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


                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants


     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference to the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of Union Community  Bancorp (the  "Company"),  File Number
000-23543,  of our report dated January 18, 2002 on the  consolidated  financial
statements  of the Company  which  report is  incorporated  by  reference in the
Company's  Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 filed
pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.


/s/ BKD, LLP
---------------------
BKD, LLP


Indianapolis, Indiana
March 27, 2002
§ 4120.3-6 Removal and compensation for loss of range improvements. ( a ) Range improvements shall not be removed from the public lands without authorization.
( b ) The authorized officer may require permittees or lessees to remove range improvements which they own on the public lands if these improvements are no longer helping to achieve land use plan or allotment goals and objectives or if they fail to meet the criteria under § 4120.3-4 of this title.
( c ) Whenever a grazing permit or lease is cancelled in order to devote the public lands covered by the permit or lease to another public purpose, including disposal, the permittee or lessee shall receive from the United States reasonable compensation for the adjusted value of their interest in authorized permanent improvements placed or constructed by the permittee or lessee on the public lands covered by the cancelled permit or lease. The adjusted value is to be determined by the authorized officer. Compensation shall not exceed the fair market value of the terminated portion of the permittee's or lessee's interest therein. Where a range improvement is authorized by a range improvement permit, the livestock operator may elect to salvage materials and perform rehabilitation measures rather than be compensated for the adjusted value.
( d ) Permittees or lessees shall be allowed 180 days from the date of cancellation of a range improvement permit or cooperative range improvement agreement to salvage material owned by them and perform rehabilitation measures necessitated by the removal.
[49 FR 6452, Feb. 21, 1984; 49 FR 12704, Mar. 30, 1984, as amended at 61 FR 4227, Feb. 5, 1996]
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-01-007 February 20, 2001

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS WITH TOMS RIVER, N.J., HOSPITAL

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of a Toms River, N.J.,

hospital on Thursday to discuss several apparent violations of agency requirements. The apparent

violations are associated with implementation of the hospital’s radiological safety program.

Community Medical Center officials will take part in the predecisional enforcement conference

at 1 p.m. at the NRC Region I office, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. The meeting will be

held in the Public Meeting Room and be open to the public.

On December 20 and 21, 2000, the NRC conducted a routine inspection at Community Medical

Center, located at 99 Route 37 West. The inspection covered various aspects of the center’s nuclear

medicine program activities. It also examined a phosphorous-32 contamination incident that occurred

on August 19, 1999, in the center’s nuclear medicine department.

Based on the inspection, the NRC has identified four apparent violations. They involve an

apparent failure to perform adequate radiological surveys following the August 1999 incident; failure

to notify the NRC within 24 hours of the closing of a room due to contamination; failure to provide

specific radiological safety training to personnel performing a therapy procedure involving

phosphorous-32; and failure to prepare a written directive for a therapeutic administration of

phosphorous-32.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that the NRC has

determined a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the purpose is to

discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety significance; to provide the licensee with an

opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report; and to

enable the licensee to outline its proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at this conference. That decision will be

made by NRC officials at a later time.

#
#### § 171.42 Time limit for filing petition for restoration.

A petition for the restoration of proceeds of sale under section 613, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1613) must be filed within 3 months after the date of the sale.
#### § 352.7 Review and evaluation.

FEMA shall conduct its activities and make findings under this part in a manner consistent with 44 CFR part 350 to the extent that those procedures are appropriate and not inconsistent with the intent and procedures required by E.O. 12657. This Order shall take precedence, and any inconsistencies shall be resolved under the procedures in the NRC/FEMA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on planning and preparedness. (50 FR 15485, April 18, 1985)
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 70 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 70

   To amend title 32, United States Code, to authorize cybersecurity 
 operations and missions to protect critical infrastructure by members 
    of the National Guard in connection with training or other duty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 27, 2021

Ms. Hassan (for herself and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 32, United States Code, to authorize cybersecurity 
 operations and missions to protect critical infrastructure by members 
    of the National Guard in connection with training or other duty.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Guard Cybersecurity Support 
Act''.

SEC. 2. CYBERSECURITY OPERATIONS AND MISSIONS TO PROTECT CRITICAL 
              INFRASTRUCTURE BY MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD IN 
              CONNECTION WITH TRAINING OR OTHER DUTY.

    Section 502(f)(1) of title 32, United States Code, is amended by 
adding after the flush matter at the end the following new sentence: 
``Such training or other duty may include cybersecurity operations or 
missions undertaken by the member's unit at the request of the Governor 
of the State concerned to protect critical infrastructure (as that term 
is defined in the Critical Infrastructures Protection Act of 2001 (42 
U.S.C. 5195c)).''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Willbros Group, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Warren
L. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Warren L. Williams
---------------------------
Warren L. Williams
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1
  Hypercom
    Corporation
  List of
    Subsidiaries
  Name of Entity

Jurisdiction of Organization1.


Hypercom U.S.A., Inc.


Delaware2.


HBNet, Inc.


Arizona3.


Hypercom EMEA, Inc.


Arizona4.


Hypercom Manufacturing Resources,
    Inc.


Arizona5.


Hypercom Latino America, Inc.


Arizona6.


HBNet Canada Ltd.


Canada7.


Hypercom de Mexico, S.A. de
    C.V.


Mexico8.


Hypercom de Chile, S.A.


Chile9.


Netset Chile, S.A.


Chile10.


Hypercom de Venezuela C.A.


Venezuela11.


Empresa Brasileira Industrial,
    Comercial e Servicos Limitada


Brazil12.


Hypercom GmbH


Germany13.


Hypercom France S.A.R.L.


France14.


Hypercom Financial Terminals AB


Sweden15.


Hypercom Hungary KFT


Hungary16.


Hypercom Latvia SIA


Latvia17.


Hypercom EMEA Ltd.


United Kingdom18.


Hypercom Italia S.r.l.


Italy19.


Hypercom Australia Pty., Ltd.


Australia20.


Hypercom Far East Ltd.


Hong Kong21.


Hypercom Asia Ltd.


Hong Kong22.


Hypercom Asia (Singapore) Pte.
    Ltd.


Singapore23.


Hypercom (Thailand) Co., Ltd.


Thailand24.


Hypercom Trading (Shanghai) Co.
    Ltd.


China25.


Hypercom Electronic Manufacturing
    (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.


China26.


Hypercom China Co. Ltd.


Hong Kong27.


Hypercom Puerto Rico Repair
    Facility, G.P.


Puerto Rico28.


NetSet Americas Centro Servicio,
    S. de R.L. de C.V.


Mexico
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 06-5191 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BERNARD EUGENE MITCHELL, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00178-WLO)

Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Public Defender, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States

Attorney, David P. Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Eugene Mitchell, Jr., pled guilty pursuant to a

plea agreement to one count of possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)

(2000). Mitchell was sentenced to fifty-seven months’

incarceration. Finding no error, we affirm.

On appeal, Mitchell challenges the presumption of

reasonableness this court affords post-Booker*

 sentences imposed

within a properly calculated guidelines range. The Supreme Court’s

recent decision in Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007),

however, forecloses this argument. See also United States v.

Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, ___

U.S. ___, 75 U.S.L.W. 3707 (U.S. June 29, 2007) (No. 06-5439);

United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341-42 (4th Cir. 2006);

United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d

449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).

Mitchell also contends that his sentence is unreasonable

because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). Because the district

court properly calculated and considered the advisory guidelines

range and weighed the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we conclude

Mitchell’s sentence, which was below the statutory maximum and
- 3 -

within the advisory guidelines range, is reasonable. See Green,

436 F.3d at 455-56; United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47

(4th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. 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 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-162 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

(Wednesday, October 29,

1997)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

A subcommittee meeting of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),

scheduled to be held November 13-14, has been reset to start one

day earlier.

The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will

begin at 8:30 a.m. each day in Room T-2B3 of the NRC's Two White

Flint North Building at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland. The Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk

Assessment will continue it review of matters related to the

Staff Requirements Memo dated May 27, regarding the use of

uncertainty versus point values in the PRA-related regulatory

decision-making process. The subcommittee also will discuss

policy issues related to performance-based regulation, including

industry initiatives in this area.

Other aspects of the meeting, including an opportunity for

public comment, will be described in a Notice of Meeting

published in a forthcoming edition of the Federal Register.

#
Exhibit 32.2

            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
              OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the annual report of Epic Financial
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period
ended October 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William R. Parker, Acting 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:

     (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.

            A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.



Date: February  13, 2004           By: /s/ William R. Parker
                                       ------------------------------
                                       William R. Parker
                                       Acting Chief Financial Officer
§ 190.185 Unused merchandise drawback and merchandise not conforming to sample or specification, shipped without consent of the consignee, found to be defective as of the time of importation, or returned after retail sale. ( a ) *Procedure for filing claims.* The procedures described in subpart C of this part relating to unused merchandise drawback, and in subpart D of this part relating to rejected merchandise, must be followed with respect to drawback under this subpart for unused merchandise drawback and merchandise that does not conform to sample or specification, is shipped without consent of the consignee, or is found to be defective as of the time of importation.
( b ) *Drawback entry.* Before transfer of the merchandise to a foreign trade zone, the importer or a person designated in writing by the importer for that purpose must file the drawback entry. CBP will notify the zone operator at the zone.
( c ) *Certification by zone operator.* After the merchandise has been received in the zone, the zone operator at the zone must certify, with respect to the drawback entry, the receipt of the merchandise and notify the transferor or the person designated by the transferor. After executing the declaration provided for in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the transferor must resubmit the drawback entry in place of the bill of lading required by § 190.156.
( d ) *Modification of drawback entry* — ( 1 ) *Indication of transfer.* The drawback entry must indicate that the merchandise is to be transferred to a foreign trade zone.
( 2 ) *Endorsement.* The transferor or person designated by the transferor and the foreign trade zone operator must certify transfer to the foreign trade zone, with respect to the drawback entry, as follows: Certification by Foreign Trade Zone Operator The merchandise described in this entry was received from ________ on ________, 20 ____, in Foreign Trade Zone No. ____, ____ (City and State). Exceptions: (Name of operator) By (Name and title)
( 3 ) *Transferor's declaration.* The transferor must certify, with respect to the drawback entry, as follows:
Transferor's Declaration I, ________ of the firm of ________, declare that the merchandise described in the within entry was duly entered at the customhouse on arrival at this port; that the duties thereon have been paid as specified in this entry; and that it was transferred to Foreign Trade Zone No. ____, located at ______ (City and State) for the sole purpose of exportation, destruction, or storage, not to be removed from the foreign trade zone for domestic consumption. I further declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief, said merchandise is the same in quantity, quality, value, and package as specified in this entry; that no allowance nor reduction in duties has been made; and that no part of the duties paid has been refunded by drawback or otherwise. Dated: Transferor
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 203 (Thursday, October 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61868-61869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23516]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--IPC--Association Connecting Electronics 
Industries

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 14, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), IPC--Association Connecting 
Electronics Industries (``IPC'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: IPC--
Association Connecting Electronics Industries, Bannockburn, IL. The 
nature and scope of IPC's standards development activities are: design 
and performance standards for all types of interconnections, including 
printed wiring boards, flexible circuits, flat cable and discrete 
wiring devices. In addition, IPC develops standards for materials used 
in these products. Also, IPC is involved in standards for computer-
aided technology, used to define electronic description. IPC is 
therefore also involved not only in the development of product 
standards, but in standardization and in guidelines

[[Page 61869]]

that will impact the electronic packaging community.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-23516 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410--11--M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

August 7 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk August 7 , 2020

1 6 1 034 ( 55 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appell ant

, SC: 161034

v COA: 3 46348

Wayne CC: 18

- 006351

- FH

DEONTON AUTEZ ROGERS

,

Defendant

- Appell ee

.

_______________________________________ ____ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the American Civil Liberties Union of

Michigan and the American Civil Liberties Union to file a brief amicus curiae is

GRANTED

. The amicus brief submitted on July 3 0 , 2020 , is accepted for filing

.
### §6595. Compensation of Administrative Assistant to Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of Senate

Effective August 1, 1979—

(1) the maximum annual rate of compensation of the Administrative Assistant to the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate shall be the same as the highest maximum annual rate of compensation that may be paid to an employee in the office of a Senator; and

(2) Omitted

(Pub. L. 96–38, title I, §106(2), (3), July 25, 1979, 93 Stat. 112.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 61e–2 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section consists of pars. (2) and (3) of section 106 of Pub. L. 96–38, Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1979. The paragraph numbers (2) and (3) in the original have been changed to (1) and (2) for purposes of codification.

Par. (2), relating to maximum annual rate of compensation of Executive Assistant to Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of Senate, was omitted from the Code in view of section 6597 of this title which abolished all statutory positions in the Office of Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of Senate, with specified exceptions, effective Oct. 1, 1981, and authorized Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of Senate to appoint and fix compensation of such employees as appropriate.
#### § 125.14 Cartage of unclaimed merchandise.

Unclaimed merchandise shall be carted to the public stores or a bonded warehouse designated by the port director under the cartage arrangements established at the port for hauling examination packages under the provisions of § 125.11. Reimbursement of the cost of the cartage shall be collected from the importer prior to release if entry is made or from the proceeds of sale of the merchandise.

[T.D. 73-140, 38 FR 13554, May 23, 1973, as amended by T.D. 78-151, 43 FR 23566, May 31, 1978]