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



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Danka Business
Systems PLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, F. Mark Wolfinger, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ F. Mark Wolfinger  
|-----------------------
|F. Mark Wolfinger      
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|February 14, 2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Otis Woods,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04677-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: December 20, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9469 Filed 12/28/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

June 9, 2015

No. 14-4678

IN RE: GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION

JOHN DOE; ABC ENTITY,

Appellants

(D.N.J. No. 3-14-mc-00077)

Present: FISHER, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

1. Sealed Motion by Appellant to Unseal The Court’s February 27, 2015 Decision;

2. Response by Appellee to Motion to Unseal The Court’s February 27, 2015 

 Decision;

3. Reply by Appellant in Support of Motion to Unseal The Court’s February 27, 

 2015.

Respectfully,

Clerk/tmm

_________________________________ORDER________________________________

Senator Robert Menendez has filed a motion before this Court to unseal our 

February 27, 2015, opinion (the “Opinion”) concerning testimony in the underlying grand 

jury proceeding now that the case has been indicted and because the Opinion has already 

been disclosed inadvertently on the public docket. The Government does not oppose the 

Senator’s motion but asks us to also unseal the entire record on appeal to provide context 

to the Opinion. Considering the relevant factors for unsealing grand jury information, see 

United States v. McDowell, 888 F.2d 285, 289 (3d Cir. 1989), we grant the motion to 

unseal the Opinion, the briefs on appeal, and the recording of oral argument before this 

Court. Should the parties desire additional disclosure, they are directed to make an 

application to the District Court for the unsealing of other documents in the record.

By the Court,

s/ D. Michael Fisher

Circuit Judge

Dated: June 23, 2015

tmm/cc: Monique Abrishami, Esq.
Joseph P. Cooney, Esq.

Peter M. Koski, Esq.

Scott W. Coyle, Esq.

Abbe D. Lowell, Esq.

Christopher D. Man, Esq.

Thomas J. Tynan, Esq.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Robert S. Arrighi","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/robertsarrighi\/","title":"NASA\u2019s SERT II: ‘A Genuine Space Success Story\u2019","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"VPfAwcK2IH\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/glenn\/nasas-sert-ii-a-genuine-space-success-story\/\">NASA\u2019s SERT II: ‘A Genuine Space Success Story\u2019<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/glenn\/nasas-sert-ii-a-genuine-space-success-story\/embed\/#?secret=VPfAwcK2IH\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s SERT II: ‘A Genuine Space Success Story\u2019” — NASA\" data-secret=\"VPfAwcK2IH\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/grc-1968-c-03031.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":494}
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RANDY JOHNSON.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         646,278
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  867,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,513,879
<PP&E>                                      21,225,444
<DEPRECIATION>                               (586,033)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,543,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          261,898
<BONDS>                                      6,200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,081,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,543,356
<SALES>                                      1,890,962
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,905,790
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  303,251
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,104
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               200,405
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,357,785
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,357,785
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,357,785
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARTHA URENA.

June 13, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 31.2

                                      INTERPHARM HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, George Aronson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Interpharm Holdings, 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 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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I am responsible for
establishing 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 the registrant, 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) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

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

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board 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 financial data 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 role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:    November 15, 2004

/s/ George Aronson
-----------------------
George Aronson
Chief Financial Officer

                                                                              27
EXHIBIT A 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9866-2 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MARGARET E. GRIENER, RDR, CCR NO. 3, OFFICIAL REPORTER

(775) 329-9980

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE

---o0o---

KEVIN PHILLIPS, an

individual,

Plaintiff,

-vsC.R. BARD, INC., a foreign

corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 3:12-CV-344-RCJ-WGC

January 26, 2015

Reno, Nevada

 :

TRANSCRIPT OF OPENING STATEMENTS

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: RAMON R. LOPEZ and TROY A. BRENES

Attorneys at Law

Newport Beach, California

JULIA N. REED ZAIC

Attorney at Law

Laguna Beach, California

PETER C. WETHERALL

Attorney at Law

Las Vegas, Nevada

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: RICHARD B. NORTH, JR., and

MATTHEW B. LERNER

Attorneys at Law

Atlanta, Georgia

Reported by: Margaret E. Griener, CCR #3, FCRR

Official Reporter

400 South Virginia Street

Reno, Nevada 89501

(Appearances continued on page 2.)

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9866-2 Filed 01/26/18 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MARGARET E. GRIENER, RDR, CCR NO. 3, OFFICIAL REPORTER

(775) 329-9980

72

needed this filter and why the complications occurred.

And then I want to describe briefly the plaintiff's

burden. As I said, they have the burden of proof, and the

elements they have to show, and what the evidence says as to

each of those elements.

And then I want to try to put several accusations

you just heard in context, not just the sound bite, and tell

you the whole story.

Who are the defendants? C.R. Bard is a developer

and manufacturer of medical devices in various fields,

vascular, urology, oncology, surgical specialty, just to name

a few, biopsy products.

Bard Peripheral Vascular is located in Tempe, as I

said. They developed the filters, they make some stints.

They are one of the leading manufacturers in the country of

breast cancer biopsy products to help doctors in their

diagnoses.

But Bard is not a corporate facility. It is not

some huge, big building of profit takers as the plaintiff's

evidence and sound bites would have you think.

Bard is made up of men and women who have studied,

who are engineers, marketing specialists.

Janet Hudnall, who you will hear from, she was the

marketing director for this product for a period of time.

Even she, as a marketing person, had a degree in biology from

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9866-2 Filed 01/26/18 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 27.1
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CAPSTONE CAPITAL CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,970,081
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,034,393
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,702,155
<PP&E>                                     487,045,128
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,061,572
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             723,290,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       43,827,010
<BONDS>                                     72,684,370
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,000
<COMMON>                                        17,337
<OTHER-SE>                                 372,212,730
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               723,290,927
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            57,178,471
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               28,297,318
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          14,767,309
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             28,881,153
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         28,881,153
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                28,881,153
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.75


</TABLE>
#### LAWRENCE IVAN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE PRINCETON REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT.

June 19, 1984.

Petitions for certification granted and the matter is summarily remanded to the Commissioner of Education for reconsideration in light of the entire transcript of proceedings conducted before the Administrative Law Judge.

Jurisdiction is not retained.
EXHIBIT 99.2


                   (Letterhead of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP)

                         Report of Independent Auditors


To the Boards of Directors and Shareholder of
A.I. Credit Corp., AICCO, Inc., AICCO, Inc., Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. and
Imperial Premium Funding, Inc.:


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Exhibit I,
that A.I. Credit Corp, AICCO, Inc. ("AICCO I"), AICCO, Inc. ("AICCO II),
Imperial Premium Finance, and Imperial Premium Funding Inc. (collectively, the
"Servicers") have complied with the specified servicing related requirements
related to the Series 2005-1 AICCO Premium Finance Master Trust (the "Trust"),
for the two months ended December 31, 2005, as set out in Article III and
Article IV of the Trust's Sales and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") and
Section 2.20 and Article 5 of the Trust's Base Indenture (as supplemented by the
2005-1 Series Supplement), subclause (c) of Section 2.01 of the Agreement and
subclause (ii)(A) of subsection 2.06(d) of the Agreement. The applicable
sections are listed in Exhibit I, and sections noted as not applicable are
excluded from the scope of this report. Management is responsible for the
Servicers compliance with these specified servicing related requirements. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Servicers compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Servicers
compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Servicers compliance with specified requirements.


IN OUR OPINION, MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTION THAT A.I. CREDIT CORP., AICCO I, AICCO
II, IMPERIAL PREMIUM FINANCE, INC., AND IMPERIAL PREMIUM FUNDING, INC. COMPLIED
WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED REQUIREMENTS DURING THE TWO MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
2005 IS FAIRLY STATED, IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS.



March 30, 2006
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10612 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

FELIX GUTIERREZ

- MARTINEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14

- CR

- 508

- 1

Before REAVLEY , ELROD , and HAYNES , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Felix Gutierrez

- Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gutierrez

- Martinez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 20 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10612 Document: 00513472229 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2016No. 15

- 10612

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leav e to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-10612 Document: 00513472229 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2016
Document

Exhibit 10.1


Form of Amendment to Employment Agreement


This Amendment No. [ ] (this “Amendment”) to that certain Employment Agreement by and between ServiceNow, Inc. (the “Company”) and [ ] (“Executive”), dated as of [ ] (as may be amended, supplemented or modified from time to time, the “Employment Agreement”), is made and entered into by and between the Company and Executive, effective as of [[ ], 20[ ]]. Any capitalized term that is used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning set forth in the Employment Agreement.


In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:


1.Section [ ](b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the language “During the time period from the [Start Date][Effective Date] through the third (3rd) anniversary of the [Start Date][Effective Date],” which appears in the first line thereof.


2.Section [ ](c) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the language “During the time period from the [Start Date][Effective Date] through the third (3rd) anniversary of the [Start Date][Effective Date],” which appears in the first line thereof.


3.Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


4.This Amendment may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and which together shall constitute one instrument.


[Signature Page Follows]














IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the date set forth above.




ServiceNow, Inc.


By:___________________________
[Name]




Executive


By:___________________________
[Name]
#### CINDI ANN LARSON v. DR. ROBERT ADAMS.

June 27, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.