alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                                  SCHEDULE F

                       Adelphia Business Solutions, Inc.

               Form of Financial Information and Operating Data
              of the Pledged Subsidiaries and the Joint Ventures

Data presented for the quarter ended:          12/31/99

Unaudited
                                                  Total
FINANCIAL DATA (dollars in thousands)(a):
Total Revenue                                $ 30,700.7
Total Capital Expenditures                   $ 14,362.8
Total EBITDA                                 $  9,989.8

 Gross Property, Plant & Equipment           $300,589.5

STATISTICAL DATA(b):
As of December 31, 1999:
Networks in Operation:                                7
Route Miles                                       3,475
Fiber Miles                                     159,063
Buildings connected                               1,012
LEC-COs collocated                                   61
Voice Grade Equivalent Circuits                 897,120
Access Lines Sold                               108,513
Access Lines Installed                           96,649

(a) Financial Data represents 100% of the operations of all entities except
    Adelphia Business Solutions of Florida. Adelphia Business Solutions of
    Florida's ownership in the Jacksonville network is 20%

(b) Statistical Data represents 100% of operating data for all entities.
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002I, David Koontz, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of O2Diesel Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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, theperiods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer 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 small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;(b) [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8238 (June 5, 2003)];(c) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, small business issuersinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting to thesmall business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 

 
(a) All Significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: March 30, 2005/s/ David KoontzDavid Koontz
#### Sean Wellcome et al., Appellants, v Student Cooperative of Stony Brook et al., Respondents.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered February 4, 1985, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which sought summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ first, second and third causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff Sean Wellcome was allegedly injured when, by reason of his voluntary intoxication, he fell from the roof of a building. In this action against the owner and operator of the bar at which the plaintiff allegedly became intoxicated, recovery is sought on theories, *inter alia,*of common-law negligence, strict liability under Alcoholic Beverage Control Law §65 (2), and strict liability under General Obligations Law § 11-101 (the Dram Shop Act).

*394The causes of action pleaded under each of these theories were properly dismissed. There is no cause of action sounding in common-law negligence against a dispenser of alcoholic beverages for injuries suffered by an intoxicated customer resulting from the latter’s voluntary intoxication *(see, Allen v County of Westchester,*109 AD2d 475, 477, *appeal dismissed*66 NY2d 915; *Paul v Hogan,*56 AD2d 723; *Bizzell v N.E.F.S. Rest, Inc.,*27 AD2d 554; *Moyer v Lo Jim Cafe,*19 AD2d 523, *affd*14 NY2d 792). Further, Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (2) which prohibits the sale or giving of alcoholic beverages to "[a]ny intoxicated person or to any person, actually or apparently, under the influence of liquor”, does not create an independent statutory cause of action in favor of a person whose intoxication resulted from the illegal sale or dispensing of alcoholic beverages *(see, Bizzell v N.E.F.S. Rest, Inc., supra; Moyer v Lo Jim Cafe, supra).*With regard to the Dram Shop Act, that statute creates a cause of action in favor of a third party injured or killed by an intoxicated person, but it does not create a cause of action in favor of the intoxicated person *(see, Mitchell v The Shoals, Inc.,*19 NY2d 338, 340-341; *Allen v County of Westchester, supra,*at p 479; *Delamater v Kimmerle,*104 AD2d 242, 244; *Paul v Hogan, supra; Moyer v Lo Jim Cafe, supra).*

We find the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1


                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of China BAK Battery,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities  Exchange  Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the  "Report").  I,  Li
Xiangqian,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

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

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

By: /s/ Li Xiangqian
   -----------------------
   Li Xiangqian
   Chief Executive Officer
   February 1, 2006
<PAGE>















                                EXHIBIT 3.02
                               --------------



                  ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT OF MARCH 19, 1999
                            DATED MARCH 19, 1999




                                    205
</Page>
<PAGE>

                 ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 19, 1999



Dated this 19th day of March, 1999

Between:

                    Promax Energy Inc. (the "Purchaser")

                                   -and-

                   Starrock Resources Ltd. (the "Vendor")

     WHEREAS:

     1.   The Purchaser is relying on an updated Engineering Report being
     prepared by Citadel Engineering Ltd. of Calgary, Alberta to establish
     the value of the Assets to be acquired pursuant to the Agreement of
     Purchase and Sale dated March 19, 1999 between Vendor and Purchaser
     ("Purchase Agreement"); and

     2.   The Purchase Agreement anticipates a value of the Assets to be in
     excess of Seven Million, Six Hundred Four Thousand, Two Hundred Fifty-
     Nine Dollars ($7,604,259.00), calculated on a constant pricing basis
     discounted at fifteen percent (15%).

     NOW THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION OF GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION,
     THE RECEIPT AND SUFFICIENCY OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, the
     Purchaser and Vendor agree that if the Engineering Report, when
     completed, calculates a value of less than $7,604,259.00 for the
     Assets, the Option Price will be adjusted accordingly.

     Capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings given to them in
     the Purchase Agreement.


PROMAX ENERGY INC.                   STARROCK RESOURCES LTD.
Signiture                            Signiture

                                    206
</Page>
#### In the Matter of G & D Construction, Inc., Appellant, v John C. Egan, as Commissioner of the New York State Office of General Services, et al., Respondents.

Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding petitioner seeks annulment of the respondent’s determination denying it minority business enterprise status. Based on the fact that its president, sole shareholder and director is black, petitioner applied for certification as a minority business. After review and on-site investigation the application was rejected by respondent due to lack of actual operational and managerial control by the minority owner of the enterprise. Petitioner initially sought administrative review of this decision, but then withdrew its request upon discovering that no formal review procedures had been established. In the present *1050article 78 proceeding petitioner asserts that it met all qualifications for minority business status, including being solely owned by its president, a black, who fully operated and managed the business. In its answer the respondent provided the court with his findings of fact and conclusions derived from the petitioner’s application and the department’s subsequent investigation. Special Term without a hearing dismissed the petition, finding that respondent’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious. That was error. Clear factual issues are presented as to whether petitioner is actually operated and managed by minority interests and those issues require a full hearing *(Matter of Masder Bldrs. v Overton,*15 AD2d 551; *Matter of Ellis v Allen,*4 AD2d 343, *appeal dismissed 4*NY2d 693). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kasler, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman and Lawton, JJ.
[866 NE2d 1032, 834 NYS2d 704]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jonathan Dean, Appellant.

Decided April 3, 2007

*930APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Jaime C. Louridas,*Schenectady, for appellant.

*Kevin C. Kortright, District Attorney,*Fort Edward *(Katherine G. Henley*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by directing that defendant’s sentences run concurrently, and as so modified, affirmed.

Defendant was indicted on August 10, 2004, in a seven-count indictment charging him with unlawful surveillance in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child, four counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child, and promoting a sexual performance by a child. The charges were based both on videotapes found in defendant’s possession containing footage of his and a neighbor’s children, and on digital photographs found on defendant’s computer depicting sexual conduct involving children. As to each count, the indictment described the conduct forming the basis for the allegations, but only generally stated that each act was performed “during the month of July, 2004.” While the August 10 indictment was pending, the grand jury handed down a second indictment, charging defendant with seven additional counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child. In satisfaction of both indictments, defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child (as set forth in the August 10 indictment), and pursuant to agreement was sentenced to three terms of 1 to 3 years, to run consecutively.

Defendant now claims that the consecutive sentences were illegal, as the court did not have facts before it to support a determination that he took possession of each of the digital images at a separate time. A trial court may impose consecutive sentences when “the facts demonstrate that the defendant’s *931acts underlying the crimes are separate and distinct” *(People v Ramirez,*89 NY2d 444, 451 [1996]; *see*Penal Law § 70.25). In ascertaining the existence of such facts, “where defendant has pleaded guilty to one or more counts alleged in the indictment, [the People] may rely on the allegations of those counts as well as the facts adduced at the allocution” *(People v Laureano,*87 NY2d 640, 644 [1996]). *As*the People did not include the date and time of each of the allegedly separate acts of downloading the digital images set forth in the indictment, or include such facts in defendant’s plea allocution, the court was without authority to impose consecutive sentences.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

U.S. Coast Guard 

NOTICE OF EXPECTED WITNESSES

CG-5800F (08/14)

Complainant: 

 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

v. 

Respondent:

For Docketing Center Use Only:

Coast Guard Enforcement Activity Number:

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

Type or print name Signature Date

Docket Number:

20 -

1) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the Coast Guard Representative by:

2) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the ALJ Docketing Center by:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Type or print name Signature Date

NOTICE OF EXPECTED WITNESSES

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

3) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the assigned Administrative Law Judge by:

WITNESS SUMMARY OF THE EXPECTED TESTIMONY 

(If additional lines are needed, press the tab button after the last word typed in the box or attach an additional sheet of paper.)

1

 Privacy Act Statement 

The legal authority for the collection of information on this form is authorized by 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77 and 33 C.F.R. Part 20. The information provided will be 

used to advocate your position in this administrative proceeding. Unless part of mandatory discovery, submission of the information on this form is voluntary. 

You are solely responsible for the manner in which you want to present your own case. This document will become part of the official record, which can be 

viewed by the public. 33 C.F.R. § 20.903.
#### Dobbins, Respondent, v. Fisher, Appellant. Fisher Manuf’g Co., Limited, v. Same.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

April Term, 1890.)

No opinion. Order reversed, without costs, and without prejudice to an application or motion, under section 2463 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
mip2010.htm


Exhibit 10.10








	
 


Onvia, Inc.


2010 Management Incentive Plan


 


	
 


Participants

	
 


Chief Financial Officer


Chief Information Officer


Chief Strategy Officer


General Counsel & Corporate Secretary


Senior VP Products, Technology & Information


 


	
 


 


Objectives

	
 


· Achieve corporate performance that most reflect stockholder interests


· Drive and reward unified performance across executive team


· Focus on building trend for long-term, profitable growth


	
 


Key Achievement Metrics


 

	
 


Achievement of Board defined goals around Bookings and Net Income.


	
 


Bonus Target

	
 


· Chief Financial Officer                                               33% of Base Salary


· Chief Information Officer                                           33% of Base Salary


· Chief Strategy Officer                                                 18% of Base Salary


· General Counsel & Corporate Secretary                     22% of Base Salary


· Senior VP Products, Technology & Information        33% of Base Salary


 


	
Overachievement

	
 


If the Company’s performance against Bookings and Net Income exceeds the Target goals established by the Board, the Board has established accelerators to modify the participants’ award levels.


 


	
 


Terms of Funding and Payment

	
· If the Company’s performance against Bookings or Net Income falls below the floor established by the Board, the bonus pool shall not be funded.


· 50% of a participant’s share of the bonus pool will be based on the Company’s performance against Bookings and Net Income and 50% will be based on the participant’s individual goals.


· 67% of a participant’s bonus payout will be in cash, the remaining 33% will be in the form of restricted stock units, subject to a vesting period of one year.


· Bonus pool to be funded and targets paid upon certification by the Compensation Committee of metrics achieved by the Company.
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 15

- 00410

- CR
RICHARD RECIO, JR. , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
Appeal from the 232nd District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1459599 ).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on April 23, 2015. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered December 29, 2015

.
Panel consists of Justices Higley, Huddle, and Lloyd. Opinion delivered by Justice Higley.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

2022 CA 1042

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC D/B/A HOPE MEDICAL GROUP FOR

WOMEN, KATHALEEN PITTMAN, AND MEDICAL STUDENTS FOR

CHOICE, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ITS MEMBERS

VS. 

JEFF LANDRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF LOUISIANA, AND COURTNEY N. PHILLIPS, IN HER OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH

19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE NO. 720988

4: 1

On August 16, 2023, this court issued a decision that, for the reasons stated

therein, reversed and remanded this matter. 

On August 16, 2023, the Appellants filed an Exception of No Right of Action. 

On August 18, 2023, the Appellants filed an Application for Rehearing as to the August

16, 2023 decision rendered in this matter. 

In consideration of the above, it appears that the assertions made in the August

16, 2023 Exception ofNo Right ofAction are more properly addressed at the trial court

on remand as ordered by this court in its decision, and therefore, we do not address the

merits of the Exception of No Right of Action. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that the Exception of No Right of Action is DISMISSED. Furthermore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application for Rehearing is DENIED. 

PMc

GH

HG

Ordered this day of September 2023. 

DEPU Y ERK OF COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
REPORT FILED ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             488
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,530
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      3,493
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         122,510
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           123,762
<LOANS>                                         47,181
<ALLOWANCE>                                        637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 181,242
<DEPOSITS>                                     131,862
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,083
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,256
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 181,242
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    918
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,087
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    90
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,095
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,446
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,649
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       15
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    826
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    865
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         865
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       495
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.66
<LOANS-NON>                                        984
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,042
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   622
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  637
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               637
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>