alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2I, John R. Beaver, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sterling Chemicals, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 14, 2007            /s/ JOHN R. BEAVER         John R. Beaver
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AND  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS  FOUNDED ON PAGES 1-3 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM
10-QSB,  FOR THE  YEAR-TO-DATE  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001016151
<NAME>                        AMPLIDYNE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                               1
<CURRENCY>                    USD

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                             1,288,427
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                        561,773
<ALLOWANCES>                         211,000
<INVENTORY>                          863,769
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   2,450,154
<PP&E>                               669,510
<DEPRECIATION>                       430,230
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     2,824,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                368,108
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                 664
<OTHER-SE>                         2,428,732
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       2,824,508
<SALES>                            1,307,669
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   1,385,929
<CGS>                              1,308,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      1,700,474
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     993,521
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    27,778
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (1,335,844)
<INCOME-TAX>                           6,304
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (1,342,148)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      (1,342,148)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.24)




</TABLE>
<PAGE>



[SAMSON BELAIR DELOITTE & TOUCHE LOGO]             [PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LOGO]


                                                                       Exhibit 3



                               AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of our report
dated November 29, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of National Bank of Canada (the "Bank") as at and for the year ended October
31, 2002 included in Exhibit 1 and of our comments for U.S. Readers on Canada
-- U.S. Reporting Difference, dated November 29, 2002 included in Exhibit 4.
Our signatures to this letter relate to the year ended October 31, 2002 for
which we were auditors of the Bank.



[SAMSON BELAIR/DELOITTE & TOUCHE SIGNATURE]   [PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS SIGNATURE]
Samson Belair/Deloitte & Touche               PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
General Partnership                           Chartered Accountants
Chartered Accountants


November 29, 2002








SAMSON BELAIR/DELOITTE & TOUCHE, S.E.N.C.      PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS S.R.L.
COMPTABLES AGREES                              COMPTABLES AGREES
1, Place Ville-Marie                           1250, boul. Rene-Levesque Ouest
Bureau 3000                                    Bureau 2800
Montreal (Quebec) H3B 4T9                      Montreal (Quebec) H3B 2G4
Telephone: (514) 393-7115                      Telephone: (514) 205-5000
Telecopieur: (514) 390-4100                    Telecopieur: (514) 876-1502
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,593
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  144,067
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,560
<INVENTORY>                                     78,317
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               247,716
<PP&E>                                         287,633
<DEPRECIATION>                                  77,072
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 686,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          166,422
<BONDS>                                        187,803
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           442
<OTHER-SE>                                     299,591
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   686,167
<SALES>                                        189,892
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               525,231
<CGS>                                          120,460
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  424,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,520
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,421
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,456
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 89,949
<INCOME-TAX>                                    31,845
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             53,104
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,104
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14
        

</TABLE>
Here, the district court's June 13, 2013, order enforced the

portion of the amended divorce decree allowing respondent to exercise an option to take possession of the marital residence if appellant failed to pay for respondent's share within the specified time. An order enforcing a prior order is not appealable as a special order after final judgment. Gumm, 118 Nev. at 920, 59 P.3d at 1225. Moreover, to the extent the district court denied appellant's countermotion to modify the divorce decree, that countermotion was not based on a change in circumstances because the asserted circumstances occurred prior to the entry of the amended divorce decree and were raised in an identical motion filed before the amended decree. Thus, appellant's challenge to respondent's ownership of the marital residence, is simply an attack of the amended divorce decree. Burton, 99 Nev. at 700, 669 P.2d at 705. Therefore, we conclude that the district court's order is not appealable as a special order after final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(8). Further, because the portion of the district court's order awarding respondent attorney fees did not establish an amount of fees, but directed respondent's counsel to file a memorandum of fees and costs, the attorney fees award is not a final, appealable award. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, and

we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.'



# Aa_A Hardesty

'In light of this order, we deny as moot appellant's motion for a stay.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947n cep,cc: Hon. William B. Gonzalez, District Judge, Family Court Division Robert E. Gaston, Settlement Judge Cheri M. King Radford J. Smith, Chtd. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A ci(51049
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-K/A FILED BY FOUNDATION HEALTH CORPORATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         226,156
<SECURITIES>                                   714,914
<RECEIVABLES>                                  416,223
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         257,564<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,337,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        309,136
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       533,855
<OTHER-SE>                                     333,071
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,337,653
<SALES>                                      3,339,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,407,628
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,176,384
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,684
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                216,560
<INCOME-TAX>                                    64,318
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            152,242
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (3,960)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   148,282
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.54
<FN>
<F1>NET PPE
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 of Closure Medical Corporation (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Benny Ward, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. (s) 78m(a) or (s) 78o(d)); and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|BENNY WARD                                           
|Benny Ward                                           
|Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|August 9, 2004
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 24, 2021

b0317 

# Order

Clerk March 24, 2021

161275

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161275

COA: 345742

Bay CC: 18

- 010043

- FH

JAMES EDWARD JONES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2020

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are n ot

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Burns v. Burns

March 25, 1985

Case No. (Chancery) 61991

By JUDGE F. BRUCE BACH

This matter came before the Court on [a] motion to enter an order. After hearing argument of counsel, and a review of the pleadings submitted to the Court, it is my decision that the Property Settlement Agreement, entered into by the parties to this litigation, cannot be incorporated into an award of separate maintenance.

Clearly, the Court is empowered to award separate maintenance. The right of Complainant to support survives the divorce obtained *ex parte*by the husband in Texas, and this Court may award Complainant permanent alimony. *Newport*v. Newport, 219 Va. 48, 56 (1978). Nothing further need be said in this regard.

The real question, however, is: Can Virginia incorporate a property settlement agreement between the parties into an award for separate maintenance when the divorce decree was issued by a Texas court?

It is the opinion of the Court that Virginia has no control over the Texas decree and, as such, is without jurisdiction to modify or incorporate any agreement into the Texas decree.

Complainant alleges that Virginia Code section 20-109 provides this Court with statutory authority to incorporate the agreement. Such is not the case; the statute relied upon simply is inapposite to Complainant’s request for relief. Likewise, section 20-107.3, while allowing this Court jurisdiction over the property of parties, such *195jurisdiction attaches only upon the Court’s having decreed the dissolution of a marriage or decreeing a divorce from the bond of matrimony. No such decree has been issued by this Court.

Any attempt to incorporate the property settlement agreement must be entertained by the Texas courts; the attempt to utilize contempt power to enforce the property settlement must come by way of the Texas courts. This court can only view the agreement as a contract and can only afford relief on that basis.

For the foregoing reasons, Complainant must submit a new order excluding reference to the property settlement agreement.
Exhibit






THIRD AMENDMENT TO
DRUG CLINICAL SUPPLY AGREEMENT


THIS THIRD AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”), effective as of the last date of signature hereof (the “Amendment Effective Date”), is made to that certain Drug Clinical Supply Agreement, dated as of February 9, 2014, by and between Bellerophon Pulse Technologies LLC (“Pulse Technologies”) and Mallinckrodt Manufacturing LLC, assignee of INO Therapeutics LLC (“Mallinckrodt”), as amended by Section 6 of that certain Second Amendment to Exclusive Cross-License, Technology Transfer, and Regulatory Matters Agreement, dated as of July 27, 2015, and as amended further by that certain Second Amendment to Drug Clinical Supply Agreement and Third Amendment to Exclusive Cross-License, Technology Transfer and Regulatory Matters Agreement, dated as of November 16, 2015 (collectively, the “Agreement”).  Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.


WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein;


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the parties hereby agree as follows:


1.The third WHEREAS clause in the Recitals of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


“WHEREAS, Pulse Technologies is engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing, and commercializing products for (a) pulmonary hypertension secondary to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), (b) primary or idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (“PAH”), and PF (as defined herein) (collectively, the “Pulse Technologies Clinical Programs”);”


2.Section 1.14 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


“1.14    “PF” means pulmonary hypertension in patients with pulmonary fibrosis associated with idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis or occupational or environmental lung disease.”


3.The term “IPF” as used in the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the term “PF” in every instance in which it appears in the Agreement.


4.Except as herein amended, all terms, covenants and provisions of the Agreement are ratified, reaffirmed and shall remain in full force and effect.  All references therein to the Agreement shall hereafter refer to the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.  This Amendment shall be deemed incorporated into, and a part of, the Agreement.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the Amendment Effective Date.


	
		
	Bellerophon Pulse Technologies LLC




By:  /s/ Fabian Tenenbaum
Name: Fabian Tenenbaum 
Title: CEO
Date: April, 23rd 2018
	Mallinckrodt Manufacturing LLC




By:  /s/ Ron Lloyd
Name: Ron Lloyd
Title:  EVP and President, Hospital Therapies 
Date: April, 23rd 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000873739
<NAME> GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP III-F
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         504,658
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  661,215
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,165,873
<PP&E>                                      18,499,277
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,191,790
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,632,813
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          277,360
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,212,767
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,632,813
<SALES>                                      3,094,738
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,190,379
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,634,602
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                555,777
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            555,777
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   555,777
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

#### Wilmoth v. Wilmoth

February 27, 1974

Case No. (Chancery) 524/1957

By JUDGE WALTER A. PAGE

The Court has again considered the Memoranda and argument of counsel and also the case of *Waldron*v. *Waldron,*301 N.E.2d 167, which was recently brought to the attention of the Court.

Counsel argues that the child in the instant case acquired a vested right to support by her father pursuant to a decree providing for the payment of $15.00 a week for child support entered prior to the enactment of Section 1-13.42 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, which changed the age of majority in Virginia from twenty-one to eighteen years of age. The Court is of the opinion that this is not a matter of a vested right of a child to support by its parent but rather a statutory duty or liability placed upon a parent to support a minor child where the jurisdiction to enforce that duty has been conferred upon the courts.

The Court is of the opinion that it has no power to continue a provision for the support of a child after the child attains his majority. 24 Am. Jur. 2d, *Divorce and*Separation, § 855; 27B C.J.S., *Divorce,*§ 323(b); and *Divorce and Alimony in Virginia & West Virginia,*2d ed., Phelps, § 23-16. Therefore, the prior ruling of the Court that the duty to support terminated when the child in the instant case reached its majority of eighteen years of age is unchanged.