alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                         -------------------------------


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 October 26, 2006, relating to
the consolidated financial statements of Gateway Distributors, Ltd. for the year
ended December 31, 2005, 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/ Lawrence Scharfman

Lawrence Scharfman, CPA PC
9608 Honey Bell Circle
Boynton Beach, Florida 33437
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4927 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4927

     To exclude EIDL advance amounts from the calculation of loan 
   forgiveness under the paycheck protection program, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 30, 2020

   Mr. King (for himself, Mr. Daines, and Mr. Tester) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Small Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To exclude EIDL advance amounts from the calculation of loan 
   forgiveness under the paycheck protection program, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``EIDL Forgiveness Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF EIDL ADVANCE AMOUNTS FROM CALCULATION OF LOAN 
              FORGIVENESS UNDER THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 1106 of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9005) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(m) Exclusion of Certain Amounts.--The amount of loan forgiveness 
an eligible recipient may receive under this section shall be 
determined without regard to the amount of any advance the eligible 
recipient received under section 1110(e) of this Act.''.
    (b) Paycheck Protection Program.--Section 7(a)(36)(G) of the Small 
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)(G)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Borrower requirements'' and all that 
        follows through ``eligible recipient applying'' and inserting 
        ``Borrower certification requirements.--An eligible recipient 
        applying'';
            (2) by redesignating subclauses (I) through (IV) as clauses 
        (i) through (iv), respectively, and adjusting the margin 
        accordingly; and
            (3) in clause (iv) (as so redesignated), by inserting 
        before the period at the end the following: ``, except for the 
        amount of any advance the eligible recipient received under 
        section 1110(e) of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9009(e))''.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 45
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 45 appear at 74 FR 53394, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 45.25 Location of marks on fixed-wing aircraft. ( a ) The operator of a fixed-wing aircraft must display the required marks on either the vertical tail surfaces or the sides of the fuselage, except as provided in § 45.29(f).
( b ) The marks required by paragraph (a) of this section must be displayed as follows: ( 1 ) If displayed on the vertical tail surfaces, horizontally on both surfaces, horizontally on both surfaces of a single vertical tail or on the outer surfaces of a multivertical tail. However, on aircraft on which marks at least 3 inches high may be displayed in accordance with § 45.29(b)(1), the marks may be displayed vertically on the vertical tail surfaces.
( 2 ) If displayed on the fuselage surfaces, horizontally on both sides of the fuselage between the trailing edge of the wing and the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer. However, if engine pods or other appurtenances are located in this area and are an integral part of the fuselage side surfaces, the operator may place the marks on those pods or appurtenances.
[Amdt. 45-9, 42 FR 41102, Aug. 15, 1977]
§ 1470.37 Subgrants. ( a ) *States.* States shall follow State law and procedures when awarding and administering subgrants (whether on a cost reimbursement or fixed amount basis) of financial assistance to local and Indian tribal governments. States shall: ( 1 ) Ensure that every subgrant includes any clauses required by Federal statute and executive orders and their implementing regulations;
( 2 ) Ensure that subgrantees are aware of requirements imposed upon them by Federal statute and regulation;
( 3 ) Ensure that a provision for compliance with § 1470.42 is placed in every cost reimbursement subgrant; and
( 4 ) Conform any advances of grant funds to subgrantees substantially to the same standards of timing and amount that apply to cash advances by Federal agencies.
( b ) *All other grantees.* All other grantees shall follow the provisions of this part which are applicable to awarding agencies when awarding and administering subgrants (whether on a cost reimbursement or fixed amount basis) of financial assistance to local and Indian tribal governments. Grantees shall: ( 1 ) Ensure that every subgrant includes a provision for compliance with this part;
( 2 ) Ensure that every subgrant includes any clauses required by Federal statute and executive orders and their implementing regulations; and
( 3 ) Ensure that subgrantees are aware of requirements imposed upon them by Federal statutes and regulations.
( c ) *Exceptions.* By their own terms, certain provisions of this part do not apply to the award and administration of subgrants: ( 1 ) Section 1470.10;
( 2 ) Section 1470.11;
( 3 ) The letter-of-credit procedures specified in Treasury Regulations at 31 CFR part 205, cited in § 1470.21; and
( 4 ) Section 1470.50.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas May 16, 2022 No. 04-22-00150-CV IN THE INTEREST OF K.V.C., A CHILD From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021PA00561 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice This is an accelerated appeal from a final order terminating appellants’ parental rights which must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was filed. See T EX . R. J UD . A DMIN . 6.2. Appellee has filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file the appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED. The appellee’s brief is due on or before May 23, 2022

. Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for extensions of time will be disfavored.

It is so ORDERED on May 16, 2022. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, CLERK OF COURT
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Wilderville quadrangle, Oregon :7.5-minute series (topographic)
 
2012 | 2014 | 2015 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:
Item Number:
CGP systemNumber:
 
October 23, 2017
#### § 102.131 Solicitation of prohibited communications.

No person may knowingly and willfully solicit the making of an unauthorized *ex parte* communication by any other person.

[82 FR 11778, Feb. 24, 2017]
§ 1601.93 Opinions—title VII. Only the following may be relied upon as a “written interpretation or opinion of the Commission” within the meaning of section 713 of title VII: ( a ) A letter entitled “opinion letter” and signed by the Legal Counsel on behalf of and as approved by the Commission, or, if issued in the conduct of litigation, by the General Counsel on behalf of and as approved by the Commission, or
( b ) Matter published and specifically designated as such in the Federal Register, including the Commission's Guidelines on Affirmative Action, or
( c ) A Commission determination of no reasonable cause, issued, under the circumstances described in § 1608.10 (a) or (b) of the Commission's Guidelines on Affirmative Action, 29 CFR part 1608, when such determination contains a statement that it is a “written interpretation or opinion of the Commission.”
[49 FR 31411, Aug. 7, 1984. Redesignated at 56 FR 9626, Mar. 7, 1991]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Armando Perez, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 56]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gorges, J.), rendered February 26, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and certain identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the recovery by the police of, *inter alia,*a baseball bat, which appeared to be bloody, from under a dumpster near where the defendant was standing with six other men, as well as the recovery of a gun and knives, established probable cause to arrest the defendant *(see,*
      *568
      *People v White,*232 AD2d 437; *People v Brown,*215 AD2d 333; *People v Johnson,*102 AD2d 616).

Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94; *People v Newell,*173 AD2d 864). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Persaud,*237 AD2d 538), and in any event, without merit. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
ex10-3.htm


    
      EXHIBIT 10.3

    


    Revised
Compensatory Arrangement for Reed N. Brimhall

    


    On
September 3, 2009, URS Corporation’s Compensation Committee increased the annual
base salary of Reed N. Brimhall from $450,000 to $480,000 and increased his
target bonus from 60% to 75% of base salary.

     

    
      i
###### Editorial Note on Part 1615

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1615 appear at 73 FR 39866, July 11, 2008.

#### § 1615.102 Application.

This part applies to all programs or activities conducted by the Commission and to its development, procurement, maintenance, and use of electronic and information technology.

[73 FR 39866, July 11, 2008]
Exhibit 32



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 Greens Worldwide Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Connie S. Ross, 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:



(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/ Connie S. Ross



Connie S. Ross

Chief Executive Officer

May 17, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.









---

Exhibit 32



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 Greens Worldwide Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Margaret M. Eardley, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



(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/ Margaret M. Eardley



Margaret M. Eardley

Acting Chief Financial Officer

May 17, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[No. 49361-2-I.

Division One.

November 25, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Tony W. Costello, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 00-1-01846-7, Jay V. White, J., entered September 14, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE: SHEIKHA LATEEFAH ALSABAH, Appellant

______________________

2015

- 1264

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

, in No. 29/234,717.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

D AVID E. D OUGHERTY , Hauptman Ham, LLP, Alexa ndria, VA, argued for appellant. Also represented by S EAN A. P ASSINO

.

M ONICA B ARNES L ATEEF , Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by
T HOMAS W. K RAUSE

, M ARY L. K ELLY
, J AMIE L YNNE S IMPSON

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN

, C LEVENGER

, and O’M ALLEY

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

October 16, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Date Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF 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 Report of Sorell, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, Bon Kwan Koo,
President 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:

1. the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:     November 30, 2006    /s/Bon Kwan Koo
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Bon Kwan Koo, President and
                                         Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE ex Hile v. ZANGERLE, et.

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.

No. 9582..

Decided Oct. 8, 1928.

George D. Hile, Cleveland, for State ex.

Edward C. Stanton, Pros. Atty., and E. J. Thobaben, Asst. Pros. Atty., Cleveland, for Zangerle et.

*9VICKERY, J.

Commissioners are men of judgment and are capable of deciding this question as well ás some passers-by might be, and the claim that they did not hear witnesses is not well founded.

Now it is claimed by Mr. Hile that the County has no right to purchase land for a Morgue.

Now does the statute permit this sort of construction? We think it - does. We think, under this section of the statute, it might be possible for the County Commissioners of Cuyahoga County, if they deem it wise and necessary and for the general good, to build a county morgue, they could build one, and for that purpose they could acquire land upon which it is to be built. And so there must have been a purpose in the minds of the Legislature which would authorize the County Commissioners, under certain circumstances, if they deemed it wise or necessary for the general good to build other county buildings than those expressly named in the statute, among which might well be classed the Morgue.

Now as a matter of fact it is not the intention of the County. Commissioners to build a Morgue. They seek to provide in this way for an alley or roadway alongside of the Morgue, for the purpose of properly conducting the business which is done at the Morgue. We think this is a perfectly proper thing to do and all requirements of law that we know of having been complied with and there being nothing in the record to show that the purchase price of this land yas unreasonable or that they are giving the taxpayers’ money away, or that they are not getting value received,for thirty-three feet of land on a street like Lakeside Avenue right in front of the City Hall would easily be worth Twenty-Six Thousand Dollars at the way land goes in the City of Cleveland, -we can see no reason why the injunction should be granted and it- will therefore be refused and the entry will be, decree for defendant, order see journal.

Sullivan, P. J. and Levine, J., concur.
§ 1470.12 Special grant or subgrant conditions for “high-risk” grantees. ( a ) A grantee or subgrantee may be considered “high risk” if an awarding agency determines that a grantee or subgrantee: ( 1 ) Has a history of unsatisfactory performance, or
( 2 ) Is not financially stable, or
( 3 ) Has a management system which does not meet the management standards set forth in this part, or
( 4 ) Has not conformed to terms and conditions of previous awards, or
( 5 ) Is otherwise not responsible; and if the awarding agency determines that an award will be made, special conditions and/or restrictions shall correspond to the high risk condition and shall be included in the award.
( b ) Special conditions or restrictions may include: ( 1 ) Payment on a reimbursement basis;
( 2 ) Withholding authority to proceed to the next phase until receipt of evidence of acceptable performance within a given funding period;
( 3 ) Requiring additional, more detailed financial reports;
( 4 ) Additional project monitoring;
( 5 ) Requiring the grante or subgrantee to obtain technical or management assistance; or
( 6 ) Establishing additional prior approvals.
( c ) If an awarding agency decides to impose such conditions, the awarding official will notify the grantee or subgrantee as early as possible, in writing, of: ( 1 ) The nature of the special conditions/restrictions;
( 2 ) The reason(s) for imposing them;
( 3 ) The corrective actions which must be taken before they will be removed and the time allowed for completing the corrective actions and
( 4 ) The method of requesting reconsideration of the conditions/restrictions imposed.
July 30, 2015

Mr. Chris Hand

Director of Operations

Key Air, LLC

3 Juliano Drive, Suite 201

Oxford, CT 06478

Dear Mr. Hand :

This is in response to your docket submission letter dated June 23, 2015 and supplemental

Information submitted July 21, 2015 (public docket No. FAA

- 20 11

- 0 33 7 ) petitioning the

Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Key Air, LLC ( Key Air ) for an exemption from

§ 1 35 .225 ( f ) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) . That exemption, if granted,

would allow Key Air to mak e instrument flight rules (IFR) takeoffs from foreign and military

airports when the visibility is less than 1 statute mile or make an instrument approach when

the visibility is less than 1⁄2 mile

.

On January 11, 2012, the FAA amended 14 CFR § 135.225(f) re lating to takeoff, approach

, and landing minimums (77 FR 1629). A copy of this rule change is enclosed for your

information.

Because the relief you seek is now covered under the current rule, we will take no further

action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brandon Roberts

Manager, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          27,256
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,459
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (140)
<INVENTORY>                                        723
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,258
<PP&E>                                           6,811
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,638)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,750
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,213
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           167
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,370
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,750
<SALES>                                          3,320
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,320
<CGS>                                            2,474
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,178)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,287)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,178)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.66)


</TABLE>