alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
        23.2
 
 CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 To:
        Teliphone Corp.
 
 As
        independent registered certified public accountants, we consent to the use
        in
        this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Teliphone Corp. of our report for the
        year
        ended September 30, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements
        of
        Teliphone Corp. and its subsidiaries, which appear in such Annual Report.
 
 /s/
        Michael Pollack, CPA
 Michael
        Pollack, CPA  Cherry Hill,
        NJ
  January
          10, 2008
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

North Shore Capital IV, Inc.
Dated: February 20, 2002


I hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report to
Shareholders on Form 10-KSB of my report dated December 31, 2001 appearing on
page F-2 of North Shore's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2001. I also consent to the reference to me under the heading
"Exhibits" in such Registration Statement.



                                        DENNIS W. BERSCH, CPA
                                        /s/ Dennis W. Bersch

                                        ------------------------------------
                                        DENNIS BERSCH, CPA
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 116 (Thursday, June 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 37532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15128]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Notice To Extend the Public and Agency Scoping Period for the 
Initial F-22 Operational Beddown Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

    The United States Air Force is issuing this notice to advise the 
public of its decision to extend the public and agency scoping period 
for the preparation of the Draft EIS which will assess the potential 
environmental impacts of a proposal to beddown the initial F-22 
Operational Wing.
    The comment period for scoping related comments has been extended 
to September 30, 2000 to ensure sufficient time to consider public and 
agency comments in the screening process and preparation of the Draft 
EIS. Comments should be submitted to the address below. HQ ACC/CEVP, 
129 Andrews Street, Suite 102, Langley AFB, VA 23665-2769, Attn: Ms. 
Brenda Cook.

Janet A. Long,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-15128 Filed 6-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-U
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, Francis R. Biscan Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of
American Stellar Energy Inc. (Formerly Merchantpark Communications Inc.). (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.     The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2003 (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
Company.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 21st
day of October, 2004.


                                   By:  /s/Francis R. Biscan Jr.
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Francis R. Biscan Jr.,
                                        Chief Executive Officer
BE

AIR AWARE

SEXUAL ASSAULT 

on an AIRCRAFT 

is a FEDERAL CRIME

If you think you are a victim of sexual 

assault aboard an aircraft, report the 

incident to your flight crew and to the

FBI at tips.fbi.gov or 1-800-CALL-FBI, 

or contact your local FBI office.

April 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           266,629
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          273,027
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            273,031
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 273,027
<CASH>                                           1,311
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             331,452
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           7,951
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 651,508
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                405,037
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            108,661
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,079
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,542
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   651,508
<PREMIUMS>                                      43,042
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              7,726
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               (136)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   4,036
<BENEFITS>                                      40,481
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      7,592
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             5,230
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,067
<INCOME-TAX>                                       373
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                694
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       694
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Rockingham

No. 7908

#### Aktina Coussoule and Coussoule Corp. v. Walter Redden

January 16, 1978

*Flynn, McGuirk & Blanchard,*of Portsmouth *(Raymond P. Blanchard*orally), for the plaintiffs.

*Peter J. Loughlin,*of Portsmouth, by brief and orally, for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

This is an action on the case alleging that the defendant, as electrical inspector for the city of Portsmouth, exceeded his authority in ordering the termination of electrical service to the Dolphin Hotel. A motion to dismiss filed by the defendant was granted. Plaintiffs’ exceptions were transferred by the Trial Court, *DiClerico,*J.

Walter Redden was appointed electrical inspector in 1969 and in May of that year inspected the Dolphin Hotel for electrical code violations. Following a discussion of the violations with the city attorney, Mr. Redden on June 6 notified the plaintiffs that service would be terminated on June 11 unless the violations were corrected. On June 11, 1969, service was terminated.

*5Plaintiffs assert that the city building commission had jurisdiction and, therefore, the acts of the defendant were outside the scope of his employment. While a review of the city’s ordinances reveals that the building commission may have had authority to terminate service, the electrical inspector may do likewise under article XIX, § 12-1903 (c) (2). The trial court’s ruling to this effect is correct.

Plaintiffs argue that defendant cannot be clothed with any immunity for his conduct because he never took the required oath of office. The trial court found that the evidence was insufficient to support plaintiffs’ burden of proof on this point. The finding is based on evidence sufficient to sustain the court’s conclusion. *See Cataldo v. Grappone,*117 N.H. 1043, 381 A.2d 1194 (1977) (per curiam) and *Wheelen v. Robinson,*117 N.H. 1032, 381 A.2d 742 (1977).

Defendant, therefore, was acting within the scope of his governmental employment when power was terminated in 1969. The motion to dismiss was properly granted. *See*USA 31:104 (Supp. 1975).

*Exception overruled.*

Lampron, J., did not sit.
Exhibit
32(b)





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 this Yearly Report of New Mexico Software, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Teresa B. Dickey,
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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/
Teresa B. Dickey


Teresa B.
Dickey


Principal
Financial Officer





April 13,
2009
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

March 25, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00015

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.P ., a Child

From the 407th Jud icial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- PA

- 00365 Honorable Susan D. Reed , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s second moti on for extension of time to file appellant’s brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due March 28, 2022

.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 25th day of March, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CAMERON MOSER

PLAINTIFF(S) 

v.

ALLEVIATE TAX, LLC,

DEFENDANT(S). 

CASE NUMBER

 4:22−cv−10098−JEM

DEFAULT BY CLERK F.R.Civ.P.55(a)

Clerk's Default

 It appearing that the defendant(s) herein, is/are in default for failure to appear, answer, or otherwise plead

to the complaint filed herein within the time required by law.

Default is hereby entered against defendant(s)

Alleviate Tax, LLC

as of course, on the date March 1, 2023.

Angela E. Noble

CLERK OF COURT

By /s/ Carlos Davis

Deputy Clerk

cc: Judge Jose E. Martinez

 Alleviate Tax, LLC

DEFAULT BY CLERK F.R.Civ.P.55(a)

CV−37 (10/01)

Case 4:22-cv-10098-JEM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 1 of 1
#### § 6.01-3 Captain of the Port.

*Captain of the Port,* as used in this part, means the officer of the Coast Guard, under the command of a District Commander, so designated by the Commandant for the purpose of giving immediate direction to Coast Guard law enforcement activities within the Captain of the Port's assigned area. In addition, the District Commander will be Captain of the Port with respect to the remaining areas in the District not assigned to officers designated by the Commandant as Captain of the Port.

[E.O. 14116, 89 FR 13971, Feb. 26, 2024]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

DEMETRIUS BARBOUR, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, 

v. Civil Action No. 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

JUN 2 6 2012 

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts tor the District of Columbia 

12 1049 

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and 

his pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint. 

It appears that plaintiff challenges the Social Security Administration's decision to 

withhold $25.00 from each monthly payment of benefits in order to recover amounts overpaid to 

him in years past. The matter is not properly before the Court, however, because it does not 

appear that plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. 

"[F]inal SSA decisions eligible for judicial review follow four steps of an administrative review 

process: (1) an initial determination; (2) a reconsideration determination; (3) a hearing before an 

ALJ; and (4) review by the Appeals Council." Beattie v. Astrue, _F. Supp. 2d _, _, 2012 WL 

628346, at *4 (D.D.C. Feb. 28, 2012) (citation omitted). In other words, only "after any final 

decision by the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he is a party" 

may a plaintiff seek judicial review in a federal district court. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The 

1 
complaint sets forth no facts from which the Court could conclude that waiver of the exhaustion 

requirement is warranted: where "(1) the issue raised is entirely collateral to a claim for payment; 

(2) plaintiffs show they would be irreparably injured were the exhaustion requirement enforced 

against them; [or] (3) exhaustion would be futile." Hall v. Sebelius, 689 F. Supp. 2d 10, 18 

(D.D.C. 2009) (citations omitted). 

The complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. See, e.g., Ford v. Astrue, 808 F. 

Supp. 2d 150, 153 (D.D.C. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff"has only completed the 

first two steps of the four-step SSA administrative-review process"); see also Maiden v. 

Barnhart, 450 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3-4 (D.D.C. 2006) (finding that denial ofuntimely request for 

hearing is not a final decision for exhaustion purposes). An Order accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

[/~fL. j J/ ~L United States District Judge 

2
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 2, 2005 of the
Company, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Herbert M. MuellerHerbert M. MuellerVice President & Chief Financial Officer
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier: -AD

Add the work hours. parts cost, and number ofU.S. registeredproducts to the table below. Wh e n you are finished. click on the ··Updat e Fields " button to automatically fill in the totals. Update Fields 

# I

Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft , eng in e, (e
.g., In spection , propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access , testing , ( @$ 85 /h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products Inspection 13 

### 349

The known number of products in compi iance: Number Tota l Costs of compliance for 

### U.S. fleet: $385,645 Costs covered u nd e r watTan ty (if known) $ Warranty
On-Condition Costs: • Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., Inspection, ( include access, ( @$ 85/ hour)

replacement) testing, and closeup) R

epa ir 16

### S pecial considerations for Economic A nalys is (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assum ed or might not be obvious. This field ca n also be used to explain warranty costs): 

### Executive O rd e r 12866: 

### Could the AD be considered a · 's ignificant regulatory actio n"? 

# G YES* 

### 0

**NO~** 

### *Explanation: DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

### Is the AD s ignificant? 

# G YES* 0 NO 

### 181 *Explanati on: Regu latory Flexib ili ty Act: 

### Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of smal l entities? Explain for e ither a Ye s or No answer. 

# G YES 0 NO 

### 181 Explanation: Intrastate Aviation in A laska: 

### T hi s AD could affect intrastate aviat ion in Alaska. I s it appropriate to inc lude specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviatio n mi ght be the on l y m ode of transportation ? 

# G YES* 0 NO 

### 181 *Exp lanati o n:
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00335-CV

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

v.

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Ken Paxton, 

Attorney General of the State of Texas

On Appeal from the

201st District Court of Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-19-002512

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 19, 2023
#### § 89.23 Definitions.

As used in this subpart:

*Inland Rules* refers to the Inland Navigation Rules contained in the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-591, 33 U.S.C. 2001 et. seq.) and the technical annexes established under that Act.

[CGD 83-028, 49 FR 33876, Aug. 27, 1984]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP98-52-000]

                    On March 13 and 28, 2000, the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) sponsored two informal settlement conferences for the purpose of initiating settlement discussions potentially leading to a resolution of all the Kansas                     *ad valorem*                     proceedings. During the March 28 conference, the participants agreed that settlement negotiations among all interested parties should be pursued separately for each pipeline involved with the Kansas                     *ad valorem*                     tax refund issues.                

An informal settlement conference in the above docket will be held on July, 11, 2000, at the offices of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, 1 Kansas City Place, 1200 Main Street, Kansas, Missouri. The Director of the Commission's Dispute Resolution Service and the KCC will attend the conference and facilitate the settlement negotiations.

                    All interested parties in the above dockets are requested to attend the informal settlement conference. If a party has any questions respecting the conference, please call Richard Miles, the Director of the Dispute Resolution Service. His telephone number is 1 877 FERC ADR (337-2237) or 202-208-0702 and his e-mail address is                     *richard.miles@ferc.fed.us.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-15271 Filed 6-15-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Douglas M. Whitenack, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Allcity Insurance
Company;

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 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal controls 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 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 control
over financial reporting.


Date: August 14, 2003
                                           By: /s/ Douglas M. Whitenack
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Douglas M. Whitenack,
                                               Chief Financial Officer