alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23
                                                                      ----------

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports dated November 10, 2000 incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K,
into the Company's previously filed Registration Statement File No. 2-75943,
Registration Statement File No. 33-46465, Registration Statement File No.
33-47109, Registration Statement File No. 33-79515, Registration Statement File
No. 33-87877 and Registration File No. 33-36984.


                                                         /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                                         -----------------------
                                                             Arthur Andersen LLP

Greensboro, North Carolina,
    December 22, 2000.
(No. 32886.

#### The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, *vs.*Harvey M. Lackaye, Plaintiff in Error.

*Opinion filed November 18, 1953*

— Rehearing *denied Jan. 18, 1954.*

Beryl A. Birndorp, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Latham CastlE, Attorney General, of Springfield, and John GutknECht, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (John T. Gallagher, Rudolph L. Janega, Arthur E. Manning, and Eugene Welker, all of Chicago, of counsel,) for the People.

Mr. Justice Bristow

delivered the opinion of the court:

This cause reaches this court on a writ of error to review the judgment of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, affirming the judgment and sentence of the plain*619tiff in error by the municipal court of the city of Chicago to a term of thirty days in the House of Correction for the crime of unlawfully and wickedly keeping and maintaining a house of ill fame or a place for the practice of lewdness.

The information, omitting the formal parts, charges, “did then and there unlawfully and wickedly keep or maintain a house of ill fame or place for the practice of lewdness and did let rooms for such purpose.” The relevant part of the statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1951, chap. 38, par. 162,) allegedly infringed reads as follows: “Whoever keeps or maintains a house of ill fame or place for the practice of prostitution or lewdness, or whoever patronizes the same, or lets any house, room or other premises for any such purpose, or shall keep a common, ill governed and disorderly house, to the encouragement of idleness, gaming, drinking, fornication or other misbehavior, shall be fined not exceeding two hundred dollars, or imprisoned in the county jail or house of correction for a period of not more than one year or both.”

The plaintiff in error contends here, as he did in the Appellate Court, that the keeping of a bath house where men congregate for homosexual pleasures, one with the other, is not within the purview of the above statutory prohibition; that said section of the statute was designed to create an offense which would punish only the keeper of premises in which women engaged in illicit sexual intercourse with men.

These contentions were considered and disposed of by the Appellate Court, 348 Ill. App. 542, and we adopt the opinion of that court as the opinion of this court.

*Judgment affirmed.*
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Analex Corporation (the “**Company**”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,the undersigned, Ronald B. Alexander, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to § 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004. 

 

(2) Based on my knowledge, the Report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order 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 thisannual report. 

 

(3) Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report. 

 

(4) The Company’s othercertifying officer 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 Company and have: 

 

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures toensure that material information relating to the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b. evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’sdisclosure 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 such evaluation. 

 

(5) The Company’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company’s auditors and the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors: 

 

a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Company’s ability torecord, process, summarize, and report financial data and have identified for the issuer’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 Company’sinternal controls; and 

(6) The Company’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual report whetheror not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent of the date of their evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses. 

 

/S/ Ronald B.Alexander                                        

Ronald B. Alexander 

Chief Financial Officer

 

March 24, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


CERTIFICATION OF THE INTERIM CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350)



I, Allen G. Sugerman, the Interim Chief Financial Officer of The MIIX Group,
Incorporated, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The MIIX Group, Incorporated
for the period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), which this certification
accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of The MIIX Group,
Incorporated.


                                             /s/ Allen G. Sugerman
                                             ---------------------
                                             Allen G. Sugerman
                                             Interim Chief Financial Officer



Dated:   May 15, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The MIIX Group, Incorporated and will be retained by The MIIX Group,
Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
1

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1156

___________

Charles Pointer, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

St. Louis University School of Law, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 26, 2002

 Filed: March 4, 2002

___________

Before LOKEN, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Pointer appeals the district court’s1

 pre-service dismissal of his action

alleging false advertising and violations of the Freedom of Information Act and his

civil rights. After de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.

2000) (per curiam), we conclude that the action was properly dismissed for failure to

state a claim. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. 47A(a).
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.2
                                  ------------

                           Certification pursuant to
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             as adopted pursuant to
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001.

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


In connection with the Annual Report of OSK CAPITAL II CORP.(the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George
Metrakos, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2001, that:

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

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

Dated:  March 2, 2006


                     /s/ George Metrakos
                     -------------------
                     George Metrakos
                     Chief Accounting Officer
#### §§ 42.726-42.729 [Reserved]
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:2011 - 7 - 3 Order Requesting Proposals.
### Part D—Funding
### §282. Acquisition of property; purpose; authority of Secretary; manner and place; donation of State lands

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire on behalf of the United States by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or by exchange, lands, interests in lands, and such other property on San Juan Island, Puget Sound, State of Washington, as the Secretary may deem necessary for the purpose of interpreting and preserving the sites of the American and English camps on the island, and of commemorating the historic events that occurred from 1853 to 1871 on the island in connection with the final settlement of the Oregon Territory boundary dispute, including the so-called Pig War of 1859. Lands or interests therein owned by the State of Washington or a political subdivision thereof may be acquired only by donation.

(Pub. L. 89–565, §1, Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 737.)
### SUBCHAPTER III—FEDERAL NORTH SLOPE LANDS STUDIES, OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM AND MINERAL ASSESSMENTS
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 853 

To amend the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson 

VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside 

Networks Act of 2018 to eliminate the Asset and Infrastructure Review 

Commission of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 25, 2019 

Mr. MANCHIN (for himself and Mr. ROUNDS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and 

Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems 

and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 

2018 to eliminate the Asset and Infrastructure Review 

Commission of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF ASSET AND INFRASTRUC4 TURE REVIEW COMMISSION OF DEPARTMENT 

5 OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

6 Title II of the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, 

7 and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 853 IS

1 and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 

2 2018 (Public Law 115–182) is amended by striking sub3 title A. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
No. 20,273.

#### Edward James Krantz *v.*The People of the State of Colorado.

(374 P. [2d] 199)

Decided August 27, 1962.

Plaintiff in error, pro se.

Mr. Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Mr. Frank E. Hickey, Deputy, Mr. John E. Bush, Assistant, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice Moore

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The plaintiff in error will be referred to as defendant.

The defendant, a Miss Hauptmann, and three other persons met on the evening of December 2, 1960, at which time they devised a scheme to obtain money by means of passing forged checks, the check forms to be used being that of “Maytag Parts and Service Company.” After one unsuccessful attempt, the group went to the Westland Shopping Center where the defendant pulled *470out another check form from his brief case. One member of the group typed in the name of the payee, taken from a driver’s license which Miss Hauptmann had in her possession, and the defendant forged a signature to the check. Miss Hauptmann attempted to cash it, but was unsuccessful. As a result of these activities, defendant was charged with confidence game (Count I), conspiracy to commit confidence game (Count III, as amended), forgery (Count IV), and conspiracy to commit forgery (Count V). The defendant was found guilty on all four counts and sentenced to a term in the penitentiary on each count.

As grounds for reversal the defendant, who appears pro se, argues:

1. That the court improperly restricted the right of defendant to cross-examine the people’s witness, Miss Hauptmann.

2. That the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.

3. That there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to establish the commission of the crimes charged.

4. That the trial court erred in permitting attorney Ettenberg to participate as counsel on behalf of the defendant.

It is sufficient to say that there is no legal basis whatever for any of the arguments advanced in support of these assertions. There is an abundance of evidence to sustain the verdicts of the jury, and the judgments entered thereon must be and are affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Day, Mr. Justice Sutton and Mr. Justice Hall not participating.
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 State

###### [Public Notice: 7371]

# AGENCY:

Department of State.

# ACTION:

Notice; Correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of State published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of January 18, 2011 concerning Gifts to Federal Employees from Foreign Government Sources Reported to Employing Agencies in Calendar Year 2009. The document contained the incorrect title of a foreign dignitary.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        David Solomon, Office of the Chief of Protocol (202) 647-1333/                        *Solomonda@State.gov.*

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of January 18, 2011 in FR Vol. 76, No. 11, page 2983, in the third entry in the third column under “Identity of foreign donor and government”, the title of the President of the Constitutional Court of Korea is incorrect and should be changed from “President Kang-Kook Lee, Constitutional Court of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea” to read: “President Kang-Kook Lee, Constitutional Court of Korea, Republic of Korea”.                    

Dated: March 14, 2011.

Patrick F. Kennedy,

Under Secretary for Management, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2011-6457 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
**EXHIBIT 32**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the quarterly report of New Mexico Software, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer and the principal financial officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

Date:  August 14, 2012

 

/s/ Richard F. Govatski

Richard F Govatski, President

(Principal Executive Officer)

 

/s/ Teresa B. Dickey

Teresa B. Dickey, Treasurer

(Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**BENJAMIN J. DENNERLEIN,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 494 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 24th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.**
#### Eplan *v.*Wheat.

Hoiden, J.

*Where*there is a valid pledge of property, the pledgee has a special property in the thing pledged for the purposes of the bailment. Civil Code, §§ 2956, 2960.

(a) Where property is thus bona fide pledged to secure a loan of $125, ' and the pledgee afterwards returns it to the pledgor to sell for the former, taking from the pledgor at the time a receipt as follows: “Received of John B. Wheat [the pledgee] one (1) diamond ring in trust, which I agree to return on August 5, 1907, or pay one hundred twenty-five ($125.00) in cash,” and subsequently to the date named in the receipt the pledgor refuses, after demand, to return the property named in the receipt, or to pay the amount therein stated, the pledgee may maintain an action of trover for such property against the pledgor, who has not sold the property and who has it in his possession at the time of such demand. *Henry*v. *State,*110 *Ga.*750 (36 S. E. 55, 78 Am. St. R. 137); *Citizens Banking Co.*v. *Peacock,*103 *Ga.*171 (29 S. E. *512752) ; Denis on Contracts of Pledge, §§ 127, et seq.; Jones on Pledges and Collateral Securities (2d ed.), §§ 40, 43, 44, 45; 31 Cyc. 818, 819.

May 11, 1910.

Trover. Before Judge Ellis.' Fulton superior court.

July 1, 1909.

*Morris Macks,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. D. Thomas*and Anderson, *Felder, Rountree &*Wilson, contra.

(&) Upon the trial of such ease it was not error to refuse to permit the defendant to prove by the plaintiff’s counsel wliat the latter “learned from the sheriff about the sheriff taking bond, giving up the bond and accepting the ring from defendant, and later at the sheriff’s request taking back the ring and making a new bond.” Such testimony was at least subject to the objection of being hearsay.

(c) The verdict being for $125 and interest, the court committed no error in refusing a new trial upon the plaintiff writing off the amount of interest, the evidence showing that the defendant admitted the article pledged and sued for to be of the value of the principal sum found.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
S. Con. Res. 51 Agreed to December 10, 2020

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That in the enrollment of S. 1869, an Act to require the 

disclosure of ownership of high-security space leased to accommodate a Federal agency, and for other purposes, the Secretary of 

the Senate shall, in section 4(c)(3) of the Act, strike ‘‘thereafter 

for years’’ and insert ‘‘thereafter for 9 years’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
## NUMBER 13

- 1 5

- 00 449

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ CALVIN WAYNE MCCLAIN , A ppellant ,

v.
DIANA ALAMAR MCCLAIN , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 430th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Calvin Wayne McClain , appealed a judgment entered by the 430th

District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. On November 2, 2015 , the Clerk of this Court
notified appellant , in accordance w ith Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $ 20 5.00 filing fee was paid. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.2

42.3(c)

. Appellant has not responded to the notice from the Clerk or paid the $ 20 5.00
filing fee. See T EX

. R. A P P

. P

. 5, 12.1(b).
The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s failure to pay the filing fee , is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 42.3(b),(c).
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed t he 10th day of December , 20 1 5

.