revenue Service, Room 
5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-13687 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
§ 780.332 Exchange of labor between farmers. ( a ) Occasionally a farmer may help his neighbor with the harvest of his crop. For instance, Farmer B helps his neighbor Farmer A harvest his wheat. In return Farmer A helps Farmer B with the harvest at his farm.
( b ) In a case where neighboring farmers exchange their own work under an arrangement where the work of one farmer is repaid by the labor of the other farmer and there is no monetary compensation for these services paid or contemplated, the Department of Labor would not assert that either farmer is an employee of the other.
( c ) In addition, there may be instances where employees of a farmer also work for neighboring farmers during harvest time. For example, employees of Farmer A may help Farmer B with his harvest, and later, Farmer B's employees may help Farmer A. These employees would be included in the man-day count of the farmer for whom the work is performed on the day in question. Since the Act defines man-day to mean any day during which an employee performs any agricultural labor for not less than 1 hour, there may be days on which these employees work for both Farmer A and Farmer B for a “man-day.” In that event they would be included for that day in the man-day count of both Farmer A and Farmer B.
Exhibit 23
                                                                 ----------


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
     Statement (Form S-8 No. 2-79563) pertaining to the Incentive Stock
     Option Plan of Lumex, Inc. dated September 29, 1982, the Registration
     Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-46109) pertaining to the Charles E. Murcott
     1982 Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-
     46110) pertaining to the Lumex, Inc. 1987 Stock Option Plan, the
     Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-48124) pertaining to the
     Lumex, Inc. 1987 Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form
     S-8 No. 33-59947) pertaining to the Lumex, Inc. 1995 Omnibus Incentive
     Plan, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-59945)
     pertaining to the Lumex, Inc. 1995 Stock Retainer Plan for Nonemployee
     Directors of our report dated March 13, 1996, except for Notes B
     and E, as to which the date is April 4, 1996, with respect to the
     consolidated financial statements of Lumex, Inc. included in the
     Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1995.


                                     /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


     Melville, New York
     April 15, 1996
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

LEROY LONDON,

Petitioner

v.

ZONING BOARD OF PHILADELPHIA,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 570 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of April, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Submitted on record and briefs December 10, 1992,

reversed and remanded February 24,

reconsideration denied April 28, petition for review denied May 25, 1993 (316 Or 527)

#### Donald W. DAVIS, *Respondent, v.*Darwin K. ANDERSON and Doris B. Anderson, *Appellants.*

(9110-06601; CA A74313)

847 P2d 877

Darwin K. Anderson, Portland, filed the briefs for appellants.

James N. Esterkin, Portland, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*358PER CURIAM

Defendants appeal from a summary judgment. ORCP 47C. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the basis that a condition precedent to an agreement with defendants for the purchase of real property had not been met and therefore, he was entitled to the return of his earnest money. The agreement provides that defendants must accept or reject plaintiff as a buyer within five days of defendants’ receipt of plaintiffs financial statement. In support of his motion, plaintiff averred that, in response to the submission of his financial statement, defendants notified him that they would consider the condition satisfied if plaintiff would submit a credit report on the closing date of the sale that met certain requirements.

Plaintiffs *only*argument in response to defendants’ appeal is that defendants’ “sole assignment of error concerns the court’s failure to allow defendants’ motion for summary judgment.” The court did not rule on defendants motion for summary judgment because it granted summary judgment to plaintiff. Defendants have assigned as error the granting of plaintiffs motion as well as the failure to grant their motion. Because there are controverting affidavits, a genuine issue of material fact exists that precludes summary judgment.1

Reversed and remanded.

1

 A party opposing summary judgment may not rest on the allegations in that party’s pleading but must, by affidavit or otherwise, set out specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact. *Bostick Family Trust v. Magliocco,*64 Or App 305, 308, 667 P2d 1044 (1983). Mere denials of allegations in a pleading by affidavit do not establish the absence of a genuine issue of fact. *Beachcraft Marine Corp. v. Roster,*116 Or App 133, 840 P2d 1336 (1992).
#### § 95.15 Metric system of measurement.

The Metric Conversion Act, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (15 U.S.C. 205), declares that the metric system is the preferred measurement system for U.S. trade and commerce. The Act requires each Federal agency to establish a date or dates in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, when the metric system of measurement will be used in the agency's procurements, grants, and other business-related activities. Metric implementation may take longer where the use of the system is initially impractical or likely to cause significant inefficiencies in the accomplishment of federally-funded activities. DOL shall follow the provisions of E.O. 12770, “Metric Usage in Federal Government Programs.”
Exhibit 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
             (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
                          TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)


Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of Title 18,  United States Code),  each of the
undersigned  officers of Dragon  Pharmaceutical Inc., a Florida corporation (the
"Company"),  does hereby  certify  with respect to the  Quarterly  Report of the
Company on Form  10-QSB for the  quarter  ended June 30,  2005 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  (the "Form  10-QSB")  that, to the best of
their knowledge:

     (1) the Form 10-QSB 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 Form 10-QSB fairly  presents,  in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.


Dated: September 21, 2005
                                                   /s/ Yanlin Han
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Yanlin Han
                                                   Chief Executive Officer

Dated: September 21, 2005
                                                   /s/ Garry Wong
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Garry Wong
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
#### § 870.2 Amendments to this part.

The Administrator may, at any time upon his own motion or upon written request of any interested person setting forth reasonable grounds therefor, amend any rules in this part.
|   | (i)      the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period      ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;      and |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      December 27, 2009 |   /s/      GABRIEL TIRADOR                      |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |   Gabriel      Tirador, Chief Executive Officer |
#### § 531.30 “Furnished” to the employee.

The reasonable cost of board, lodging, or other facilities may be considered as part of the wage paid an employee only where customarily “furnished” to the employee. Not only must the employee receive the benefits of the facility for which he is charged, but it is essential that his acceptance of the facility be voluntary and uncoerced. See *Williams* v. *Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.* (E.D.N.C.). 1 W.H. Cases 289.
#### § 4071.1 Purpose and scope.

This part specifies the maximum daily amount of penalties that may be assessed by the PBGC under ERISA section 4071 for certain failures to provide notices or other material information, as such amount has been adjusted to account for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
#### § 553.225 Early relief.

It is a common practice among employees engaged in fire protection activities to relieve employees on the previous shift prior to the scheduled starting time. Such early relief time may occur pursuant to employee agreement, either expressed or implied. This practice will not have the effect of increasing the number of compensable hours of work for employees employed under section 7(k) where it is voluntary on the part of the employees and does not result, over a period of time, in their failure to receive proper compensation for all hours actually worked. On the other hand, if the practice is required by the employer, the time involved must be added to the employee's tour of duty and treated as compensable hours of work.
#### § 531.38 Amounts deducted for taxes.

Taxes which are assessed against the employee and which are collected by the employer and forwarded to the appropriate governmental agency may be included as “wages” although they do not technically constitute “board, lodging, or other facilities” within the meaning of section 3(m). This principle is applicable to the employee's share of social security and State unemployment insurance taxes, as well as other Federal, State, or local taxes, levies, and assessments. No deduction may be made for any tax or share of a tax which the law requires to be borne by the employer.