alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

I, John Varian, certify that:

 

1.  I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Deltagen, Inc.; 

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annualreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, 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)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

 

c)  Presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a)  All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialdata and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant rolein the registrant’s internal controls; and 

 

6.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internalcontrols subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James B. HOLTS.

No. 2010-KO-2667.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2011.

In re Holts, James B.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 459880; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 0903.

Denied.
#### Samuel WELSH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D09-4771.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 6, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 2010.

Samuel Welsh, Crawfordville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed.*The imposition of a lien under section 960.293(2)(b), Florida Statutes, is a civil matter, not a matter of criminal sentencing. *See Goad v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr.,*845 So.2d 880 (Fla.2003). Therefore, appellant is not entitled to seek correction of any deficiencies pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).

WARNER, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 165 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the depreciation 

recovery period for roof systems. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. JINDAL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 

the depreciation recovery period for roof systems. 

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 ‘‘Realistic Roofing Tax 

5 Treatment Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEPRECIATION RECOVERY PERIOD FOR ROOF SYS7 TEMS. 

8 (a) 20-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD.—Subparagraph 

9 (F) of section 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 165 IH

1 1986 (relating to classification of certain property) is 

2 amended to read as follows: 

3 ‘‘(F) 20-YEAR PROPERTY.—The term ‘20- 

4 year property’ means— 

5 ‘‘(i) initial clearing and grading land 

6 improvements with respect to any electric 

7 utility transmission and distribution plant, 

8 and 

9 ‘‘(ii) any roof system.’’. 

10 (b) REQUIREMENT TO USE STRAIGHT LINE METH11 OD.—Paragraph (3) of section 168(b) of such Code is 

12 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara13 graph: 

14 ‘‘(I) Any roof system.’’. 

15 (c) ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM.—The table contained in 

16 section 168(g)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by striking 

17 the last item and inserting the following new items: 

‘‘(F)(i) ....................................................................................... 25

(F)(ii) ........................................................................................ 20’’. 

18 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

20 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GENERAL
MEDIA, INC'S MARCH 31, 2000 FORM 10Q 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>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           8,246
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,812
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,995
<PP&E>                                           3,258
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,578
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                    (56,129)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,338
<SALES>                                         18,896
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,896
<CGS>                                            7,765
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,471
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   135
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,697)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    954
<INCOME-TAX>                                       375
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                579
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       579
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1675 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1675

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 25, 2007

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, 
                       Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To suspend the requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban 
   Development regarding electronic filing of previous participation 
certificates and regarding filing of such certificates with respect to 
                 certain low-income housing investors.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preservation Approval Process 
Improvement Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF ELECTRONIC FILING REQUIREMENT.

    The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall--
            (1) suspend mandatory processing of Previous Participation 
        Certificates (form HUD-2530) under the Department of Housing 
        and Urban Development's Automated Partners Performance System 
        (APPS) and permit paper filings of such certificates until such 
        time that the Secretary--
                    (A) revises the December 2006 draft proposed 
                regulations under subpart H of part 200 of title 24, 
                Code of Federal Regulations, to eliminate the 
                unnecessary burdens and disincentives for program 
                participants; and
                    (B) submits such revised draft proposed regulations 
                to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
                Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                and Urban Affairs of the Senate for review by such 
                Committees; and
            (2) suspend immediately all filing requirements under the 
        Previous Participation Certificate process with respect to 
        limited liability corporate investors who own or expect to own 
        an interest in entities which are allowed or are expected to be 
        allowed low-income housing tax credits under section 42 of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 24, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Adolph HOHENSEE, Appellant, v. AKRON BEACON JOURNAL PUBLISHING COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 14031.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

May 13, 1960.

See also 174 F.Supp. 450.

James C. Newton, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

C. Blake McDowell, Jr., Akron, Ohio, for Beacon Journal Publishing Co., Robert Feldkamp, and John S. Knight.

Robert L. Myers, Akron, Ohio, for Better Business Bureau of Akron, Inc.

William H. Vodrey, Jr., E. Liverpool, Ohio, for Brush-Moore Newspapers, Inc., and John G. Green.

L. M. Buckingham and Dwight Parsons, Akron, Ohio, for Summit County Medical Society and members served.

Before SIMONS, Senior Judge, WEICK, Circuit Judge, and HOLLAND, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, as plaintiff, wanted $10,-000,000 in treble damages from numerous defendants, with interest, counsel fees and costs, for injuries growing out of an alleged conspiracy to violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-7, 15 note. He listed as defendants: the American Medical Association, its officers and members, the Akron Beacon Journal Publishing Company, John S. Knight and Robert Feldkamp, the Summit County Medical Society, its officers and members, the Better Business Bureau of Akron, the Brush-Moore Newspapers, Inc., W. J. Hine, and some five hundred “John Does”. The asserted damages are alleged to flow from libel, slander, destruction of businesses, and other “unlawful overt acts”. The complaint recites, without supporting facts, destruction of a lecture and products’ sales businesses, injuries to health, loss of freedom and liberty, and other injuries. The recitals of the complaint alleged no more than vague conclusions, capable of no intelligent response.

Upon examination of the complaint and of various motions to dismiss, the Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court ordered the action dismissed as to all defendants on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to allege facts from which it *360may reasonably be inferred that the public has suffered injury, pointing out that injury to the public must specifically be stated and constitute a restraint of interstate commerce. Its opinion, 171 F. Supp. 90, is clear and supported by applicable cases.

While the plaintiff’s request for leave to file an amended complaint was overruled, he was permitted to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint accompanied by the proposed amended pleading and a certification showing that copies thereof had been served upon all moving defendants. Pursuant to the granted permission, the plaintiff filed what purported to be an amended complaint. The Court denied permission to file and supported the order by a careful memorandum, filed June 9, 1959, D.C., 174 F.Supp. 450. It is from the order of dismissal and the order denying leave to file the proffered amended complaint that this appeal is lodged. The infirmities of the original complaint are not dissipated by the amended pleading.

The decision was sound and the challenged orders are,

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,801
<SECURITIES>                                    47,740
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,686)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,996
<PP&E>                                          28,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,480)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,615
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       121,292
<OTHER-SE>                                    (53,724)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,313
<SALES>                                         50,715
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,715
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,408
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 517
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,694)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,694)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 87-1055.

#### Chan et al. *v.*Korean Air Lines, Ltd.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted..
#### MINNESOTA MINING *&*MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant, v. FRUEHAUF TRAILER COMPANY.

No. 16360.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 18, 1960.

Alexander & Robertson, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Moser, Marsalek, Carpenter, Cleary, Jaeckel & Hamilton, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from District Court dismissed, on dismissal of appeal filed by appellant.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 91 (Tuesday, June 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5611]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 PRAYER

  The Reverend Dwight ``Ike'' Reighard of New Hope Baptist Church, 
Fayetteville, GA, offered the following prayer:
  Our Heavenly Father, we pause to give thanks and acknowledge our 
Creator on this day. We are reminded on this day of June 6 of the 
tremendous sacrifice that occurred 51 years ago today on D-day. The 
price for freedom then and now is eternal vigilance. We pray that we 
all will be mindful and ever thankful for the men and women who served 
in our Armed Forces around the world.
  We pray on this day for our President, Vice President, and leaders of 
Congress, that You would endow them with wisdom and insight beyond 
their human ability.
  Grant us, oh Lord, Your patience, mercy and kindness, and gentleness, 
to touch people, see people, and love people the way You do, and in 
Your name we pray. Amen.

                          ____________________
```
News United States Air Force
 CSAF: A call to excellence for all AirmenPublished Aug. 4, 2014
                
                
**WASHINGTON (AFNS) --** In his latest Airman-to-Airman message, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III urged the men and women of the Air Force to challenge themselves to be better at what they do.
Welsh said the message, part of an ongoing video series aimed at engaging Airmen throughout the Air Force, was inspired by an email he received from an Airman at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. 
“Airman 1st Class Devin Nothstine asked me to challenge you to be better than you think you can be; I think that’s a fantastic approach to our mission as the United States Air Force,” Welsh said.  
The chief of staff went on to encourage all Airmen, including himself, to accept Nothstine’s challenge.  
“I’ll start by trying to become a better chief of staff of the Air Force and being a better person myself,” Welsh said.
Click here to see the video.*(Information courtesy of Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs)*Airman 2 Airman 



professional development 



careers 



CSAF 



Gen. Mark Welsh III 



AF senior leaders 



Airman to Airman
Order entered January 15, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 01170
- CR KERRY WAYNE CLARK, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. F 13
- 54259
- M



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record in this appeal within TWENTY
- ONE DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
** **

** **

**EXHIBIT 32.1**

                                                                                

**Certification Pursuantto**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

** **

Thiscertification is provided pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for theperiod ended September 30, 2006 of Tripos, Inc. (the "Company") as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").

** **

The undersigned, theChief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, eachhereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

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

(b)           information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.  

                                                                                /s/John P. McAlister

                                                                                JohnP. McAlister

                                                                                ChiefExecutive Officer

                                                                                February7, 2007

                                                                                /s/John D. Yingling

                                                                                JohnD. Yingling

                                                                                ChiefFinancial Officer

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  February7, 2007

----
EXHIBIT 10.5.1

                                 March 20, 2000

Via Facsimile and Regular Mail
------------------------------
Mr. Harold D. Carter
5949 Sherry Lane, Suite 620
Dallas, Texas 75225
Phone (214) 692-7785
Fax (214) 692-7820

         Re:      Amendment to Consulting Agreement by and between
                  Harold D. Carter ("Consultant") and
                  Brigham Oil & Gas, L.P. (the "Company")

Dear Harold:

         This  letter  agreement  shall set forth the  agreement  by and between
Consultant and the Company to amend the above referenced  Consulting  Agreement,
effective as of January 1, 2000, as follows:

(1)  Section 3 of the Consulting Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and
     replaced with the following Section 3:

          3.  Compensation.  The Company shall pay  Consultant  for his services
     under this  Agreement a consulting  fee of $2,500 per month during the term
     of this Agreement.  All federal withholding and other employment and income
     related taxes shall be the responsibility of Consultant.

(2) Section 6 of the Consulting  Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following Section 6:

          6. Term. The term of this Agreement  shall commence on the date hereof
     and terminate on December 31, 2000.

     All of the other terms and  provisions of the  Consulting  Agreement  shall
continue in force and effect.

     If  this  letter   amendment   correctly   reflects   your   agreement  and
understanding,  we ask that you  execute  the  duplicate  originals  of same and
return one of the duplicate originals to us for our records.

                                      Sincerely,
                                      BRIGHAM OIL & GAS, L.P.
                                      By Brigham, Inc.
                                      Its Managing General Partner

                                      /s/ David T. Brigham
                                      David T. Brigham
                                      Vice President

AGREED AND ACCEPTED:


/s/ Harold D. Carter
--------------------
HAROLD D. CARTER