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



Exhibit 31.2

I, Kay Carter, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal financial
officer) of Whitehall Limited, Inc. certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Whitehall Limited,
Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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)) 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly
report based on such evaluation; and

c) 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 that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

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

Date: August 16, 2004

| |  |                                                  
| |  | -------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Kay Carter                                   
| |  |                                                  
| |  | Kay Carter, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer
EX-10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED UNDER RULE 406 UNDER 

THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED. 

[*****] INDICATES OMITTED MATERIAL THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF A CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT 

REQUEST FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION. THE OMITTED MATERIAL 

HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION. 

THIRD AMENDMENT 
 to the

 LICENSE AND COMMERCIALISATION AGREEMENT 

by and between 
 BIOTIE
THERAPIES CORP. 
 Tykistökatu 6 

20520 Turku 
 Finland 

(Hereinafter referred to as “BioTie”) 

and 
 H. LUNDBECK A/S 

Ottiliavej 9 
 OK 2500 Valby 

Denmark 
 (Hereinafter referred to
as “Lundbeck”) 
 (Hereinafter each also referred to as “Party” or together as “Parties”) 

 

			
	Whereas:		On 23 May 2007 BioTie and Lundbeck entered into a License and Commercialisation Agreement (hereinafter the “Agreement”) regarding the commercialisation of Nalmefene, a specific opioid receptor antagonist developed
by BioTie and its collaborators for the treatment of substance abuse disorders such as alcoholism and obsessive compulsive disorders, including but not limited to pathological gambling.
		
	Whereas:		With this third amendment to the Agreement (hereinafter the “Amendment”) the Parties desire to extend the geographical territory of Lundbeck’s rights under the Agreement to cover also the Republic of
Turkey.

 NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 

  
 1 (2) 









 CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED UNDER RULE 406 UNDER 

THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED. 

[*****] INDICATES OMITTED MATERIAL THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF A CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT 

REQUEST FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION. THE OMITTED MATERIAL 

HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION. 
  


	1.	GENERAL 

 The Parties hereby acknowledge and agree to include this Amendment to be an
integral part of the Agreement and extend, supplement, vary, change, modify and amend the Agreement as set forth herein. The change shall become effective only upon payment of the execution fee referred to in Section 3 below. 

 

	2.	AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT 

 The following Section of the Agreement shall be amended as
set forth herein. The amendment below includes the complete text of the Section and replaces the previous text of the Section in its entirety. 
  

	2.1	Section 1.1.63 

 ““Territory”– the world, excluding 

 

	 	•	 	North- and South Korea.” 

  

	3.	EXECUTION FEE 

 No later than five (5) days following the signing of this Amendment
Lundbeck shall pay to BioTie a fixed sum of [*****] to BioTie’s bank account in [*****]. 
  

	4.	MISCELLANEOUS 

 All other terms of the Agreement (including previous amendments) shall
remain unchanged and in full force and effect. This Amendment shall come into force when it has been duly signed by both Parties. 
 In
Copenhagen, Denmark and Turku, Finland on the dates set forth below. 
  

					
	BIOTIE THERAPIES CORP.				H. LUNDBECK A/S
			
	 /s/ Timo Veromaa
				 /s/ Anders Götzsche

	Timo Veromaa				Anders Götzsche
	President and CEO				EVP, Finance, IT & Communication
	On th day of March 2009				On 3 day of April 2009


  
 2 (2)
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

	
	


	




#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

		..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0." ! "# 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

		$


-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



		



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

MAICHAEL MAURICE WHELAN 05-00184-001

09137-003

02-06-2006

Fred Tiemann

✔

✔

151 121 months

06-06-2006

07-08-2015

11-01-2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.07.08 11:03:51 -06'00'

Case 1:05-cr-00184-CG-M Document 77 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4782

SPENCER REED,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.

(CR-99-460)

Submitted: May 31, 2001

Decided: August 6, 2001

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Andrew D. Grimes, ANDREW D. GRIMES. P.A., Summerville,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Scott N. Schools, United States Attorney, Miller W. Shealy, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Spencer Reed appeals his conviction and 240-month sentence pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (West

1999). Reed’s indictment failed to state a specific drug quantity.

However, Reed signed a plea agreement in which he stipulated to

involvement with "not less than 50 grams" of cocaine base. Reed also

stipulated to receiving a prior conviction that would enhance his sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 851 (1994), and to a minimum incarceration

period of twenty years. Reed reaffirmed these stipulations at his plea

hearing. 

Reed was sentenced to twenty years incarceration under 21

U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999), and argues that under Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), he should have been sentenced under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999), because his

indictment failed to state a drug quantity. Reed also argues the district

court lacked jurisdiction to enhance his sentence under 21 U.S.C.

§ 851. We disagree. 

Reed’s sentence does not violate Apprendi because his twenty-year

incarceration period does not exceed the statutory maximum set forth

in §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846. United States v. Angle, ___ F.3d ___, No.

96-4662, 2001 WL 732124, at *2 (4th Cir. June 29, 2001) (en banc);

United States v. Promise, ___ F.3d ___, No. 99-4737, 2001 WL

732389, at *5 (4th Cir. June 29, 2001) (en banc); United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, ___ U.S.

___, 2001 WL 185705 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2001) (No. 00-8591); United

States v. Lewis, 235 F.3d 215, 219 (4th Cir. 2000). 

Additionally, Reed fails to establish the district court lacked jurisdiction to enhance his sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 851. Reed stipulated to liability for a drug quantity and a prior criminal offense,

mandating a twenty-year incarceration period. Reed is bound by the

terms of his plea agreement. United States v. Williams, 29 F.3d 172,

174-75 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th

Cir. 1990); United States v. Foster, 68 F.3d 86, 89 (4th Cir. 1995).

2 UNITED STATES v. REED
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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. REED 3
Exhiit 10(E)



 






EXHIBIT 10(E)




Form of

The Progressive Corporation

Executive Deferred Compensation Plan 

Revocation Election

For

Executive Bonus Plan Participants



This Revocation Election is entered into pursuant to the provisions of The Progressive Corporation
Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (“Plan”). All capitalized terms in this Revocation Election
shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.




          WHEREAS, the undersigned Eligible Executive has previously elected to defer receipt of all or
a portion of his Executive Bonus(es) that became payable or will become payable in 2005 or 2006 or
has previously elected to defer receipt of his Restricted Stock Award granted in March, 2005; and




          WHEREAS, such Eligible Executive now desires to revoke one or more of such elections;




          NOW, THEREFORE, such Eligible Executive hereby elects to revoke one or more of such elections
as follows: (Please check one or more of the boxes below, as desired)





	 	 	 	o I hereby revoke my deferral election relating to the Executive Bonus that
originally became payable to me in January, 2005.
	 
	 	 	 	o I hereby revoke my deferral election relating to the Executive Bonus that may
become payable to me in 2006.
	 
	 	 	 	o I hereby revoke my election to defer the time-based Restricted Stock Award
granted to me in March, 2005.
	 
	 	 	 	o I hereby revoke my election to defer the performance-based Restricted Stock
Award granted to me in March, 2005.





          I understand that this Revocation Election is subject to the terms, conditions and
limitations of the Plan, as in effect from time to time, in all respects, and, once received by the
Committee, may not be changed or revoked. I also understand that this Revocation Election will not
become effective unless received by the Committee on or before December 30, 2005.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Name of Eligible Executive:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Signature of Eligible Executive:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Date:
Exhibit 10.27

 

FORM OF SWING LINE NOTE

 

	
$500,000
    	
               ,   20           
    


 

On or before the Revolving Credit Maturity Date, FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Glaukos Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”) promises to pay to the order of Comerica Bank (“Swing Line Lender”) at Detroit, Michigan, in lawful money of the United States of America, so much of the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000), as may from time to time have been advanced to the Borrower by the Swing Line Lender and then be outstanding hereunder pursuant to the Amended and Restated Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement made as of February 23, 2015 (as amended, restated or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”), by and among the financial institutions from time to time signatory thereto (individually a “Lender,” and any and all such financial institutions collectively the “Lenders”), Comerica Bank, as Administrative Agent for the Lenders (in such capacity, the “Agent”), and Borrower, together with interest thereon as hereinafter set forth.

 

Each of the Swing Line Advances made hereunder shall bear interest at the Applicable Interest Rate from time to time applicable thereto under the Credit Agreement or as otherwise determined thereunder, and interest shall be computed, assessed and payable on the unpaid principal amount of each Swing Line Advance made by the Swing Line Lender from the date of such Swing Line Advance until paid at the rates and at the times set forth in the Credit Agreement.

 

This Note is a Swing Line Note under which Swing Line Advances (including refundings and conversions), repayments and readvances may be made from time to time by the Swing Line Lender, but only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement (including any applicable sublimits).  This Note evidences borrowings under, is subject to, is secured in accordance with, and may be accelerated or matured under, the terms of the Credit Agreement to which reference is hereby made. Capitalized terms used herein, except as defined to the contrary, shall have the meanings given them in the Credit Agreement.

 

This Note shall be interpreted and the rights of the parties hereunder shall be determined under the laws of, and enforceable in, the State of California.

 

The Borrower hereby waives presentment for payment, demand, protest and notice of dishonor and nonpayment of this Note and agree that no obligation hereunder shall be discharged by reason of any extension, indulgence, release, or forbearance granted by any holder of this Note to any party now or hereafter liable hereon or any present or subsequent owner of any property, real or personal, which is now or hereafter security for this Note.

 

*     *     *

 

[SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON SUCCEEDING PAGE]

 











 

Nothing herein shall limit any right granted Swing Line Lender by any other instrument or by law.

 

	
 
    	
GLAUKOS CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Its:
    	
 
    


 

2
**Exhibit32**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of California Coastal Communities, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned,in their respective capacity as an officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, to the best of their respective knowledge, that:

·                                          theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

·                                          theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: November 9, 2006
| /s/ Raymond J. Pacini                      |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| Raymond J. Pacini  Chief Executive Officer |   |

 
| /s/ Sandra G. Sciutto                                                  |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Sandra G.  Sciutto  Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JANICE C. BURRELL, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 09-00325-KD-B

 )

INFIRMARY WEST, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues

raised and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which

objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(1)(B) and dated February 11, 2010 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be ALLOWED, that Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and that Plaintiff’s claims alleging

violations under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, Title 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) and (3), and the First,

Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments be DISMISSED.

DONE and ORDERED this the 1st day of March 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00325-KD-B Document 28 Filed 03/01/10 Page 1 of 1
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT JAMES LEWIS BROWN, JR.,

Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-1757 December 13, 2023 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Susan St. John, Judge. James Lewis Brown, Jr., pro se. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SLEET, C.J., SMITH and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  464,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     59,139
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               506,281
<PP&E>                                       1,951,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                 156,090
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             138,852,711
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,593,407
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       210,401
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,685,175
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               138,852,711
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               330,049
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  329,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             126,083
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    977
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                977
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       977
<EPS-BASIC>                                     .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .000


</TABLE>
##### 



(i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Partnership.
  By
    
    /s/ Dennis J. TietzDennis J. Tietz, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Cronos Capital Corp.,General Partner of the Partnership/s/ John KallasJohn Kallas, Chief Financial Officer of CronosCapital Corp., General Partner of the Partnership
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, other than as
required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be filed with the Commission or subject to
the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
10414.

#### Sally *v.*Bank of Union.

Smith, J.

“ 1. When a surety has been sued separately from his principal, it is not then too late for the surety to give the notice, provided for in section 3546 of the Civil Code (1910), to proceed against *510the principal debtor (the principal debtor being within the ■ jurisdiction of this State). Said section provides that the surety. at any time ’ after the debt on which he is liable becomes due, may give the notice.

Decided July 19, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of Richmond county — Judge Black. February 19, 1919.

*B. B. McCowen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Alexander & Lee,*contra.

*“2.*The provisions of section 3546 of the Civil Code (supra) do not affect either the nature, obligation, construction, or validity of the contract, but go only to the remedy. See *Vanzant*v. *Arnold,*31 *Ga.*210 (4), 213, where this view was expressed in the opinion, but where the decision of the question was not necessary to the disposition of the case. ‘ The indorser derives his right to be released from the statute,’ and not from anything contained in the contract. *Howard*v. *Brown,*3 *Ga. 523,*531. See *Thomas*v. *Clarkson,*125 *Ga.*72 (3) (54 S. E. 77, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 658). The statute operates as the extinguishment of a remedy, and not of a right, and is therefore in the nature of a limitation 'of actions. 17 R. C. L. 666, and authorities cited.

“ 3. The statute law of North Carolina, providing tliat a married woman is liable upon her contract of suretyship if such contract was made in North Carolina, will not be enforced in this State. The Civil Code of Georgia (1910), § 3007, provides that ‘while the wife may contract, she cannot bind her separate estate by any contract of suretyship." The courts of this State will not enforce the laws of other States where their enforcement is contrary to the policy of this State as expressed by statute, as in this instance. Civil Code (1910), §§ 9, 4240; *Benton*v. *Singleton,*114 *Ga.*548 (40 S. E. 811) ; 12 C. J. 438, 439; 5 R. C. L. 911, § *5.”*

In answer to certified questions by this court the Supreme Court made the rulings quoted above (150 *Ga.*281, 103 S. E. 460), which compel a reversal of the judgment of the court below in this case.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*