alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 24, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 24, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0284. JUDITH LEE MCFARLAND v. JAMES ROBERT HUDSON.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2015CV146
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 13(b)


                        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
Hickory Tech Corporation

We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of Hickory Tech Corporation 
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and the related consolidated 
statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the years ended 
December 31, 1997 and 1996. These financial statements are the responsibility 
of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on 
these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free 
of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, 
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. 
An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and 
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall 
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide 
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above 
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Hickory 
Tech Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and the results of 
their operations and their cash flows for the years ended December 31 1997 
and 1996, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.


St. Paul, Minnesota                                OLSEN THIELEN & CO., LTD.
January 30, 1998



                                    IV-30
### §10202. Authorities

(a) In General.—The Secretary is authorized to—

(1) fix and adjust rates of basic pay for members of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division, subject to the requirements of this chapter;

(2) determine what constitutes an acceptable level of competence for the purposes of section 10205;

(3) establish and determine the positions at the Officer and Sergeant ranks to be included as technician positions; and

(4) determine the rate of basic pay of a member who is changed or demoted to a lower rank, in accordance with section 10208.

(b) Delegation of Authority.—The Secretary is authorized to delegate to the designated agent or agents of the Secretary, any power or function vested in the Secretary under in 1 this chapter.

(c) Regulations.—The Secretary may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to administer this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 111–282, §2(a), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 3034.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on first day of first pay period which begins after Oct. 15, 2010, see section 5 of Pub. L. 111–282, set out as an Effective Date of 2010 Amendment note under section 5102 of this title.

1 So in original.
ASIAN AMERICAN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CODE OF ETHICS

         1. Act with honesty and integrity; avoid actual or apparent
conflicts of interest in personal and professional relationships.

         2. Provide colleagues with information that is accurate,
complete, objective, relevant, timely and understandable.

         3. Comply with applicable laws, rules and regulations of
federal, state, and local governments (both United States and foreign)
and other appropriate private and public regulatory agencies.

         4. Act in good faith, with due care, competence and diligence,
without misrepresenting material facts or allowing independent judgment
to be subordinated.

         5. Respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the
course of employment.

         6. Share knowledge and maintain skills necessary and relevant
to the Corporation's needs.

         7.   Proactively promote ethical and honest behavior within
the Corporation's environment.

         8. Assure responsible use of and control of all assets,
resources and information of the Corporation.
§ 1630.26 Class 2-D: Registrant deferred because of study preparing for the ministry. In accord with part 1639 of this chapter any registrant shall be placed in Class 2-D who has requested such deferment and: ( a ) Who is preparing for the ministry under the direction of a recognized church or religious organization; and
( b ) Who is satisfactorily pursuing a full-time course of instruction required for entrance into a recognized theological or divinity school in which he has been pre-enrolled; or
( c ) Who is satisfactorily pursuing a full-time course of instruction in or at the direction of a recognized theological or divinity school; or
( d ) Who having completed theological or divinity school is a student in a full-time graduate program or is a full-time intern. The registrant's studies must be related to and lead to entry into service as a regular or duly ordained minister of religion, and satisfactory progress in these studies as required by the school in which the registrant is enrolled must be maintained for continued eligibility for the deferment.
§ 938.13 State statutory and regulatory provisions set aside. ( a ) The following provisions of Pennsylvania's Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act (BMSLCA) are inconsistent with the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and are superseded to the extent noted effective December 9, 2004. ( 1 ) Section 5.1(b) (52 P.S. 1406.5a(b)) of BMSLCA is superseded to the extent that it would limit an operator's liability to restore or replace a water supply covered under section 720 of SMCRA.
( 2 ) Section 5.2(g) (52 P.S. 1406.5b(g)) of BMSLCA is superseded to the extent that it would limit an operator's liability to restore or replace a water supply covered under section 720 of SMCRA.
( 3 ) Section 5.2(h) (52 P.S. 1406.5b(h)) of BMSLCA is superseded to the extent it would preclude Pennsylvania from requiring the restoration or replacement of a water supply covered under section 720 of SMCRA.
( 4 ) The portion of section 5.4(a)(3) (52 P.S. 1406.5d(a)(3)) of BMSLCA that states, “in place on the effective date of this section or on the date of first publication of the application for a Mine Activity Permit or a five-year renewal thereof for the operations in question and within the boundary of the entire mine as depicted in said application,” is superseded to the extent it would limit an operator's liability for restoration of, or compensation for, subsidence damages to structures protected under section 720 of SMCRA that were in existence at the time of mining.
( 5 ) Section 5.4(c) (52 P.S. 1406.5d(c)) of BMSLCA is superseded to the extent it limits an operator's liability for repair of, or compensation for, subsidence damage to a structure covered under section 720 of SMCRA.
( 6 ) The portion of Section 5.5(b) (52 P.S. 1406.5e(b)) of BMSLCA that states, “All claims under this subsection shall be filed within two years of the date damage to the building occurred” is superseded to the extent that it would limit an operator's liability for restoration of, or compensation for, subsidence damages to a structure covered under section 720 of SMCRA.
( b ) [Reserved]
[69 FR 71559, Dec. 9, 2004]
# C_2010037EN.01004803.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/48

---

Order of the General Court of 16 December 2009 — Bactria v Commission

(Case T-401/04) (1)

1

2010/C 37/71

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.

1

---
### §22103. Applications

(a) Filing.—A State must file an application with the Secretary of Transportation for financial assistance for a project described under section 22101(a) of this title not later than January 1 of the fiscal year for which amounts have been appropriated. However, for a fiscal year for which the authorization of appropriations for assistance under this chapter has not been enacted by the first day of the fiscal year, the State must file the application not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of a law authorizing the appropriations for that fiscal year. The Secretary shall prescribe the form of the application.

(b) Considerations.—In considering an application under this subsection, the Secretary shall consider the following:

(1) the percentage of rail lines that rail carriers have identified to the Surface Transportation Board for abandonment or potential abandonment in the State.

(2) the likelihood of future abandonments in the State.

(3) the ratio of benefits to costs for a proposed project calculated using the methodology established under section 22101(b) of this title.

(4) the likelihood that the rail line will continue operating with assistance.

(5) the impact of rail bankruptcies, rail restructuring, and rail mergers on the State.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 896; Pub. L. 104–88, title III, §308(f)(3), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 947.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 22103(a) | 49 App.:1654(f) (1st sentence). | Oct. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89–670, 80 Stat. 931, §5(f); added Feb. 5, 1976, Pub. L. 94–210, §803, 90 Stat. 130; Nov. 8, 1978, Pub. L. 95–607, §§102–106(a), 107–109(a), 92 Stat. 3059, 3062; Oct. 12, 1979, Pub. L. 96–86, §115(b), 93 Stat. 662; Aug. 13, 1981, Pub. L. 97–35, §§1191, 1192, 95 Stat. 699; Jan. 14, 1983, Pub. L. 97–468, §501, 96 Stat. 2551; Apr. 7, 1986, Pub. L. 99–272, §4018, 100 Stat. 111; restated Dec. 11, 1989, Pub. L. 101–213, §2(a), (c), 103 Stat. 1843, 1846. |
| 22103(b) | 49 App.:1654(f) (last sentence). | |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "under this chapter" are added for clarity. The words "a law" are substituted for "legislation" for consistency in the revised title.

In subsection (b)(3), the words "established by the Secretary" are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (b)(5), the words "applying for assistance" are omitted as unnecessary because of the restatement.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1995—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 104–88 substituted "Surface Transportation Board" for "Interstate Commerce Commission".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1995 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–88 effective Jan. 1, 1996, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1301 of this title.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

GREGORY ROBERTS, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 

WELFARE), 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 856 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
### §6371. Accrual of leave

While using leave made available to an employee from a leave bank, annual and sick leave shall accrue to the credit of such employee and shall become available for use by such employee in the same manner as provided for under section 6337.

(Added Pub. L. 100–566, §2(a), Oct. 31, 1988, 102 Stat. 2843.)
Exhibit 32.2

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 filing of the Annual Report of Clean Systems Technology
Group, Ltd., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, Yona Liebowitz, the Chief
 Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies to the best of his
knowledge, 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, as amended; and

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

Dated: June 7, 2004


/S/ YONA LIEBOWITZ
--------------------
Yona Liebowitz
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FISCAL YEAR
DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          65,000
<SECURITIES>                                     5,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,890,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   263,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,176,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,639,000
<PP&E>                                       5,191,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,747,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,224,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,066,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     14,000
<COMMON>                                        37,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,107,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,224,000
<SALES>                                     14,519,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,519,000
<CGS>                                       11,604,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,604,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,945,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               231,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             202,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,203,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,203,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,203,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.86)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Diana Dimadi, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of AccuPoll Holding Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b) 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 such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

(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.


May 20, 2005                                       /s/ Diana Dimadi
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                         Diana Dimadi
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
#### § 2002.48 CUI and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Nothing in the regulations in this part alters the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or the powers of Federal administrative law judges (ALJs) appointed thereunder, including the power to determine confidentiality of information in proceedings over which they preside. Nor do the regulations in this part impose requirements concerning the manner in which ALJs designate, disseminate, control access to, decontrol, or mark such information, or make such determinations.
### Geochemical-exploration studies in the Coeur d'Alene district, Idaho and Montana

By: Garland Bayard GottJohn B. Cathrall

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1116

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7-1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7-2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7-3**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Geochemical exploration studies in the Coeur d'Alene district, Idaho(1977)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### LANDAU, Respondent, v. O. J. GUDE CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by Adolph Landau against the O. J. Gude Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

A. S. Gilbert, for appellant.

Victor E. Whitlock, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This action has been before this court upon a former appeal (84 N. Y. Supp. 672), in which a judgment in favor of the defendant was reversed, and a new trial ordered. The Appellate Term, in reversing the" judgment, used these words: “Defendant’s officers could have seen the position of the building with regard to the street before they signed the agreement or sublease, and if the building, under the rules of the building department, was not suitable for the particular advertising sign they wished to put up, they could have refrained from entering into the contract. The evidence would not at all warrant a conclusion that no other sign than the one rejected by the department could have been put up without infringing the building code. No particular kind of sign or signs was called for by the agreement; but, as we have seen, the defendant could choose the kind that he deemed suitable and within the limits, specifically mentioned, as above set forth. If the defendant saw fit to choose one that came within the prohibition of the building department, it was not thereby relieved from the obligations of the contract, as it stipulated in the contract itself not to choose such a sign as would not be acceptable to the department.” The facts found on the second trial are precisely similar to those found upon the first trial, except that the defendant has attempted to show by one Totten that the sign for which the application was made to the building department was the only sign that could have been built. Tris they did not succeed in doing. Totten admitted upon cross-examination that the upper cornice of the building did not project so far from the front of the building *1133that a wooden or metal sign could not be built on it, and yet remain within 12 inches (the distance beyond which the rules of the building department prohibited) of the front surface of the building. From the testimony given it appears that there was ample room in the space rented to the defendant to erect in a lawful manner a sign from 2 to 3 feet in width, or a series of such signs, to be placed one above the other in the space between the windows on the front of said building. The defendant has failed to show any reason for being relieved of the contract entered into, as we must assume, with a full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances. The judgment should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs.