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

 

I, Dale E. Parker, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Appleton Papers Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Appleton Papers Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact 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 includedin 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 officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation 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 proceduresand 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; 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officers 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 registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficienciesand 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control. 

 

Date: August 11, 2003
#### Frank REINA et ux., Appellants, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 14316.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Houston.

April 2, 1964.

Rehearing Denied April 23, 1964.

Robert A. Scardino, Houston, for appellants.

No brief filed for appellee.

COLEMAN, Justice.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Domestic Relations of Harris County, Texas, reaffirming, and refusing, to set aside, its previous judgment declaring *839Deborah Musil a dependent and neglected child.

Appellant, Hattie Mae Reina, the mother of said child, was absent from Harris County when the proceedings were held culminating in a judgment declaring the minor child to be dependent and neglected and terminating the parental rights of her parents. While no citation was served on appellant, the decree entered was valid since Article 2332, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St., provides that a citation shall not issue when it appears from the petition that the parents do not reside in the county in which the petition is filed. De Witt v. Brooks, 143 Tex. 122, 182 S.W.2d 687, cert. den. 65 S.Ct. 1196, 325 U.S. 862, 89 L.Ed. 1983.

In such event, however, either parent may demand a full hearing in a subsequent proceeding on the issue of whether sufficient facts existed to authorize the entry of the judgment finding the child to be a dependent child. Hull v. Hull, Tex.Civ.App., 332 S.W.2d 758; Broome v. Edna Gladney Home, Tex.Civ.App., 295 S.W.2d 266.

The judgment appealed from recites that evidence was heard. There is no statement of facts before us and no findings of fact were requested of or filed by the trial court. On this appeal, in support of the judgment of the trial court, therefore, we must presume that the evidence before him on the second trial was sufficient to support an implied finding that the minor child was in fact a dependent and neglected child, as defined by Article 2330, V.A.C.S., on and before January 24, 1962, the date of the first trial. Saylor Chevrolet Co. v. Ellis, Tex.Civ.App., 336 S.W.2d 798; Weber v. Hesse Envelope Co., Tex.Civ. App., 342 S.W.2d 652; Gossett v. Local Union No. 185, Tex.Civ.App., 361 S.W.2d 957.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### H. K. STECHER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 35323.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 13, 1963.

Rehearing Denied March 27, 1963.

*801James B. Turner, Houston, for appellant.

Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Carl E. F. Dally and Allen Stilley, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The offense is violation of an ordinance of the City of Houston which provides that it shall be unlawful to park or stand any vehicle other than a commercial vehicle in any truck loading zone during certain hours.

The prosecution arose in the corporation court. Trial de novo in County Criminal Court at Law No. 2 was before a jury. This appeal is from a judgment rendered on the jury’s verdict assessing a fine of $125.-00.

The appellant was charged and convicted for a like offense and the judgment was affirmed in Stecher v. State, 358 S.W.2d 380.

While other grounds of reversal are raised, the controlling question, as we see it, is whether the vehicle which appellant parked in a zone marked as a truck loading zone was a commercial vehicle.

In the prior case an ordinance of the City of Houston was introduced which defined trucks or commercial vehicles as “Every motor vehicle designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.”

In the trial from which this appeal was taken such ordinance was not introduced and the court, in his charge, gave the jury the definition of a “commercial motor vehicle” taken from Art. 6675a-l (i) and (j) Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.:

> “Our Statutes further provide that a commercial motor vehicle means any motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle or a passenger car, designed or used primarily for the transportation of property, including any passenger car, which has been re-constructed so as to be used, and which is being used, primarily for delivery purposes. Our Statutes further define a passenger car as meaning any motor vehicle designed or used primarily for the transportation or persons.” (“or” substituted for “of”, evidently by typographical error.)

The motor vehicle of the appellant is described in our opinion in appellant’s former appeal above cited. The evidence as to the use being made thereof is not materially different. We hold that such vehicle was not a commercial vehicle under the statute.

Ordinances of the City of Houston were introduced authorizing the city traffic engineer to determine the location of curb loading zones and the placing and maintaining of appropriate signs indicating such zones, and providing that such signs or markings in place shall constitute prima *802facie evidence that same were installed by the traffic engineer pursuant to such authority.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction and we find no reversible error.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10.4














April 22,
2008








AirWorks
Funding LLLP


655
Madison Avenue


23rd
Floor


New York,
NY 10021


Attn:
Richard E. Perlman





Hilltop Holding Company, LP


c/o SIAR Capital LLC


New York,
NY 10021


Attn:
Jack Silver





Dear
Messrs. Perlman and Silver:





This
Letter Agreement is made by and among
Kronos Advanced Technologies, Inc., a Nevada Company (“Kronos”), AirWorks Funding
LLLP, a Georgia limited liability limited partnership (“Airworks”) and Hilltop Holding Company, LP, a Delaware
limited partnership (“Hilltop”, and together with Airworks, the “Lenders”).





On June
19, 2007, pursuant to a Funding Agreement by and among Kronos, Airworks and RS Properties I LLC (“RS Properties”), Kronos issued certain secured convertible
promissory notes in the aggregateamount of
up to $17,300,000.  Subsequently, RS
Properties assigned to Hilltop its promissory note in the amount of $6,480,000,
together with certain other rights and agreements relating thereto, including,
without limitation, its rights and obligations under the Funding
Agreement.





The
parties herebyagree to amend the Funding AgreementSection 5.15, as follows:





“5.15   Conversion Limitation.  Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained herein, in the Airworks Note or in the RS
Properties Note, prior to June 30, 2008. Airworks and RS Properties may not convert any
outstanding principal amount of the Airworks Note
or the RS Properties Note, or any accrued and unpaid interest
thereon, to the extent such conversion
would require Borrower to issue shares of
Common Stock in excess of Borrower’s
authorized and unissued shares of Common Stock.”








This
Letter Agreement shall be deemed a modification of the Funding
Agreement.  The Funding Agreement was amended by adding a new Section 5.15in aSide Letter Agreement dated September 13,
2007.Except as specifically modified
hereby, the Funding Agreement shall be deemed controlling and
effective.  This Letter Agreement may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Letter Agreement as of the date
set forth above.








KRONOS




Kronos
Advanced Technologies, Inc.








By:_________________________


Daniel R.
Dwight


President
and CEO








LENDERS





AirWorks
Funding LLLP








By:
__________________________


Richard
Perlman








Hilltop Holding Company, LP








By:
__________________________


Jack Silver
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00177-CV

CARLTON E. CORBIN

v.

HOWARD M. REINER

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 2 of Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17-30439

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 7, 2019
Exhibit 11.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
              Statement of Computation of Earnings (Loss) Per Share

                                                               For The Twelve Months Ended
                                                             -------------------------------
                                           Dec. 30, 1994     Dec. 29, 1995     Dec. 27, 1996
                                         ----------------    -------------     -------------

<S>                                         <C>                 <C>               <C>      
Common Stock Outstanding                    7,507,748           7,333,676         8,212,774

Dilutive effect of Stock Options              151,986             684,903               --

Issuance of Cheap Stock                       866,176             866,176           433,088
                                              -------             -------           -------

    Weighted average shares outstanding     8,525,910           8,884,755         8,645,862
                                            =========           =========         =========
</TABLE>
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 02-50600

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.

v. CR-99-01363-CAS 

Central District GEORGE MICHAEL RUELAS,

of California, Defendant-Appellant.

Los Angeles 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

No. 02-50660 Plaintiff-Appellant,

D.C. No.

v.  CR-99-01363-CAS

GEORGE MICHAEL RUELAS,

ORDER Defendant-Appellee. 

Filed June 16, 2005

Before: Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and

Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Upon remand from the United States Supreme Court, we

have reconsidered this case in light of United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and we therefore order that the memorandum disposition filed on May 5,

2004 be amended as follows: 

Page 2, line 9: Delete the phrase “and we affirm” from the

sentence beginning with “We have jurisdiction . . . .” Add a

new sentence stating, “We affirm Ruelas’s conviction, and

7191
remand in accordance with United States v. Ameline, No. 02-

30326, slip op. at 6368-71 (9th Cir. June 1, 2005) (en banc).

Page 8, line 10: Insert a new section six, entitled “Sixth

Amendment Error,” followed by the following paragraph: 

Because Ruelas did not challenge his sentence on

Sixth Amendment grounds in the district court, we

grant a limited remand pursuant to United States v.

Ameline, No. 02-30326, slip op. at 6368-71 (9th Cir.

June 1, 2005) (en banc). 

Last line of the disposition: Replace “AFFIRMED” with

“AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED” 

It is so ORDERED. 

7192 UNITED STATES v. RUELAS

PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2005 Thomson/West.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11.1
Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Statement Regarding Computation of Loss Per share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 --------------------------------------------------
                                                                          1996
                                                 --------------------------------------------------
                                                  Prior to
                                                  Effective             Subsequent          Total
                                                 Date of IPO              To IPO           For Year         1997         1998
                                                 -----------            ----------         --------         ----         ----
<S>                                          <C>                    <C>                    <C>              <C>         <C>
                                             (10/1/95-7/10/96)      (7/11/96-9/30/96)
Weighted average shares outstanding 
  excluding common shares issued in
  accordance with SAB 83                           438,229               6,671,237                        6,671,237     9,215,416

Number of common shares issued and stock
  options and warrants granted in 
  accordance with SAB 83                         2,668,374

Convertible preferred stock                        102,866
                                                ----------               ---------          ---------    ----------   -----------
Total shares outstanding                         3,209,469               6,671,237          4,074,961     6,671,237     9,215,416
                                                ----------               ---------          ---------    ----------   -----------
                                                ----------               ---------          ---------    ----------   -----------
Net income (loss)                               (2,378,298)              1,544,810           (833,488)   (6,895,149)  (21,854,572)

Net loss per share                                                                             ($0.20)       ($1.03)       ($2.37)
</TABLE>
Date: March 22, 2011


Exhibit 31




CERTIFICATION




I, Joel Gardner, President, CEO, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, certify that:




1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Megola, Inc.;




2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;




3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 registrant and we 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 is made known to us by others within the Corporation, particularly during the period in which this quarterly 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. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):




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: March 22, 2011/s/ JOEL GARDNERJoel GardnerPresident, CEO, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as principal financial officer of SMTC Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

1) the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 1, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2) the information contained in the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended April 1, 2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: May 16, 2006 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SMTC Corporation and will be retained by SMTC Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1

                        [MORRISON & FOERSTER LETTERHEAD]

                                November 6, 1996




Urohealth Systems, Inc.
Five Civic Plaza, Suite 100
Newport Beach, California 92660

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         At your request, we have examined the Registration Statement on Form
S-3 filed by Urohealth Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 26, 1996, as amended
October 22, 1996 (Registration No. 333-12723) (the "Registration Statement"),
relating to the registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of
5,750,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock, $0.001 par value (the "Stock"),
including 3,250,000 authorized but unissued shares being offered by the Company
(including 750,000 shares subject to the Underwriters' over-allotment option)
and 2,500,000 presently issued and outstanding shares being offered by certain
selling stockholders (the "Selling Stockholders"). The Stock is to be sold to
the underwriters named in the Registration Statement for resale to the public.

         As counsel to the Company, we have examined the proceedings taken by
the Company in connection with the issuance and sale of the 2,500,000 shares of
Stock that may be sold by the Selling Stockholders. We have also examined the
proceedings proposed to be taken by the Company in connection with the issuance
and sale by the Company of up to 3,250,000 shares of Stock.

         It is our opinion that the 2,500,000 shares of Stock that may be sold
by the Selling Stockholders are legally and validly issued and are fully paid
and nonassessable, and that, upon completion of the proceedings to be taken by
the Company prior to the sale of the shares of Stock, the 3,250,000 shares of
Stock that may be issued and sold by the Company, when issued and sold in the
manner described in the Registration Statement and the related Prospectus, will
be legally and validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.



<PAGE>   2

                        [MORRISON & FOERSTER LETTERHEAD]

Urohealth Systems, Inc.
November 6, 1996
Page Two




We consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement and further consent to all references to us in the Registration
Statement, the Prospectus constituting a part thereof and any amendments
thereto.

                                           Very truly yours,
        
                                           /s/ MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk December 21, 2012

s1218 

# Order

December 21, 2012

146162

SC: 146162

In re KIECA, Minors

. COA: 307194

Oakland CC Family Division:

11

- 782768

- NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

M ARILYN K ELLY

, J., would grant leave to appeal.