alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Augusta J. Glendinning, defendant in error, v. William G. Palmer and Thomas Davis, plaintiffs in error.

Gen. No. 29,430.

Action of trespass for assault and battery and false imprisonment, joined with count for malicious prosecution. Judgment for plaintiff. Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. David M. Brothers, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this

court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Reversed and remanded.

Pitch, P. J., dissenting in part.

Opinion filed March 3, 1925.

Hayes, McKinney, Cornelius Lynde and George H. Grear, for plaintiffs in error; John J. Healy, of counsel.

Gleland, Lee & Phelps, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 286h.1 Purpose.

This part sets forth Department of Defense (DoD) policy for the release of acquisition-related information.
Exhibit 23




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




Provectus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


Knoxville, Tennessee




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-167906 and 333-147783) of Provectus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our reports dated March 16, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of Provectus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.   Our report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010.




/s/ BDO USA, LLP




Chicago, Illinois


March 16, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection
with the Annual Report of CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. (CRMZ) on Form 10-KSB
for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lawrence Fensterstock, 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
the best of my knowledge: (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.  By: /s/
Lawrence
 FensterstockLawrence
 FensterstockChief
 Financial OfficerMarch 28,
 2008
### §2147. Inspection by legally constituted law enforcement agencies

The Secretary shall promulgate rules and regulations requiring dealers, exhibitors, research facilities, and operators of auction sales subject to section 2142 of this title to permit inspection of their animals and records at reasonable hours upon request by legally constituted law enforcement agencies in search of lost animals.

(Pub. L. 89–544, §17, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 352; Pub. L. 91–579, §18, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1564.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1970—Pub. L. 91–579 substituted "promulgate rules and regulations requiring dealers, exhibitors, research facilities, and operators of auction sales subject to section 2142 of this title" for "issue rules and regulations requiring licensed dealers and research facilities".

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

#### Effective Date of 1970 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 91–579 effective 30 days after Dec. 24, 1970, see section 23 of Pub. L. 91–579, set out as a note under section 2131 of this title.
New Chemical Standard Review Exposure Report 

Case No. P-07-0601 Date: EPA reviewer: 

Name: 

Use: 

Standard Review Summary Results: 

Exposure Based Criteria 

Parameter Exp Based Persistent Exceedance Value 

Drinking (Surface) Water Dose 

(mg/kg/day) 

 

Fish Ingestion Dose (mg/kg/day) 

Inhalation Dose (mg/kg/day) 

Groundwater Dose (mg/kg/day) 

Surface Water Release After Treatment 

(kg/yr) 

 

Total Release After Treatment (kg/yr) 

Consumer exposure 

Specific Exposure Scenarios: Potential ingestion exposures expressed as mg/kg/day doses, 

LADD-Potential Lifetime Average Daily Dose, ADR-Potential Acute Dose Rate 

Potential inhalation exposures expressed as mg/m3 concentrations. 

INDUSTRIAL RELEASE SCENARIOS (modeled with E-FAST V 2.0) 

Scenario: Manufacturing releases 

Surface water exposures: 

Inhalation exposures: 

Incineration: 

Fugitive: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 2
CONSUMER EXPOSURE SCENARIOS 

Consumer exposure scenarios: 

REFERENCES: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 2
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANTHONY R. BARRETT , Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. , successor in interest to WACHOVIA MORTGAGE F.S.B. f/k/a WORLD SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B., Appellee.

No. 4D 19

- 3720

[ February 4, 2021 ]

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Dennis D. Bailey

, Judge; L.T. Case No

. CACE 10

- 016853 (11)

.
Anthony R. Barrett, Plantation, pro se

.

C. H. Houston III, Sara F. Holladay

- Tobias and Emily Y. Rottmann of McGuireWoods LLP, Jacksonville

, for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

M AY , D AMOORGIAN and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2014-0061

 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM029AD

A330-53-3143 --- 12/24/04

A330-53-3143, R04 --- 12/6/11

A330-53-3143, R03 --- 3/3/11

A330-53-3143, R02 --- 8/31/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Jack L. Saltich, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Three-Five Systems,Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 9, 2004    /s/ Jack L. Saltich  Jack L. Saltich President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 23.1

 

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors

NTR Acquisition Co.:

We consent to the use of our report dated December 15, 2006, with respect to the balance sheet of NTR Acquisition Co. as of October 15, 2006, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the period from June 2, 2006 (inception) through October 15, 2006, included herein and to the reference to our firm under the heading “Experts” in the prospectus.

Our report dated December 15, 2006, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company’s business plan is dependent upon its obtaining adequate financial resources which raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas

December 18, 2006
#### The People of the State of New York v. Salvatore Oddo.

Assignment of Anthony F. Marra, Esq., as counsel for the defendant-appellant, contained in the order of this court entered on February 21, 1962, vacated, and Sidney E. Friedman, Esq., of 497 East 161st St., Bronx, N. Y. is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant in the place and stead of Anthony F. Marra, Esq. Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 18-0263

Filed August 15, 2018

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MICHAEL ALEXANDER LAJEUNESSE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, 

Judge.

Michael LaJeunesse challenges his restitution plan of payment. 

AFFIRMED.

Patrick W. O'Bryan of O’Bryan Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2

McDONALD, Judge.

Michael LaJeunesse was convicted of attempted murder and willful injury 

and sentenced to a term of incarceration not to exceed thirty-five years. This court 

affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. See State v. LaJeunesse, No. 17-0507, 

2018 WL 1099024, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2018). This appeal arises out of 

LaJeunesse’s challenge to the district court’s order on restitution. Lajeunesse was 

ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $11,234.70. Pursuant to a restitution 

plan of payment, Lajeunesse was to pay twenty percent of all of credits to his 

institutional account to satisfy his restitution obligation. LaJeunesse challenged 

the restitution plan of payment. Following a restitution hearing, the district court 

ordered the amount of restitution remain the same but modified the restitution plan 

of payment by reducing the amount to be withheld from LaJeunesse’s institutional

account from twenty percent to fifteen percent. On appeal, LaJeunesse contends 

the district court erred in failing to make a finding that LaJeunesse had the 

reasonable ability to pay restitution. 

We conclude LaJeunesse’s claim is without merit. Implicit in the district 

court’s reduction of withholding from LaJenuesse’s institutional account is the 

finding that LaJenuesse had the reasonable ability to pay the restitution ordered. 

See State v. Klawonn, 688 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Iowa 2004) (setting forth standard of 

review); State v. Van Hoff, 415 N.W.2d 657, 649 (Iowa 1987) (“A determination of 

reasonableness, especially in a case of long-term incarceration, is more 

appropriately based on the inmate’s ability to pay the current installments than his 

ability to ultimately pay the total amount due.”); Clark v. State, No. 15-1280, 2017 

WL 2461410, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. June 7, 2017) (holding the defendant had the 
3

reasonable ability to pay when payment was capped at twenty percent of the 

offender’s institutional account credits). We affirm the district court’s order without 

further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a) and (e).

AFFIRMED
#### James Maltese, Respondent-Appellant, v. Woodford J. Townsend, Appellant-Respondent, and Myriet Corp., Respondent.

Judgment in favor of plaintiff unanimously reversed on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the verdict vacated and a new trial granted, with costs to defendant-appellant, unless plaintiff stipulates to accept $10,000 in lieu of the award by verdict (as reduced), in which event the judgment is modified to that extent, and is affirmed as thus modified, with costs to defendant-appellant. In this personal injury negligence action it is evident that the jury verdict (as reduced) is still excessive and that a verdict of in excess of $10,000 is not warranted on the record. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20202

MEMORANDUM

TO: Rachel Niebling

FROM: The Secretary

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority 

I. DELEGATION

By the authority vested in me by sections 202 and 412 of the Department of Education 

Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. §3412 and §3472, I hereby delegate to you the authority to 

perform the functions and duties vested by law and other delegations in the position of 

Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority 

delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS 

None.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon vacancies in the positions of the Assistant Secretary for 

the Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs and First Assistant to the position of 

the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs, if one 

exists, and certification by the Department’s Principal Delegations Control Officer. It 

remains in effect until a nominee is confirmed and sworn-in to the position of Assistant 

Secretary for the Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs; an acting officer fills 

the position; or another individual is delegated the authority to perform the functions and 

duties of the position, whichever occurs first.

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date of 

certification. 

____________/s_________________

Miguel A. Cardona, Ed.D.

OGC Clearance: Michael Taylor, 08/20/2021;

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens

Date certified 8/25/2021

Control Number: EA/EJ/44
MEMORANDUM

TO: Assistant Inspector General for Audit

Assistant Inspector General for Evaluation, Inspection

and Management Services

Assistant Inspector General for Investigation

Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology Audit

and Computer Crime Investigations

Counsel to the Inspector General

FROM: Inspector General

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Sign and Issue Inspector General's Subpoenas

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by Section 3(a) of the Inspector General Act of 

1978, as amended (the Act), 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3, I hereby delegate to you, your 

successor in function, and anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the 

authority under Section 6(a)(4) of the Act to issue Inspector General's subpoenas

in furtherance of the duties and functions of the Office of Inspector General 

(OIG).

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the 

authorities delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

None.

III. REDELEGATION

You may redelegate this authority to OIG supervisors. No further redelegation is 

authorized.
Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal 

Delegation Control Officer, and supersedes delegations EF/EFI/112, EF/EFA/126 

and EF/EFA/127. I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken 

by you prior to certification of this delegation.

_________/s/_____________ 

 John P. Higgins, Jr.

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ David Berthiaume, 7/13/2004

Certified Date: 7/23/2004

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number: EF/EFA/146
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                 1,238
<SECURITIES>                           15,728
<RECEIVABLES>                          74,608
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            19,988
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       125,172
<PP&E>                                 101,092
<DEPRECIATION>                         (40,657)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         218,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  73,625
<BONDS>                                52,985
<COMMON>                               15,007
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            50
<OTHER-SE>                             46,259
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           218,829
<SALES>                                85,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       85,595
<CGS>                                  65,078
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          86,166
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     1,640
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (1,307)
<INCOME-TAX>                           (118)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (1,189)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           (1,189)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.20)


</TABLE>
#### Robert Smith, Respondent, v. Edgar Nelson et al., Appellants.

Appeal dismissed unless printed records and briefs are filed and served on or before August 10, 1960.
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20202

MEMORANDUM

TO: Chief Operating Officer

Federal Student Aid

FROM: The Secretary 

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Perform Functions Relating to the Disclosures 

of Foreign Gifts and Contracts Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1011f 

I. DELEGATION

By the authority vested in me by section 412 of the Department of Education 

Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. § 3472, I delegate to you, to your successor in 

function, and to anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the authority to 

oversee and ensure compliance, and, if necessary, to make recommendations to 

the Secretary for civil action, as provided in section 117 of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. § 1011f), as amended, regarding disclosures of gifts from

and contracts with foreign sources by institutions of higher education. This 

authority permits you to implement the reporting of foreign gifts to and foreign 

contracts with and foreign ownership or control of institutions of higher 

education, to make disclosure reports available for public inspection, and to enter 

into and perform agreements with Federal agencies and other entities outside of 

the Department as necessary or appropriate to carry out these functions. 

II. RESERVATIONS

Unless otherwise noted in existing or future delegations of authority, the 

following are not delegated: 

A. The authority to submit to the Attorney General of the United States a 

request to bring a civil action, in an appropriate district court of the 

United States, or the appropriate United States court of any territory or 

other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, to request 

such court to compel compliance with the requirements of 20 U.S.C. § 

1011f; and 

B. The authority to promulgate regulations to carry out the requirements 

of 20 U.S.C. § 1011f. 

III. REDELEGATION
Subject to applicable provisions of law, you may redelegate any of the authorities 

delegated to you and may authorize further redelegation. All redelegations must 

be prepared in accordance with the Administrative Communications Systems 

directive, ACSD-OFO-015, Delegations of Authority. 

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal 

Delegations Control Officer and supersedes any conflicting provisions in 

delegation EA/EP/357, OPE Primary Delegation of Programmatic Authority 

Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, As Amended, certified on April 25, 

2012. 

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the 

date of certification.

 

 

______________/s_______________ 

 Miguel A. Cardona, Ed.D. 

 U.S. Secretary of Education 

OGC Clearance and Date: Jill Siegelbaum; 10/13/23 

Control Number: EA/EN109 

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens

Certification Date: 10/13/2023
§ 776.69 Misconduct. ( a ) It is professional misconduct for a covered attorney to: ( 1 ) Violate or attempt to violate subpart B of this part, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
( 2 ) Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the covered attorney's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as an attorney in other respects;
( 3 ) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;
( 4 ) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
( 5 ) State or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official; or
( 6 ) Knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.
( b ) ( 1 ) Judge advocates hold a commission as an officer in the Navy or Marine Corps and assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A judge advocate's abuse of such commission can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of judge advocate and attorney. This concept has similar application to civilian USG attorneys.
( 2 ) Covered non-USG attorneys, Reservists, and Retirees (acting in their civilian capacity), like their active-duty counterparts, are expected to demonstrate model behavior and exemplary integrity at all times. The JAG may consider any and all derogatory or beneficial information about a covered attorney, for purposes of determining the attorney's qualification, professional competence, or fitness to practice law in DoN matters, or to administer discipline under this rule. Such consideration shall be made, except in emergency situations necessitating immediate action, according to the procedures established in this rule.