alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT31.2**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Bennie H. Duck,certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of First Investors Financial Services Group, Inc.

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The Company’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for theCompany and based on such evaluation:

 

a)     Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; and

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report (based on suchevaluation); and

c)     Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)     All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)    Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | December 12, 2003       |   |   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|   |                    |   |
|   | By: /s/ BENNIE  H. DUCK |   |
|   | Bennie H. Duck          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties VII Year-End 1995 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety be
reference to such 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000758009
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES VII
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         579,533
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      20,040,693
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,376,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,958,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                     11,435,761
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,124,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,958,680
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,461,239
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,539,317
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             928,866
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (78,078)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The Partnership has an unclassified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 33-41542, 33-41543, 33-60901, 33-60591, 333-68399, 333-42394, 333-95113, 333-99865, 333-91762 and 333-105705 of Sierra Health Services, Inc. on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-105403 on Forms S-3 of our reports dated March 4, 2004, which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's adoption of the Statement of Accounting Standards No. 142 "*Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets*" appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sierra Health Services, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPLas Vegas, NVMarch 4, 2004
#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*ROBERT APODACA, *Appellant.*

*Gary D. Babcock,*Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

*Gary D.*Gortmaker,, District Attorney, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
#### THE STATE *vs.*HENRY L. PECKARD.

Indicted for obstructing a highway—“ Clinton street, Delaware City.”

It was admitted that the street was a highway, and the defendant did the acts complained of. The question was, whether it amounted to a nuisance.

Defendant hauled one hundred to one hundred and fifty loads of earth from the road on to private property. He cut down below the established grade. The commissioners notified him several times to desist, which he refused to do.

*501The leveling of this place by the defendant was an improvement to the street, a convenience to the public generally.

Bayard, *jr.,*

contended that the removal of the earth was no nuisance, if it did not disturb the streets or render them less passable.

*Mr. Grordon*

said the act gave power to the commissioners to establish grades, and the question was whether this interference with their authority was not a nuisance.

Question by the Court.—Does the act make it so ? Does it make the act of disturbing the grade lines indictable ?

If the commissioners are resisted or obstructed in the exercise of their office, that is an indictable offence, but no nuisance: if the public earth is taken away, that is a trespass; but to make out a case of nuisance it must amount to an obstruction of the street, something that renders it less convenient to the public generally.

Verdict not guilty.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.8(g)

                         AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX (6) TO
                AGREEMENT FOR THE LICENSING OF IBM TECHNOLOGY
                           AGREEMENT NUMBER JWQ9308

WHEN EXECUTED, this document shall become Amendment Number Six (6) (hereinafter
referred to as "Amendment") to Agreement for the Licensing of IBM Technology
Number JWQ9308 as amended (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") dated
February 3, 1993 by and between Syntellect, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
"Syntellect") and International Business Machines Corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "IBM").

WHEREAS, Syntellect and IBM hereby agree to modify and amend the Agreement as
set forth herein. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not expressly
modified by this Amendment, or any other previous Amendments, shall remain
unchanged and shall remain in full force and effect.

1.  SECTION 5.0, CONTRACT PERIOD, Subsections 5.1 and 5.2 are modified to read
    as follows:

        5.1     The term of any supplement under this Agreement, excluding
                Supplement Number 04 which term remains five (5) years, shall
                begin on its Commencement Date and shall expire seven (7) years
                thereafter, unless terminated earlier in accordance with section
                6.0 below.

        5.2     The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date signed
                by the last signatory hereto and shall expire seven (7) years
                from such date unless terminated earlier in accordance with
                section 6.0 below.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Syntellect and IBM have caused this Amendment to be
executed by their duly authorized representatives as set forth above.

Accepted and Agreed To:

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS                  SYNTELLECT, INC.
MACHINES CORPORATION

BY: /s/ William T. Maxwell              BY: /s/ Thomas R. Mayer
    ---------------------------             ------------------------------
NAME: William T. Maxwell                NAME: Thomas R. Mayer

TITLE: Director, Networking OEM         TITLE: President & CEO

DATE: May 23, 1995                      DATE: 6 June, 1995


                                                                 Page 1 of 1
#### Willis G. ADAMS v. Wright W. ADAMS.

No. 9455.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 29, 1973.

James F. Pierson, Jr., and Curtis K. Stafford, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

James H. Hynes and Davis A. Guey-mard, Baton Rouge, for appellee.

Before LOTTINGER, ELLIS and CRAIN, JJ.

CRAIN, Judge.

This is a suit by Willis G. Adams, a real estate broker-agent against Wright W. Adams, a landowner, for his commission. On motion for summary judgment the trial court found that there was no issue of material fact and granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s demands. An appeal was taken from this decision. We affirm.

An examination of the pleadings and affidavits in the record reveals that there is no issue of material fact. The facts reveal that the appellant, Willis G. Adams, procured James F. Pierson, Jr. as a prospective purchaser of 5.47 acres of land owned by the appellee, Wright W. Adams. An agreement to purchase was executed which contained several terms and conditions, the relevant one being that the act of sale be passed before a notary public within 120 days. From the affidavits filed in evidence by both parties, there is no disagreement that Pierson failed to proceed with the purchase within the allotted time. When he did contact the appellee to allegedly arrange to have the act of sale passed, the 120 day period had expired and the ap-pellee refused. The record is devoid of any alleged facts which would demonstrate any fault on the part of the appellee for Pierson’s failure to act within the stipulated time.

The question thus presented is whether the landowner-seller can be held liable to the real estate broker for his commission where the prospective purchaser fails to comply with the terms of the agreement to purchase by failing to have the act of sale passed within the stipulated period of time. This question has previously been answered in the negative. Boisseau v. Vallon and Jordano, Inc., et al., 174 La. 492, 141 So. 38 (1932). Spiro v. Corpora, 174 So. 145, Orleans Court of Appeal (1937); Nettles v. Vignes, 49 So.2d 371, Orleans Court of Appeal (1950).

Accordingly the trial court’s decision was correct.

Affirmed.
262 La. 1071

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Dr. Angelo K. LOBUE.

No. 52654.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 18, 1972.

In re: Angelo K. Lobue applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order.

Granted. (See order).

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Grover L. Covington, Judge of the 21st Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Tangi-pahoa, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 15th day of December, 1972, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the *214validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
Clipped By:

sharon_lacey68766

Mon, Mar 5, 2018

Copyright © 2018 Newspapers.com. All Rights Reserved.
#### Ernest A. CARMICHAEL, Appellant, v. Theresa D. BOUCHER (formerly Theresa D. Carmichael) and Charles E. Boucher, her husband, Appellees.

No. N-223.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 8, 1970.

Rogers, Rogers & Grimsley, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Hazard, Fernandez & Culp, Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed. See Davis v. Evans, 132 So.2d 476 (Fla.App.1961).

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K„ and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105

- 2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

May 7, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: NGV America M eeting with EPA R egarding Proposal for 2017

- 2025 Light

- Duty

(LD) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Standards

FROM: Robin Moran, Senior Policy Advisor

TO: EPA Docket # EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0799

This memo documents a meeting held on March 26 , 2012 between representatives of NGV

Ame rica and its member companies, EPA , and NHTSA to discuss comments on the 2017

- 2025

GHG/CAFE proposed rule

. The meeting attendees included the following:

NGV America : John Lapetz (Westport Innovations), Karen Hay (IMPCO Technologies),

Sherrie Merrow (Enc ana Natural Gas), Jeff Clarke (NGV America), Richard Kolodziej (NGV

America)

EPA : Robin Moran , Jeff Alson, Ed Nam, Christopher Lieske

NHTSA: Jim Tamm, Rebecca Yoon, Greg Powell, John White, Kevin Green

The topics included NGV America’s comments on the proposed rule, which focused primarily

on issues related to natural gas and incentives for natural gas vehicles. NGV America submitted

the attached summary of the meeting , which further elaborates their position on these issues.

Attachment
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles E. JAMES.

No. 62847.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1978.

In re: Charles E. James, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Orleans.

Denied — Appeal pending.
#### Bergliette B. RINE, Appellant, v. William E. RINE, Appellee.

No. 71-94.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 7, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1972.

Sinclair & Louis, Miami, for appellant.

Horton, Schwartz & Perse, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Wetherington v. Wetherington, 57 Fla. 551, 49 So. 549; Grossman v. Grossman, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 115; Dworkis v. Dworkis, Fla.App.1959, 111 So.2d 70; Chaachou v. Chaachou, Fla.1961, 135 So.2d 206; Hall v. Hall, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 544.
#### SIRGANY’S GALLERIES, INC., Appellant, v. Robert P. HARRINGTON, Executor of the Estate of Rose I. Olson, Appellee.

No. 71-605.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 20, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0807 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-191-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 2012-0083

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### John Thomas HORNE v. Diemut HORNE.

No. 49554.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 21, 1977.

Dannye L. Hunter, Forest, for appellant.

O. B. Triplett, Jr., Forest, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Scott County; Osborn Guyton Idom, Chancellor.

Before INZER, P. J., and ROBERTSON and BOWLING, JJ.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and LEE, JJ., concur.
#### Joel Browning ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. N-123, N-255.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 25, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 31, 1971.

Ayres, Swigert, Cluster & Tucker, P. A., Ocala, Tench, Goldin & Jones, Gainesville, and Pattillo, MacKay & McKeever, Ocala, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Dickens, Graham, Miller, Mahorner & Linn, Tallahassee, for amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of judgments of conviction of making and uttering a forgery and sentences imposed thereon.

The primary points raised by appellant relate to his defense of insanity both at the time of the commission of the offenses charged and alleged insanity at the time of trial. Appellant also raises as error the refusal of the trial court to continue the trial so as to enable appellant to produce additional evidence of his alleged insanity.

Appellant places heavy reliance upon an adjudication of incompetency entered in connection with guardianship proceedings in the county judge’s court shortly before the criminal proceedings resulting in the instant convictions. In the civil incompetency proceeding, appellant was adjudicated incompetent by reason of an “anti-social personality” characterized by “extreme poor judgment; poor impulse control; chronic mismanagement of own funds and funds of others”. Such or similar findings do not establish insanity for the purposes of sustaining a defense in a criminal proceeding nor do they establish an impediment to requiring a person charged with the commission of a crime to stand trial. State ex rel. Deeb v. Fabisinski, 111 Fla. 454, 152 So. 207, reh. den. Ill Fla. 454, 156 So. 261; Crews v. State, 143 Fla. 263, 196 So. 590.

We have reviewed the remaining issues raised by appellant, including the venue question, and find that they are without substantial merit.

Accordingly, the judgments reviewed herein are affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### S. P. SNYDER & SON, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Walter DUTCH, Consolidated Development Corporation, a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 71-934.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 13, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Homer MATHIS, Statesman Group, Inc., a corporation, and American Liberty Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellants, v. Dorothy A. ALMAS and John E. Almas, Jr., her husband, Appellees.

Nos. 71-390, 71-391.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 5, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                             5
<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from CONSOLIDATED
CAPITAL  PROPERTIES  VI 1999  Fourth  Quarter  10-KSB  and is  qualified  in its
entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                 0000755908
<NAME>                                CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES VI
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000


<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                        3,032
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                       10,407
<DEPRECIATION>                                4,364
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                9,547
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                       5,590
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    1,205
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  9,547
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1,858
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              2,024
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              435
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (40)
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (206)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.14)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>