alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 The Navigators Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul J. Malvasio, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



---

Paul
J. Malvasio
Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer



---
#### In the Matter of Anthony J. Farina, Appellant, v. State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 14, 1966, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. No opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta and Christ, JJ., concur; Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the order insofar as appealed from to the extent of annulling the determination of the respondent State Liquor Authority and directing respondent to reinstate petitioner’s liquor store license, with the following memorandum: In our opinion, the Authority’s determination was arbitrary and capricious. There was no showing that petitioner was less than frank on his application, i.e., no showing that he concealed information or made statements which were knowingly false. There was only proof that he failed to use two items specified in his application, namely, a loan against the value of his retirement fund and a mortgage on his home. This proof was supplied by his own frank answers when he appeared, without an attorney, for a hearing to investigate not any alleged violations or abuses of his license (there were none) but his reasons for his announced intention to sell his business. The reasons given for Ms failure to use the items indicated in the application were reasonable and uncontroverted. The State Liquor Authority investigator admitted the assets used by petitioner were “ legitimate ” and that petitioner had no prior connection with the proposed purchasers of his business. In other words, there was no hint that the undisclosed assets, or, for that matter, the proposed purchasers, represented undesirable elements *(Matter of Wonderful Bar*v. *Hostetter,*24 A D 2d 1020). As for petitioner’s alleged failure to report income from real estate and furniture sales commissions for tax purposes, there was substantial evidence to show only that income had been earned in 1965 and would be reported on petitioner’s 1965 return. Petitioner’s 1965 return was not yet due when the determination was made; also the evidence was inadequate to show that amounts were due from income in prior years (see *Matter of Stork Restaurant*v. *Boland,*282 N. Y. 256, 273-74).
Honorable Homer D. Eck 

County Auditor 

Fayette County 

La Grange, Texas 

Dear SFr: Opinion NO. 0-6337 

Re: Whether a county commissioner may 

employ, in his precinct, a person 

who is married to a first cousin 

of another county cqmmlssioner. 

Your r&quest for an opinion from this department upon 

the above stated question has been received. 

We quote from your letter as follows: 

"I should appreciate your oplnlon whether a 

County Commissioner may employ, ln his pr'eclnct, 

a person who married a first cousin of another 

County CommLssloner." 

Article 432 of the Penal Code provides that: 

'No officer of this State or any officer of 

any district, county, city precinct, school district, or other mnicipal subdivision of this State, 

or any officer or member of any State, district, 

county, city, school district or other mnlclpal 

board, or judge of any court, created by or under 

authority of any general or special law of this 

State, or any member of the Legislature, shall appoint, or vote for, or confirm the appointment to 

any office, position, clerkship, employment or 

duty, of any person related within the second degree of affinity or within the third degree by 

consanguinity to the person ao appointing or so 

votlng, or to any other member of any such board, 

the Legislature, or court of which such person so 

appointing or voting may be a member, when the 

salary, fees, or compensation of such appointee 

Is to be paid for, directly or indirectly, out 

of or from public funds or fees of office of any 

kind or character whatsoever." 
” 

c 

Honorable Homer D. Eck, page 2 o-6337 

First cousins are related within the second degree, 

either by consanguinity or afflnlty. Therefore, the person who 

marrled the commissioners' first cousl~n Is related to the commissioner "within the second degree of afflnlty." 

The act of a county commissioner in employing a person 

to be paid out of or from public funds Is the act of the commissioners' court, so a county commissioner is prohibited from 

employing a person related within the prohibited degree to any 

member of the commissioners' court. 

It Is the oplnlon of this department that a county commissioner cannot employ a person who Is related to a county 

commissioner of the same county, by reason of having married a 

first cousin of such commissioner. 

Very truly yours, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By s/Fred C. Chandler 

Fred C. Chandler 

Assistant 

FCC:db:wc 

APPROVED FEB 8, 1945 

s/Grover Sellers 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Approved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman
Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 4 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 5 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 6 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 7 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 8 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 9 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 10 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 11 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 12 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 13 of 14
Case 5:20-cv-00056-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 14 of 14
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*April 11, 2006*

[Cite as *04/11/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-1803.]

*1402MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

1987-0327.

#### State v. Clark.

Lucas App. No. L-84-443. By entry filed March 8, 2006, this court ordered that appellant’s sentence be carried into execution on Tuesday, the 2nd day of May, 2006. In order to facilitate this court’s timely consideration of any matters relating to the execution of appellant’s sentence,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the Chief Justice may suspend application of any provisions of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court, including, but not limited to, the filing requirements imposed by S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(l).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED *that service of*documents *as*required by S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(2) shall be personal or by facsimile transmission.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that counsel of record for the parties shall supply this court with a copy of any document relating to this matter that is filed in, or issued by, any other court in this state or any federal court, as well as any commutation, pardon, or warrant of reprieve issued by the Governor. A copy of the document shall be delivered to the Office of the Clerk as soon as possible, either personally or by facsimile transmission.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1951.872 Other regulatory requirements.

*Intergovernmental consultation.* The RDLF program is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. For each ultimate recipient to be assisted with a loan under this subpart and for which the State in which the ultimate recipient is to be located has elected to review the program under their intergovernmental review process, the State Point of Contact must be notified. Notification, in the form of a project description, can be initiated by the intermediary or the ultimate recipient. Any comments from the State must be included with the intermediary's request to use the loan funds for the ultimate recipient. Prior to Rural Development's decision on the request, compliance with the requirements of intergovernmental consultation must be demonstrated for each ultimate recipient. These requirements should be carried out in accordance with the requirements set forth in U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations 2 CFR part 415, subpart C, and RD Instruction 1970-I, 'Intergovernmental Review,' available in any Agency office or on the Agency's Web site.

[79 FR 76012, Dec. 19, 2014]
Editorial Note on Part 1962
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1962 appear at 80 FR 9902, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1962.29 Payment of fees and insurance premiums. ( a ) *Fees.* ( 1 ) Security instruments. Borrowers must pay statutory fees for filing or recording financing statements or other security instruments (including Form RD 462-12, or other renewal statements) and any notary fees for executing these instruments. They also must pay costs of obtaining lien search reports needed in properly servicing security as outlined in this subpart. Whenever possible, borrowers should pay these fees directly to the officials giving the service. When cash is accepted by Rural Development employees to pay these fees, Form RD 440-12, “Acknowledgment of Payment for Recording, Lien Search and Releasing Fees,” will be executed. If the borrower cannot pay the fees, or if there are fees referred to in paragraphs (a) (2) and (3) of this section that must be paid by Rural Development, the County Supervisor may pay them as a petty purchase or as the bill of a creditor of Rural Development in accordance with Rural Development Instructions 2024-E, copies of which are available in any Rural Development office.
( 2 ) Satisfactions. The borrower must pay fees for filing or recording satisfactions or termination statements unless a State supplement based on State law requires Rural Development to pay them.
( 3 ) Notary fees. Rural Development will pay fees for notary service for executing releases, subordinations, and related documents for and on behalf of Rural Development if the service cannot be obtained without cost.
( b ) *Insurance premiums.* County Supervisors are authorized to voucher for the payment of bills for insurance premiums on chattel security, in accordance with Rural Development Instruction 2024-A (available in any Rural Development Office). Bills may be paid when: ( 1 ) A borrower cannot pay the premiums from the borrower's own resources at the time due;
( 2 ) Anticipated crop income does not materialize which would normally be released for the payment of crop insurance.
( 3 ) It is not pratical to process a loan for that purpose;
( 4 ) It is necessary to protect Rural Development's interests; and
( 5 ) The amount advanced can be charged to the borrower under the provisions of the security instrument.
[50 FR 45783, Nov. 1, 1985, as amended at 53 FR 35785, Sept. 14, 1988; 56 FR 15825, Apr. 18, 1991; 57 FR 36592, Aug. 14, 1992]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6079

WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS M. HOLLENHORST, Assistant United States

Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia,

in his official and personal capacities;

ROBERT TRENT, Immigration and Naturalization

Service’s Officer, in his official and

personal capacities; JIM TRUSTY, State

Attorney for Montgomery County, Maryland, in

his official and personal capacities; ALAN B.

SOSCHIN, Attorney At Law, in his official and

personal capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CA-02-757-2)

Submitted: April 10, 2003 Decided: April 29, 2003

Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Appellant Pro Se.
* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora appeals the district court’s orders

denying relief on his Bivens* complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1) (2000), and denying his motion filed under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Lora v. Hollenhorst, No. CA-02-757-2 (E.D. Va.

Sept. 30, 2002; Dec. 11, 2002). 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
Fourth Department,

February, 1967

(February 16, 1967)

#### Virgil Miller, as Administrator of the Estate of Virgil T. Miller, Deceased, Appellant, v. Arthur Van Natter et al., Respondents.

-Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Furthermore, defendant driver’s testimony was such as to leave the inference that no summons for a traffic violation had been issued to him as a result of the operation of his motor vehicle at the time of the accident. In fact, plaintiff’s counsel had present in the courtroom certificates of conviction entered on pleas of guilty which, if before the jury, would *791have rebutted the inference and would have constituted an admission that he did not turn the corner with extreme caution. After a conference in chambers counsel withdrew his offer of the certificates; however, upon a proper foundation this proof should be before a jury which is passing upon the driver’s conduct at the time of the accident (see *Ando*v. *Woodberry,*8 N Y 2d 165). Finally, if plaintiff does not avail himself of the procedure which will make it mandatory for the trial court to take judicial notice of subdivision 3 of section 11 of the Buffalo Ordinance, it would appear that, in the exercise of discretion, the court should take judicial notice of and charge this provision (CPR 4511, subd. [b]). The ordinance subdivision is essentially identical to former subdivision 10 of section 81 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law which this court held should have been charged in a case very similar to the present one *(Leonard*v. *Beach Lbr. Co.,*283 App. Div. 848). (Appeal from judgment of Brie Trial Term dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the merits in an action for wrongful death.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

            CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report
of Research Frontiers Incorporated (the "Company")  on Form 10-
K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") , I, Robert L. Saxe, Chairman and Chief Executive 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 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 issuer.


/s/  Robert L. Saxe
     Robert L. Saxe
     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
     October 19, 2004
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn expert system based software sizing tool, phase 2A software tool was developed for predicting the size of a future computer program at an early stage in its development. The system is intended to enable a user who is not expert in Software Engineering to estimate software size in lines of source code with an accuracy similar to that of an expert, based on the program's functional specifications. The project was planned as a knowledge based system with a field prototype as the goal of Phase 2 and a commercial system planned for Phase 3. The researchers used techniques from Artificial Intelligence and knowledge from human experts and existing software from NASA's COSMIC database. They devised a classification scheme for the software specifications, and a small set of generic software components that represent complexity and apply to large classes of programs. The specifications are converted to generic components by a set of rules and the generic components are input to a nonlinear sizing function which makes the final prediction. The system developed for this project predicted code sizes from the database with a bias factor of 1.06 and a fluctuation factor of 1.77, an accuracy similar to that of human experts but without their significant optimistic bias.Document ID19900017209Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsFriedlander, David*(MCR Technology, Inc. Goleta, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:186706NASA-CR-186706Accession Number90N26525Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS7-1033CONTRACT_GRANT: SBIR-07.10-0671Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017209.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Research Frontiers Incorporated:


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
registration statements (No. 33-53030, 33-86910, 333-08623,
333-34163, 333-80575, 333-63374 and 333-106754) on Form S-8
and (No. 333-133858, 333-40369,333-115052 and 333-65219) on
Form S-3 of Research Frontiers Incorporated and subsidiary
of our reports dated March 5, 2009, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule and the effectiveness of Research Frontiers
Incorporated's internal control over financial reporting,
which appear in this Form 10-K.


                              /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
                                  BDO Seidman, LLP

  Melville, New York
  March 10, 2009
First Amendment to Lease Agreement dated Novemeber 12, 2001



 Exhibit 10.35 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT OF LEASE 
  
 This First Amendment of Lease (the “First Amendment”) is entered into this 12th day of November, 2001 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Prentiss Properties Acquisition Partners, L.P.,
a Delaware limited partnership (“Landlord”) and Vignette Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Tenant”). 
  
 WITNESSETH 
  
 WHEREAS, on October 25, 2000, Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain Lease Agreement (the “Lease”) for leased premises consisting of
108,990 square feet of Net Rentable Area located on the first, third and lower level of the building known as Four Barton Skyway and located at 1301 South Mo-Pac Expressway, Austin, Texas, which by this reference the Lease is incorporated herein for
all purposes; 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Lease;

  
 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual terms
and conditions expressed herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  
 1. Section 3.06 of the Lease is hereby deleted. 
  
 2. The address of the Building as set forth on the cover page of the Lease and in Section 1.01(B) of the Lease
is hereby changed to 1301 South Mo-Pac Expressway, Austin, Texas. 
  
 3. This First Amendment shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of Texas. 
  
 4. The Lease, as hereby amended, is hereby ratified and confirmed and shall continue in full force and effect. 
  
 5. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to said terms in the Lease. 
  

 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment effective as of the date first set
forth above. 
  
 LANDLORD: 
  

					
	 Prentiss Properties Acquisition Partners, L.P.,
 a Delaware limited partnership

		
	 By:
	 	 Prentiss Properties I, Inc., a Delaware
 corporation, general partner

			
	 	 	 By:
	 	 /s/ William J. Reister

	 	 	 Name:
	 	 William J. Reister

	 	 	 Title:
	 	 Vice President

			
	 	 	 By:
	 	 /s/ L. Kevan Dilbeck

	 	 	 Name:
	 	 L. Kevan Dilbeck

	 	 	 Title:
	 	 Senior Vice President


  
 TENANT: 
  

			
	 Vignette Corporation,
 a Delaware corporation

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ John H. Degnan III

	 Name:
	 	 John H. Degnan III

	 Title:
	 	 Director - Facilities &
 Global Real Estate Services


  

			
	 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM by counsel to
 Tenant:

	
	 Fisher Sweetbaum & Levin, P.C.

		
	 By
	 	 /s/ Illegible

	 Date
	 	 10/31/01


  

 2
| (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));      and |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  | April      30, 2009 |   | /s/ CHRIS      TONG     |
|--------|---------------------|--------|------------------------------|
|   |                |   | CHRIS      TONG              |
|   |                |   | Chief      Financial Officer |
|   |                |

----
Exhibit 15.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



(1)

Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-146790) pertaining to the 2003 Equity Compensation Plan of China Resources Development, Inc., the predecessor to China Natural Resources, Inc. (the Company), and



(2)

Form F-3 (Registration No. 333-163702) of the Company;



of our reports dated June 30, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of the Company, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2010.





/S/ Ernst & Young

Certified Public Accountants

Hong Kong



June 30, 2011