alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Aptose Biosciences Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Gregory Chow, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”); and                                                                                                        
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of the end of the period covered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.



Date: March 29, 2016



/s/ Gregory Chow

Gregory Chow

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 31 , 2020

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00912

- CV

KAREN KRISTINE SILVI O , Appellant

V.

BIRNAM WOOD

- FAIRFAX HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATI ON, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from Co unty Civil C our t at La w N o . 1 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1046607

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a n order signed October 13, 2014 . On December 16, 2014, this court abated the appeal because appellant petition e d for voluntary bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, under cause number 14

- 36744

. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.2 Through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system,
the court has learned that th e bankruptcy case was closed . The parties failed to
advise this c ourt of the bankruptcy court action.

On February 27, 2020 , this court issued an order stating that unless any party to the appeal filed a motion demonstrating good cause to retain the ap p ea l within twenty days of the date of the order, this appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). No response was filed.
Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal and order it dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consist s o f Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                         114,000
<SECURITIES>                                     6,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  181,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   144,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               611,000
<PP&E>                                       4,574,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,484,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,234,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,505,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,893,000
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,866,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,489,000
<SALES>                                        177,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               177,000
<CGS>                                        1,664,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,110,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             649,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,585,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (12,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,573,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,573,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.62)


</TABLE>
#### Winston BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 55904.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 5, 1989.

Michael Lee Henderson, Clayton, Henry Robertson, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Winston Bell, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Motion court dismissed movant’s motion as untimely. Rule 24.035(Z). The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j). *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 696[2] (Mo.banc 1989). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4002

Enerpac:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7116]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Community Bancshares, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan; Notice 
of Application to Engage de novo in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The company listed in this notice has filed an application under 
Sec.  225.23(a)(1) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.23(a)(1)) 
for the Board's approval under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding 
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)) and Sec.  225.21(a) of Regulation Y 
(12 CFR 225.21(a)) to commence or to engage de novo, either directly or 
through a subsidiary, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in Sec.  
225.25 of Regulation Y as closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, such activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    The application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the question whether consummation of the proposal can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices.'' Any request for a hearing on this question 
must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, summarizing the 
evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and indicating how the 
party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of the proposal.
    Comments regarding the application must be received at the Reserve 
Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than 
April 6, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice 
President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198:
    1. Community Bancshares, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, 
Neosho, Missouri; to engage de novo through Community Bancshares, Inc., 
Neosho, Missouri, in operating Community Bank, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 
a de novo savings association, pursuant to Sec.  225.25(b)(9) of the 
Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 17, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-7116 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3942

Cummins Allison Corp:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5894

Hirsch Glass Corp:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15306-15307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7176]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 HDP User Group International, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 14, 1994, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), HDP User Group 
International, Inc., an Arizona non-profit corporation, has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) identities of the parties and 
(2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of 
the parties are Ruben Bergman, Alvsjo, Sweden; Advanced Micro Devices, 
Sunnyvale, CA; Alcatel, Aventom, Belgium; Digital Equipment Corp., 
Maynard, MA; Ericsson Telecom AB, Stockholm, Sweden; International 
Business Machines, Hopewell Junction, NY; Nokia, Espoo, Finland; and 
Northern Telecom, Ltd., Kanata, Ottawa, Canada.
    The HDP User Group International, Inc. Began in August, 1990, as an 
informal group of companies from Europe and North America whose goal 
was to influence the development of standard component assembly, and 
interconnect technologies required for dense electronic and opt-
electronic systems, or High Density Packaging. HDP began operating 
under the VMEbus International Trade Association in 1993, operating as 
a user group with representatives from within the industry. 
Subsequently, HDP separated from VMEbus and on June 15, 1994, HDP 
incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of 
Arizona. HDP supports, in concept, open packaging technologies as 
opposed to proprietary packaging technologies.
    The general areas of planned activity are as follows: (a) 
Collecting the requirements for End Users and the Industry; (b) 
collecting the requirements of Users for pre-defined application 
profiles, based upon supplier opportunities; (c) defining preferred 
concepts of packaging with Suppliers [[Page 15307]] and their 
organizations; and (d) working with Suppliers and their organizations 
aimed at promoting preferred concepts to develop industry standards.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-7176 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Filed 4/2/09 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2009 ND 29

Gregory Delzer and 

Mary Ann Delzer, Plaintiffs and Appellees

v.

Richard Allen Anderson, 

also known as Richard A. Anderson 

or Rick Anderson, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20080206

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Sonna M. Anderson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Bryan L. Giese (argued), 107 1st Ave. NW, Mandan, ND 58554-3173, for plaintiffs and appellees.

Richard A. Anderson, pro se, 561 Keystone Ave., # 220, Reno, NV 89503, defendant and appellant; on brief.

Delzer v. Anderson

No. 20080206

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Richard Allen Anderson appealed from a civil money judgment entered in favor of Gregory Delzer and Mary Ann Delzer.  On appeal, Anderson argues the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance, and the district court's decision to grant summary judgment was not supported by the record.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (6). 

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7118]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Kari Torgerhagen, et al.; Change in Bank Control Notices; 
Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notices have been accepted for 
processing, they will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later 
than April 6, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice 
President) 250 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480:
    1. Kari Torgerhagen, Milan, Minnesota; to retain an additional 8.96 
percent, for a total of 29.04 percent, of the voting shares of Milan 
Agency, Inc., Milan, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire Prairie 
State Bank, Milan, Minnesota.
    2. Erik Thompson, Milan, Minnesota; to retain an additional 8.22 
percent, for a total of 26.66 percent, of the voting shares of Milan 
Agency, Inc., Milan, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire Prairie 
State Bank, Milan, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 17, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-7118 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herman Blunt, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered December 16, 1987, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s finding that a valid predicate existed for the police to stop the defendant and ask for his identification (CPL 140.50 [1]; *People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 223). Once the defendant voluntarily identified himself as Herman Blunt, the police had probable cause to arrest him, since Blunt had been previously identified by a named citizen as having committed a burglary *(see, People v Inman,*80 AD2d 622). Kunzeman, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 99.8

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2008
and the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-145236, 333-127265, 333-13456,
333-97305 and 333-6436), Form F-3 (File No. 33-77022) and Form F-10 (File Nos. 333-152607
and 333-141478) of Enbridge Inc. (the "Corporation") of our report dated February 12, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements of the Corporation
as at December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2008 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as at
December 31, 2008. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the Form F-10.

"signed"
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Chartered Accountants

Calgary,
Alberta
February 19, 2009

---



QuickLinks