alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Abbey Abdiye, Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Therapeutics Ltd. (the “Company”), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: (1)

   the annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2015 (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. Dated: September 8, 2017 /s/ Abbey AbdiyeAbbey AbdiyeChief Financial Officer
   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Pacific Therapeutics Ltd. and will be retained by Pacific Therapeutics Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 4


---
#### Marriott *v.*Fearing.

*(Circuit Court, E. D. New York.*

January 11, 1882.)

Damages — Personal Injury — Verdict.

Where, in an action ior damages for personal injury caused hy the alleged negligence of defendant, the instruction to the jury was as favorable to plaintiff as he was entitled to, and there is nothing to indicate that the jury were actuated hy passion or prejudice, the verdict will not he set aside.

On Motion to Set Aside Verdict.

This action was brought in a court in the state of New York to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the fall of the plaintiff on a snowy day in December, 1879, upon the steps of the Trinity building in New York city, No.-, Broadway. The defendant is one of the heirs of the estate, and the action was removed from the state court to the United States circuit court under the act of 1875. The cause came on to be heard at the November term, 1881, before Hon. H. H. Wheeler, district judge, holding the circuit ^court, and jury; and a verdict was rendered for the defendant.

*Thornton, Earle & Kiendl,*for plaintiff.

*Strong & Cadwalader,*for defendant.

Wheeler, D. J.

This cause has been heard upon the motion of the plaintiff, after verdict for the defendant, to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. ■ No complaint is made but that the instruction to the jury that the defendant'was in duty bound to provide reasonably safe steps for the accommodation of persons entering to do business with his tenants in the building of which he was an owner and lessor, in accordance with the purposes of the renting, was as favorable to plaintiff as he was entitled to. The evidence as to the actual condition of the steps at the time when the plaintiff slipped upon them and fell, and as to what would constitute reasonably safe steps for *847the purposes for which these were used, was conflicting; and the proof as to the degree of care used by the plaintiff in attempting to pass over the steps was not so clear in favor of the plaintiff that the court could properly instruct the jury that there was no contributory-negligence on his part. All these questions had to he submitted to the jury, and, notwithstanding the measure of duty laid upon the defendant, they found in his favor. There is nothing to indicate that they were actuated by either passion or prejudice. To grant a new trial would be merely to allow an appeal upon these questions of fact from that jury to another. That is not allowable by the rules of law or the practice of courts.

The motion must be overruled and judgment be entered on the verdict.
(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 report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurances regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on our evaluation;
and(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any changes 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
internal control over financial reporting.
  (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.
  By:
    S/ RAY T. COLONIUSRay T. ColoniusTreasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Products to Prevent (Lethal) Drug-induced Respiratory Depression (8942).                    

*Date:*                         September 26, 2017.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lyle Furr, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 4227, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, (301) 827-5702,                         *lf33c.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

Dated: September 6, 2017.

Natasha M. Copeland, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-19233 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
fiscal 1999 Consolidated Financial Statements of Ameriking, Inc. and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            DEC-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-28-1999
<CASH>                                          9,806
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,306
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                     3,657
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,902
<PP&E>                                        103,369
<DEPRECIATION>                                 26,130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                283,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          30,247
<BONDS>                                       100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          41,668
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            9
<OTHER-SE>                                   (11,267)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  283,190
<SALES>                                       184,059
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              184,059
<CGS>                                          58,223
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 164,156
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                9,396
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  214
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              9,974
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   321
<INCOME-TAX>                                      128
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               193
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      193
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (3.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (3.02)



</TABLE>
#### Todd Neil HOLTZMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bobby SHEARIN, Warden; Frank B. Bishop; Gary D. Maynard, Secretary; Tichnell, Classification Department; Crowe, Classification Department; Attorney General; Jeffrey Nines; Thomas K. Wolfe, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-7261.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 24, 2008.

Todd Neil Holtzman, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

*548Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Todd Neil Holtzman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Holtzman v. Shearin,*No. 07-1473-WDQ (D.Md. Aug. 8, 2007). 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 the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
**EXHIBIT      11**

**Citizens      Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries**

**Computation      of Per Share Earnings **

| Six                Months Ended June 30       | 2006                       | 2005                    |
|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------|-------------------------|
|                                          |                       |                    |
| Numerator:                                    |                       |                    |
| Net                Income                     | $                (220,377) | $                13,665 |
|                                          |                       |                    |
|                                          |                       |                    |
| Denominator:                                  |                       |                    |
| Weighted                average common shares | 1,667,977                  | 1,671,628               |
|                                          |                       |                    |
|                                          |                       |                    |
| Earnings                Per Share:            |                       |                    |
| Net                Income                     | $                (0.13)    | $                0.01   |

| Three                Months Ended June 30     | 2006                       | 2005                      |
|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------|---------------------------|
|                                          |                       |                      |
| Numerator:                                    |                       |                      |
| Net                Income                     | $                (539,832) | $                (97,338) |
|                                          |                       |                      |
|                                          |                       |                      |
| Denominator:                                  |                       |                      |
| Weighted                average common shares | 1,664,471                  | 1,671,628                 |
|                                          |                       |                      |
|                                          |                       |                      |
| Earnings                Per Share:            |                       |                      |
| Net                Income                     | $                (0.32)    | $                (0.06)   |
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Second Amendment to Employment Agreement (the "Second Amendment")
is made and entered into as of April 16th, 2003 by and between Onyx Software
Corporation, a Washington corporation (the "Company") and Brian Henry (the
"Executive"). This Second Amendment modifies the employment agreement originally
executed between the parties on March 14th, 2001 (the "Employment Agreement") as
modified by the Amendment to Employment Agreement dated November 14, 2001 (the
"Amendment"), each of which is hereby incorporated by reference. In the event of
any conflict between the Employment Agreement, the Amendment or this Second
Amendment, the terms of this Second Amendment shall control. Capitalized terms
not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Employment
Agreement.

         In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained
herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and Executive agree as follows:

         1.       Executive agrees for a period commencing April 16, 2003 and
                  ending at the discretion of the Company but in no event later
                  than December 31, 2003, Executive's Base Compensation shall be
                  reduced to $292,500.

         2.       Save for as expressly provided under item #1 above, all other
                  terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain
                  unchanged.


IN WITNESS HEREOF, each of the parties has executed this Second Amendment, in
the case of the Company by its duly authorized officer, as of April 16th, 2003.

ONYX SOFTWARE CORPORATION                   EXECUTIVE

By:      /s/ PAUL B. DAUBER                 By:      /s/ BRIAN C. HENRY
         ---------------------------                 ---------------------------
         Paul Dauber                                 Brian Henry
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19573]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #15298 and #15299; PUERTO RICO Disaster Number 
PR-00029]


Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the Commonwealth 
of Puerto Rico

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4336-DR), dated 09/
10/2017.
    Incident: Hurricane Irma.
    Incident Period: 09/05/2017 and continuing.

DATES: Issued on 09/10/2017.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/09/2017.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/11/2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 09/10/2017, applications 
for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other 
locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Culebra, 
Vieques
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    None

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      3.500
  Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      1.750
  Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      6.610
  Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      3.305
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.500
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.500
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit      3.305
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 152988 
and for economic injury is 152990.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2017-19573 Filed 9-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Cuahutemoc Pacheco LOZA; Maria Isabel Pacheco Alfaro, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73608.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Susan E. Hill, Esq., Hill Piibe *&*Ville-gas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Cuahutemoc Pacheco Loza and Maria Isabel Pacheco Alfaro, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. *See Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that the Petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003).

*751The Petitioners’ contention that the hardship standard set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D) is unconstitutionally vague, and that the IJ violated their due process rights by disregarding their evidence of their children’s educational hardship if returned to Mexico, does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

Contrary to the Petitioners’ contention, the Id’s interpretation of the hardship standard falls within the broad range authorized by the statute. *See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.