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

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
2-89135, 33-28533 and 333-15377 of North American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc.
(formerly Kinark Corporation) on Forms S-8 and No. 333-61393 on Form S-3 of our
report dated April 12, 2005 appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
North American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2004.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Tulsa, Oklahoma
April 12, 2005
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.74 Purpose. ( a ) The regulations in this subpart establish procedures to implement section 5 of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-365), 5 U.S.C. 5514. This statute authorizes the head of each agency to deduct from the current pay account of an employee (*salary offset*) when the employee owes money to the United States. This subpart specifies the agency procedures that will be available in a *salary offset* by the Department of Labor of an employee's current pay account.
( b ) Administrative offset is defined in 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(1) as “withholding money payable by the United States Government, to or held by the Government for a person to satisfy a debt the person owes the Government.”
A salary offset is a form of administrative offset and is separately authorized and governed by 5 U.S.C. 5514. This authority is consistent with and supplemented by administrative offset regulations of subpart B of 29 CFR part 20.
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

§ 4.141 General criteria for measuring amount. ( a ) In general, the contract amount is measured by the consideration agreed to be paid, whether in money or other valuable consideration, in return for the obligations assumed under the contract. Thus, even though a contractor, such as a wrecker entering into a contract with the Government to raze a building on a site which will remain vacant, may not be entitled to receive any money from the Government for such work under his contract or may even agree to pay the Government in return for the right to dispose of the salvaged materials, the contract will be deemed one in excess of $2,500 if the value of the property obtained by the contractor, less anything he might pay the Government, is in excess of such amount. In addition, concession contracts are considered to be contracts in excess of $2,500 if the contractor's gross receipts under the contract may exceed $2,500.
( b ) All bids from the same person on the same invitation for bids will constitute a single offer, and the total award to such person will determine the amount involved for purposes of the Act. Where the procurement is made without formal advertising, in arriving at the aggregate amount involved, there must be included all property and services which would properly be grouped together in a single transaction and which would be included in a single advertisement for bids if the procurement were being effected by formal advertising. Therefore, if an agency procures continuing services through the issuance of monthly purchase orders, the amount of the contract for purposes of application of the Act is not measured by the amount of an individual purchase order. In such cases, if the continuing services were procured through formal advertising, the contract term would typically be for one year, and the monthly purchase orders must be grouped together to determine whether the yearly amount may exceed $2,500. However, a purchase order for services which are not continuing but are performed on a one-time or sporadic basis and which are not performed under a requirements contract or under the terms of a basic ordering agreement or similar agreement need not be equated to a yearly amount. (See § 4.142(b).) In addition, where an invitation is for services in an amount in excess of $2,500 and bidders are permitted to bid on a portion of the services not amounting to more than $2,500, the amounts of the contracts awarded separately to individual and unrelated bidders will be measured by the portions of the services covered by their respective contracts.
( c ) Where a contract is issued in an amount in excess of $2,500 this amount will govern for purposes of application of the Act even though penalty deductions, deductions for prompt payment, and similar deductions may reduce the amount actually expended by the Government to $2,500 or less.
Exhibit 10.19 to 2008 10-K

AMENDMENT TO

CONVERGYS CORPORATION RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS PLAN

(EGTRRA RESTATEMENT)

The Convergys
Corporation Retirement and Savings Plan is hereby amended in the following respect:

A new section 1.3.2 is added reading as follows:

1.3.2 Effective April 10, 2008, the account balances of certain Plan Participants who were previously employed by
G&A Staffsourcing Inc. under the G&A Staffsourcing Inc. Multiple Employer 401(k) Plan (G&A Plan) were transferred to the Plan. As of the transfer date, the terms of the Plan shall govern, in all respects, including but not
limited to the investment, withdrawal and distribution of, the amounts transferred from the G&A Plan.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Convergys
Corporation has hereunto caused its name to be subscribed this 23rd day of December, 2008.



CONVERGYS CORPORATIONBy:

/s/ Patrick DearingTitle:

Sr. Director, Global Benefits
(77 South. 1003)

#### EMPIRE FUEL & IRON CO. v. WARD.

(6 Div. 414.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 29, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John C. Pugh, Judge.

Henry J. Martin, of Birmingham, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 24


                            THE LAMSON & SESSIONS CO.


                          DIRECTORS' POWER OF ATTORNEY
                          ----------------------------

         Each of the undersigned members of the Board of Directors of The Lamson
& Sessions Co., an Ohio corporation, which anticipates filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D. C., an annual report of the
Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2000 ("2000 Form
10-K") under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, does
hereby constitute and appoint James J. Abel and John B. Schulze, jointly and
severally, with full power and substitution and re-substitution, as attorney(s)
to sign for him and in his name, in the capacities indicated below, the 2000
Form 10-K, including any amendments and exhibits thereto, with full power and
authority to do and perform any and all acts and things whatsoever necessary and
required to be done in connection with such signing as fully to all intents and
purposes as he would do if personally present, hereby ratifying and approving
the acts of said attorney(s) and any substitutes(s) therefor in connection with
such signing:

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands as of
the 21st day of February 2001.


/s/ James T. Bartlett                       /s/ John C. Dannemiller
----------------------------------          ------------------------------------
James T. Bartlett                           John C. Dannemiller
Director                                    Director


/s/ Francis H. Beam, Jr.                    /s/ George R. Hill
----------------------------------          ------------------------------------
Francis H. Beam, Jr.                        George R. Hill
Director                                    Director


/s/ William H. Coquillette                  /s/ A. Malachi Mixon, III
----------------------------------          ------------------------------------
William H. Coquillette                      A. Malachi Mixon, III
Director                                    Director


/s/ Martin J. Cleary                        /s/ John C. Morley
----------------------------------          ------------------------------------
Martin J. Cleary                            John C. Morley
Director                                    Director


                             /s/ D. Van Skilling
                             ----------------------------------
                             D. Van Skilling
                             Director
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

	I, John B. Dicus, certify that:

	1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Capitol Federal Financial;

	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 officers and I are 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 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 officers 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 			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 control over financial reporting.

 

Date: August 4, 2005

					By:	/s/ John B. Dicus                                    

						John B. Dicus, President and 

						Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         131,993
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,848,214
<DEPRECIATION>                                (874,201)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,405,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,259
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,792
<OTHER-SE>                                    (394,043)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,405,311
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               157,499
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,935
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,756
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (79,465)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (79,465)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (79,465)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.17)



</TABLE>
#### Theodore Moeller, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. Elise Stocker, *Defendant in Error.*

Where a writ of error is taken to a judgment rendered by a circuit court in a habeas corpus proceeding, and no *scire facias*has been issued or served on the defendant in errór, and there is no appearance of the defendant in error in the appellate court, the writ of error will be dismissed even though it had been recorded in the chancery order book. Even if a habeas corpus proceeding to award the custody of an infant child is a civil action within the meaning of section 1704 of the General Statutes, the writ of error should be recorded in the minute book of the circuit court and not in the chancery order book if a *scire facias*may be dispensed with.

This case was decided by Division A.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*M. D.*Carmichael, for Plaintiff in Error;

No appearance, for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

The writ of error in this cause was taken to a judgment in a habeas corpus proceeding awarding the custody of an infant child.

It does not appear that a scire facias was issued and served as required by law, and the defendant in error has not appeared in person or by counsel in this court. The writ of error was recorded in the chancery order book, but this does not give to this court jurisdiction of the defendant in error. Belch v. Manning, *55*Fla. 229, *34346 South. Rep. 91; Hardee v. Brown, 56 Fla. 377, 47 South. Rep. 834.

Even if this be a civil proceeding within the meaning of section 17Ó4 of the General Statutes the writ of error should have been recorded in the minute book of the court and not in the Chancery Order Book. See section 1831, General Statutes of 1906.

It does not appear that this court has acquired jurisdiction of the person of the defendant in error, therefore the writ of error is dismissed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;

Taylor, Hocker and Parki-iill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12976]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1092]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 216; Olympia, WA

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a--81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones 
Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Port of Olympia, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 216 
(Olympia, Washington), submitted an application to the Board for 
authority to expand FTZ 216-Site 3 to include an additional area at the 
Commerce Place industrial/business park in Lacey, Washington, adjacent 
to the Port of Olympia Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 27-99; filed 
5/26/99);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (64 FR 29993, 6/4/99) and the application has been processed 
pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to expand FTZ 216-Site 3 is approved, subject to 
the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and 
subject to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of May 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12976 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EXHIBIT
32.1





Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








I, Thomas
Flottmann, Chief Executive Officer of Manas Petroleum Corporation (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)           the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,
2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date:  May
9, 2008





/S/Thomas
Flottmann


Thomas
Flottmann


Chief
Executive Officer
# EUR-Lex - 31998R2094 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R2094

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2094/98 of 30 September 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals **

*
Official Journal L 266 , 01/10/1998 P. 0061 - 0061 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2094/98 of 30 September 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 923/96 (2), and in particular Article 13(11) thereof,

Whereas, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2052/97 (4), in order to calculate the export refunds on processed products, the processing coefficients applicable must be known; whereas those coefficients are in fact the figures set out in Annex I to that Regulation; whereas, in view of technical progress in the sector, the figures laid down for unroasted and roasted malt need to be adjusted; whereas that Annex should accordingly be updated;

Whereas the Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In the last column of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 for malt, not roasted, falling within CN codes 1107 10 19 and 1107 10 99 and malt, roasted, falling within CN code 1107 20 00, '1 300` and '1 520` are replaced by '1 270` and '1 490` respectively.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply with effect from 1 September 1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 September 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 37.

(3) OJ L 147, 30. 6. 1995, p. 7.

(4) OJ L 287, 21. 10. 1997, p. 14.
§ 2704.203 Contents of application—where the Secretary's demand is substantially in excess of the judgment finally obtained and unreasonable. ( a ) An application for an award under § 2704.105(b) shall show that the Secretary's demand is substantially in excess of the decision of the Commission; the application shall further allege that the Secretary's demand is unreasonable when compared with the Commission's decision.
( b ) The application shall show that the applicant is a small entity as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6), and the application must conform to the standards of the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR 121.201 for mining entities. The application shall include a statement of the applicant's annual receipts or number of employees, as applicable, in conformance with the requirements of 13 CFR 121.104 and 121.106. The application shall describe briefly the type and purpose of its organization or business.