alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1 Certification of Interim President, Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer 
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Item 307 of
Regulation S-K I, Richard
Banakus, certify that: 1. I have
reviewed this Form 10-Q of Hydron Technologies, Inc. for the period ended
December 31, 2009; 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 small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. I am
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small
business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the
case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and 5. I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial
reporting. /s/: Richard
 BanakusRichard
 Banakus 
 Interim President, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer February 12,
2010
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7735** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CLAUDE SLOAN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Big Stone Gap
. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 2:00

- cr - 10101

- JPJ

- 1 ; 2:12

- cv - 80524

- JPJ

- RSB )

Submitted : December 11, 2012 Decided: December 21, 2012

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Claude Sloan , Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Claude Sloan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by d emonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the distric t court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sloan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in formal pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral3 argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Jo Nell NILSSON, Appellant, v. Martha D. SIEVERS, Appellee.

No. 69-467.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 11, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 10(pp)

                                  AMENDMENT TO
               SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION AND RETIREE MEDICAL AGREEMENT
                         (Dated as of December 2, 1998)

         This Amendment to Supplemental Pension and Retiree Medical Agreement is
dated  as  of  December 2,  1998  and  is  entered  into  between  Data  General
Corporation (the "Company") and Ronald L. Skates (the "Executive").

         Reference  is made to that  Supplemental  Pension and  Retiree  Medical
Agreement  dated as of  December 7,  1994 between the  Executive and the Company
(the "Agreement").

         Whereas the parties, for good and sufficient consideration, the receipt
and  sufficiency  of which is hereby  confirmed,  wish to amend the Agreement to
clarify the meaning of certain terms used therein;

         Now, therefore,  Paragraph 1(e) of the Agreement shall be and is hereby
amended to read as follows:

          e) Form and Timing of Benefit. Payment of the Supplemental Benefit (as
         that term is defined in this Agreement) shall commence on the first day
         of the  month  coincident  with or  following  the  termination  of the
         Executive's employment with the Company. The Supplemental Benefit shall
         be payable in equal monthly  installments  to the  Executive  until his
         death; and in the event he predeceases his Spouse, shall continue to be
         payable to his Spouse until the death of such Spouse."

Except as hereby amended, the Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties have executed this Amendment effective
as of December 2, 1998.

DATA GENERAL CORPORATION
By:      /s/ Robert C. McBride              /s/ Ronald L. Skates
         ----------------------------       ----------------------
         Robert C. McBride                  RONALD L. SKATES           
         Vice President and Treasurer
**EXHIBIT15**

 

REPORTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

Boardof Directors and Shareholders

CubicCorporation

 

Wehave reviewed the condensed consolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation asof March 31, 2006, andthe related condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for thethree-month and six-month periods ended March 31, 2006 and 2005. Thesefinancial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management.

 

Weconducted our reviews in accordance with standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financialinformation consists principally of applying analytical procedures, and makinginquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It issubstantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standardsof the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the objectiveof which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statementstaken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

 

Basedon our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should bemade to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above forthem to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

 

Wehave previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet ofCubic Corporation as of September 30, 2005 and the related consolidatedstatements of income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for theyear then ended (not presented herein) and in our report dated December 5, 2005,we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidatedbalance sheet at September 30, 2005, is fairly stated, in all materialrespects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has beenderived.

 

 
|                  | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP |   |
|-----------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                  |                      |
|                  |                      |
| San Diego, California |                      |
| April 28, 2006        |                      |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3725]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-52, RM-8987]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Two Rivers, WI

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by First 
Congregational Services proposing the allotment of Channel 246A to Two 
Rivers, Wisconsin, as that community's second FM broadcast service. The 
coordinates for Channel 246A are 44-09-06 and 87-34-06.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before March 31, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before April 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC. 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Henry E. Crawford, 1150 
Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 900, Washington, DC. 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-52, adopted January 31, 1997, 
and released February 7, 1997. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, 
NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, 
Washington, DC. 20037, (202) 857-3800.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contact.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-3725 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
255 La. 160

#### J. P. VAN WAY ENGINEER-CONTRACTORS, INC. v. COMMUNICATIONS BROADCASTING, INC.

No. 50310.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1970.

In re: J. P. Van Way Engineer-Contractors, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 228 So.2d 17S.

Not considered. The application was not timely filed. See Article VII, Section 11, Louisiana Constitution.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-392]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Wetlands Involvement for Environmental Remediation at 
Argonne National Laboratory-East

AGENCY: Chicago Operations Office, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Wetlands Involvement.

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

SUMMARY: DOE proposes to conduct a Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act (RCRA) corrective-action program and other environmental 
remediation activities at contaminated sites at Argonne National 
Laboratory-East (ANL-E). Two of the contaminated sites include small 
wetlands. In accordance with DOE regulations for compliance with 
floodplain and wetlands environmental review requirements (10 CFR 
1022), DOE will prepare a wetlands assessment for this proposed action. 
The wetlands assessment will be included in the environmental 
assessment being prepared for the proposed project in accordance with 
the National Environmental Policy Act.

DATES: Comments are due to the address below no later than January 22, 
1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to: Dr. W. S. White, NEPA 
Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Chicago Operations 
Office, 9800 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439. (630) 252-2101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Further information on this proposed action and wetlands assessment can 
be obtained from Donna Green, Document Manager, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Argonne Group, 9800 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439. (630) 
252-2264.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action would involve two small 
palustrine emergent wetlands. One of the wetlands is 0.004 hectares 
(0.0016 acres); the other is 0.036 hectares (0.015 acres). Contaminant 
hazards at these wetlands would be reduced by excavation, containment, 
or phytoremediation.

    Issued in Chicago, IL on December 18, 1996.
Dr. W. S. White,
NEPA Compliance Officer, Chicago Operations Office, Department of 
Energy.
[FR Doc. 97-392 Filed 1-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
```
Order entered February 26 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 01184
- CR DEMPSTER A. ROSS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. 416
- 80539
- 2014



### O RDER
The Court DENIES appellant’s February 20, 2015 second motion to extend time to file
his brief.
We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the tr ial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court isORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings ar e received, whichever is earlier.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### Paul ROSEN, Appellant, v. TROPIC-AIR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-1038.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 10, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
BIOS-EX10.25--20131231-10K




Exhibit 10.25





July 30, 2012




Brian Stiver
471 San Gabriel Court
Sierra Madre, CA  91024




Dear Brian, 


This letter is to confirm our offer to you for the Senior Vice President, Infusion Sales position reporting to Rick Smith, Chief Executive Officer.  We are delighted to offer you this promotion, Brian!


Your salary will be increased to $10,576.93 bi-weekly, subject to applicable taxes and other withholdings.  Your promotion and salary increase will be effective July 30, 2012.


Additionally, you would be eligible to participate in BioScrip’s Management Incentive Bonus Program as long as you remain continuously employed with BioScrip through the date that the bonus is paid.  You would be eligible for a bonus of up to 40% of your base salary with the pool determined by the Company and the Board of Directors and subject to corporate, departmental and individual objectives being met.  Your participation in this plan would be prorated based on your promotion date. This plan is subject to change.


For clarification and the protection of both you and the Company, your acceptance of this offer represents the sole agreement between you and the Company.  No prior promises, representations, and/or understandings relating to the offer of employment as set forth in this letter are to be considered part of this letter.  This offer supersedes all prior offers, both verbal and written.


If you have any questions regarding this offer, please don’t hesitate to call me at 513-458-4848.
Congratulations!  We look forward to your success in this important role.




Sincerely,


/s/ Erinn Wainscott


Erinn Wainscott                Agreed and Accepted:
Manager, Human Resources
BioScrip, Inc.
513-458-4848                  /s/Brian Stiver
Fax 952-674-5672                Brian Stiver                    Date
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8069

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

OCTAVIUS S. CLINE, a/k/a Toby,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (6:02-cr-01358-HMH-12; 6:09-cv-70104-HMH)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 5, 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Octavius S. Cline, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Octavius S. Cline seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cline has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability 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
**EXHIBIT 31.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Steven S. Skalicky, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Transatlantic Holdings, Inc.; and

 

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.

 

 
|   | /s/   STEVEN S. SKALICKY                                                             |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Steven   S. Skalicky                                                                 |
|   | *Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* |
|   |                                                                                 |

Date: April 27, 2012

 

----
#### Adela DAVIS, Petitioner, v. JEWISH VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION WORKSHOP et al., Respondents.

No. 42613.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 20, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEICLE, JJ., concur.