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




               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


The Board of Directors
Quipp, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-06355 and 333-75085) of Quipp, Inc. of our report
dated February 5, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Quipp,
Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, and the related
financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2001
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Quipp, Inc.



/s/ KPMG

Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 25, 2002
---

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               

The undersigned, Jiyong He, the Chief Financial Officer of
SILVAN INDUSTRIES, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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
executed this statement this 16thday of December, 2011.

| | /s/ Jiyong
      He                               
| | --------------------------------------------------
| | Jiyong He                                         
| | Chief Financial Officer                           
| | (Principal Financial and Accounting
      Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Silvan Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Silvan
Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
47.507 Contract clauses.

(a)

(1) Insert the clause at 52.247-64, Preference for Privately Owned U.S.-Flag Commercial Vessels, in

solicitations and contracts that may involve ocean transportation of supplies subject to the Cargo

Preference Act of1954. (For application of the Cargo Preference Act of1954, see 47.502(a)(3),

47.503(a), and 47.504.)

(2) If an applicable statute requires, or if it has been determined under agency procedures, that the

supplies to be furnished under the contracts must be transported exclusively in privately owned

U.S.-flag commercial vessels (see 47.502(a)(1) and 47.503(b)), use the clause with its AlternateI.

(3) Except for contracts or agreements for ocean transportation services or construction contracts,

use the clause with its Alternate II if any of the supplies to be transported are commercial products

that are shipped in direct support of U.S. military-

(i) Contingency operations;

(ii) Exercises; or

(iii) Forces deployed in connection with United Nations or North Atlantic Treaty Organization

humanitarian or peacekeeping operations.

(b) The contracting officer may insert in solicitations and contracts, under agency procedures,

additional appropriate clauses concerning the vessels to be used.

Parent topic: Subpart 47.5 - Ocean Transportation by U.S.-Flag Vessels
#### June Flon, Respondent, v. Companion Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Interpleading Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Defendant. Thomas *514Simeone et al., Interpleaded Defendants-Appellants, June Flon, Respondent, v. Companion Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Interpleading Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Defendant. Thomas Simeone et al., Interpleaded Defendants.

Order and judgment (one paper) entered on December 14, 1965, unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the respondent. entered on April 27, 1966, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The order and judgment (one paper) entered on December 14, 1965 is stayed for 30 days and stayed further if any appeal is taken or leave applied for in the same period. Interpleader and discharge are not mandatory in every case. There is allowable discretion which the court may exercise (CPLR 1006). In view of the fact that $3,000 was due to plaintiff, regardless of whose view of the controversy was accepted and inasmuch as Companion Life Insurance Company refused or, in any event, failed to pay the money to plaintiff, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in refusing to permit the company to be discharged on interpleader, Concur—■ Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jace Simmons, Chief Financial Officer of Medytox Solutions, Inc.,
certify that:



|1. |  | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Medytox Solutions, 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; and
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|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;
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date:  April 24, 2015 |  |  | /s/ Jace Simmons             
|--------------------- |  |  | -----------------------------
|                      |  |  | Jace Simmons                 
|                      |  |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                      |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 14, 2006

 Decided July 27, 2006

Before

Hon. THOMAS E. FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge

Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

Nos. 05-2599

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM C. HORSHAW,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Northern

District of Indiana, Fort Wayne

Division

No. 2:01 CR 185(4) TLS

Theresa L. Springmann, 

Judge.

O R D E R

William Horshaw pleaded guilty to two counts of using a telephone to

facilitate the commission of a felony drug offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). He was

sentenced to the statutory maximum of 96 months’ imprisonment. His appointed

counsel moves to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

contending that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Since counsel’s brief is

facially adequate, we limit our inquiry to the issues raised there and in Horshaw’s

response under Circuit Rule 51(b). See United States v. Tabb, 125 F.3d 583, 584

(7th Cir. 1997) (per curiam).

Counsel first notes that Horshaw has not expressed a desire to withdraw his

guilty plea based on an argument of involuntariness. In fact, in his Rule 51(b)

submission, Horshaw says, “I have no desire to have my conviction set aside,” and

that he is “only asking the court to rule on an unreasonable sentence.” Any

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 05-2599 Page 2

consideration of the voluntariness of his guilty plea would therefore be

inappropriate. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002).

The sentencing arguments that Horshaw raises as potential issues for an

appeal are frivolous. He received two terms of four years each, the statutory

maximum sentence, which was the sentence that was contemplated in his plea

agreement and at his plea hearing. Nevertheless, Horshaw contends that he should

not have been charged and sentenced for two counts of using a phone to commit a

felony drug offense because “[t]he calls were only 3 min[ute]s apart and therefore, I

could only receive time for the one offense.” But this ignores the plain language of

the statute, which states, “Each separate use of a communication facility shall be a

separate offense under this subsection.” 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Horshaw also argues

that he wrongfully “received punishment past the statutory maximum.” But this

simply is not so. He was given the statutory maximum term and no more for each

violation. Horshaw should count himself lucky, for his sentencing guideline range

was 135 to 168 months; the statutory maximum prevented his sentence from being

even higher. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         331,140
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  225,686
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     45,125
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               623,035
<PP&E>                                         777,605
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,210,429)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,985,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,234,229
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,185
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,739,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,985,940
<SALES>                                        827,665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,511,214
<CGS>                                          961,203
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  961,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              61,367
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (539,537)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (539,537)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (539,537)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.03)


</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case No: 3:04cr5/MCR

 3:05cv166/MCR/MD

KIMBERLY RENEE CLARKE

 /

O R D E R

This cause comes onfor consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated November 10, 2005. The defendant previously has been

furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1), and I have made a de novo determination of those portions to which an

objection has been made.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto

timely filed by the parties, I have determined that the report and recommendation

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (doc. 109) is

DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of Defendant, 2005.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cr-00005-MCR Document 156 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.2  **CERTIFICATION OF**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUTING 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 quarterly report of Canandaigua National Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence A. Heilbronner,  Principal Financial and Accounting  Officer of the Company, do hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that: 
1.   The  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section  15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act************
#### § 4284.1100 OMB control number.

The reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and have been assigned OMB control number 0570-0045.
(May 21, 1969)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Arthur A. Wannamaker, Appellant.

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Otsego County, entered February 1, 1967, which denied the defendant’s *coram nobis*application to vacate a judgment of conviction. The defendant is not presently restrained as a result of the judgment he seeks to vacate. Pursuant to *People ex rel. Bristol*v. *La Vallee*(20 N Y 2d 685, 686) the defendant was properly charged with the previously dismissed counts in the indictment. Order affirmed. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.
August 8, 2016

Mr. Charles Setaro

Charles J Setaro

27 Deer Hill Avenue

Danbury, CT 06810

Re: FAA–2016–0337

Dear Mr. Setaro:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst
#### § 61.42 Information on sampling to be kept confidential.

Every person licensed under the act as a sampler of cottonseed shall keep confidential all information secured by him relative to shipments of cottonseed sampled by him. He shall not disclose such information to any person except an authorized representative of the Department.
#### § 701.41 Cost-share assistance not subject to claims.

Any cost-share assistance or portion thereof due any participant under this part shall be allowed without regard to questions of title under State law, and without regard to any claim or lien against any crop or property, or proceeds thereof, except liens and other claims of the United States or its instrumentalities. The regulations governing offsets and withholdings at parts 792 and 1403 of this title shall be applicable to this program and the provisions most favorable to a collection of the debt shall control.
# 52.214-8 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**52.214 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of Courtney S., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[816 NYS2d 347]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma F. Cordova, J.) entered on or about June 16, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination entered May 9, 2005, that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted gang assault in the first degree, attempted assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, attempted assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the finding as to attempted gang assault in the first degree and dismissing that count of the petition, and reducing the finding as to attempted assault in the second degree to attempted assault in the third degree, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Except as indicated, the court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). However, while the credible evidence warranted the conclusion that appellant intended to cause physical injury, there was insufficient evidence from which the factfinder could infer that he intended to cause serious physical injury, or that he came dangerously close to causing such injury *(see Matter of Damien C.,*5 AD3d 281 [2004]). The evidence established the essential elements of the remaining charges.

Even with this modification, we conclude that placing appellant on probation for 12 months is the least restrictive alternative consistent with his needs and the need for protection of the community *(see Matter of Katherine W.,*62 NY2d 947 [1984]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Malone, JJ.
# L_2016296DE.01002501.xml

| 1.11.2016 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 296/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.11.2016

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 296/25

---

Berichtigung des Beschlusses 2014/668/EU des Rates vom 23. Juni 2014 über die Unterzeichnung — im Namen der Europäischen Union — und die vorläufige Anwendung des Assoziierungsabkommens zwischen der Europäischen Union, der Europäischen Atomgemeinschaft und ihren Mitgliedstaaten einerseits und der Ukraine andererseits hinsichtlich der Titel III (mit Ausnahme der Bestimmungen über die Behandlung von Drittstaatsangehörigen, die als Arbeitnehmer im Hoheitsgebiet der anderen Vertragspartei legal beschäftigt sind) und der Titel IV, V, VI und VII des Abkommens sowie der diesbezüglichen Anhänge und Protokolle

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 278 vom 20. September 2014
  )

Seite 2, Artikel 4, einleitender Satz:

Anstatt:

„Bis zum Inkrafttreten des Abkommens und im Einklang mit Artikel 486 des Abkommens und vorbehaltlich der darin vorgesehenen Notifizierungen werden die nachstehend aufgeführten Teile des Abkommens zwischen der Union und der Ukraine vorläufig angewandt (2):“

muss es heißen:

„Bis zum Inkrafttreten des Abkommens und im Einklang mit Artikel 486 des Abkommens und vorbehaltlich der darin vorgesehenen Notifikationen werden die nachstehend aufgeführten Teile des Abkommens zwischen der Union und der Ukraine vorläufig angewandt (2), allerdings nur insoweit, als sie sich auf Angelegenheiten erstrecken, die in die Zuständigkeit der Union fallen:“.

---
| Updated 12/16/98 **Survey    description**
The National Survey of Family    Growth (NSFG) is a multipurpose survey based on personal interviews with a national sample    of women 15-44 years of age in the civilian noninstitutionalized population of the United    States. Its main function is to collect data on factors affecting pregnancy and women's    health in the United States. Previous NSFG surveys were conducted in 1973, 1976, 1982,    1988, and 1990. The latest survey was conducted in 1995. 

Findings from the 1995 survey are published in NCHS'*Vital and Health Statistics*, Series 23, Number 19 report.  The report contains    data on the following topics: the number of children women have    had and the number they expect in the future; intended and unintended births; sexual intercourse; marriage and cohabitation; contraceptive use; infertility, impaired fecundity,    and sterilization operations; breastfeeding, maternity leave, and    child care; adoption, stepchildren, and foster    children; health insurance coverage; family planning and other medical    services; smoking by women 15-44 years of    age; HIV testing; Pelvic inflammatory disease and    douching; and  sex education. 

NSFG home page
**[textline.htm]** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2029
ARLENE M. BALINAO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (9:06-cv-00254-PMD) Submitted: February 11, 2008 Decided: March 18, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arlene M. Balinao, Appellant Pro Se. Terri Hearn Bailey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Arlene M. Balinao appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Attorney General and dismissing her employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Balinao v. Mukasey , No. 9:06-cv-00254-PMD (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 2007). 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