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



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF



THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Micheal Nugent, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-K of Nugent Engine Technologies, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Registrant"), for the twelve month period from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008;



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 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: April 15, 2009 |  | /s/ Micheal Nugent             | 
|                     |  | Name:  Micheal Nugent         
|                     |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      15**




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**








To
      the
      Board of Directors and Shareholders of


Mediware
      Information Systems, Inc.





We
      have
      reviewed, in accordance with standards established by the Public Company
      Accounting Oversight Board (United States) the unaudited interim condensed
      consolidated financial statements of Mediware Information Systems, Inc. and
      subsidiaries as of September 30, 2007 and for the three month periods ended
      September 30, 2007 and 2006 as indicated in our review report dated November
      2,
      2007.  Because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on
      those financial statements.





We
      are
      aware that our review report, which is included in your Quarterly Report on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, is incorporated by
      reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-07591,
      No. 333-83016, No. 333-119503, No. 333-123496 and No.
      333-130576).





We
      are
      also aware that our review report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the
      Securities Act of 1933 (the "Act"), is not considered a part of the Registration
      Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
      certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the
      Act and the accountants’ Section 11 liability does not extend to such
      report.








Eisner
      LLP


New
      York,
      New York


November
      2, 2007
From: sltrobin@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:32:56 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,

Robert and Robin Bender

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96151
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

DETAILED SAMPLE LOG

DRILLER'S LOG

sit9.99
Sh-i9,09

000

Rochester
shole

“yo

"Packer shell”

i

0000 joo 4
z
8

|

100 000 000 r

|
|

“Stray
= Glinton*
‘sand

pono

DOO ef

Clinton

ow
sit-la
Sh-19,00
Semi
sitlg,09
shag

Ss—w,o-00
Sit-99,19

sitgg,la

sh-g9,le

Sit-19,90

"Red Clinton'sand

BULLETIN 1003 PLATE 1

EXPLANATION

‘Sandstone

Shale and shel

ABBREVIATIONS FOR

Ss, sandstone
Ls, limestone

Gh, chert

Dol, dotomite

Sh, shale

‘SYMBOLS KEYED TO THE ROCK-COLOR CHART
‘OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

w, white No
Te Nery ight gray N8 to medium ight ray NE
. eroensh fey DGYEA to Sere
Br terse ‘Srels ta grayisteres BRAID”

DIAGRAM SHOWING COMPARISON OF THE DRILLER’S LOG AND A
DETAILED SAMPLE RECORD OF A WELL IN THE DOVER
QUADRANGLE, OHIO. SHOWS RELATIVE POSITION OF

THE THREE “CLINTON” SANDS

265183 © ~ 53 {In Pocket) No, 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

TERRY CANTRELL,

 Defendant.

Case No. CR06 - 5065

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( X ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( X ) Defendant’s documented substantial, long term substance abuse issues.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( X ) Lack of a stable residence.

 ( ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( X ) Failures to comply with prior court orders.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 April 3, 2006.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-mj-05065-JKA Document 7 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 61596.

#### S. M. Wolff Company *v.*United States,

protest 302127-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             526
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                120306
<PP&E>                                          166717
<DEPRECIATION>                                   18128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2965221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1184701
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      55035
<COMMON>                                        528383
<OTHER-SE>                                    15365100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2965221
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1229822
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (3359023)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1229822)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (2129201)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (3359023)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.081)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.081)


</TABLE>
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

SADIE YVONNE COLEMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-0788-RSL-MAT

(CR01-309-RSL)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Petitioner has filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to the government’s

answer to her § 2255 motion. Having considered the motion and the balance of the record, the

Court does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The government’s answer was noted for consideration on July 8, 2005. (Dkt. #9).

Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time was filed on July 21, 2005 and therefore is not timely.

(Dkt. #14). As grounds for her delay in responding, petitioner cites her father’s death on May 25,

2005 and her transfer to another prison on June 28, 2005. ( Id. at 2). While petitioner

acknowledges that she received the government’s answer on June 24, 2005, she maintains that she

was still “emotionally dealing with her father’s death,” and unable to focus on her response. (Id.)

Under these circumstances, and because petitioner is proceeding pro se, the Court finds that

petitioner has shown good cause for the delay. Accordingly, her motion for an extension of time

(Dkt. #14) is GRANTED.

Case 2:05-cv-00788-RSL Document 15 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

PAGE -2

(2) Petitioner shall file her response no later than August 19, 2005. The government

may file a reply no later than August 25, 2005. Petitioner is advised that the Court will grant no

further extensions of time absent extraordinary circumstances.

(3) The Clerk shall RENOTE Petitioner’s underlying § 2255 motion for consideration

on August 26, 2005. The Clerk shall also direct copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for

respondent, and to the Hon. Robert S. Lasnik.

DATED this 25th day of July , 2005.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-00788-RSL Document 15 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.2.2

                               EASTERN ENTERPRISES
                     Deferred Compensation Plan for Trustees

                            Amendment (December 1999)

      Pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Eastern Enterprises Deferred Compensation
Plan for Trustees (as amended, the "Plan"), Paragraph 14 of the Plan
("Miscellaneous") is hereby amended by denominating the first subparagraph
(begins: "The Plan was originally effective . . .") as subparagraph (a), by
denominating the next subparagraph (begins: "Reference is hereby made . . .") as
subparagraph (c), and by inserting immediately after subparagraph (a) and before
subparagraph (c) the following new text, effective December 1, 1999:

            "(b) Reference is made to Eastern's Restricted Stock Plan for
      Non-Employee Trustees (the "Restricted Stock Plan"), under which Eligible
      Trustees have been granted shares of Eastern stock subject to specified
      forfeiture restrictions. In the case of each Eligible Trustee who (i) as
      of December 1, 1999 held shares of such stock as to which the Eligible
      Trustee had not made a so-called "83(b) election" ("applicable restricted
      shares") and (ii) elects to relinquish his or her applicable restricted
      shares in accordance with such procedures as the Secretary of Eastern may
      prescribe, there shall be credited to the Eligible Trustee's Share Unit
      Account, effective as of the date of such relinquishment, a number of
      vested Share Units equal to the number of applicable restricted shares so
      relinquished. The Share Units credited pursuant to the immediately
      preceding sentence shall be treated for purposes of the Plan in the same
      manner as other Share Units credited to the Eligible Trustee's Share Unit
      Account."

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Eastern Enterprises has caused this instrument of
amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer this 20th day of
December, 1999.

                                          EASTERN ENTERPRISES

                                    By:   /s/ J. Atwood Ives
                                          ---------------------------
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE - 1

(CURRY, CR06-110RSM)

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR06-110RSM

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER GRANTING

v. ) STIPULATED MOTION TO

) CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

MYRON COSMO CURRY, )

)

Defendant. ) )

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the stipulated motion of the parties to

continue the trial date. 

Having reviewed the stipulation of the parties, the Court hereby finds that the ends

of justice outweigh the defendant’s and the public's right to a speedy trial. The Court's

finding is based on the facts and grounds outlined in the stipulated motion and

incorporated herein by this reference. 

Now, therefore it is hereby:

ORDERED that the stipulated motion to continue is GRANTED. Trial in this

matter is continued to January 29, 2007. Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial

rights no later than October 13, 2006. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cr-00110-RSM Document 85 Filed 10/19/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE - 2

(CURRY, CR06-110RSM)

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,

Section 3161(h), the period of time from November 2, 2006, to the new trial date, for

all defendants, is excluded in the computation of time under the Speedy Trial Act as this

is a reasonable period of delay. 

SO ORDERED this 19th day of October, 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Vincent T. Lombardi 

VINCENT T. LOMBARDI WSB # 21967

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Ste. 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101

Facsimile: 206-553-4440

Phone: 206-553-5178

E-mail: vince.lombardi@usdoj.gov

Criminal Defense Associates

/s/ Alan Baum 

20700 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 301

Woodland Hills, CA 91364

Phone: 818-313-6870

Email: Alan.Baum@emailcda.com

(By Email Authorization, 8/6/06)

Case 2:06-cr-00110-RSM Document 85 Filed 10/19/06 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6392
JEFFREY S. BLANEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EDWARD MURRAY, Director, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-93-1502-AM) Submitted: August 27, 1996 Decided: September 10, 1996 Before HAMILTON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey S. Blaney, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed byFed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Before the Second Division,

February 26, 1958

No. 61587.

#### Reliance International Mfg., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 261503-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of harness hardware for use with harness for dogs the same in all material respects as that involved in *International Expediters, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 230, C. D. 1868), the claim of plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS DEADLINE 1 

CR05-5784FDB

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

 JUDGE FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JONATHAN MOAMLAE;

EDWARD WILLIAMS; and

MAZZAR ROBINSON,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR05-5784FDB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS

DEADLINE

Upon motion of the defendant to continue the pretrial motions due date, the Court

finds that such a continuance would serve the ends of justice; therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pretrial motions due date in this matter be

continued to February 2, 2006. 

DONE this 24th day of January, 2006.

A

JUDGE FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Presented by:

/s/ Jerome Kuh /s/ Kent Liu 

Jerome Kuh Kent Liu

Attorney for Moamlae Assistant United States Attorney

/s/ Zennon Olbertz /s/ Judith Mandel 

Zennon Olbertz Judith Mandel

Attorney for Williams Attorney for Robinson

Case 3:05-cr-05784-RBL Document 39 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 1