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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 609 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 609

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Export Apple and Pear Act to limit the applicability of 
                           the Act to apples.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 609

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Export Apple and Pear Act to limit the applicability of 
                           the Act to apples.

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

SECTION 1. SCOPE OF EXPORT APPLE AND PEAR ACT.

    (a) Short Title.--The Act of June 10, 1933 (7 U.S.C. 581 et seq.; 
commonly known as the Export Apple and Pear Act), is amended by adding 
at the end the following new section:
    ``Sec. 11. This Act may be cited as the `Export Apple Act'.''.
    (b) Definition of Apples.--Section 9 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 589) is 
amended by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following new 
paragraph:
    ``(4) The term `apples' means fresh whole apples, whether or not 
the apples have been in storage.''.
    (c) Elimination of References to Pears.--Such Act is further 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``and/or pears'' each place it appears in 
        the first section and sections 5 and 6; and
            (2) by striking ``or pears'' each place it appears in the 
        first section and sections 2, 3, and 4.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 2, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

KCG TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC., CARMAX 

FUNDING SERVICES, LLC, CARMAX FUNDING 

SERVICES II, LLC, CARMAX BUSINESS 

SERVICES, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2020-1327

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Massachusetts in No. 1:19-cv-11101-LTS, Judge 

Leo T. Sorokin.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

DAVID ANTHONY GIORDANO, Giordano Law LLC, Boston, MA, for plaintiff-appellant. 

 ROBERT L. LEE, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, for defendants-appellees. Also represented by SEAN BEDFORD.

 ______________________

Case: 20-1327 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 10/19/2020
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, DYK, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

October 19, 2020 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-1327 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 10/19/2020
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4437

To extend the emergency unemployment compensation program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 17, 1994

Mr. HINCHEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To extend the emergency unemployment compensation

program.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT

4 COMPENSATION PROGRAM.

5 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Sections 102(f)(1) and

6 106(a)(2) of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation

7 Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–164, as amended) are each

8 amended by striking ‘‘February 5, 1994’’ and inserting

9 ‘‘November 30, 1994’’.
2

•HR 4437 IH

1 (b) WEEKS OF BENEFITS AVAILABLE DURING EX2 TENSION.—Subparagraph (A) of section 102(b)(2) of such

3 Act is amended—

4 (1) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (viii),

5 (2) by inserting after clause (vi) the following

6 new clause:

7 ‘‘(vii) WEEKS AFTER FEBRUARY 5,

8 1994.—In the case of weeks beginning after

9 February 5, 1994, clauses (ii), (iii), (iv),

10 (v) and (vii) of this subparagraph shall not

11 apply.’’

12 (c) MODIFICATION OF FINAL PHASE-OUT.—Para13 graph (2) of section 102(f) of such Act is amended—

14 (1) by striking ‘‘February 5, 1994’’ and insert15 ing ‘‘November 30, 1994’’, and

16 (2) by striking ‘‘April 30, 1994’’ and inserting

17 ‘‘May 30, 1995’’.

18 (d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 101(e) of

19 such Act is amended by striking ‘‘February 5, 1994’’ each

20 place it appears and inserting ‘‘November 30, 1994’’.

21 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

22 this section shall apply to weeks of unemployment begin23 ning after February 5, 1994.

Æ
No. 11-8360.

#### Montgomery *v.*Robinson, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1106: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"1awRWaKUbr\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/05-16-2023-22-1106-the-regents-of-the-university-of-california-v-satco-products-inc-opinion-22-1106-opinion-5-16-2023_2127535\/\">22-1106: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/05-16-2023-22-1106-the-regents-of-the-university-of-california-v-satco-products-inc-opinion-22-1106-opinion-5-16-2023_2127535\/embed\/#?secret=1awRWaKUbr\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1106: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"1awRWaKUbr\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1106 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
<PAGE>
                                                                Exhibit 32.2

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Angelica Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 29, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James W. Shaffer, Vice President and 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:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
               13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
               U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated: December 8, 2005

                                /s/ James W. Shaffer
                                ------------------------------------------
                                James W. Shaffer
                                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                 9,341,861
<SECURITIES>                             646,039
<RECEIVABLES>                          4,205,803
<ALLOWANCES>                              52,521
<INVENTORY>                            8,116,532
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      24,168,001
<PP&E>                                 1,466,815
<DEPRECIATION>                           216,727
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        55,742,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  3,450,269
<BONDS>                               12,722,013
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                               5,552,865
<OTHER-SE>                            34,017,208
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          55,742,355
<SALES>                                8,845,428
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       8,845,428
<CGS>                                  5,574,154
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          5,574,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       6,280,546
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         329,043
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       110,119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (1,121,110)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (1,121,110)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                          (1,450,153)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.15)
        

</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 18
- 00515
- CV

In re Tommy Joe Kelley

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Tommy Joe Kell e y has filed a “Writ of E rror Coram Nobis.” Looking to the
subs tance of Kelley’s pleading, rather than its title or form, we construe his pleading as a petition
for writ of error coram nobis. See Surgitek, Bristol

- Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999) (courts look to substance of pleading rather than i ts form or caption to determine i ts nature). The purpose of a writ of error coram nobis is to bring before the court rendering the judgment matters of fact which, if known at the time the judgment was rendered, would have prevented its rendition. Ex parte McKenzie , 29 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has long held that this common

- law writ has no application in
this state. See Ex parte Massey , 249 S.W.2d 599, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952); In re Johnson , No. 03

- 16

- 00277

- CV, 2016 WL 1756707 (Tex. App.

— Austin Apr. 27, 2016, orig

. proceeding ) (mem. op.). The habeas corpus procedure set out in article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive remedy for felony post

- conviction relief in Texas state c ourt.2 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, §§ 3(a), 5. Article 11.07 vests complete jurisdiction over post

- conviction relief from final felony convictions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
See id. § 3(a); Hoang v. State , 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); In re Wood , No.
03

- 16

- 000651

- CV, 20 16 WL 6575240, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Nov. 2, 2016, orig. proceeding ) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we dismiss Kelley ’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

____________ ______________________________ __ ____ Bob Pemberton, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field
Filed: August 7, 2018
NO. 07-08-0156-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	JULY 9, 2008

	______________________________

	JAMES ALLEN WALKER, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. ONE OF TARRANT COUNTY;

	NO. 1076378D; HONORABLE SHAREN WILSON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant, James Allen Walker, filed a notice of appeal challenging his conviction for burglary of a habitation, enhanced.  On April 2, 2008, the trial court granted Appellant’s Motion for New Trial.  Pending before this Court is Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot.  We grant the motion.

	When the trial court grants a motion for new trial, it restores the case to its position before the former trial.  Tex. R. App. P. 21.9(b).  Because there is no conviction from which to appeal, we have no jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s appeal.  See Waller v. State, 931 S.W.2d 640, 643-44 (Tex.App.–Dallas 1996, no pet.).

	Consequently, Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed.  No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

							Patrick A. Pirtle

							      Justice

Do not publish.
§ 105-56.002 Excluded debts or claims. This subpart does not apply to the following: ( a ) Debts or claims arising under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended (26 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.*), the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 *et seq.*), or the tariff laws of the United States.
( b ) Any case where collection of a debt by salary offset is explicitly provided for or prohibited by another statute. Debt collection procedures under other statutory authorities, however, must be consistent with the provisions of the Federal Claims Collection Standards, defined at paragraph (h) of § 105-56.003.
( c ) An employee election of coverage or of a change of coverage under a Federal benefits program that requires periodic deductions from pay if the amount to be recovered was accumulated over four pay periods or less. However, if the amount to be recovered was accumulated over more than four pay periods, the procedures under § 105-56.004 of this subpart will apply.
( d ) Routine adjustment in pay or allowances that is made to correct an overpayment of pay attributable to clerical or administrative errors or delays in processing pay documents, if the overpayment occurred within the four pay periods preceding the adjustment and, at the time of the adjustment, or as soon after as possible, the employee is provided written notice of the nature and amount of the adjustment.
( e ) Any adjustment to collect a debt amounting to $50 or less, if, at the time of the adjustment, or as soon after as possible, the employee is given written notice of the nature and amount of the adjustment and a point of contact for contesting the adjustment.
( f ) Debts or claims arising from the accrual of unpaid Health Benefits Insurance (HBI) premiums as the result of an employee's election to continue health insurance coverage during periods of leave without pay (LWOP), or when pay is insufficient to cover premiums. Debt collection procedures for unpaid HBI are covered under 5 CFR part 890, subpart E.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16002]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The ATM Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 12, 1999, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The ATM Forum has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Cerent 
Corporation, Petaluma, CA; Harris Corporation, Melbourne, FL; Tdsoft 
Communications Ltdl, Herzeliya, ISRAEL; and Adaptive Broadband 
Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA have been added as parties to this venture. 
The following member has changed its name: GTE Government Systems to 
General Dynamics Communication Systems, Needham Heights, MA.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and The ATM Forum intends to file 
additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On April 19, 1993, The ATM Forum filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on June 2, 1993 (58 FR 31415).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 14, 
1999. A notice has not yet been published in the Federal Register.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-16002 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"23-1510: CHIN-YOUNG v. ARMY [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7zGEtHpnKO\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/09-20-2023-23-1510-chin-young-v-army-opinion-23-1510-opinion-9-20-2023_2193228\/\">23-1510: CHIN-YOUNG v. ARMY [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/09-20-2023-23-1510-chin-young-v-army-opinion-23-1510-opinion-9-20-2023_2193228\/embed\/#?secret=7zGEtHpnKO\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“23-1510: CHIN-YOUNG v. ARMY [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"7zGEtHpnKO\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: CHIN-YOUNG v. ARMY [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 23-1510 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Year-to-Date Activity 

as of February 28, 2014

Court or Agency of Origin

Pending as of 

10/01/13

Docketed 

10/01/13 to date

Terminated 

10/01/13 to date

Currently 

Pending 

Boards of Contract Appeals 8 9 5 12

Court of Federal Claims 119 57 69 107

Court of International Trade 55 15 15 55

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 104 56 82 78

District Courts 438 230 183 485

Department of Justice 2 2 1 3

Department of Veterans Affairs 1 0 0 1

International Trade Commission 19 5 8 16

Merit Systems Protection Board 104 79 97 86

Office of Personnel Management 0 0 0 0

Office of Compliance 0 2 0 2

Patent & Trademark Office 118 69 68 119

Writs & Other Original Proceedings 15 23 20 18

TOTAL 983 547 548 982
Exhibit 32(a)



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

OF ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB

OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004



The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer of
Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the Issuer). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Issuer for the annual period ended
December 31, 2004.



I, John D. Bair, certify that the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.



This certification is executed as of February 23, 2005.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ John D. Bair       
|Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                                HARLAN & BOETTGER
                          Certified Public Accountants
                        12626 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
                           San Diego, California 92130
                                 (619) 755-8113

                                September 5, 1996

Board of Directors
Hightec, Inc.
4190 Bonita Road, #105
Bonita, California  91902

        Re: Consent to Use Opinions as Exhibits in 1996 Form 10-KSB

Gentlemen:

        Let this letter serve as our consent to use our opinions, dated June 30,
1996 as exhibits in the Company's 1996 form 10-KSB.

Sincerely,

/s/ Harlan & Boettger


                                       31