alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT NO. 99: CAUTIONARY STATEMENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE "SAFE HARBOR"
PROVISIONS OF THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995

Written or oral statements made by Alcan or its representatives, including
statements set forth in Alcan's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2001,
which describe the Company's or management's objectives, projections, estimates,
expectations or predictions of the future may be "forward-looking statements"
within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995, which can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such
as "believes," "expects," "may," "will," "should," "estimates," "anticipates" or
the negative thereof or other variations thereon. The Company cautions that, by
their nature, forward-looking statements involve risk and uncertainty and that
the Company's actual actions or results could differ materially from those
expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements or could affect the
extent to which a particular projection is realized.

Important factors which could cause the Company's actual performance to differ
materially from projections or expectations included in forward-looking
statements include global aluminum supply and demand conditions for aluminum and
other products, changes in the relative values of various currencies, aluminum
ingot prices and changes in other raw materials costs and availability, cyclical
demand and pricing within the principal markets for the Company's products,
changes in government regulations, particularly those affecting environmental,
health or safety compliance, economic developments, relationships with and
financial and operating conditions of customers and suppliers, the effect of
integrating acquired businesses and ability to obtain expected benefits and
other factors within the countries in which the Company operates or sells its
products and other factors relating to the Company's ongoing operations
including, but not limited to, litigation, labour negotiations and fiscal
regimes.

Copies of the Company's filings may be obtained by contacting the Company or the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                       22
**EXHIBIT 99.1CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Andersen Group,Inc. for the period ended May 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), pursuant to 18U.S.C. § as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Oliver R. Grace, Jr., President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer, and Andrew M. O'Shea, Chief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies,that, to the best of his knowledge:

 (1)                The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and  

(2)                The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Andersen Group, Inc. 
| July 8, 2003 | /s/ Oliver R. Grace,  Jr.             |
|--------------|---------------------------------------|
|         | Oliver R. Grace, Jr.                  |
|         | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|         |                                  |
| July 8, 2003 | /s/ Andrew M. O'Shea                  |
|         | Andrew M. O'Shea                      |
|         | Chief Financial Officer               |

 This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of § 18 of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### § 302-4.205 If my spouse or domestic partner and I travel on the same days along the same general route by using more than one POV, is my spouse or domestic partner considered unaccompanied?

No; for per diem purposes, you and your spouse or domestic partner are considered to be traveling together if you travel on the same days along the same general route by using more than one POV.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2010-06, 75 FR 67631, Nov. 3, 2010]
No. 10-11167.

#### Nacacio Amu, aka Amu *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 102-74.575 How do Federal agencies arrange for work on sidewalks? Upon approval from GSA, Federal agencies may— ( a ) Authorize the appropriate State or local government to install, repair and replace sidewalks, or arrange for this work, and reimburse them for this work; or
( b ) Contract or otherwise arrange and pay directly for installing, repairing and/or replacing sidewalks.
S89A0199.

#### NEWMAN v. THE STATE.

(384 SE2d 670)

Clarke, Presiding Justice.

James Love Newman was convicted of murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and five years on the firearm charge. He appeals.1 We af*507firm.

Decided October 26, 1989.

*Michael T. McClain,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Richard E. Hicks, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Leonora Grant,*for appellee.

Evidence presented at trial showed that Newman and his estranged wife, Doris Eppinger, argued over sex and money. As the argument increased in intensity, Eppinger ran up the stairs. Newman pursued her, firing his handgun five times. Eppinger’s two teenage children were in the house and heard the argument and shots fired. Newman left the house looking sick. Shortly thereafter he voluntarily surrendered himself and the gun to the police, saying he wanted to turn himself in because he had murdered his wife. Medical evidence showed that Eppinger suffered multiple gunshot wounds and died of a gunshot wound to her chest. Ballistics testimony identified Newman’s gun as the murder weapon.

1. In his first enumeration of error, Newman complains that certain evidence of “prior difficulties” between himself and Eppinger was erroneously admitted. We find no error. See *Hales v. State,*250 Ga. 112 (296 SE2d 577) (1982). However, even if there were error in admitting this evidence, the overwhelming evidence of guilt renders that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. *Minter v. State,*258 Ga. 629 (373 SE2d 359) (1988); *Johnson v. State,*238 Ga. 59 (230 SE2d 869) (1976).

2. Newman next contends that the evidence does not support the verdict. As we have already noted, the evidence against Newman was overwhelming. It would authorize a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The crime occurred on May 17, 1988. Appellant was indicted on August 30, 1988. He was convicted of murder on December 7, 1988 and sentenced to life imprisonment the same day. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on January 4, 1989; the motion was denied on April 28, 1989. The notice of appeal was filed May 26, 1989. *507The case was docketed in this court June 29, 1989. The case was submitted for decision without oral argument on August 11, 1989.
FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 07/15/2015 11:21:52 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b)/RULE 15d-

14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS
AMENDED

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Analogic Corporation (the Company) for the period ended
April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, James W. Green, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that:

(1) 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: June 7, 2007 |  |                                      
|                   | 
|                   |  | /s/ James W. Green                   
|                   |  | James W. Green                       
|                   |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
    
    
    Appropriate risk classification of the loan portfolio;
    
    Timely identification and monitoring of problem loans by sufficient levels of qualified
and trained personnel;
    
    Timely and  accurate preparation and review of adequate documentation for SFAS 114,
Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan
(SFAS No. 114) analysis; and
    
    Providing information about at risk loans on a timely basis, including
appraisals necessary to support the valuations of collateral included in the Companys SFAS
No. 114 analysis.
  
    
    Accounting for investments in limited partnerships,
    
    Accounting for investments in affordable housing partnerships,
    
    Accounting for impairment of investments in Other Real Estate Owned,
    
    Accounting, presentation and disclosure of liabilities associated with mechanics liens,
bonded stop notices on loans, and the associated potential insurance recoveries; and
    
    The determination of minimum lease commitments.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

GMG PRODUCTS LLC,

Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee

TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS LLC,

Intervenor

______________________

2022-2171

______________________

Appeal from the United States International Trade 

Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1237.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties, having so agreed, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The above-captioned appeal is dismissed under Fed. R. 

App. P. 42(b) with each side to bear their own costs.

February 8, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 8, 2024

Case: 22-2171 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 02/08/2024
_______________________________________ __ 

# Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

October 3, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly
132203(52)(54) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

JUDITH KUZNAR and JOSEPH KUZNAR, Plaintiffs-Appellees, SC: 132203

v COA: 259501

RAKSHA CORPORATIO N, d/b/a CROWN PHARMACY, and VALERIE RANDALL, Defendants-Appellants. Wayne CC: 03-333448-NO

___________________ ___________________

On order of the Chief Justice, moti ons by the Michigan Justice Association and by the Michigan Ph armacists Association fo r leave to file brief amicus curiae are considered and they are GRANTED.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 3, 2007

Clerk
# C_2018035EN.01000101.xml

| 31.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2015-2016 SESSION

Sittings of 1 to 4 February 2016

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 119, 12.4.2017.

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 119, 12.4.2017.

TEXTS ADOPTED

Sittings of 24 and 25 February 2016

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 140, 4.5.2017.

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 140, 4.5.2017.

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
Exhibit 15.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-162795, 333-162110, 333-06784, 333-08146, 333-11842, 333-09350, 333-11154, 333-111112, 333-111113, 333-134355, 333-144589, 333-145981 and 333-153230) of our reports dated March 31, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of NICE-Systems Ltd. and subsidiaries and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of NICE-Systems Ltd. included in theAnnual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2009.




Tel Aviv, Israel


March 31, 2010





/s/ KOST, FORER, GABBAY & KASIERERKOST, FORER, GABBAY & KASIERER

A Member of Ernst & Young Global
#### § 105-68.1015 Suspension.

*Suspension* is an action taken by a suspending official under subpart G of this part that immediately prohibits a person from participating in covered transactions and transactions covered under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1) for a temporary period, pending completion of an agency investigation and any judicial or administrative proceedings that may ensue. A person so excluded is suspended.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 116 (Thursday, June 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 37582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15149]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration


Working Group on Long-Term Care: Issues and Solutions, Advisory 
Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefits Plans; Notice of 
Meeting

    Pursuant to the authority contained in section 512 of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, a 
public meeting will be held Monday, July 17, 2000, of the Advisory 
Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans Working Group 
studying Long-Term Care; Issues and Solutions.
    The session will take place in Room N-5437, A-D, U.S. Department of 
Labor Building, Second and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20210. The purpose of the open meeting, which will run from 2 p.m. to 
approximately 4:30 p.m. is for working group members to take testimony 
focusing on long-term care policies in the marketplace, policy 
initiatives that might be undertaken to expand long-term 
indemnification and future Medicaid expenditures and the Federal 
Employees Health Benefit Plan intitiative to expand LTC indemnification 
for federal workers.
    Members of the public are encouraged to file a written statement 
pertaining to the topic by submitting 20 copies on or before July 10, 
2000, to Sharon Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, 
U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5677, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20210. Individuals or representatives of organizations 
wishing to address the Working Group should forward their request to 
the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 219-8753. Oral presentations 
will be limited to 10 minutes, but an extended statement may be 
submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities, who need 
special accommodations, should contact Sharon Morrissey by July 10, at 
the address indicated in this notice.
    Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the 
record without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of such statements should 
be sent to the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Council at the above 
address. Papers will be accepted and included in the record of the 
meeting if received on or before July 10.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of June 2000.
Leslie B. Kramerich,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Pension and Benefits Welfare 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-15149 Filed 6-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-M
§ 301-73.102 May we grant a traveler an exception from required use of TMS or ETS once we have fully deployed ETS within the agency? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 77028 , Sept. 20, 2024.
( a ) Yes, your agency head or their designee may grant an individual case by case exception to required use of your agency's current TMS or to required use of ETS once it is fully deployed within the agency, but only when travel meets one of the following conditions: ( 1 ) Such use would result in an unreasonable burden on mission accomplishment (e.g., emergency travel is involved and TMS/ETS is not accessible; the traveler is performing invitational travel; or the traveler has special needs or requires disability accommodations in accordance with part 301-13 of this chapter).
( 2 ) Such use would compromise a national security interest.
( 3 ) Such use might endanger the traveler's life (e.g., the individual is traveling under the Federal witness protection program, or is a threatened law enforcement/investigative officer traveling under part 301-31 of this chapter).
( b ) Any exception granted must be consistent with any contractual terms applicable to your current TMS or ETS, once it is fully deployed, and must not cause a breach of contract terms.
[FTR Amdt. 2006-04, 71 FR 49376, Aug. 23, 2006, as amended by FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12253, Feb. 16, 2024]
No. 11-9620.

#### Kelly *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Hjllsborough

No. 79-456

#### Carl E. Wonser v. Suella M. Wonser

June 12, 1980

*437
      *Woodbury & Rowe,*of Nashua, by brief for the plaintiff.

*Suella M. Wonser,*by brief, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this divorce case is whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting custody of the parties’ adopted minor children to the defendant. We hold that it did not.

The parties were married in December 1972. They adopted two children, a girl now age 7 and a boy now age 5. In 1977 the plaintiff filed a libel for divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. After a hearing before a Master *(Peter J. Bourque,*Esq.), custody of the children was awarded to the defendant by *Loughlin,*J. on the master’s recommendation. The plaintiff’s exceptions were transferred by *Randall,*J.

The plaintiff argues that because he was found to be a fit and suitable parent at the time the children were adopted and so remains, legal custody should not be taken from him and given to the defendant exclusively. He agrees that physical custody should remain with the defendant. He contends, however, that legal custody is a “fundamental human right” and that due process precludes legal custody being taken from him without a showing of unfitness. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; N.H. Const. pt. 1, art. 2; *State v. Robert H.,*118 N.H. 713, 393 A.2d 1387 (1978). He seeks joint custody with the defendant.

This court is familiar with the concept of joint custody. *Starkeson v. Starkeson,*119 N.H. 78, 81-5, 397 A.2d 1043, 1045-8 (1979) *(Douglas,*J. dissenting). We adhere to our decision in that case not to erect a presumption favoring joint custody. There may be times when joint custody would be desirable but there will be other times when, despite the fitness of each parent, a division of authority would not be in the best interest of the children, the paramount concern. *Ballou v. Ballou,*118 N.H. 463, 387 A.2d 1169 (1978).

The fact that married parents manage with joint custody does not mean that upon separation joint custody is desirable in all cases. Here the defendant testified that she and the plaintiff have not “gotten along well since he left. There’s been a lot of dissension between us . . . .” There is other testimony in the record which furnishes sufficient justification for not granting joint custody and *438supports the award of legal custody to the parent having the physical custody.

We repeat what was said in *Starkeson v. Starkeson supra,*that we do not oppose joint custody. Rather, it remains a legally viable alternative when the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, deems it to be in the best interest of the child. We cannot say, however, that it is compelled in the case now before us.

Nor do we find any indication that the master or trial court ignored or violated RSA 458:16 and :17 (Supp. 1979) by giving preference to either party because of the parent’s sex. That being so, the trial court’s decision is affirmed.

*Exceptions overruled.*
EXHIBIT 23.6


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration  Statements on
(Form S-8 No. 333-1378,  pertaining to the 360 Communications Company Retirement
Savings  Plan;  Form  S-8 No.  333-1382,  pertaining  to the 360  Communications
Company  1996  Equity  Incentive   Program  and  Director  Equity  and  Deferred
Compensation  Plan; Form S-8 No. 333-1380,  pertaining to the 360 Communications
Company Replacement Stock Option Plan; and Form S-3 No. 333-21331  pertaining to
the  360  Communications   Company  $500  Million  Shelf  Registration)  of  360
Communications  Company of our report dated February 7, 1997 on our audit of the
financial  statements of the Orlando SMSA Limited  Partnership as of and for the
year ended December 31, 1996,  which report is included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K;  such financial  statements are not included  separately in this Form
10-K.



                                                      Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 1997
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4194

AN ACT

To designate the part of the facility located at 4605 Estata

Tutu in Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, which houses

operations of the United States Postal Service as (for

the period of time during which it houses such operations) the ‘‘Earle B. Ottley Post Office’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4194 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The part of the facility located at 4605 Estata Tutu

3 in Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, which houses operations

4 of the United States Postal Service shall, for the period

5 of time during which it houses such operations, be known

6 and designated as the ‘‘Earle B. Ottley Post Office’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the part

10 of the facility referred to in section 1 shall, with respect

11 to the period referred to in section 1, be deemed to be

12 a reference to the Earle B. Ottley Post Office.

Passed the House of Representatives September 19,

1994.

Attest:

Clerk.

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4194

AN ACT

To designate the part of the facility located at 4605

Ottley Post Office’’.which it houses such operations) the ‘‘Earle B. Postal Service as (for the period of time duringwhich houses operations of the United StatesEstata Tutu in Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands,
# Comments on: 2021-1045: Smith Montanez v. McDonough
§ 0.203 Authority of person, panel, or board to which functions are delegated. ( a ) The person, panel, or board to which functions are delegated shall, with respect to such functions, have all the jurisdiction, powers, and authority conferred by law upon the Commission, and shall be subject to the same duties and obligations.
( b ) Except as provided in § 1.102 of this chapter, any action taken pursuant to delegated authority shall have the same force and effect and shall be made, evidenced, and enforced in the same manner as actions of the Commission.
[28 FR 12402, Nov. 22, 1963]
No. 10-11178.

#### Baker *v.*LaValley, Superintendent, Great Meadow Correctional Facility.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.