alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
               ---------------------------------------------------

October 31, 2006

Board of Directors
Gateway Distributors, Ltd.
North Las Vegas, Nevada

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-KSB/A filed
on or about November 1, 2006 of the report dated March 28, 2005, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Gateway Distributors, Ltd. for the year
ended December 31, 2004, and to our inclusion as a named expert. Our report
included an explanatory paragraph regarding Gateway's ability to continue as a
going concern.


/s/Madsen & Associates CPAs, Inc.
------------------------------------
Madsen & Associates CPAs, Inc.
Murray, Utah
EXHIBIT 99.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Wells Real Estate Fund XII, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F.
Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that:





(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
Registrant.





/s/     Leo F. Wells, IIILeo F. Wells, III Chief Executive Officer August 12, 2002
$10,000.00

                        	
                            July 22, 2009

                        


            


             


            PROMISSORY NOTE


             


            As hereinafter agreed, Wasatch Food Services, Inc. promises to pay to the order of Hobble Creek Investments, Inc., Ten Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($10,000.00). It is hereby agreed that said amount shall be payable upon demand. Interest shall accrue at the rate of Eight Percent (8%) per annum on the unpaid principal balance based on the following schedule of note advances, until the
            whole amount of the principal and interest is paid. 


             


            
                	
                            July 22, 2009

                        	
                            $ 10,000.00

                        
	
                             

                        	
                            $ 10,000.00

                        


            


             


            Should default be made in the payment of the demand note then the whole unpaid amount shall become immediately due and payable; and in the event default is made and said note is placed in the hands of an attorney for collection or suit is brought on the same, the undersigned agrees to pay all costs and attorney’s fees that might be incurred. If there is a lawsuit, borrower
            agrees upon lender’s request to submit to the jurisdiction of the county of Utah County, the State of Utah. This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah.


             


            
                	
                             

                        	
                            Dated as of the date first written above.

                        


            


             


            
                	
                             

                        	
                            Wasatch Food Services, Inc.

                        


            


             


             


            
                	
                             

                        	
                            By /s/ Ben Peay 

                        


            


            Ben Peay, President
EPA and First Choice Compliance Meeting

June 6, 2013

Attendees

EPA – Linda Gerber, Paul Miller, Cho Yi Kwan, Erin Knighton, Ryan Haerer

First Choice Compliance – Gregg Fahrenbruch, Chris Payne

EPA and First Choice Compliance met to discuss a number of issues from the proposed revisions 

to the UST regulations. The discussion included discussion of proposed monthly walkthrough 

inspections.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: RE APPOINTMENT TO COMMITTEE ON RULES OF EVIDENCE : : : : : No. 649 SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

**O R D E R**
**PER CURIA M:** 

AND NOW , this 1 5 th day of September , 201 4 , Maureen Murphy McBride, Esquire, Chester County , is hereby re appointed as a member of the Committee on Rules of Evidence for a term of three years commencing October 1, 2014

.
#### JACOBS v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9538.

Decided May 6, 1929

Lawrence A Tucker, Cleveland, for Jacobs.

*327Ray T Miller & E J Hopple, Cleveland, ' for State.

SULLIVAN, J.

It is argued that the girl herself testified that she told the defendant that she was then 18 years of age and that this in and of itself is so weakening in character that her contrary testimony given during the trial that she was only 16 years old was reduced to such an unreliable and unworthy character that it fails thereby to meet the proof required by law. There is a circumstance, however, which cannot be left out of consideration in determining the cnaracter of the evidence before the court and the effect upon the mind of the trial court and that is that the girl herself was in the nature of a profert. and subject to the examination and scrutiny of a judge of years, discernment and peculiar experience in this character of case. Therefore the evidence is 'corroborative so far as her appearance is concerned for while the evidence may not sjhow her characteristics as they appeared to the trial court, it is to be presumed from the cross-examination of the trial judge of the young girl that her appearance coincided with biis view, otherwise it would be improbable that the maximum sentence would have been imposed because such a sentence carries witH it the conclusion that tne court regarded it as a serious and reprehensible act under all the circumstances on the pgrt of defendant. This view is corroborated by an excerpt from the evidence which reads as follows:

> “Mr. Efros: If the court, please, the affidavit reads that this defendant is charged with having knowledge of the fact that she was a girl under eighteen years of age.

> The Court: Well, anybody looking at her would know she was not.”

We have had cited to us People v. Wilhite, 49 Cal. App. 46—to 193 P. 151 wherein court said:

> “It is essential to conviction for lewd acts upon a child under Penal Code, Section 288, that the child attacked was under the age_of fourteen years, and that, however must be established by evidence, the jury not being permitted to guess it from the appearance of the child on the witness stand.”

This, Of course, would have application where there was no other evidence excepting the appearance of the girl but inasmuch as we have the unchallenged testimony of the girl herself we do not think that this case applies.

It is our judgment that there was no prejudicial error committed by the court below, and this being so, this court cannot reverse, for the assignments of error stated, the judgment rendered.

Thus holding the judgment of the Juvenile Court is hereby affirmed.

Vickery, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.
§ 152.423 Investigation and enforcement. ( a ) *Complaints.* Any person who believes that he or she has been subjected to discrimination prohibited by this subpart may personally, or through a representative, file a complaint with the Director of the Departmental Office of Civil Rights. A complaint must be in writing and filed not later than 180 days after the date of the alleged discrimination, unless the time for filing is extended by the Director.
( b ) *Investigations and informal resolutions.* The Departmental Office of Civil Rights will make a prompt investigation whenever a complaint, compliance review, report, or any other information indicates a possible failure to comply with this subpart. The procedures in 49 CFR part 21, augmented as appropriate by the investigative procedures of part 13 of this chapter, will be followed, except that— ( 1 ) Compliance with a regulation of the Department applicable to minority business enterprise will be investigated and enforced through the procedures contained in that regulation; and
( 2 ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, allegations of noncompliance with regulations governing equal employment opportunity of another Federal agency or a State or local agency, will be referred, for investigation and enforcement, to the Federal agency or, in the discretion of the Departmental Office of Civil Rights, to the State or local agency.
( c ) When the FAA (under section 30 of the AADA) and another Federal agency, a referral agency recognized by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or a court have concurrent jurisdiction over a matter— ( 1 ) If the other agency or court makes a finding on the record that noncompliance or discrimination has occurred, the FAA will accept the finding, and determine what sanctions or remedies are appropriate under section 30 as a result of the finding, after permitting the party against whom the finding was made to be heard on the determination of the sanctions or remedies; or
( 2 ) If it appears that delay, through referral to another agency, will result in the continued expenditure of Federal funds under this part without compliance with this subpart, the Secretary may— ( i ) Investigate the matter;
( ii ) Make a determination as to compliance with section 30; and
( iii ) Impose appropriate sanctions and remedies.
( d ) Nothing in this section shall preclude the Director of the Departmental Office of Civil Rights from initiating an investigation when it appears that the investigation of the complaint may reveal a pattern or practice of discrimination or noncompliance with the requirements of this subpart in the employment practices of a grantee or other covered organization.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of -- )

)

John C. Grimberg Co., Inc. )

)

 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Arnie B. Mason, Esq.

Melisa A. Roy, Esq.

 Williams Mullen PC

 Tysons Corner, VA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

 Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Ellen M. Evans, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. These appeals are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: April 22, 2020

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 61243, 61244, 61245, 61425,

61426, Appeals of John C. Grimberg Co., Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s 

Charter.

Dated: April 22, 2020

ASBCA Nos. 61243, 61244, 61245

61425, 61426

Under Contract No. N40080-10-D-0492

DONALD E. KINNER

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed August 12, 2019.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00617

- CV

IN RE FIDELIS JOHNSON BADAIKI , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS Co unty Civil C ourt at Law No . 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1092824



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 9, 2019, relator Fidelis Johnson Badaiki filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( Supp. ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Lesley Briones, presiding judge of the Co unty Civil C ourt at Law No

. 4 of Harris County
, to , among other things, recuse herself or rule on various motions that are alleged ly pending

. A jury trial is scheduled for August 12, 2019 at 1:00 p.m.2 Relator also has filed a motion for temporary relief, asking this court to stay all proceeding in the trial court , pending a decision on relator’s petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10.

W ith certain exceptions not applicable in this proceeding, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy at law, such as an appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza , 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). As the party seeking relief, relator ha s the burden of providing this court with a sufficient
record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(2) requires relator to file with its petition “a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any e xhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained.” See Tex. R. App.
P. 52.7.

Relator has not established or provided a record showing he is entitled to mandamus relief. We therefore deny rel ator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
§ 77.15 Scope. ( a ) This subpart describes standards used to determine obstructions to air navigation that may affect the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace and the operation of planned or existing air navigation and communication facilities. Such facilities include air navigation aids, communication equipment, airports, Federal airways, instrument approach or departure procedures, and approved off-airway routes.
( b ) Objects that are considered obstructions under the standards described in this subpart are presumed hazards to air navigation unless further aeronautical study concludes that the object is not a hazard. Once further aeronautical study has been initiated, the FAA will use the standards in this subpart, along with FAA policy and guidance material, to determine if the object is a hazard to air navigation.
( c ) The FAA will apply these standards with reference to an existing airport facility, and airport proposals received by the FAA, or the appropriate military service, before it issues a final determination.
( d ) For airports having defined runways with specially prepared hard surfaces, the primary surface for each runway extends 200 feet beyond each end of the runway. For airports having defined strips or pathways used regularly for aircraft takeoffs and landings, and designated runways, without specially prepared hard surfaces, each end of the primary surface for each such runway shall coincide with the corresponding end of the runway. At airports, excluding seaplane bases, having a defined landing and takeoff area with no defined pathways for aircraft takeoffs and landings, a determination must be made as to which portions of the landing and takeoff area are regularly used as landing and takeoff pathways. Those determined pathways must be considered runways, and an appropriate primary surface as defined in § 77.19 will be considered as longitudinally centered on each such runway. Each end of that primary surface must coincide with the corresponding end of that runway.
( e ) The standards in this subpart apply to construction or alteration proposals on an airport (including heliports and seaplane bases with marked lanes) if that airport is one of the following before the issuance of the final determination: ( 1 ) Available for public use and is listed in the Airport/Facility Directory, Supplement Alaska, or Supplement Pacific of the U.S. Government Flight Information Publications; or
( 2 ) A planned or proposed airport or an airport under construction of which the FAA has received actual notice, except DOD airports, where there is a clear indication the airport will be available for public use; or,
( 3 ) An airport operated by a Federal agency or the DOD; or,
( 4 ) An airport that has at least one FAA-approved instrument approach.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.4


                            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 Quarterly Report of NEON Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian D. Helman,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350,
as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Brian D. Helman
----------------------------------
Brian D. Helman
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2002
# AGENCY:

 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. 

# ACTION:

 Notice of public meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

 The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (PFMC) Groundfish Management Team (GMT) will hold a working meeting which is open to the public. 

# DATES:

 The GMT working meeting will be begin Monday, February 7, 2000, at 1 p.m. and may go into the evening until business for the day is completed. The meeting will reconvene from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Tuesday, February 8 through Friday, February 11. 

# ADDRESSES:

 The meetings will be held at the Pacific Fishery Management Council office, Conference Room, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR; telephone: 503-326-6352. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Jim Glock, Groundfish Fishery Management Coordinator; telephone: (503) 326-6352. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 The purpose of the GMT meeting is to prepare reports and technical advice for the upcoming PFMC meeting and in support of PFMC decisions throughout the year. The GMT will discuss, receive reports, and/or prepare reports on the following topics during this working session: (1) GMT organization and work plan for 2000; (2) exempted fishing permits; (3) strategic plan; (4) estimation of rockfish bycatch rates in setnet and other open access fisheries; (5) review observer program amendment, if available; (6) preparation for harvest rate workshop; (7) review of 2000 management measures and preparation of plan amendment; (8) plan amendment for bycatch and other issues; (9) review proposal to allow use of open access gear to harvest limited entry trip limits; (10) other issues including marine reserves and habitat areas of particular concern. 

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. 

## Special Accommodations 

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. John Rhoton at (503) 326-6352 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Dated: January 12, 2000. 

Bruce C. Morehead, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 00-1206 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Exhibit 4.4

Participation agreement dated 20 December 2002 between TNT Post Groep N.V. and the  Stichting pensioenfonds TNT Post Groep (English summary of Dutch agreement)

(Aansluitingsovereenkomst van de TNT Post Groep N.V. bij de Stichting pensioenfonds TNT Post Groep)

English
summary





The company has the obligation to register all its employees that are subject to our Dutch collective labour agreement for participation in the Fund.

The
Fund shall grant participating employees pension entitlements in accordance with its articles of association and pension scheme. The company has the obligation to pay the yearly
premiums to the Fund to cover the financial consequences of the obligations of the Fund under its articles of association and pension scheme.

The
Fund requires prior written approval of the company for the following resolutions:



---



QuickLinks
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.420 Saving clause.

Repeal, revision or amendment of any of the economic regulatory provisions of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII or of the Department's rules, regulations, orders, or other requirements shall not affect any pending enforcement proceeding or any enforcement proceeding initiated thereafter with respect to causes arising or acts committed prior to said repeal, revision or amendment, unless the act of repeal, revision or amendment specifically so provides.
Editorial Note on Part 47
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 75 FR 41979, July 20, 2010.

§ 47.49 Replacement of Certificate. ( a ) If the original Certificate of Aircraft Registration, AC Form 8050-3, is lost, stolen, or mutilated, the registered owner may submit to the Registry a written request that states the reason a replacement certificate is needed and the fee required by § 47.17. The Registry will send a replacement certificate to the registered owner's mailing address or to another mailing address if requested in writing by the registered owner.
( b ) The registered owner may request a temporary Certificate of Aircraft Registration pending receipt of a replacement certificate. The Registry issues a temporary Certificate of Aircraft Registration in the form of a fax that must be carried in the aircraft until receipt of the replacement certificate.
[Amdt. 47-29, 75 FR 41982, July 20, 2010]
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 1 , 202 4

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 4

- 00 173

- CV

DEVONTE DAVIS AND NUR ALMUSAWI , Appellant s
V. HUTCH STILGENBAUER, M.D. , Appelle e

On Appeal from the 270 th District Court Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2023

- 70651

MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal is from a judgment signed February 26, 2024

. The court reporter indicated on April 8, 2024 that there was not a reporter’s record. The clerk’s record was filed June 18, 2024 . No brief was filed.

On September 4, 2024 , we issued a notice stating that unless appellant s filed a brief on or before September 16, 2024 , the appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 42.3(b).2 Appellant s filed no brief or other response. We dismiss the appeal

. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.