alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 24-F
**POWER OF ATTORNEY**
     Each person whose signature appears below hereby authorizes and appointsDouglas D. Burkett, Ph. D. and Andrew A. Stevens, and each of them severally,as his attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution,to sign and file on his behalf individually and in each such capacity statedbelow, Zila, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending July 31,2004, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, The NASDAQ Stock Market, and otherwise, as fully as such personcould do in person, hereby verifying and confirming all that saidattorneys-in-fact, or their or his substitutes or substitute, may lawfully door cause to be done by virtue hereof.     **Signatures** **Title** **Date** **Douglas D. Burkett, Ph. D.** President and Chief Executive Officerand a Director September 30, 2004**Principal Executive Officer**          **Andrew A. Stevens** Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer September 30, 2004**Principal Financial andAccounting Officer**         **Directors**          **Morris C. Aaron**   September 30, 2004      **Leslie H. Green**   September 30, 2004      **Christopher D. Johnson**   September 30, 2004     **/s/ Michael S. Lesser****Michael S. Lesser**   September 30, 2004      **John Edward Porter**   September 30, 2004      **S. Timothy Rose, D.D.S.**   September 30, 2004
§ 57.06-2 Production test plate interval of testing. ( a ) At least one set of production test plates must be welded for each Class I or Class I-L pressure vessel except as follows: ( 1 ) When the extent of welding on a single vessel exceeds 50 lineal feet of either or both longitudinal and circumferential joints, at least one set of test plates must be welded for each 50 feet of joint.
( 2 ) When the extent of welding on vessels welded in succession exceeds 50 lineal feet of either or both longitudinal and circumferential joints, at least one set of test plates must be welded for each 50 feet of aggregate joint of the same material where the plate thicknesses fall within a range of one-fourth inch. For each 50-foot increment of weld, test plates must be prepared at the time of fabrication of the first vessel involving that increment.
( b ) Production test plates for Class II-L pressure vessels must be prepared as for Classes I and I-L vessels except that the provisions of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section are applicable to each 150 lineal feet of welded joint in lieu of each 50 lineal feet.
( c ) In the case of Class II pressure vessels, no more than one set of production test plates need be prepared for each 300 lineal feet of either or both longitudinal and circumferential joints. In the case of single vessel fabrication, a set of test plates is required for each 300 lineal feet of weld or fraction thereof. In the case of multiple vessel fabrication where each increment of 300 lineal feet of weld involves more than one pressure vessel, the set of test plates must be prepared at the time of fabrication of the first vessel involving that increment.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TOYANNE L. HALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. /

Case No. 15-12729

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE GRAND’S

APRIL 12, 2016 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The court, pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B), and LR 72.1(E.D. Mich. March 1, 2010), has reviewed Magistrate Judge David R.

Grand's April 12, 2016 Report and Recommendation, as well as Plaintiff's May 2, 2016 objections

and Defendant's May 4, 2016 response to the objections.

After conducting a de novo review of the matter, the court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate

Judge Grand's May 25, 2016 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for remand is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions are GRANTED to the extent they seek

reversal of the Commissioner's decision but DENIED in all other respects.

It is further ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED, and the matter is 

REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

s/John Corbett O'Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: July 19, 2016

5:15-cv-12729-JCO-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 07/19/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 973
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record

on this date, July 19, 2016, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

2

5:15-cv-12729-JCO-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 07/19/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 974
#### Butler County Bar Association *v.*Derivan.

[Cite as *Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Derivan*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1216.]

(No. 97-2259

Submitted and decided November 24, 1998.)

On Application for Reinstatement.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent H.T. Derivan, a.k.a. Hubert Thomas Derivan, Attorney Registration No. 0006092, last known business address in Middletown, Ohio.

The court coming now to consider its order of April 1, 1998, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of six months, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that H.T. Derivan, a.k.a. Hubert Thomas Derivan, be, and hereby is, reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

For earlier case, see *Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Derivan*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 300, 691 N.E.2d 256.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer,'Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2



I, Paul D. Meyer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Interlink Electronics, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: March 19, 2004



|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|                                                   
|/s/    PAUL D. MEYER                               
|                                                   
|Paul D. Meyer Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending June 13, 2009

|Filer                    | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                                
|------------------------ | ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|PREMIER BANCSHARES, INC. | CIC           | Mr. James Edward Baxter, II, Richmond, Virginia, to acquire an interest in Premier Bancshares, Inc., McKinney, Texas. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:               | Not available
|Federal Register:        | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL DORMAN, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 Case No. 15-cv-12552 

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON, 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ 

REQUEST TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD RETALIATION AND 

RENEWED MOTION ALLOWING DE BENE ESSE DEPOSITIONS, 

EVIDENCE OF THE CRIMINAL MATTER AND INTRODUCTION OF 

MEDICAL RECORDS SOLELY TO HELP JURY CALCULATE ACCURATE 

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES (ECF No. 185) 

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ “Request to Amend Complaint to Add 

Retaliation and Renewed Motion Allowing De Bene Esse Depositions, Evidence of the 

Criminal Matter and Introduction of Medical Records Solely to Help Jury Calculate 

Accurate Emotional Distress Damages.” (See Mot., ECF No. 185.) The Court held an 

in-person hearing to consider Plaintiffs’ motion on January 31, 2023. For the reasons 

explained on the record during that hearing, Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 185) is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 

 Plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 190, PageID.6748 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 3
2 

 Plaintiffs may take De Bene Esse depositions of the three individuals that 

Plaintiffs’ counsel identified on the record during the hearing before the Court: 

Demetrius Thomas, James Boatman, and the mental health professional who is 

currently treating Plaintiff Michael Dorman. Plaintiffs shall depose these three 

individuals after March 17, 2023. 

 Defendants may serve written discovery requests related to the anticipated 

testimony of Demetrius Thomas, James Boatman, and the mental health 

professional who is currently treating Plaintiff Michael Dorman. Defendants 

shall serve those requests in a time frame such that timely responses to the 

requests will be due before March 17, 2023. 

 Once the three depositions are complete, the Court will convene a status 

conference to address how to resolve the parties’ dispute concerning whether the 

deposition transcripts (and video recordings, if any) shall be admissible at trial. 

By allowing Plaintiffs to depose the three individuals, the Court is not expressing 

any views regarding the admissibility of the depositions at trial. Rather, the 

Court believes it will be in a better position to assess the admissibility of the 

deposition testimony once it has reviewed the depositions and the parties’ 

arguments on the matter. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: January 31, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 190, PageID.6749 Filed 01/31/23 Page 2 of 3
3 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on January 31, 2023, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 190, PageID.6750 Filed 01/31/23 Page 3 of 3
#### § 541.1 Purpose.

This part establishes the minimum information that must be included on or with demurrage and detention invoices. It also establishes procedures that must be adhered to when invoicing for demurrage or detention.
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

1800 Washington Boulevard -Baltimore MD 21230 

MDE 410-537 -3000 - 1-800-633-6101 

Martin O'Malley Shari T. Wilson 

Governor Secretary 

Anthony G. Brown Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. 

Lieutenant Governor Deputy Secretary 

April 22, 2009 

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin 


Regional Administrator (3RAOO) 


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 


Region III 


1650 Arch Street 


Philadelphia PA 19103-2029 


Dear Mr. Garvin: 

The purpose of this letter is to submit the enclosed State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision 

# 10-04 concerning adoption of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) for flexible packaging printing. This SIP Revision includes amendments to 

Regulation .10 and new Regulation .10-1 under COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds 

from Specific Processes. 

The Notice of Proposed Action for this SIP Revision was published in the Maryland Register on 

December 18, 2009. A public hearing was held on January 21 , 2010. The regulation was 

adopted on March 21 , 2010. The Notice of Final Action was published on April 9, 2010 and the 

regulation became effective on April 19, 2010. All administrative procedures were properly 

foll owed throughout the adoption process. 

If you have any questions concerning this SIP submittal, please feel free to call me at (410) 537­

3084 or Mr. George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr., Director of the Air and Radiation Management 

Adm inistration, at (410) 537-3255. 

;1,iL 

Shari T. Wilson 


Secretary 


STW:dhr 


Enclosures 


Recycled Paper IIW\\ .mde.state.md.us TTY Users 1-800-735-2258 

Via Maryland Relay Service
*Upon receipt of a completed Attendance Sheet, payment will go out in the form of a check within 15-30 Business Days. 

(Incomplete attendance sheets will NOT be processed)

Form Updated 04/2013

 AmeriCorps Childcare Attendance Sheet Invoice

Member	Name:		_______________________________________									Member	E-Mail	Address:	_______________________________																	

						

Provider	Name: Provider	Telephone	#:		_________________________________

Month	of	Care:		_________________________________ Year	of	Care:		______________________________			State: ______

TABLE	A:		CHILDREN	IN	CARE

Child	Name Age Rate	for	this	child		(ex:		$100/weekly)

1.

2.

3.

4.

*Please	type	the	letter	“A”	for	days	that	your	child	is	absent	or	sick,	type	“H”	for	Holidays	and	“W”	for	weekends*

TABLE	C:		INVOICE	CHARGES

WEEK	1 $

WEEK	2 $

WEEK	3 $

WEEK	4 $

WEEK	5 $

TOTAL	INVOICE	CHARGES $

X	

			Provider	Signature Date

I	certify	that	the	provider	information	and	attendance	record	entered	on	this	attendance	sheet	are	true	and	accurate.		I	understand	that	

my	 payment	 will	 be	 in	 accordance	 with	 the	 CCDF	 Block	 Grant	 program	 guidelines	 for my	 state.	 I	 further	 understand	 that	 any	

misrepresentation	of	information	may	result	in	legal	action.		

X

			Member	Signature Date

I certify that the information provided above and the attendance records entered on this attendance sheet are true and accurate. I	

understand	that	my	payment	will	be	in	accordance	with	the	CCDF	Block	Grant	program	guidelines	for my	state.		I further understand that 

any misrepresentation of information may result in legal action. 

TABLE	B:		Fill	in	the	#	of	hours	each	day	care	was	provided	

Days	of	the	Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Child	1:

Child	2:

Child	3:

Child	4:

Days	of	the	Month 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Child	1:

Child	2:

Child	3:

Child	4:
#### § 201.15 Appearance in person or by representative.

A party may appear in person or by an officer, partner, or regular employee of the party, or by or with counsel or other duly qualified representative, in any proceeding under the regulations in this part. A party may offer testimony, produce and examine witnesses, and be heard upon brief and at oral argument if oral argument is granted. Any person compelled to appear in a proceeding pursuant to subpoena may be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel and may purchase a transcript of his testimony.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES F. LONGNECKER, II,

Plaintiff, Case no. 15-11705

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s report and

recommendation, filed August 28, 2015. No objections have been filed by the

parties. The court having conducted a thorough review of the entire file;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the report and recommendation is

ADOPTED as the court’s findings and conclusions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (document no. 10) is DENIED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: November 10, 2015

5:15-cv-11705-JCO-DRG Doc # 32 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 186
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the

parties of record on this date, November 10, 2015, using the ECF system and/or

ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

2

5:15-cv-11705-JCO-DRG Doc # 32 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 187
Pari-aguirre 1,6) ' Cherry 

J. 

irATI F-77- 

Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987), and we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge 

Washoe County Alternate Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A < 

I 

2 

vj.:47.41,4251WWIRAMM".e.
§ 5.903 Application procedures. ( a ) An application form for a new credential or endorsement may be obtained from any Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
( b ) The completed application and letter must be addressed to the U.S. Coast Guard Office of Investigations and Analysis, Commandant (CG-INV-1), U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7501, and must be delivered in person to the nearest Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
( c ) The letter is an informal request for the issuance of a new credential or endorsement and should include the following: ( 1 ) A letter from each employer during the last three years attesting to the individual's work record;
( 2 ) Information supportive of rehabilitation or cure when the credential or endorsement was revoked because of incompetency or association with dangerous drugs; and
( 3 ) Any other information which may be helpful in arriving at a determination in the matter.
( d ) The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, forwards the letter and application, together with an evaluation and recommendation, to the Commandant.
[CGD 82-002, 50 FR 32184, Aug. 9, 1985, as amended by USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11215, Mar. 16, 2009; USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49224, Sept. 25, 2009; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013; USCG-2015-0867, 80 FR 62469, Oct. 16, 2015]
# C_2014009EN.01000701.xml

| 11.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-90/12) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Air transport - Agreements relating to air services between Member States and third countries - Obligation on Member States to distribute traffic rights among eligible Community air carriers on the basis of a non-discriminatory and transparent procedure and to inform the Commission of that procedure without delay)

2014/C 9/09

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Simonsson and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 847/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the negotiation and implementation of air service agreements between Member States and third countries (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 7) — Obligation on the Member States to distribute traffic rights among eligible Community air carriers on the basis of a non-discriminatory and transparent procedure and to inform the Commission of that procedure without delay

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not taking the necessary measures to comply with Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 847/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the negotiation and implementation of air service agreements between Member States and third countries, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not taking the necessary measures to comply with Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 847/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the negotiation and implementation of air service agreements between Member States and third countries, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

1

---