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

CERTIFICATION OF TREASURER

I, Steven L. Suss, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Excelsior Private Equity Fund II, 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(s) 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 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(s) 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 the 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 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: September 14, 2007                   
|                                           
|/s/ Steven L. Suss                         
|Steven L. Suss, Principal Financial Officer



24
From: asharp@tcbphila.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:00:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Amy Sharp

Union, MS 39365
No. 416.

#### In re Alford.

*Charles Hieken*and *David Wolf*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Guilfoyle*and *Morton Hollander*for the Commissioner of Patents, in opposition.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. Certiorari denied.
From: rpf@iowatelecom.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:30:17 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rod Fonkert

Sheldon, IA 51201
No. 337, Misc.

#### Foran *v.*Maxwell, Warden.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Mark McElroy,*Attorney General of Ohio, and *John J. Connors, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied. Treating the papers submitted as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
From: mcl5aem@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:56:12 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Anne McLaughlin

New York, NY 10010
The Honorable Joe Resweber

Harris County Attorney Houston, Texas 77002 Opinion No. H-927 Re: Whether a judge is a retired judge forpurposes of article 2338-lc, V.T.C.S. DearMr. Resweber: You have requested our opinion regarding themeaning of the term "retired judge" forpurposes of article 2338-lc, V.T.C.S. Article 2338-1~ provides that under certain circumstances, the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district may appoint a "retired judge of a special juvenile court or adomestic relations court," so long as "the retired judgevoluntarily retired from office." Sec. 1(a). Judges of special juvenile courts and domestic relations courts are not included within theprovisions of article 6228h,V.T.C.S. which dealwith the retirement of district judges. Rather, such judges retire pursuant toarticle 6228g,V.T.C.S., the County and District Retirement Act. That statute defines "retirement" as

withdrawal from service with a retirement benefit granted under the provisions of thisAct. Sec. 2(22). Inour opinion, because article 2338-1~ does not itself define the **term** "retired judge," it is appropriate to refer to the statute which provides for the retirement of judges of special juvenile and domestic relations courts. Since that statute, article 6228g, defines "retirement" tomean only withdrawal from service which ispursuant thereto, it isour opinion that a "retired judge" forpurposes of article 2338-1~ isa judgewho has retired pursuant to the **terms** of **article 6228g.** 

p. 3880The Honorable Joe Resweber -page 2 (H-927)

SUMMARY A "retired judge" for purposes of article 2338-1~ isa judgewho has retired pursuant to the terms of article 6228g.

// Attorney General of Texas APPROVED: f,,' T‘.~ kq ,Llp'.'
DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant

,. F.4AL2zA9 HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 3881

\
Exhibit



    



FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE 
AVON PRODUCTS, INC. 2005 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT is made to the Avon Products, Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan by AVON PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York (the “Company”).
INTRODUCTION
The Company maintains the Avon Products, Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).  The Company now wishes to amend the Plan to (i) modify the definition of “Committee” and (ii) permit the Committee (as defined in the Plan) to delegate certain of its duties to a subcommittee.  Such amendment would be effective as of March 1, 2016 for awards outstanding under the Plan on or after such date.
AMENDMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the Plan, effective as of March 1, 2016, as follows:
1.  By replacing Section 2(i) in its entirety with the following:
““Committee” means Compensation and Management Development Committee of the Board or such other the committee appointed by the Board to administer the Plan, (i) each member of which must be “independent” under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, (ii) at least two members of which must satisfy the criteria for being an “outside director” for purposes of Code Section 162(m) and (iii) at least two members of which must satisfy the criteria for being a “non-employee director” for purposes of Rule 16b-3 under the Exchange Act; provided that, with respect to Awards to non-employee directors under an Award Program, “Committee” means the Board or the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board.” 


2.   By adding the following sentence to the end of Section 8(a) thereof:


“The Committee may delegate the approval of certain transactions to subcommittees consisting solely of members of the Committee who are (i) “outside directors” for purposes of Code Section 162(m) or (ii) “non-employee directors” for purposes of Rule 16b-3 under the Exchange Act.”


Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this Fourth Amendment.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Fourth Amendment to be executed on the date set forth below.
	
		
	 
	AVON PRODUCTS, INC.

	Dated: March 1, 2016
	By:       
Title:   








1
#### William C. Hussey, Respondent, v. John J. Coger, Appellant.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
From: terrimichel@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:00:29 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Matilda Michel

Elizabeth, CO 80107
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DWIGHT HICKS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-908

[ July 13, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 11-16567CF10A.

Dwight Hicks, Blountstown, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
|                                                                               |   | Three Months Ended |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------|--------|
|                                                                               |   | March 31,          |   |   | March 31, |   |
|                                                                               |   | 2010               |   |   | 2009 |   |
|                                                                               |   |               |   |   |   |   |
| Profit                                                                             |   | $                  | 53     |   |   | $ | 51 |   |
|                                                                               |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Add:                                                                               |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   Provision for income taxes                                             |   |               | 16     |   |   |   | 16 |   |
|                                                                               |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Deduct:                                                                            |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   Partnership income                                                     |   |               | -      |   |   |   | - |   |
|                                                                               |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit before income taxes and partnership income                                  |   | $                  | 69     |   |   | $ | 67 |   |
|                                                                               |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges:                                                                     |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   Interest expense                                                       |   | $                  | 234    |   |   | $ | 282 |   |
|   Rentals at computed interest*                                          |   |               | 1      |   |   |   | 2 |   |
|                                                                               |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total fixed charges                                                                |   | $                  | 235    |   |   | $ | 284 |   |
|                                                                               |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit before income taxes plus fixed charges                                      |   | $                  | 304    |   |   | $ | 351 |   |
|                                                                               |   |               |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of profit before income taxes plus  fixed charges to fixed charges |   |               | 1.29   |   |   |   | 1.24 |   |
No. 353, Misc.

#### Nash *v.*Connecticut.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut. Certiorari denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-12928

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20896-JAL-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

QUARTAVIOUS DAVIS, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, 

PRYOR, MARTIN, JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit 

Judges.*

BY THE COURT: 

 

*

Senior United States Circuit Judge Joel F. Dubina has elected not to participate in 

further proceedings in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c). 

Case: 12-12928 Date Filed: 09/04/2014 Page: 1 of 2 
Petitions for rehearing en banc having been filed, a member of this Court in 

active service having requested a poll on whether this case should be reheard en 

banc, and a majority of the judges of this Court in active service having voted in 

favor of granting rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that this case will be reheard 

en banc. The panel’s opinion is VACATED. 

Case: 12-12928 Date Filed: 09/04/2014 Page: 2 of 2
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (7.01 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil