alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          883,435
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            883,435
<EQUITIES>                                      26,787
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 913,329
<CASH>                                          72,368
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             787,608
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          30,982
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,166,906
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,533,561
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            134,323
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                117,416
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           139
<OTHER-SE>                                     303,175
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,166,906
<PREMIUMS>                                     159,863
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             34,941
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               1,794
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                     116,670
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     65,928
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,187
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,636
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,551
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
Unassociated Document


Exhibit 10.02







SUPPLEMENT #1 TO


BLACKSANDS PETROLEUM, INC.


SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND


ESCROW AGREEMENT







THE DATE OF SUPPLEMENT IS JANUARY 27, 2011







Blacksands Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) wishes to inform potential investors to its private placement offering (the “Offering”) of (i) debentures in the maximum principal amount of $1,680,000, bearing interest at the rate of 8% per annum (the “Debenture”) and (ii) warrants to purchase shares of Common Stock, exercisable for a period of three (3) years from issuance at an exercise price of $4.50 per share (the “Warrant” and together with the Debenture, the “Securities”), which Warrant shall be granted on a basis of one (1) share for every three dollars ($3.00) of Debentures purchased. The Offering is being made pursuant to that certain purchase agreement (“Agreement”) by and between the Company and the investors identified on the signature pages thereto (“Investors”) and the escrow agreement (the “Escrow Agreement” and together with the Agreement, the “Transaction Documents”) by and among the Company, the Investors and Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference LLP as escrow agent. Any terms not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed pursuant to the Agreement.







AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSACTION DOCUMENTS FOR MULTIPLE CLOSINGS







The parties have agreed to change the term of this Offering such that the Closing of the offer and sale of the Securities pursuant to the Agreement may be made in more than one Closing on more than one Closing Date.







AS THE FOREGOING REPRESENTS MATERIAL CHANGES TO THE TRANSACTION DOCUMENTS, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED THE FORGOING INFORMATION.  ACCORDINGLY, YOU MUST SIGN THIS SUPPLEMENT IN THE SPACE PROVIDED BELOW TO INDICATE YOUR RECEIPT AND REVIEW OF THIS INFORMATION AND YOUR CONSENT TO SUCH CHANGES.











By signing below, the undersigned (i) agrees to continue as an Investor in the Offering pursuant to the terms of the Transaction Documents as revised and amended, as described herein; and (ii) represents and warrants to the Company that he/she/it has read and reviewed this Supplement and that he/she/it fully understands the revised terms of the Offering, as described herein.





 


 




 



	 
Date:_________________

	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	INDIVIDUALS:   	 	ENTITIES:	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Print Name	 	Print Name of Entity	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Signature 	 	Print Name of Authorized Signatory	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
Print Name of joint investor or other person 


whose signature is required

	 	Signature of Authorized Signatory	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
Signature
Exhibit 32.2



Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



In connection with the Annual Report of Vision Global Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Kinney, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |                                       
|------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Dated: May 13, 2009 |  |                                       
|                    |  | /s/ JOHN KINNEY                       
|                    |  | John Kinney, 
Chief Accounting Officer
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Standard Technical Specifications — General Electric Plants (BWR/4) (NUREG-1433, Revision 5)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, December 06, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     3rd Quarter 1999 10Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001003638
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund VI
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         349
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                   118
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         33,047
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,315
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 27,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          584
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     27,043
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   27,627
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,975
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,524
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (36)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                487
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   487
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Flowers, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 545]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered April 30, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility, including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of uncharged crimes, since defendant’s modus operandi was sufficiently distinctive and similar to the charged crime *(see People v Beam,*57 NY2d 241 [1982]). Defendant’s remaining arguments concerning this evidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.
Exhibit 12.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Shou-Kang Chen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD.;

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 company 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 and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company
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 company, 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) [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release Nos. 33-8238 (June 5, 2003), 33-8392 (February 24, 2004) and
33-8545 (March 2, 2005)];

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of company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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 10, 2006



/s/    SHOU-KANG
CHENName: Shou-Kang Chen Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### Cleveland and another, Respondents, vs. Tepaske and another, Appellants.

*January 6*

February *4, 1941.*

For the appellants there was a brief by *Dougherty, Arnold & Kivett*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Suel 0. Arnold.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Bird, Smith, Okoneski & Puchner,*attorneys, and *Charles F. Smith*of counsel, all of Wausau, and oral argument by *Mr. Smith.*

Fairchild, J.

We find among the alleged errors nothing to warrant any interference by this court with the judgment entered below, and the case is affirmed under Rule 64, sec. 251.64, Stats.

Because of the failure of appellants to serve the printed case and brief within the time allotted by Rules 16 and 18, *627secs. 251.272 and 251.274, Stats., respondents are entitled to double costs under sec. 251.23 (3), Stats. An allowance of damages is not made because of the existence in this case of reasons stated in the case of *Kniess v. Jefferson Construction Co., ante,*p. 624, 296 N. W. 72.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed. Respondents awarded double costs.
**EXHIBIT12.2**

 

**DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP**

**EARNINGS TO DEBT SERVICE CALCULATIONS**

**(in thousands, except ratios)**

 
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | **Three Months Ended**  | ** ** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | **March 31, 2008** | ** ** |
|                                                                 |       |                    |       |
| Income from continuing operations, less preferred  distributions     |       | $                       | 3,382      |   |
| Interest expense (excludes amortization of deferred  financing fees) |       | 44,742                  |       |
| Earnings before  debt service                                        |       | $                       | 48,124     |   |
|                                                                 |       |                    |       |
| Interest expense (excludes amortization of deferred  financing fees) |       | $                       | 44,742     |   |
| Recurring principal amortization                                     |       | 2,340                   |       |
| Total debt  service                                                  |       | $                       | 47,082     |   |
|                                                                 |       |                    |       |
| **Ratio of earnings to debt service**                                | ** ** | **1.02**                | ** ** |

 

----
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 (NUREG-1843)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### ALLEN BEVERLY vs. JAMES WILLIAMS et al.

A witness may state his belief as to the identity of persons, or thesameness of handwriting^ though he will not swear positively as to those facts; and the degree of credit to be attached to his evidence is a question for the jury.

This was an action of trespass vi et armis, brought to recover damages from the defendants for killing a slave of the plaintiff named Elias..

Upon the trial, at Hertford, on the last circuit, before his honor Judge Saunders, the evidence was, that some of the *237defendants shot arnnaway slave found in the swamps of Gates county, and that the other defendants were present and encouraged the act to be done. A question arose on the trial, whether the slave which had been killed by the defendants, was in fact the slave of the plaintiff. A witness was examined as to that, and stated that he knew the plaintiff’s slave Elias, and that he had seen him not long before in the possession of the plaintiff: that he saw the corpse of . the slave that was killed the day after the killing, and he believed it was Elias, but could not be positive. He was asked why? if he knew the slave. He said the negro.was so much swollen, that he could not swear positively, but he believed then) and still believed it was the plaintiff’s negro. The witness further testified that he lived in the neighborhood, and more than two years had elapsed since the killing, yet he had not since seen or heard of the negro Elias.

June 1839

His honor charged the jury, that as to the slave killed being the plaintiff’s slave, that was a question of identity: that if they could confide in the belief of the witness, and were satisfied as to the killing, they would find a verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff had a verdict and judgment, and the defendants appealed,

*Iredell*for the defendants.

*Badger*for the plaintiff.

Daniel, Judge,

after stating the case, proceeded as follows: On questions of identity of persons, and of handwriting, it is every day’s practice for witnesses to swear that they believe the person to be the same, or the handwriting to be that of a particular individual, although they will not swear positively; and the degree of credit to be attached to the evidence is a question for the jury. 1 Stark. Ev. 153. The charge of the Judge was correct, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 12.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Shih-Jye Cheng, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD.;

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
company 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 and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of
company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 company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 companys
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: June 8, 2007



/s/ Shih-Jye ChengName: Shih-Jye ChengTitle: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Updated Implementation Guidelines for SSHAC Hazard Studies (NUREG-2213)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-2213 (PDF – 4.96 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** October 2018**Date Published:** October 2018

**Prepared by:** J. Ake1 C. Munson1 J. Stamatakos2 M. Juckett2 K. Coppersmith3 J. Bommer4

1U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC

2Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses San Antonio, Texas

3Coppersmith Consulting Walnut Creek, California

4Imperial College London London, United Kingdom

Marcos Rolón Acevedo, NRC Project Manager

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This document contains guidance for conducting expert assessments through the structured process that is referred to as the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (or SSHAC) process. It serves as an update to the original SSHAC guidance in NUREG/CR-6372, "Recommendation for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and the Use of Experts" (NRC, 1997) and the implementation guidance provided in NUREG–2117, "Practical Implementation Guidelines for SSHAC Level 3 and 4 (NRC, 2012c). This document builds on the framework described in the prior NUREGs and incorporates lessons learned from conducting recent SSHAC studies. This document does not invalidate the prior guidance documents or the studies conducted accordingly; however, the intent of this NUREG is to provide the most current standalone guidance. While the prior NUREGs contain useful concepts and historical context, this document should be used for conducting future SSHAC studies.

Specifically, this document: (i) clarifies terminology and key concepts that are essential for all SSHAC studies; (ii) strengthens the implementation framework for Level 3 studies, based on extensive recent experience; (iii) provides guidance on the attributes of Level 1 and 2 studies; and (iv) presents a revised and more rigorous framework for decision-making regarding the updating of existing SSHAC studies. These updated guidelines describe an acceptable framework to implement the recommendations in Regulatory Guide 1.208 (NRC, 2007) with respect to performing a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis study.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021