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

CERTIFICATION

I, Charles S. Wiesenhart Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc.;

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 annual report;

3. [intentionally omitted];

4. The registrants other certifying officers 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 Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual 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 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

d) 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of its annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The registrant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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting that 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 controls over financial reporting.

Date: February 6, 2009



/s/    CHARLES S. WIESENHART
JR.Charles S. Wiesenhart Jr. Chief Financial Officer and Vice President-Finance (Principal Financial
Officer)
**Exhibit 12.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Marcel Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of SCOR, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of SCOR; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company andhave:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared;  b) [Omitted in accordance with the guidance of SEC Release No.33-8238]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controlover financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the company’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the company’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: October 20, 2004
/s/Marcel Kahn
**COURT OF APPEALS**

**TENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS**

****

June 2, 2016

No. 10-16-00041-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.P., R.P., AND C.P., CHILDREN

From the County Court at Law

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court No. 52,255

**JUDGMENT**

	This Court has reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record in this proceeding as relevant to the issues raised and finds no reversible error is presented.  Accordingly the trial court’s Nunc Pro Tunc Order of Termination signed on February 8, 2016 is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellee, the State of Texas, is awarded judgment against Randy Pullen for the State’s appellate costs that were paid, if any, by the State; and all unpaid appellate court cost, if any, is taxed against Randy Pullen.

	A copy of this judgment will be certified by the Clerk of this Court and delivered to the trial court clerk for enforcement.

							PER CURIAM

****SHARRI ROESSLER, CLERK			

						By: ___________________________

							Nita Whitener, Deputy Clerk

# image1.png

# image2.jpeg

# image3.png
Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS AMENDMENT is dated April 18, 2013 by and between Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) and John F. Crowley (“Employee”).

 

WHEREAS, the Company and Employee are parties to an Employment Agreement dated June 28, 2011 (the “Employment Agreement”); and

 

WHEREAS, Section 7.6 of the Employment Agreement provides that the Company and Employee may amend the Employment Agreement by agreement in writing; and

 

WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement as described herein; and

 

WHEREAS, capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Employment Agreement.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises and intending to be legally bound hereby:

 

1.             The third sentence of Section 5.4 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

 

Further, if Employee elects COBRA continuation of his insured group health benefits, the Company will waive the applicable premiums otherwise payable for such COBRA continuation for a period of 18 months (or, if less, for the duration of such COBRA continuation).

 

2.             Section 5.7(d) of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety.

 

3.             The Employment Agreement, as amended by the foregoing changes, is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.

 

4.             This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute the same instrument.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment on the day and year first above written.

 

 

	
 
    	
AMICUS   THERAPEUTICS, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:   
    	
/s/   Donald J. Hayden, Jr. 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:   
    	
Donald   J. Hayden, Jr. 
    
	
 
    	
Title:   
    	
Lead   Independent Director
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
JOHN   F. CROWLEY
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/   John F. Crowley
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6966

VINCENT D. YUILLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

A. D. ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional

Center; E. S. WILLIS, Chairman c/o ICA,

Nottoway Correctional Center; R. L. PARMENTER,

Counselor, Nottoway Correctional Center,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-02-324-2)

Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 9, 2002

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent D. Yuille, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Vincent D. Yuille appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Yuille v. Robinson, No. CA-02-324-2 (E.D. Va.

June 7, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.1

Section 906 Certification

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

(1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;

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

(3) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.

 

 By: Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation

        General Partner

 

/S/ Brenda G. Gujral_____________________

Name: Brenda G. Gujral

Title: President of the General Partner and

         Principal Executive Officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.

Date: May 12, 2003
# STAT E O FSOUT H DAKOT A DENNI S DAUGAARD , GOVERNO R

Januar y 18,201 1

Jame s B . Marti n Regiona l Administrato r Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Regio n 8 159 5 Wynkoo p Stree t Denver , C O 80202-112 9 Dear Mr . Martin : Th e stat e o f

SouthDakot ai s require dt o periodicall y designat e th e attainmen t o r nonattainmen t statu s o f SouthDakot afo r

ne w o r revise dfedera l Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standard s an d submi t ne w rule s an drul e revision s a s par t o f Sout hDakota' s Stat e Implementatio n Pla n t o EPA . B y thi s letter , I amdelegatin g t o th e secretar y o f th e SouthDakot aDepartmen t o f Environmen t an dNatura l Resource s th e authorit y t o submi t thos e designation s t o yo u an dothe r matter s whic h involve s Sout hDakota' s Ai r Qualit y Program . B y thi s letter , I amals o designatin g th e secretar y o f th e SouthDakot aDepartmen t o f Environmen t

an dNatura l Resource s a s m y designe e unde r th e federa l Clea n Wate r Ac t an dth e federa l Saf

e Drinkin g Wate r

Ac t a s well . Thes e designation s pertai n t o bot hth e regulator y program s i n thos e act s tha t hav e bee n delegate dt o Sout hDakota , a s wel l a s th e administratio n o f th e Clea n Wate r

Stat e Revolvin g Fun dan dth e Saf e Drinkin g Wate r

Stat e Revolvin g Fund . I f yo u hav e an y questions , pleas e contac t Secretar y Steve n M . Pirne r at 605-773-5559 . Sincerely , &-;^- / Denni s Daugaar d DD:n n

STAT E CAPITO L• 50 0 EAS T CAPITO L• PIERRE , SOUT H DAKOT A57501-507 0 • 605.773.321 2
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Robert Benjamin Franks v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00055

- CR

Trial court case number: CR

- 16

- 0792

Trial court: 22nd District Court of Hays County

Appellant has filed a motion claiming that he has not filed h is pro se response to appointed

counsel’s Anders brief due to difficulty in accessing the record contained on the compact disk s provided by the trial court clerk. Appellant requests a har d copy of the record and an extension of

time to file his pro se response.

The motion is GRANTED. The trial court clerk is ordered to provide appellant a hard copy

of the record within 10 d ays of this order

. The trial court clerk shall further certify to this Court, within 15 days of the date of this order, the date upon which delivery of the record to the appellant

is made.

Appellant’s deadline to file his pro se response to appointed counsel’s brief is extended to April 15 , 201 9

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

__

/s/ Gordon Goodman

____

Acting individually

Date: ____ March 5, 2019

___
#### Shute *v.*Robinson.

If part of a deposition is incompetent, it cannot be passed to the jury without consent; but if the deposition is handed to the jury with the knowledge and without the objection of the other party, and the court, at his request, suggest to the jury that they should not regard what has not been read, no exception can be taken afterward.

IN an action of assumpsit for labor and services, the defendant claimed that the whole of the plaintiff’s claim bad been settled, by setting off’ against it the services of the defendant for him in certain divorce suits. The defendant was himself a witness, and testified in support of his own claim, and to a settlement between the parties. To contradict his testimony, and to disprove his claim, the plaintiff read in evidence, without objection as to its being only a part of the deposition, the answers given by the defendant to certain interrogatories, contained in a deposition given in one of those divorce suits; but the defendant objected to the reception of the deposition, or any part of it, as evidence, but without stating any particular ground of objection. The whole deposition, extracts from which had been read to the jury, was permitted to go to the jury with the knowledge and assent of the defendant’s counsel. The court, however, afterward, upon the suggestion of the defendant’s counsel, instructed the jury that they should examine, consider and regard only those parts of the deposition which had been read to them on the trial.

Nor these reasons the defendant moved to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial.

*Stevens,*and *Minot $ Mugridge,*for the plaintiff.

*George, Foster Sanborn,*for the defendant.

*309Bell, C. J.

Tbe deposition of tbe defendant was properly admitted in evidence, but it could not go to tbe jury without tbe defendant’s assent. If any part of a deposition is incompetent, it cannot be passed to tbe jury. *Smith*v. *Nashua and Lowell Railroad,*27 N. H. 100. If a single passage or extract is read to tbe jury, tbe residue relating to other matters foreign to tbe case on trial, tbe deposition cannot go to tbe jury without consent; nor would it make any difference that tbe jury were instructed to consider and regard only those parts which bad been read to them. But tbe case shows that tbe deposition here in question was permitted to go to tbe jury with tbe knowledge and assent of tbe defendant’s counsel, and that it was on their suggestion that tbe court gave tbe instructions to them not to regard what bad not been read. Tbe defendant cannot object to what was done by bis consent, and it cannot be assumed that tbe defendant did not know what was in bis own deposition, whatever might have been tbe case with bis counsel. If they were ignorant of it, it was not tbe plaintiff’s fault.

*Judgment on the verdict.*
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3115 

To remove the 4-year sunset from the Pro bono Work to Empower and 

Represent Act of 2018. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2021 

Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mrs. CAPITO, and Ms. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To remove the 4-year sunset from the Pro bono Work to 

Empower and Represent Act of 2018. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pro bono Work to Em5 power and Represent Act of 2021’’ or the ‘‘POWER 2.0 

6 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3115 IS

1 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF SUNSET. 

2 Section 3(a) of the Pro bono Work to Empower and 

3 Represent Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–237; 132 Stat. 

4 2448) is amended by striking ‘‘for a period of 4 years’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
From: Adams, Jeffrey A <jeffrey.adams@bp.com>

Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 8:47 AM

To: Stoneman, Chris

Cc: Green, Gregory

Subject: RE: Schedule for Finalizing Tribal NSR FIP 

Thank you for that confirmation and I understand your limits on what you 

can say. Industry appreciates 

the reduced burden your streamlined NSR program will provide. My company 

is starting the process of 

preparing individual permits to avoid the delay if the streamlined FIP 

process is not available by the time 

permits are required. Preparing these applications will cause a lot of 

wasted effort if a fix is announced 

close to March 3, 2016. Any information you can provide on what we can 

expect is appreciated and may 

reduce this impact. Alternatively, the quicker the fix can be set in 

place the better. 

Thanks for your efforts and foresight,

Jeff A.

From: Stoneman, Chris [mailto:Stoneman.Chris@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 3:50 PM 

To: Adams, Jeffrey A 

Cc: Green, Gregory 

Subject: RE: Schedule for Finalizing Tribal NSR FIP 

Hi Jeff – We are aware of the issue and we are working on a possible fix 

as we go through the 

comments. That’s all that I can say right now. Thanks. Chris Stoneman

From: Adams, Jeffrey A [mailto:jeffrey.adams@bp.com] 

Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 10:50 AM 

To: Stoneman, Chris <Stoneman.Chris@epa.gov> 

Subject: Schedule for Finalizing Tribal NSR FIP 

Chris,

Is there a convenient time this week that we can discuss the Tribal NSR 

FIP and the schedule for

completing it. I am concerned about construction scheduled after March 

3, 2016 if the proposed FIP is 

not signed by then. I should be available today or tomorrow at the 

numbers below. 

Thanks,

Jeffrey Adams

BP, Lower 48 – Regulatory Affairs

737 N Eldridge Parkway, EP3-11.147A

Houston, Texas 77079

O – 281/366-3173

C – 713/824-9387

Jeffrey.Adams@bp.com
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
I, Kevin M. O’Kane, certify that:
1.    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lexent Inc.;
2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.    The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
(c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 overfinancial reporting.   November 12, 2003     Kevin M. O'Kane    Kevin M. O’Kane  Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman  
23