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

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541. 

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On May 12, 2000, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of permit applications received. Permits were issued on June 28, 2000 to the following applicants:                

Norbert Wu, Permit No. 2001-008

Tom Yelvington, Permit No. 2001-010

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-17061  Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
CYLINK CORPORATION

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

1.   Caro-Kann Corporation,  a California corporation;  doing business under the
     name Caro-Kann Corporation.

2.   Cylink  SARL,  a company  incorporated  under the laws of the  Republic  of
     France; doing business under the name Cylink SARL.

3.   Cylink  Communications  B.V.,  a private  company  with  limited  liability
     organized under the laws of the Netherlands;  doing business under the name
     Cylink Communications B.V.

4.   Cylink  Foreign  Sales  Corporation, a Virgin  Islands  corporation;  doing
     business under the name Cylink Foreign Sales Corporation and Cylink CFSC.

5.   Cylink Limited,  a private limited company  incorporated  under the laws of
     England; doing business under the name Cylink Limited and Cylink Ltd.

6.   Cylink Ireland Limited,  a private limited company  incorporated  under the
     laws of Ireland; doing business under the name Cylink Ireland Limited.

7.   Algorithmic  Research Ltd., a limited liability company organized under the
     laws of the State of  Israel;  doing  business  under the name  Algorithmic
     Research Ltd.

8.   Algart Holdings Ltd., a limited  liability company organized under the laws
     of the State of Israel; doing business under the name Algart Holdings Ltd.

9.   A.R.  GmbH,  a  limited  liability  company  organized  under  the  laws of
     Germany; doing business under the name A.R. GmbH.

10.  A.R.  PTE Ltd., a limited  liability  company  organized  under the laws of
     Singapore; doing business as A.R. PTE Ltd.
Exhibit 23.7

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation of
our report dated March 15, 2007, with respect to the consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders equity and cash flows for the period ended December 31,
2006 of Sparfacts Pty Ltd to be included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Spar Group,
Inc and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2006.

|                     | 
|-------------------- | 
|                     | 
|                     | 
|                     | 
|Melbourne, Australia | 
|March 15, 2007       |
<PAGE>  1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


Exhibit 11

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                                   FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED   FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                  ---------------------------   -------------------------
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNT         1999           1998           1999         1998
---------------------------------------------     ----------   --------------   -----------   -----------

<S>                                                <C>            <C>           <C>           <C>
Net income                                             $48           $142          $471          $484
Weighted average common shares outstanding         844,412        784,858       826,313       781,623
Common stock equivalents due to dilutive effect
of stock options                                         -              -             -             -
Total weighted average common shares and
common share equivalents outstanding               844,412        784,858       826,313       781,623
Basic earnings per common share and common
share equivalents                                    $0.06          $0.18         $0.57         $0.62

Diluted earnings per common share                    $0.06          $0.18         $0.57         $0.62
</TABLE>



                                           24
[Civ. No. 2446.

Second Appellate District.

January 26, 1918.]

#### CHARLES STANSBURY, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION et al., Respondents.

Workmen’s Compensation Act — Casual Employment Outside oe Employer’s Business—Machinist Employed to Repair Dredge. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, an injury received by a machinist employed to make repairs upon a dredge which his employer had acquired and was about to "lease with an option to purchase was not an injury occurring in the usual course qf business of his employer, it being shown that the employer’s business was that of leasing road-making machinery and that the dredge was in no sense road-making machinery or equipment.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Review originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District to annul an award of compensation made by the Industrial Accident Commission.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Hocker & Austin, and J. D. White, for Petitioner.

Christopher M. Bradley, for Respondents.

WORKS, J., *pro tem.*

The respondent Industrial Accident Commission allowed compensation to W. J. Husong for an injury received while he was in the employ of petitioner and petitioner now asks that the award be annulled. It is conceded that the employment was casual. It is also contended by petitioner that the injury did not occur in the usual course of his business. The commission found that petitioner “was in the business of leasing certain road-making machinery and outfit, and that it was necessary and in the usual course of said business to keep the said machinery and outfit in repair; that the work and employment of the applicant at the time of his injury was the repairing of such ma- ■ chinery, and was therefore in the usual course of the business of the employer. ’ ’

The finding that the petitioner was engaged in the business of leasing road-making machinery and outfit is amply supported by the evidence, but the finding that the applicant was injured while making repairs on machinery used in that *69business finds no support whatever in it. In addition to the machinery used in the business, the petitioner had in his possession a certain clam-shell dredge, which he had acquired from a contractor who had been using it in harbor work. It was in no sense road-making machinery or equipment. This dredge petitioner was about to lease to another, with an option to purchase the same, but some repairs were necessary upon it before it could go out. The applicant for compensation was employed to make these repairs and was injured while prosecuting the labor. The work being performed by the applicant was no more nearly in the course of the employer’s business of leasing road-making machinery than if it had been the work of shoeing a horse or repairing a mowing-machine owned by the employer. The case is directly within the rule laid down in *Maryland Casualty Co.*v. *Pillsbury,*172 Cal. 748, [158 Pac. 1031].

The award is annulled.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Prudential Securities Strategic 
                    Trust and is qualified in its entirety by 
                    reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>          

<CIK>               0001005006
<NAME>              Prudential Securities Strategic Trust

<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1998

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1998

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1998

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          47,615,180

<SECURITIES>                    981,485

<RECEIVABLES>                   9,104

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                48,605,769

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  48,605,769

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           3,591,453

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      45,014,316

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    48,605,769

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                13,710,698

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                6,759,769

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    6,950,929

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   15.76

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
§ 101.815 Stations at temporary fixed locations. ( a ) Authorizations may be issued upon proper application for the use of frequencies listed in § 101.803 by stations in the Local Television Transmission Service for rendition of temporary service to subscribers under the following conditions: ( 1 ) When a fixed station is to remain at a single location for less than 6 months, the location is considered to be temporary.
( 2 ) When a fixed station authorized to operate at temporary locations is installed and it subsequently becomes necessary for the station to operate from such location for more than six months, an application for a station authorization to specify the permanent location must be filed at least thirty days prior to the expiration of the six month period.
( 3 ) The station must be used only for rendition of communication service at a remote point where the provision of wire facilities is not practicable.
( 4 ) The antenna structure height employed at any location may not exceed the criteria set forth in § 17.7 of this chapter unless, in each instance, authorization for use of a specific maximum antenna structure height for each location has been obtained from the Commission prior to erection of the antenna. See § 101.125.
( 5 ) Applications for such stations must comply with the provisions of § 101.21(f).
( b ) Applications for authorizations to operate stations at temporary locations under the provisions of this section may be made upon FCC Form 601. Blanket applications may be submitted for the required number of transmitters.
( c ) Prior coordination of mobile assignments will be in accordance with the procedures in § 101.103(d) except that the prior coordination process for mobile (temporary fixed) assignments may be completed orally and the period allowed for response to a coordination notification may be less than 30 days if the parties agree.
[61 FR 26677, May 28, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 68984, Dec. 14, 1998; 65 FR 38332, June 20, 2000; 68 FR 4961, Jan. 31, 2003]
EXHIBIT 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joey Schwartz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this quarterly
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) Presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

                                                  DATE: MAY 14, 2007


                                                  /S/ JOEY SCHWARTZ
                                                  --------------------
                                                  JOEY SCHWARTZ
                                                  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
{"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":"2018-2171: Sanchez v. DVA - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"t4o0XG0K9w\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-2171-sanchez-v-dva-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-2171: Sanchez v. DVA<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-2171-sanchez-v-dva-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=t4o0XG0K9w\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-2171: Sanchez v. DVA” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"t4o0XG0K9w\" 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":"Oral argument audio posted: Sanchez v. DVA (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-2171 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
Exhibit
32(a)








This
Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall
not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other
document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in
such filing.








Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title
18 of the United States Code








In
connection with the Annual Report of Appalachian Power Company (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael G. Morris,
the chief executive officer of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that,
based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Michael G.
Morris________


Michael
G. Morris


Chief
Executive Officer








May 1,
2008








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.2

              [LETTERHEAD OF PACIFIC COAST APPAREL COMPANY, INC.]


May 8, 2000


Mr. Harold West
FINEMAN WEST & CO, LLP.
9100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA  90212-3499

                                Via: Regular Mail

Dear Harold:

I am writing to officially terminate our relationship with Fineman West & Co.
LLP.

You are as aware as anyone behind the circumstances for this decision so I do
not feel it is necessary to go over the foreclosure by Capital Factors and the
sale of the operating assets to Evans Unlimited, Inc.

I very much appreciate everything you and the firm did for Pacific Coast
Apparel Company, Inc. and I am very sorry things ended this way.

Sincerely,

/s/ TERRY McGOVERN
--------------------
TERRY McGOVERN
CEO
Exhibit 3.10




[SEAL]
ROSS MILLER

Secretary of State

204 North Carson Street, Suite 1

Carson City, Nevada 89701-4520

(775) 684-5708

Website:  www.nvsos.gov
Filed in the office of

/s/ Ross Miller

Ross Miller

Secretary of State

State of Nevada
Document Number

20100966506-05

Filing Date and Time

12/23/2010  7:35 AM

Entity #

E0227302005-8





Certificate of Amendment


(PURSUANT TO NRS 78.385 AND 78.390)




Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation


For Nevada Profit Corporations


(Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After issuance of Stock)




1. Name of corporation:   Concierge Technologies, Inc.




2. The articles have been amended as follows: (provide article numbers, if available) Article 3 (Shares):





The total number of shares of common stock that the corporation is authorized to issue is nine hundred million (900,000,000) shares of common stock, with a par value of $0.001. The total number of preferred stock which the corporation is authorized to issue is fifty million (50,000,000) shares of preferred stock, with a par value of $0.001.





The preferred stock may be issued in series. The board of directors is authorized to determine the designation of each series of preferred stock, to fix the number of shares of each series, to determine or alter the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions granted to or imposed upon any wholly unissued series, and to increase the number of shares of any series subsequent to the issue of shares of such series.




3. The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling them to exercise a least a majority of the voting power, or such greater proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation have voted in favor of the amendment is:  50.06%




4. Effective date of -filing: (optional):_____________________________________________________________________


(must not be later than 90 days after the certificate is filed)





5. Signature:




/s/ David W. NeibertDavid W. Neibert,President
#### Larry G. JUNKER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James R. EDDINGS, Galt Medical Corp and Xentek Medical Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-1208.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 4, 2004.

ORDER

Order Vacated, See 2004 WL 557253.

The appellant having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
No. 11-5196.

#### Williams *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.