alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                         EX - 23

                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

        We have issued our report dated August 11, 1999, accompanying the
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Inland Entertainment
Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 1999. We hereby consent
to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements
of Inland Entertainment Corporation on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-19743, effective
January 14, 1997, 333-19745, effective January 14, 1997, 333-19747, effective
January 14, 1997, 333-44179, effective January 13, 1998 and 333-82169, effective
July 2, 1999).

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Los Angeles, California
September 27, 1999
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Stephan W. Zumsteg, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Energy Conversion
  Devices, Inc.;

  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 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 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 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 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.


                                              /S/ Stephan W. Zumsteg
  Date: November 9, 2004                      ---------------------------------
                                              Stephan W. Zumsteg
                                              Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.24



DIRECTORS SHARES GRANT PLAN SUMMARY
-----------------------------------


o        All Directors eligible except Executive Officers who are covered by
         individual employment contracts and the Government Representative.

o        Strike Price set each October 1 for the following year to September 30.


o        Director accumulated $ fee equivalent during the year based on
         attendance at the following meetings:

         Full board meeting - $1200
         All Sub-Committee meetings - $600

o        Total $ fee accumulated during the year is then divided by the strike
         price to determine entitlement as of Each October 1.

o        Automatic issue of shares prior to December 31 each year.

o        These are not options, they are for Ordinary Shares, no holding period.

Example
-------

Director attends           - 4 Full Board Meetings              = $4,800
                           - 8 Sub Committee Meetings           = $4,800
                                                                  ------
         Total $ fee accumulated                                  $9,600
                                                                  ======

Strike Nee on preceding October 1 - $6.75

Entitlement - 9600/6.75         = 1,422 shares entitlement
                                  ========================

This Plan, as amended was approved unanimously by the Board of Directors at
their meeting on 20 April, 1999.



/s/ Alexander S. Bodden
---------------------------------------
Alexander S. Bodden
Vice President Finance
Company Secretary
Exhibit 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Name                                                Location of Formation

Connecticut Storage Fund........................         California
PS Co-Investment Partners.......................         California
PS Illinois Trust...............................          Delaware
PS Insurance Company - Hawaii, Ltd..............           Hawaii
PS Orangeco, Inc...............................          California
PS Partners, Ltd................................         California
PS Partners VIII, Ltd...........................         California
PS Tennessee, L.P...............................          Tennessee
PS Texas Holdings, Ltd. ........................           Texas
PSA Institutional Partners, L.P.................         California
PSAC Development Partners, L.P..................         California
Public Storage Properties IV, Ltd...............         California
Public Storage Properties V, Ltd................         California
Public Storage Institutional Fund...............         California
Public Storage Institutional Fund III...........         California
Public Storage Pickup & Delivery, L.P...........         California
Secure Mini Storage.............................         Minnesota
STOR-Re Mutual Insurance Corporation............           Hawaii
Storage Trust Properties, L.P. .................          Delaware
Shurgard Storage Centers, LLC...................          Delaware
Shurgard Texas Limited Partnership..............           Texas
SSC Property Holdings, LLC......................          Delaware
SSCI Minnesota LLC..............................          Delaware
Shurgard Self-Storage SCA.......................           Belgium
### §7236a. Special competitive provisions for extra long staple cotton

#### (a) Competitiveness program

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the period beginning on October 1, 1999, and ending on July 31, 2003, the Secretary shall carry out a program to maintain and expand the domestic use of extra long staple cotton produced in the United States, to increase exports of extra long staple cotton produced in the United States, and to ensure that extra long staple cotton produced in the United States remains competitive in world markets.

#### (b) Payments under program; trigger

Under the program, the Secretary shall make payments available under this section whenever—

(1) for a consecutive 4-week period, the world market price for the lowest priced competing growth of extra long staple cotton (adjusted to United States quality and location and for other factors affecting the competitiveness of such cotton), as determined by the Secretary, is below the prevailing United States price for a competing growth of extra long staple cotton; and

(2) the lowest priced competing growth of extra long staple cotton (adjusted to United States quality and location and for other factors affecting the competitiveness of such cotton), as determined by the Secretary, is less than 134 percent of the loan rate for extra long staple cotton.

#### (c) Eligible recipients

The Secretary shall make payments available under this section to domestic users of extra long staple cotton produced in the United States and exporters of extra long staple cotton produced in the United States who enter into an agreement with the Commodity Credit Corporation to participate in the program under this section.

#### (d) Payment amount

Payments under this section shall be based on the amount of the difference in the prices referred to in subsection (b)(1) during the fourth week of the consecutive 4-week period multiplied by the amount of documented purchases by domestic users and sales for export by exporters made in the week following such a consecutive 4-week period.

#### (e) Form of payment

Payments under this section shall be made through the issuance of cash or marketing certificates, at the option of eligible recipients of the payments.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §136A, as added Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(5) [title I, §104(c)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–291.)
#### Alejandrina Rijos, Respondent, v. Etta Goldberg et al., Appellants.

Order, entered on December 21, 1962, denying motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts and as a matter of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted. The excuse offered for the delay of 32 months after joinder of issue was that the case was entrusted to trial counsel who neglected it and was later disbarred. The excuse is unavailing because, aside from other considerations, the trial counsel was suspended some 18 months prior to the instant application, and during that interval nothing was done. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Stener, JJ.
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 32(b)



                                 TXU GAS COMPANY
                       Certificate Pursuant to Section 906
                         of Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002
                              CERTIFICATION OF PFO


         The undersigned, Scott Longhurst, Principal Financial Officer of TXU
Gas Company (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1.       The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
         30, 2003 (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.       Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
         Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be
executed this 13th day of August, 2003.




                                  /s/ Scott Longhurst
                          --------------------------------------------------
                          Name:    Scott Longhurst
                          Title:   Principal Financial Officer





A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to TXU Gas  Company  and will be retained by TXU Gas Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### 1832.412-70 NASA Contract clauses.

When the clause at FAR 52.232-12 or its Alternates II or V are used, insert the clause at 1852.232-70, NASA Modification of FAR 52.232-12.

[63 FR 14040, Mar. 24, 1998]
#### 201.104 Applicability.

The FAR and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) also apply to purchases and contracts by DoD contracting activities made in support of foreign military sales or North Atlantic Treaty Organization cooperative projects without regard to the nature or sources of funds obligated, unless otherwise specified in this regulation.

[56 FR 36284, July 31, 1991. Redesignated at 64 FR 39430, July 22, 1999]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1067

ROBERT MYERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SHEILA F. WINDNALL, Secretary of the Air Force,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-96-1195-A)

Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 5, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Dennis Hipple, AIR FORCE

LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing Appellant’s claim of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e (West 1994). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Myers v. Windnall, No. CA-96-1195-A (E.D. Va. Nov.

10 & 13, 1997). 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6248

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CRAIG BURRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-430, CA-96-1547-4-12) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig Burris, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Burris , Nos. CR-94-430; CA-96-1547-4-12 (D.S.C. Dec. 17, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### 1352.271-71 Method of payment and invoicing instructions for ship repair.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1371.102, insert the following clause:

# Method of Payment and Invoicing Instructions for Ship Repair (APR 2010)

(a) The Government will make payment under this contract based on a percentage of completion. The contractor may invoice for the percentage completed for each work item as work progresses. The amount invoiced shall be calculated based on prices stated in the Schedule, as follows: A work item may not be invoiced until the percentage complete reaches 25 percent. Future invoices for that work item have no limitation as to the percentage of completion required before invoicing, but in no event may invoices be submitted more frequently than every 2 weeks, or for amounts less than $10,000, unless it is the final payment. The minimum percentage of completion (25%) to be reached prior to billing each work item may be waived by the Contracting Officer for large dollar work items on a case-by-case basis.

(b) Invoices submitted by the contractor which are deemed not proper, in accordance with FAR 52.232-25, will be returned. Invoices shall include:

(1) Name and Address of the contractor;

(2) DUNS Number;

(3) Invoice Date;

(4) Contract Number/Modification Number;

(5) CLIN/Work Item Number, to include: Description, Quantity, Unit of Measure, Unit Price and Extended Price;

(6) Shipping and Payment Terms; and,

(7) Contractor Point of Contact, including: Name, Title, Phone Number, and Mailing Address;

(8) The percentage of completion for each CLIN/work item identified;

(9) Name of the Contracting Officer ;

(10) Ship name;

(11) The overall percentage and dollar amount previously billed, currently billed and unbilled.

(c) When invoicing for changed work, the contractor shall identify it as a contract change and shall identify the modification authorizing the change, and the CLIN/Work Item associated with the change.

(d) All items of work invoiced under this contract will be verified and confirmed by the Contracting Officer's Representative as accurate and complete and approved by the designated billing office before payment will be made.

(e) Mail the original invoice to:

[insert]

(f) The contractor's final invoice submitted under the contract must be marked as follows: “THIS INVOICE CONSTITUTES THE FINAL INVOICE—UPON PAYMENT OF THIS INVOICE NO OTHER MONIES ARE DUE UNDER CONTRACT NUMBER ________________.” (To be assigned at contract award)

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
### §4508. Cooperative association representation

Whenever, under the provisions of this subchapter, the Secretary is required to determine the approval or disapproval of producers, the Secretary shall consider the approval or disapproval by any cooperative association of producers, engaged in a bona fide manner in marketing milk or the products thereof, as the approval or disapproval of the producers who are members of or under contract with such cooperative association of producers. If a cooperative association of producers elects to vote on behalf of its members, such cooperative association shall provide each producer, on whose behalf the cooperative association is expressing approval or disapproval, a description of the question presented in the referendum together with a statement of the manner in which the cooperative association intends to cast its vote on behalf of the membership. Such information shall inform the producer of procedures to follow to cast an individual ballot should the producer so choose within the period of time established by the Secretary for casting ballots. Such notification shall be made at least thirty days prior to the referendum and shall include an official ballot. The ballots shall be tabulated by the Secretary and the vote of the cooperative association shall be adjusted to reflect such individual votes.

(Pub. L. 98–180, title I, §117, Nov. 29, 1983, 97 Stat. 1141.)
----

|   | 1. | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2010, (the "Annual Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| /s/ Paul O. Koether           |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Paul O. Koether               |   |
|  Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                          |   |
|                          |   |
|                          |   |
| /s/ Bryan P. Healey           |   |
| Bryan P. Healey               |   |
| Chief Financial Officer       |   |

----
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 Annual Report of CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. ("CRM") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, 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 Fensterstock
                                              Lawrence Fensterstock
                                              Chief Financial Officer

March 31, 2005
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Ruth A. Wood, Appellant, v. Colonial Tavern *&*Restaurant et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board denying benefits on the grounds that no industrial accident had been established. Claimant, a cook, testified that on November 27, 1958 she felt pain and soreness in her left foot and, on removing her shoe, saw blood at the bottom of her left big toe. After pulling her shoe back on the pain persisted and on again removing her shoe she discovered a uniform button catch in the shoe. Claimant’s contention is that the injury to her foot caused by this button catch, even though intensified by a pre-existing diabetes mellitus condition, constituted an industrial accident. It is clear that the board in characterizing the claim as “an afterthought” did not choose to. accept claimant’s version as to how the injury to her foot arose. We find that on the present record this determination was clearly within the fact-finding power of the board. As stated in *Matter of Finn*v. *Merritt, Chapman & Scott*(20 A D 2d 731, 732), a ease analogous to, but by no means as clear as, the instant case: “While the existence of the underlying diabetic condition is not dispositive *(Matter of Walters*v. *U. S. Vitamin Corp.,*11 A D 2d 280, affd. 10 N Y 2d 924; *Matter of Sliwinski*v. *Sacred Heart R. C. Church,*1 A D 2d 856), nevertheless, the burden of proof was on the claimant to establish that there was an accidental injury connected with employment *(Matter of Rothschild*v. *Flatbush Jewish Center,*18 A D 2d 1045). Questions of credibility are, of course, within the province of the board. ‘ The board was not bound as a matter of law to accept claimant’s testimony and by rejecting his testimony “denuded the record of proof connecting the accident with the employment.” ’ *(Matter of Scarpullo*v. *Alba Barber Shop,*18 A D 2d 1122.) ‘The disbelief by the board of an assertion of this kind is not an absence of substantial evidence in support of a negative finding.’ *(Matter of Rothschild*v. *Flatbush Jewish Center, supra,*p. 1045.) ” Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.