alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT


We consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form 10-SB/A of our
report included herein dated March 20, 2000, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Medsearch Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries.



Kempisty & Company
Certified Public Accountants PC
New York, NY
July 24, 2000
# C_2021509EN.01002301.xml

| 17.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 509/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 509/23

---

Corrigendum to the euro exchange rates — 26 November 2021

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 482 of 30 November 2021
  )

(2021/C 509/14)

On the cover page:

for:

‘Euro exchange rates — 26 November 2021’,

read:

‘Euro exchange rates – 29 November 2021’.

On page 1, the text is replaced by the following:

‘Euro exchange rates (1)

29 November 2021

(2021/C 000/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1276 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,21 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4367 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84583 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2903 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,044 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 147 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,214 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,671 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 368,58 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6962 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9498 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 14,3166 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5782 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4362 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,795 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6552 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5441 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 344,73 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 18,2509 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2002 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,529 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 193,78 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7793 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,787 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 84,0171 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,978 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,3184 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 24,67 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,6635 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1276

JPY

Japanese yen

128,21

DKK

Danish krone

7,4367

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84583

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2903

CHF

Swiss franc

1,044

ISK

Iceland króna

147

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,214

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,671

HUF

Hungarian forint

368,58

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6962

RON

Romanian leu

4,9498

TRY

Turkish lira

14,3166

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5782

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4362

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,795

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6552

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5441

KRW

South Korean won

1 344,73

ZAR

South African rand

18,2509

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2002

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,529

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 193,78

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7793

PHP

Philippine peso

56,787

RUB

Russian rouble

84,0171

THB

Thai baht

37,978

BRL

Brazilian real

6,3184

MXN

Mexican peso

24,67

INR

Indian rupee

84,6635

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.’

1

Source

---
EXHIBIT
31.1




CERTIFICATION




I, Peter
Frugone, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Arrow Resources Development,
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(s) and I am 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 we 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):









a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial
reporting.




Date: November
17, 2010.




/s/ Peter
Frugone


Chief
Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3288 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3288

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to make technical 
    corrections with respect to the definition of qualifying State.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3288

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to make technical 
    corrections with respect to the definition of qualifying State.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF 
              QUALIFYING STATE UNDER TITLE XXI OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY 
              ACT.

    Effective as if included in the enactment of Public Law 108-74, 
section 2105(g)(2) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 1(b) 
of such Act, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``185'' the first place it appears and 
        inserting ``184'';
            (2) by inserting ``August 1, 1994, or'' before ``July 1, 
        1995''; and
            (3) by inserting before the period at the end the 
        following: ``, or, in the case of a State that had a statewide 
        waiver in effect under section 1115 with respect to title XIX 
        that was first implemented on October 1, 1993, had an income 
        eligibility standard under such waiver for children that was at 
        least 185 percent of the poverty line and on and after July 1, 
        1998, has an income eligibility standard for children under 
        section 1902(a)(10)(A) or a statewide waiver in effect under 
        section 1115 with respect to title XIX that is at least 185 
        percent of the poverty line''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 20, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Oscar Feldenkreis,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Perry Ellis International, Inc.; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: June 1, 2018/s/ Oscar FeldenkreisOscar Feldenkreis Chief Executive Officer and
President (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Louis A. Pick, Respondent, *v.*Oscar Bartelstone et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of blew York, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiff upon a trial had before the court, without a jury.

Action for work, labor and services performed, and for material furnished.

Meyer & Friend (Theo. H. Friend, of counsel), for appellants.

Moses Cowen, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The uncontradicted proof shows that the sketches were delivered to the defendants for examination with a view of obtaining from them orders for work, and that when the plaintiff rendered them a hill containing an item of charge therefor, they returned the sketches and the foimer then “ crossed out ” such item from the hill. Under these circumstances, a recovery for work, labor and services rendered and materials furnished cannot be sustained.

The plaintiff contends, however, that the sketches were returned in such a mutilated condition that they are practically valueless.

Even conceding this to be so, damages upon that theory cannot be recovered in the action as now framed.

The judgment must, therefore, he reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the' appellants to abide the event.

Present: Beekmak, P. J., Giegebicii and O’Gobmak, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.
#### Hattaway *v.*First National Bank of Blakely.

Beck, P. J.

1. The court charged the jury in part as follows: “If you believe that the security deed in question was executed in consideration of the defendant bank’s promise to renew or extend the maturity of J. E. Hattaway’s indebtedness to the bank, this would be a sufficient legal consideration to support a security deed, and the same would be valid.” This is excepted to upon the ground that it violates the law prohibiting an expression of opinion by the court upon the facts of the case. The charge is not open to the criticism made.

2. The court did not err in refusing to allow an amendment to the petition in this case, wherein it was alleged in substance that certain notes secured by the security deed which petitioner was seeking to have set aside were also, secured by the deposit of fifty bales of cotton made by her brother, J. E. Hattaway, at a time prior to the renewal of the notes to the bank on the third day of April, 1922; that in the fall of the next year petitioner “did, through her agent [naming him], order said bank to sell the cotton and apply the same in settlement of said notes, and *145said bank promised to sell the same, but failed to do so; that said cotton was sufficient in value to have satisfied the indebtedness if the same had been sold, and the failure of the bank to sell the same increased her risk as surety and discharged her from said indebtedness as surety.” *Stewart*v. *Barrow,*55 *Ga.*664; *Timmons*v. *Butler,*138 *Ga.*69 (74 S. E. 784); *Johnson*v. *Longley,*142 *Ga.*814 (83 S. E. 952); Civil Code, § 3548.

No. 8904.

July 15, 1932.

3. Where an amendment had been disallowed by the court, it was not error for the court to exclude evidence offered to support the allegations of such amendment.

4. The evidence authorized the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*146*W. V. Custer &*Son, for plaintiff.

*A. H. Gray*and Pottle, *Farkas &*Cobb, for defendant.
§ 602.7 Confidential business information. ( a ) *FCA disclosure.* FCA may disclose business information from a business submitter only under this section. This section will not apply if: ( 1 ) We decide the business submitter has no valid basis to object to disclosure;
( 2 ) The information has been published lawfully or made available to the public; or
( 3 ) Law (other than the FOIA) requires disclosure of the information.
( b ) *Notice by FCA.* When we receive a request for confidential business information, the FOIA Officer will promptly tell the requester and the business submitter in writing that the responsive records may be free from disclosure under the FOIA. We will give the business submitter a reasonable time to object to the proposed disclosure of the responsive records and tell the requester whenever: ( 1 ) The business submitter has in good faith labeled the information a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential. We will provide such notice for 10 years after receiving the information unless the business submitter justifies the need for a longer period; or
( 2 ) We believe that disclosing the information may result in commercial or financial injury to the business submitter.
( c ) *Objection to release.* A business submitter who objects to our releasing the requested information should tell us in writing why the information is a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential.
( d ) *FCA response.* ( 1 ) We will consider carefully a business submitter's objections. If we decide to disclose business information over the submitter's objection, the FOIA Officer will explain to the submitter in writing why we disagreed with the submitter's objection and describe the business information to be disclosed.
( 2 ) We will tell the requester and the submitter the proposed disclosure date at the same time.
( 3 ) If a submitter sues to prevent release, we will promptly tell the requester and will not disclose the business information until after the court's decision.
( 4 ) If a requester sues to compel disclosure, we will promptly tell the business submitter.
§ 252.47 Corporate use of stress test results. ( a ) *In general.* The board of directors and senior management of each covered company must consider the results of the analysis conducted by the Board under this subpart, as appropriate: ( 1 ) As part of the covered company's capital plan and capital planning process, including when making changes to the covered company's capital structure (including the level and composition of capital);
( 2 ) When assessing the covered company's exposures, concentrations, and risk positions; and
( 3 ) In the development or implementation of any plans of the covered company for recovery or resolution.
( b ) *Resolution plan updates.* Each covered company must update its resolution plan as the Board determines appropriate, based on the results of the Board's analyses of the covered company under this subpart.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3234 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3234

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 14 Chestnut Street in Liberty, New York, as the ``Ben R. Gerow Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 2, 2003

  Mr. Hinchey (for himself, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. 
   Boehlert, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Engel, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Houghton, Mr. 
  Israel, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. King of New York, Mrs. Lowey, Mrs. Maloney, 
 Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. McHugh, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Meeks of New 
 York, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Owens, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. 
  Serrano, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Towns, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. 
    Walsh, and Mr. Weiner) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 14 Chestnut Street in Liberty, New York, as the ``Ben R. Gerow Post 
                           Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BEN R. GEROW POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 14 Chestnut Street in Liberty, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Ben R. Gerow Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Ben R. Gerow 
Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1

                                                                     SCHEDULE X

EMCARE HOLDINGS INC.
ALLOWANCE FOR CONTRACTUAL ADJUSTMENTS AND
CHARITY AND OTHER ADJUSTMENTS
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, 1995, AND 1994
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    BALANCE AT          ADDITIONS           REDUCTIONS,        BALANCE AT
                                    BEGINNING OF        CHARGED TO            NET OF             END OF
                                       PERIOD             INCOME            RECOVERIES           PERIOD
                                 -----------------  ------------------  -----------------  -----------------
<S>                                   <C>                <C>                <C>                 <C>
1996 .........................        $42,798            $118,571           ($88,758            $ 72,611
1995 .........................         26,619             102,985            -86,806              42,798
1994 .........................         19,856              76,613            -69,850              26,619
</TABLE>
#### Moschcowitz Brothers, Appellants, *v.*Emma N. Flint, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

December, 1900.)

Evidence — Expert may give an opinion as to how a coat should be altered.

An expert may give his opinion as to the manner in which an old-fashioned Persian lamb coat should be altered into a short coat of later fashion, and the exclusion of such evidence is reversible error.

Appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the defendant, upon a trial had before the court, without a jury.

The nature of the action and the facts, so far as they are material, are stated in the opinion.

Leopold Moschoowitz, for appellants.

Edward J. Newell, for respondent.

Giegerich, J.

The action is to recover the sum of sixty-six dollars for services performed and materials furnished in making over an old-fashioned Persian lamb coat into an Eton short coat of later fashion. The answer sets up by way of defense and counterclaim that, in making the alterations, a large and valuable part of the fur of the original garment was cut off and retained by the plaintiffs, contrary to special agreement alleged to have been made between the parties litigant, to the effect that the plaintiffs should return to the defendant all portions of such fur as should not be necessarily used in the alteration of the garment. The testimony offered by the defendant tended to show that the coat was in good condition when delivered to the plaintiffs, and that the latter’s workmen cut away the bottom of it. The evidence produced in plaintiffs’ behalf, on the other hand, was to the effect that the coat was old, and worn out in certain parte under the arms and on the shoulders, and that the proper way of altering such a coat into an Eton coat was by raising it up under the arms and not by cutting away the bottom. Nathan Greenberger, a witness called *481by the plaintiffs, after qualifying as an expert, was asked this question: “Assuming that this garment that was made over by the plaintiffs was in an old, decayed condition at certain parts under the arms and on the shoulders, what would be the proper way of altering it into a short Eton coat? ” This was objected to by the defendant’s counsel, the objection was sustained and the plaintiffs noted an exception. It was competent for the expert to give his opinion as to the manner in which the coat ought to have been altered. Conrad v. Trustees of Village of Ithaca, 16 N. Y. 158, 173; Ward v. Kilpatrick, 85 id. 413, 416; Jones Ev. § 382; Abb. Tr. Ev. (2d ed.) 720. Such testimony, if admitted, would have strengthened the plaintiffs’ contention with respect to the proper mode of making the alterations, and hence its exclusion was error calling for a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

Beekmah, P. J., and O’Gobmaw, J., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.
#### § 268.301 Negotiated grievance procedure.

When an employee of the Board, which is not an agency subject to 5 U.S.C. 7121(d), is covered by a negotiated grievance procedure, allegations of discrimination shall be processed as complaints under this part, except that the time limits for processing the complaint contained in § 268.105 and for appeal to the Commission contained in § 268.402 may be held in abeyance during processing of a grievance covering the same matter as the complaint if the Board notifies the complainant in writing that the complaint will be held in abeyance pursuant to this section.