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

            PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Linda L. Perry, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Wings & Things,
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 statement made, in light of the circumstances under which 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 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.    The small business issuer'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
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.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and 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 small business issuer'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 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/ Linda L. Perry
Dated: November 10, 2004           ___________________________________________
                                   Linda L. Perry, Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------

          We consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statements of National Home Health Care Corp.  on Forms S-8  (Registration  Nos.
033-61315 and 333-46076) of our report dated September 28, 2001, with respect to
the  consolidated  financial  statements of National Home Health Care Corp.  and
subsidiaries  as of July 31,  2001 and for the year then ended  included  in its
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2001.



/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
---------------------------
BDO Seidman, LLP
Valhalla, New York
October 29, 2001
#### William James CARTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28365.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 6, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

*Lean B.*Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*901PER CURIAM.

Having entered his plea of guilty before the court, appellant was convicted of the offense of murder without malice;, the punishment assessed, 5 years.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DAVE CUMMINGS and SANDRA CUMMINGS

, Appellant s

,

v.

CITY OF FORT PIERCE

, Appellee.

No. 4D2022

- 1861

[ March 14, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562021CA000178

Dave Cummings and Sandra Cummings, Fort Pierce, pro se.

Ryan D. O’Connor of WhiteBird, PLLC, Vero Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS

, G ERBER and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1835 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1835

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of a State over 
  the Capitol each year on the anniversary of the date of the State's 
                        admission to the Union.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2011

  Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of a State over 
  the Capitol each year on the anniversary of the date of the State's 
                        admission to the Union.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State Admission Day Recognition Act 
of 2011''.

SEC. 2. FLYING STATE FLAG OVER CAPITOL ON ANNIVERSARY OF STATE'S 
              ADMISSION TO UNION.

    (a) In General.--To honor the anniversary of each State's admission 
to the Union, the Architect of the Capitol shall fly the flag of the 
State over the Capitol each year on the anniversary of the date of the 
State's admission to the Union.
    (b) Effective Date.--The Architect of the Capitol shall fly the 
first flag of a State over the Capitol under this section on the first 
December 7 which occurs after the date of the enactment of this Act, in 
honor of the anniversary of the admission of Delaware, the first State 
admitted to the Union.

SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.

    The Committee on House Administration of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
Senate may promulgate jointly such regulations as may be appropriate to 
carry out this Act, including regulations permitting the Architect of 
the Capitol to honor the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, 
and the Northern Mariana Islands by flying the flag of each such 
jurisdiction over the Capitol each year on an appropriate date for that 
jurisdiction.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 12-2

                  PECO ENERGY COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
           COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
                    AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS
                                   SEC METHOD
                                     ($000)

                                                                  6 MONTHS
                                                                    ENDED
                                                                  06/30/98
                                                                  --------

NET INCOME                                                        $265,067

ADD BACK:
- INCOME TAXES:
     OPERATING INCOME                                              178,973
     NON-OPERATING INCOME                                          (15,843)
                                                                   -------
     NET TAXES                                                     163,130

- FIXED CHARGES:
     INTEREST APPLICABLE TO DEBT                                   169,066
     ANNUAL RENTALS                                                  4,455
                                                                   -------
     TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                                           173,521

EARNINGS REQUIRED FOR PREFERRED DIVIDENDS:
     DIVIDENDS ON PREFERRED STOCK                                    6,555
     ADJUSTMENT TO PREFERRED DIVIDENDS*                              4,034
                                                                   -------
                                                                    10,589

FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS                             $184,110
                                                                   =======

EARNINGS BEFORE INCOME TAXES AND
     FIXED CHARGES                                                $601,718
                                                                  ========
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
     AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS                        3.27
                                                                      ====




 * ADDITIONAL CHARGE EQUIVALENT TO EARNINGS REQUIRED
   TO ADJUST DIVIDENDS ON PREFERRED STOCK TO A PRE-TAX BASIS
Motion to withdraw brief granted, motion to withdraw as counsel dismissed 

as withdrawn, and Order filed May 12, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-22-00115-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.A.S. A/K/A J.S., K.V.S. A/K/A K.S., J.N.S. 

A/K/A J.S., P.K.J. A/K/A P.J., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-05930J

O R D E R

Before the court is a motion filed May 10, 2022 by appellant J.J.’s counsel 

seeking to withdraw a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), and to be granted until May 18, 2022 for a brief on the merits of this 

appeal. Appellant J.J.’s counsel contends she now believes there is a non-frivolous 

argument now to be made in appellant J.J.’s favor.

The motion is hereby GRANTED. The Anders brief filed by counsel for 

appellant J.J. April 18, 2022, is hereby WITHDRAWN. Appellant J.J. shall file a 
2

brief on the merits of this case no later than May 18, 2022. No extensions of this 

deadline shall be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

In addition, appellant J.J.’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel 

contemporaneous with her Anders brief. Although appellant J.J.’s counsel’s 

motion to withdraw brief does not mention the motion to withdraw as counsel, it is 

clear appellant J.J.’s counsel no longer wishes to withdraw from her representation 

but instead wishes to prosecute this appeal. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw 

as counsel filed by counsel for appellant J.J. is DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Jewell.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed March 19, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01385

- CV

SCOTT FIELDS , Appellant

V.

CITY OF SHERMAN, TEX AS, DAVID PLYLER, ZA CH FLORES, AND

ALEX SHIVERS , Appellees

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV

- 18

- 1686



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Pedersen, III

Opin ion by Justice Schenck
This is an appeal from the denial of a temporary restraining order. Because an order
denying a motion for a temporary restraining order is not appealable, we directed appellant to file
a letter brief addressing the Court’s jurisdiction. See Nikolouzos v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp.
, 162 S.W.3d 678, 680

- 81 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14 th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (en banc) (noting that
appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders that do not
dispose of all issues and parties only if allowed by statute and no statute authorizes appeal from
denial of temporary restraining order). Appellant complied, but nothing in his letter demonstrates– 2

–

we have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a);

N ikolouzos , 162 S.W.3d at 681.

181385F.P05 /David J. Schenck/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SCOTT FIELDS, Appellant

No. 05

- 18

- 01385

- CV V.

CITY OF SHERMAN, TEXAS, DAVID PLYLER, ZACH FLORES, AND ALEX SHIVERS, Appellees On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court, Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV

- 18

- 1686. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck, Justices Brown and Pedersen, III participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 19th day of March 2019.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1712 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1712

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt sales of natural 
gas for use in natural gas vehicles from the retail sales limitation on 
         defining independent producers of petroleum products.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 2011

   Mr. Cassidy (for himself, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. 
Denham, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Landry, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Boren, 
Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Schilling, Mr. Sullivan, 
 Mr. Lucas, Mr. Guinta, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Cole, Mr. Terry, 
  Mr. Flores, Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, Mr. Austria, Mr. 
 Chaffetz, Mr. Olson, Mr. Critz, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Burton of Indiana, 
 Mr. Alexander, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Scalise, Ms. Granger, Mr. Stutzman, 
Mr. Richmond, and Mr. Harper) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt sales of natural 
gas for use in natural gas vehicles from the retail sales limitation on 
         defining independent producers of petroleum products.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Job Creation and Energy Security Act 
of 2011''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF SALES OF NATURAL GAS FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES 
              FROM THE RETAIL SALES LIMITATION ON DEFINITION OF 
              INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 613A(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
sentence: ``Sales of natural gas, or any product derived from natural 
gas, for use in motor vehicles shall not be taken into account for 
purposes of this paragraph.''.
    (b) Motor Vehicle.--Subsection (d) of section 613A of such Code is 
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(6) Motor vehicle.--For purposes of paragraph (2), the 
        term `motor vehicle' means any vehicle which is manufactured 
        primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways (not 
        including a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails) 
        and which has at least 4 wheels.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to sales after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jesse STEVENS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27680.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 22, 1955.

*284James L. Drought, San Antonio, for appellant.

■ Austin. F. Anderson, Crim. Dist. Atty., James C. Onion, First Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, 4 years.

In view of our disposition of this cause, a recitation of the facts will not be deemed necessary.

Prior to taking the stand in his own behalf, the appellant testified in the absence of the jury for the purpose of making his bill. He stated that he had been convicted in 1940 at the age of 19 for the offense of burglary, had served his sentence, and was released in June of 1943; he served in the Army until 1946, and since his discharge had been continuously and gainfully employed until December 17, 1954, the day he was arrested. He testified that he had been in no other trouble since his 1940 conviction and asked that the State not be permitted to prove the 1940 conviction because the .same was too remote, which motion was by the court refused.

In Dillard v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 218 S.W.2d 476, the accused had been released in 1938 and was called to testify in 1948. In the case at bar, the accused was released in 1943 and called to testify in 1955. In the Dillard case, we pointed out that there was no proof of non-reformation on the part of the appellant since his release from prison. We are inclined to agree with the appellant that the 1940 conviction was too remote in the light of appellant’s age at the-time of his early conviction, together with proof of his reformation which the State was unable to refute. See also Perez v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 575, 150 S.W.2d 402, and Abercrombie v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 417, 264 S.W.2d 727.

In view of another trial, we express some doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence under the present record to sustain the conviction.

The owner of the burglarized premises was out of the State at the time of the trial. In order to prove non-consent, the State called appellant’s companion, who was arrested with him, and he testified that he did not have the owner’s consent to enter. On cross-examination, he stated that the appellant, did not enter with him and that the appellant did not know he intended to enter. He stated that the appellant stopped as they were walking along in order to relieve his bowels, that he went ahead and made the entry, and when the appellant arrived he asked the witness what he was doing inside the building. The appellant’s testimony corroborates this ‘version of the transaction as given by the State’s witness.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Exhibi 4.5


 










[*] Represents material that has been omitted and will be filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment under Rule 24b-2 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.











AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LICENSE AGREEMENT







THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 (“Amendment”) is entered into effective as of June 18th, 2018 (the “Amendment Effective Date”) by and between BioLineRx Ltd. (“BioLine”) and Wartner Europe BV (“Perrigo”).







PREFACE:








	A.	
BioLine and Perrigo entered into a License Agreement dated as of December 22, 2014 (the “Agreement”).













	B.	
The Parties now wish to amend certain provisions of the Agreement.












Now therefore, the Parties hereby agree as follows:








	1.	
Section 3.1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:













		3.1          	a.          	With respect to the Licensed Products referred to in Section 7.2, in consideration for the exclusive license granted to Licensee under Section 2.1, for each Licensed Product unit sold by Licensee and its Sublicensees in a given calendar quarter, Licensee will pay Licensor an amount equal to [*].











		b.	
For the purpose of this Agreement, [*].













	2.	
Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 3.2 are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following: [*]













	3.	
Section 3.3 is hereby deleted in its entirety and not replaced.













	4.         	(a)         	In Section 4.1, the sentence “Licensor has the right to examine Records that were created within five (5) years of the date of Licensor’s request” is hereby amended to read “Licensor has the right to examine Records that were created within seven (7) years of the date of Licensor’s request.”











		(b)	
In Section 4.2, the reference to “five (5) years” in the second line is hereby amended to “seven (7) years.”













	5.	
In Section 7.2(a), [*]













	6.	
Following the Amendment Effective Date, if Perrigo desires to add one or more countries to the Territory, it shall notify BioLine of such desire, and the Parties shall negotiate in good faith as to whether and on what terms such country(ies) will be added to the Territory.













	7.	
Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set out in the Agreement.  Except as otherwise specifically agreed in this Amendment, the existing terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.













	8.	
This Amendment shall be binding upon the parties once executed by all parties and shall enter into force and become effective as of the Amendment Effective Date first written above.


























IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the Amendment Effective Date.








	
BioLineRx Ltd.

	
Wartner Europe BV


	
By:/s/ Philip Serlin

	
By:/s/ Christophe Van Damme


	Name: Philip Serlin	
Name: Christophe Van Damme


	
Title: Chief Executive Officer

	Title: Director
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 2, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00038

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF LG, A CHILD,

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- PA

- 02864

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant's motion to extend time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Appellant's brief is

due on or before April 20, 2015.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 2nd day of April, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court