alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.B** **CERTIFICATION**     I, Dane E. Whitehead, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q    of El Paso Exploration & Production Company;     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. /s/  *Dane    E. Whitehead*    Dane E. Whitehead
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERNON SCOTT UNDERWOOD,

 CIV. S-04-1078-DFL-PAN

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER RE DISPOSITION AFTER

 NOTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE

COMPANY OF AMERICA, 

EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS'

MEDICAL GROUP, INC. LONG

TERM DISABILITY PLAN, 

Defendants. 

 /

This action has been settled. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 

That counsel file settlement/dismissal documents, in

accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16-160, no later

than June 10, 2005.

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-01078-DFL-PAN Document 28 Filed 05/13/05 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

2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 5/12/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01078-DFL-PAN Document 28 Filed 05/13/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 51697.

#### Protests 995189-G, etc., of Amfo, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Alliant Energy Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Erroll B. Davis, Jr.

Erroll B. Davis, Jr.

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

March 4, 2005
No. 50406.

Suit 4465.

#### *W. X. Huber Co.*v. *United States.*

affirmed March 5, 1945. C. A. D. 315.
|  Name                of Company                 |  State                of Incorporation |
|------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |                                        |
| Kansas                City Power & Light Company | Missouri                                    |
|                                                 |                                        |
| Innovative                Energy Consultants Inc.    | Missouri                                    |
|                                                 |                                        |
| KLT                Inc.                              | Missouri                                    |
|                                                 |                                        |
| KLT                Energy Services Inc.              | Missouri                                    |
|                                                 |                                        |
| Custom                Energy Holdings, L.L.C.        | Delaware                                    |
|                                                 |                                        |
| Strategic                Energy, L.L.C.              | Delaware                                    |
|                                                 |                                        |
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- The Boeing Company Under Contract No. N00383-06-D-001J APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 58974

Kara M. Sacilotto, Esq. Scott M. McCaleb, Esq. John R. Prairie, Esq. Jon W. Burd, Esq. Craig M. Smith, Esq.

Wiley Rein LLP Washington, DC Ronald J. Borro, Esq.

Navy ChiefTrial Attorney Anthony K. Hicks, Esq.

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 4 January 2016

# ~~EN· Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58974, Appeal ofThe Boeing Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            10,155
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                            3,790
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                              3,892
<EQUITIES>                                         893
<MORTGAGE>                                       1,716
<REAL-ESTATE>                                       75
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  18,094
<CASH>                                               9
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               1,526
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           1,364
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,131
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 17,069
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                 48
<POLICY-OTHER>                                     180
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                              200
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                    711
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              353
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            93
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,131
<PREMIUMS>                                       1,135
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              1,103
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 111
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     229
<BENEFITS>                                       1,399
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                         88
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             (197)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    591
<INCOME-TAX>                                       195
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                396
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       370
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.20
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER V. LUCAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0586 GEB CMK P

vs.

B. ARNOLD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On October 28, 2005, plaintiff filed a “motion for extension of time, in which to

prepare.” That document was not served on defendants. Failure to effect proper service has been

an ongoing problem for plaintiff. 

 Plaintiff is, once again, advised that every document submitted to the court for

consideration must be served on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Plaintiff is required to serve all

documents in this action conventionally in accordance with the relevant provisions of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 5. See Local Rule 5-135(b). Since an attorney has filed a document with the court on

behalf of defendants, documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not

on the defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(1). Conventional service is usually accomplished by

mailing a copy of the document to the attorney’s address of record. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

5(b)(2)(B). Plaintiff must include with every document filed in this action a certificate stating

Case 2:04-cv-00586-CMK Document 48 Filed 11/03/05 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

2

the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to defendants’ attorney and the address to

which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c). It is not sufficient to state, as plaintiff

does in his latest filing, that service was effected on the U.S. District Court. Plaintiff must also

mail a copy of whatever he has filed to defendants’ counsel of record. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 28, 2005 “motion for extension of time, in which to

prepare” is stricken from the record and will not be considered; and

2. Plaintiff is ordered to properly serve any documents subsequently filed in this

action on defendants’ attorney of record. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this

order may result in the dismissal of this action. See Local Rule 11-110.

DATED: November 2, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00586-CMK Document 48 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 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

BOUTIN DENTINO GIBSON

DI GIUSTO HODELL INC.

Chris Gibson, Esq., SBN 073353

Michael E. Chase, Esq., SBN 214506

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500

Sacramento, CA 95814

915/321-4444

Attorney for plaintiff

CONCRETE WASHOUT SYSTEMS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONCRETE WASHOUT SYSTEMS, INC. ) CASE NO. CIV. S-04-1005 WBS/DAD

a California corporation, )

) FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBITS A-2, B-2,

) C-2, AND D-2 TO THE DECLARATION 

Plaintiff, ) OF CHRIS GIBSON IN OPPOSITION

) TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

 vs. ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT

)

MINEGAR ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, ) Date: July 11, 2005

INC., a California corporation, PETER J. ) Time: 1:30 p.m.

MINEGAR, and DOES 1-10, ) Dept.: 5

) Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb

Defendants. )

)

______________________________________)

The Court considered the REQUEST TO FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBITS A-2, B-2, C-2,

AND D-2 TO THE DECLARATION OF CHRIS GIBSON IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

For good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Request is GRANTED. 

Exhibits A-2, B-2, C-2 and D-2 to the Declaration of Chris Gibson in Opposition to Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed under seal. The party who files the exhibits shall

make sure that copies of the exhibits in their entirety, unsealed, are provided along with copies of

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01005-WBS-DAD Document 79 Filed 06/23/05 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

the papers which are submitted to the judge’s chambers at the time the exhibits are filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-01005-WBS-DAD Document 79 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 2
(V.D. 104)

#### Manca, Inc. v. United States

Entry No. 773063.

(Decided November 10, 1959)

*Eugene R. Piohrell*for the plaintiff.

*George Goehr an Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawhence, Judge:

This valuation proceeding arose by virtue of the judgment issued by the second division of this court in the case of Manca, *Inc.*v. *United*States, 41 Cust. Ct. 453, Abstract 62611, wherein the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of title 28 U.S.C., section 2636(d).

The parties to tins proceeding have stipulated and agreed that, at the time of exportation to the United States of the involved merchandise, the prices, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers for the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, were as follows:

> Invoice Less U.S. dollars

> Merchandise price each discount per each

> 2 Fluorescent illuminat- $390. 72 ing arrangement 25% 293.04

> 2 Transformers 62.40 25% 46.80

It was further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the illuminating arrangements and transformers covered by the above-*456enumerated remand of protest, and that such value is as tabulated in tbe last preceding paragraph of this decision.

I further find and hold such values to be the proper dutiable values of said merchandise.

As to all other merchandise, the remand is dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
October 20, 1952

Reap. Dec. 8171.

#### A. *U. Morse & Co., Hoyt, Shepston*& *Sciaroni*v. *United States.*

Entered at San Francisco, Calif. Reap. Dec. 8131. Motion by defendant.
Before the Third Division,

November 13, 1946

No. 51412.

#### Protest 112447-K (A) of W. F. Mackay (Pembina).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained.
Exhibit 23.4

Consent of Internal Qualified Reserves Evaluator

I, Richard Leslie, hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Husky Energy Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2014, which is being filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of my Report on Reserves Data dated January 28, 2015 (the Report), included
in the 2014 Annual Information Form of Husky Energy Inc. (the AIF), and to the references to my name in the AIF. I also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of the Report in the Companys registration statements on Form
S-8 (File No. 333-187135) and Form F-10 (File No. 333-191849) filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. I have signed this Consent in my capacity as an employee of Husky
Energy Inc. and not in my personal capacity.



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Richard Leslie, P.Eng            
|    |  | Richard Leslie, P. Eng               
|    |  | Manager, Reserves                    
|    |  | Internal Qualified Reserves Evaluator

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

February 27, 2015
Exhibit 10.2


 











FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LICENSE AGREEMENT







This First Amendment to the License Agreement (this "Amendment") is entered into on July 27, 2016 by and between Hadasit Medical Research Services & Development Ltd., of Jerusalem Bio Park, Hadassah Ein-Kerem Medical Center, P.O.B. 12000, Jerusalem 91120, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology R and D Corporation Limited, and Artemis Therapeutics Inc., a Delaware corporation, having a place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019 (collectively, the "Parties" or each a "Party").







WHEREAS the Parties have entered into that certain License Agreement on May 31, 2016 (the "Agreement"); and







WHEREAS the Parties wish to amend the Agreement as set forth below.







NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements, provisions and covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:







1.          The second sentence of Section 12.1 shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following:







"Should the Effective Date not occur by August 23, 2016, for any reason whatsoever, this Agreement shall be null and void and of no further effect."







2.          This Amendment shall be read together with the Agreement and shall represent the complete current understanding between the Parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof. Subject to the modifications contained herein, the provisions of the Agreement shall remain unaltered and in full force and effect.







3.          This Amendment may be executed in counterparts and executed signature pages sent by fax and e-mail via PDF all of which taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument.


 


[Signature page follows]


 
















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this First Amendment to the License Agreement as of the date hereof.


 


	
/s/ Dr. Tamar Raz


Hadasit Medical Research


Services & Development Ltd.

By: Dr. Tamar Raz


Title: Chief Executive Officer


 


/s/ Edward C. Wong


Hong Kong University of Science


and Technology R and D


Corporation Limited

By: Mr. Edward C. Wong

Title: Chief Executive Officer


 

	 



/s/ Nadav Kidron


Artemis Therapeutics Inc.


By: Nadav Kidron


Title: Director
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, Alain Delongchamp certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Clearant, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, 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 maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant is made known to us by others within the entity, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures asof the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize, and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 9, 2005 /s/ Alain Delongchamp
No. 57287.

protest 185948-K (New York).

#### Oscar Gutierez *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, it was agreed that the statement made by the collector in his memorandum that the gown should have been entitled to free entry under paragraph 1615, supra, presented the facts in the case, and it was admitted in evidence. Counsel for the Government recommended that the allowance sought should be made. In view of the evidence presented, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.