alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-37923 and 333-11264) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Option Plan
and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-90757) pertaining to the
Sinclair Option Agreements of Caribiner International, Inc. of our report dated
December 28, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Caribiner International, Inc. included in Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report
(Form 10-K/A) for the year ended September 30, 1999.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, NY
January 25, 2000
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Angel Acquisition Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve Bonenberger, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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; and



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



|                           |     |                                                 | 
|-------------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------- | 
|                           |     |                                                 | 
|Dated:
  November 16, 2009 | By: | /s/ Steve Bonenberger                           | 
|                           |     | Steve Bonenberger                               | 
|                           |     | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director | 
|                           |     |                                                 | 





---

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 Angel Acquisition Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve Bonenberger, Treasurer, Principal Accounting Officer and Director 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; and



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







|                           |     |                                                       | 
|-------------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------- | 
|                           |     |                                                       | 
|Dated:
  November 16, 2009 | By: | /s/ Steve Bonenberger                                 | 
|                           |     | Steve Bonenberger                                     | 
|                           |     | Treasurer, Principal Accounting  Officer and Director | 
|                           |     |                                                       | 



---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT





Safer, Inc.:
     A wholly-owned subsidiary of Verdant Brands, Inc., incorporated under the
     laws of the State of Delaware.

Safer, Ltd.:
     A wholly-owned subsidiary of Safer, Inc., incorporated under the laws of
     Canada.

Southern Resources, Inc.:
     A wholly-owned subsidiary of Verdant Brands, Inc., incorporated under the
     laws of the State of Georgia.

Sureco, Inc.:
     A wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Resources, Inc., incorporated under
     the laws of the State of Georgia.

Peach County Property, Inc.:
     A wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Resources, Inc., incorporated under
     the laws of the State of Georgia.

Consep, Inc.:
     A wholly-owned subsidiary of Verdant Brands, Inc., incorporated under the
     laws of the State of Oregon.

Pacoast, Inc. (d/b/a Pacoast Chemical Company; Protech Spray Service; Central
California Ag Service)
     A wholly-owned subsidiary of Consep, Inc., incorporated under the laws of
     the State of California.

Richard Hunt, Inc. (d/b/a Sierra Ag Chemical):
     A wholly-owned subsidiary of Consep, Inc., incorporated under the laws of
     the State of California.

Valley Green Center, Inc.:
     A wholly-owned subsidiary of Consep, Inc., incorporated under the laws of
     the State of Massachusetts.

Farchan Laboratories, Inc.:
     A wholly-owned subsidiary of Consep, Inc., incorporated under the laws of
     the State of Florida.
§ 73.209 Protection from interference. ( a ) Permittees and licensees of FM broadcast stations are not protected from any interference which may be caused by the grant of a new station, or of authority to modify the facilities of an existing station, in accordance with the provisions of this subpart. However, they are protected from interference caused by Class D (secondary) noncommercial educational FM stations. See § 73.509.
( b ) The nature and extent of the protection from interference afforded FM broadcast stations operating on Channels 221-300 is limited to that which results when assignments are made in accordance with the rules in this subpart.
( c ) Permittees and licensees of FM stations are not protected from interference which may be caused by the grant of a new LPFM station or of authority to modify an existing LPFM station, except as provided in subpart G of this part.
[43 FR 39715, Sept. 6, 1978 and 48 FR 29505, June 27, 1983; 54 FR 9802, Mar. 8, 1989; 65 FR 7640, Feb. 15, 2000; 65 FR 67299, Nov. 9, 2000]
#### § 64.1701 Definitions.

For purposes of this subpart, the terms *accredited standards development organization*, *funding party*, *generic requirement*, and *industry-wide* have the same meaning as found in 47 U.S.C. 273.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO18 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 Immunicon Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward L. Erickson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|EDWARD L. ERICKSON     
|Edward L. Erickson     
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 12, 2005
#### § 61.43 Annual price cap filings required.

Price cap local exchange carriers shall submit annual price cap tariff filings that propose rates for the upcoming tariff year, that make appropriate adjustments to their PCI, API, and SBI values pursuant to §§ 61.45 through 61.47, and that incorporate new services into the PCI, API, or SBI calculations pursuant to §§ 61.45(g), 61.46(b), and 61.47(b) and (c). Price cap local exchange carriers may propose rate, PCI, or other tariff changes more often than annually, consistent with the requirements of § 61.59.

[76 FR 43214, July 20, 2011]
§ 54.9 Prohibition on use of funds. ( a ) *USF support restriction* No universal service support may be used to purchase, obtain, maintain, improve, modify, or otherwise support any equipment or services produced or provided by any company posing a national security threat to the integrity of communications networks or the communications supply chain.
( b ) *Designation of Entities Subject to Prohibition.* ( 1 ) When the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) determines, either *sua sponte* or in response to a petition from an outside party, that a company poses a national security threat to the integrity of communications networks or the communications supply chain, PSHSB shall issue a public notice advising that such designation has been proposed as well as the basis for such designation.
( 2 ) Upon issuance of such notice, interested parties may file comments responding to the initial designation, including proffering an opposition to the initial designation. If the initial designation is unopposed, the entity shall be deemed to pose a national security threat 31 days after the issuance of the notice. If any party opposes the initial designation, the designation shall take effect only if PSHSB determines that the affected entity should nevertheless be designated as a national security threat to the integrity of communications networks or the communications supply chain. In either case, PSHSB shall issue a second public notice announcing its final designation and the effective date of its final designation. PSHSB shall make a final designation no later than 120 days after release of its initial determination notice. PSHSB may, however, extend such 120-day deadline for good cause.
( 3 ) PSHSB will act to reverse its designation upon a finding that an entity is no longer a threat to the integrity of communications networks or the communications supply chain. A designated company, or any other interested party, may submit a petition asking PSHSB to remove a designation. PSHSB shall seek the input of Executive Branch agencies and the public upon receipt of such a petition. If the record shows that a designated company is no longer a national security threat, PSHSB shall promptly issue an order reversing its designation of that company. PSHSB may dismiss repetitive or frivolous petitions for reversal of a designation without notice and comment. If PSHSB reverses its designation, PSHSB shall issue an order announcing its decision along with the basis for its decision.
( 4 ) PSHSB shall have discretion to revise this process or follow a different process if appropriate to the circumstances, consistent with providing affected parties an opportunity to respond and with any need to act expeditiously in individual cases.
[85 FR 249, Jan. 3, 2020]
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4581

AN ACT

To provide for the imposition of temporary fees in connection

with the handling of complaints of violations of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930.

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

3 SECTION 1. FILING AND HANDLING FEES FOR COMPLAINTS

4 OF VIOLATIONS OF PERISHABLE AGRICUL5 TURAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1930.

6 (a) TEMPORARY FILING FEE REQUIRED.—During

7 fiscal years 1995 and 1996, the Secretary of Agriculture

8 shall require persons who submit petitions to the Secretary
2

HR 4581 EH

1 under section 6(a) of the Perishable Agricultural Com2 modities Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499f(a)), alleging a violation

3 of section 2 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 499b), to include a

4 filing fee of $60 per petition.

5 (b) TEMPORARY HANDLING FEE REQUIRED.—Dur6 ing fiscal years 1995 and 1996, if the Secretary deter7 mines under section 6(a) of the Perishable Agricultural

8 Commodities Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499f(a)), that the facts

9 contained in a petition described in such section warrant

10 further action, the person or persons submitting the peti11 tion shall submit to the Secretary a handling fee of $300.

12 The Secretary may not forward a copy of the complaint

13 to the commission merchant, dealer, or broker involved

14 until after the Secretary receives the required handling

15 fee. In determining the amount of damages incurred by

16 an injured person or persons preparatory to issuing a rep17 aration order under section 7 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 499g),

18 the Secretary shall include the amount of any handling

19 fee paid by the injured person or persons under this sub20 section.
3

HR 4581 EH

1 (c) DEPOSIT OF FEES.—The Secretary shall deposit

2 fees submitted under this section into the Perishable Agri3 cultural Commodities Act Fund.

Passed the House of Representatives June 16, 1994.

Attest:

Clerk.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4581

AN ACT

To provide for the imposition of temporary fees in

modities Act, 1930.violations of the Perishable Agricultural Comconnection with the handling of complaints of
794 A.2d 155

#### IN THE MATTER OF MARTIN C. LATINSKY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

April 5, 2002.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 01-277 and DRB 01-278, concluding that MARTIN C. LATINSKY of HAWORTH, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1983, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect), *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(a) (failure to communicate with client), *RPC*1.4(b) (failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions), *RPC*1.5(a)(4) (excessive fee), *RPC*1.5(b) (failure to provide in writing the basis for his fee), *RPC*3.2 (failure to expedite litigation), *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities) and *RPC*8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MARTIN C. LATINSKY is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and until the further Order of the Court, effective May 1, 2002; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

*403ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
#### T.S.S. RAJAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-15264.

D.C. No. CV-01-00277-PMP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 8, 2004.

Decided March 16, 2004.

Richard Segerblom, Attorney at Law, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Carlos A. Gonzalez, Asst. U.S. Atty., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*263MEMORANDUM *

Dr. T.S.S. Rajan (“Rajan”) appeals the decision of the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (‘VA”), affirmed by the Disciplinary Appeals Board (“the Board”) and the district court, to discharge him from his position as a physician at the Las Vegas Veterans Medical Center.

The VA’s termination decision was based on seven charges against Rajan, all of which were reasonably deemed by the agency to be violations of the VA’s Medical Center Memorandum and a federal regulation prohibiting a government employee from engaging in “conduct prejudicial to the Government.” *Leave Administration,*Medical Center Memorandum, 05-98-06 (August 1998); *Employee Conduct,*Medical Center Memorandum, 05-98-25 (September 1998); 5 CFR § 735.203. Under the highly deferential standard of review of 38 U.S.C. § 7462(f)(2)(A), we cannot say that the agency’s decision to terminate an employee who had violated the agency’s policy memorandum and the applicable, albeit broader, federal regulation was arbitrary and capricious. *See Hotel Employers Ass’n of S.F. v. Gorsuch,*669 F.2d 1305, 1307 (9th Cir.1982) (agency action must be affirmed if “a reasonable basis existed for its decision”);1*McClaskey v. United States Dep’t of Energy,*720 F.2d 583, 586 (9th Cir.1983) (dismissal by an agency is excessively harsh “only when the offense committed was extremely minor.”).

The district court was also correct to find that, under *Hibbs v. Dep’t of Human Res.,*273 F.3d 844, 873 (9th Cir.2001), Ra-jan’s receipt of “notice [of charges] and an opportunity to respond” satisfied the due process requirements of a public employer. *See*38 U.S.C. § 7462(f)(2)(B).

Additionally, even in the face of conflicting evidence, the Board had substantial evidence to conclude that Rajan had violated the norms of professional conduct required of a VA physician. *See In re Transcon Lines,*89 F.3d 559, 564 (9th Cir.1996) (substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion”); 38 U.S.C. § 7462(f)(2)(C).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Although the Ninth Circuit has not specifically interpreted the arbitrary and capricious standard of 38 U.S.C. § 7462(f)(2), the standard of review directly mirrors the standard for judicial review of other administrative actions. *See*Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); *Rainsong Co. v. FERC,*106 F.3d 269, 272 (9th Cir.1997).
----

            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 31/2005

of 11 March 2005         

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Chapter IX of Annex II to the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

Article 2

The texts of Directive 2004/22/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 12 March 2005, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 11 March 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Richard WRIGHT            

----

(1)OJ L 130, 29.4.2004, p. 3.

(2)OJ L 135, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

(3)OJ L 202, 6.9.1971, p. 21.

(4)OJ L 202, 6.9.1971, p. 32.

(5)OJ L 239, 25.10.1971, p. 9.

(6)OJ L 335, 5.12.1973, p. 56.

(7)OJ L 183, 14.7.1975, p. 25.

(8)OJ L 336, 4.12.1976, p. 30.

(9)OJ L 26, 31.1.1977, p. 59.

(10)OJ L 105, 28.4.1977, p. 18.

(11)OJ L 364, 27.12.1978, p. 1.

(12)OJ L 259, 15.10.1979, p. 1.

(*1)  Constitutional requirements indicated.

----
#### § 90.441 Inspection and maintenance of antenna structure marking and associated control equipment.

The owner of each antenna structure required to be painted and/or illuminated under the provisions of Section 303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, shall operate and maintain the antenna structure painting and lighting in accordance with part 17 of this chapter. In the event of default by the owner, each licensee or permittee shall be individually responsible for conforming to the requirements pertaining to antenna structure painting and lighting.

[61 FR 4369, Feb. 6, 1996]
§ 90.33 General eligibility. ( a ) In addition to the eligibility shown in the Industrial/Business Pool, eligibility is also provided for any corporation proposing to furnish nonprofit radiocommunication service to its parent corporation, to another subsidiary of the same parent, or to its own subsidiary. This corporate eligibility is not subject to the cooperative use provision of § 90.179.
( b ) Eligibility is also provided for a nonprofit corporation or association that is organized for the purpose of furnishing a radiocommunications service to persons who meet the eligibility requirements of the Industrial/Business Pool. Such use is subject to the cooperative use provisions of § 90.179.
Exhibit 10.21


    
 

     

    December
      21, 2006 

    


    


    


    David
      Bock, CFO

    I-Trax,
      Inc.

    40
      Burton
      Hills Blvd STE 200

    Nashville,
      TN 37215

    


    


    Dear
      Mr.
      Bock:

    


    Bank
      of
      America, N.A. has extended the maturity date of your $14,000,000.00 Line of
      Credit evidenced by the Promissory Note dated March 31, 2005 (including any
      previous amendments, the “Note”). The date on which the final principal and
      interest payment is due is now January 1, 2008.

    


    This
      extension shall not constitute a commitment to extend the maturity of the Note
      beyond the date specified above. All other terms and conditions of the Note
      shall remain in full force and effect.

    


    I
      also
      want to take this opportunity to thank you for your business. I believe we
      can
      continue to provide your company with the same high level of customer service
      and expertise. 

    


    If
      you
      have any questions, please contact your Client Manager, Kirk Porter at
615.749.3137.

    


    Bank
      of
      America, N.A.

    


    


    


    By:
      /s/
      Jennifer Vescera 

    Jennifer
      Vescera, Officer
#### § 90.1301 Scope.

This subpart sets out the regulations governing wireless operations in the 3650-3700 MHz band. It includes licensing requirements, and specific operational and technical standards for wireless operations in this band. The rules in this subpart are to be read in conjunction with the applicable requirements contained elsewhere in the Commission's rules; however, in case of conflict, the provisions of this subpart shall govern with respect to licensing and operation in this band.
No. 11-9986.

#### Pinion *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 22.511 Construction period for the Paging and Radiotelephone Service.

The construction period for stations in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service is one year.