alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature
appears below constitutes and appoints Michael D. Hodges and J. Thomas Whelchel,
and each of them, his attorney-in-fact, each with full power of substitution,
for him in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign any
amendment to this Report on Form 10-KSB, and to file the same, with exhibits
thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and hereby ratifies and confirms all that each of said
attorneys-in-fact, or his substitute or substitutes, may do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof.

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the
Registrant in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

             Signature                             Date
             ---------                             ----

            /s/ C. Ray Acosta                  March 18, 1997
            ----------------------
            C. Ray Acosta


            /s/ James M. Fiveash               March 18, 1997
            ----------------------
            James M. Fiveash


                                               March 18, 1997
            ----------------------
            L. McRee Harden


            /s/ Michael D. Hodges              March 18, 1997
            ----------------------
            Michael D. Hodges


            /s/ Russell C. Jacobs, Jr.         March 18, 1997
            ----------------------
            Russell C. Jacobs, Jr.


                                               March 18, 1997
            ----------------------
            C. Kermit Keenum


            /s/ Jimmy D. Veal                  March 18, 1997
            ----------------------
            Jimmy D. Veal


            /s/ J. Thomas Whelchel             March 18, 1997
            ----------------------
            J. Thomas Whelchel
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending January 7, 2006

----

FormsForms  -- final Board review to extend without revision the Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements in Connection with Regulation B (Equal Credit Opportunity) and Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements in Connection with Regulation E (Electronic Funds Transfer).					-Approved, January 6, 2006 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: January 12, 2006
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of MGI PHARMA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leon
O. Moulder, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



(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 results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Leon O. Moulder, Jr.Leon O. Moulder, Jr.President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 5, 2004
ATTACHMENT A – Glenn County Permit to Operate June 21, 2007 – JM Willows, 

CA Facility
#### § 67.33 Individual.

An individual is a citizen if native-born, naturalized, or a derivative citizen of the United States, or otherwise qualifies as a United States citizen.
EXHIBIT 99.20
 CONSENT OF EXPERT
   (a)
    
    under the headings The Nuclear Business  Reserves and Resources, The Nuclear
Business  Development Projects  Cigar Lake and Interest of Experts in the
Corporations Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2008 dated March
27, 2009 for the Cigar Lake property; and(b)
    
    under the headings Our Mineral Reserves and Resources  Mineral Reserves and
Resources and Qualified Persons in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operation for the year ended December 31, 2008 dated February
16, 2009 for the Cigar Lake property,
    /s/C. Scott BishopName:
    
    C. Scott Bishop, P. Eng.Title:
    
    Chief Mine Engineer, Cigar Lake project, Cameco Corporation
§ 42.11-10 Applications for load line assignments and certificates for vessels other than U.S.-flag vessels. ( a ) The application for the assignment of load lines and certificate for a foreign vessel belonging to (or which will belong to) either a country ratifying or acceding to the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, or to a country with which the United States of America has a reciprocal load line agreement in effect shall be made by the Government whose flag the vessel flies, or will fly. The application may be made direct to the American Bureau of Shipping, or after receiving the Commandant's approval, to a recognized classification society which that country has requested as an assigning and issuing authority. When the load line assignment and certificate are authorized pursuant to the requirements in this part, the certificate must contain a statement that it has been issued at the request of a specific Government, which shall be named therein. ( 1 ) When the load line assignment is performed under the applicable regulations in this subchapter, the assigning and issuing authority shall transmit to the requesting Government at the earliest practicable date, one copy of each certificate issued, the load line survey report used for computing the freeboard, and the freeboard computations. For information, the assigning and issuing authority shall also notify the Commandant of the names of the vessel and the Government involved and the date and place where the work was done.
( b ) For a foreign vessel of a country not included in paragraph (a) of this section, the owner, master, or agent normally shall apply in writing to the American Bureau of Shipping, or to any other recognized assigning and issuing authority after it has been approved by the Commandant, for the assignment, survey, and certification of load lines, or for reissue of a load line certificate, as may be necessary for the vessel to clear ports of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Territory of Guam, or other U.S. possessions. Normally the same requirements, conditions, procedures, distribution of applicable certificates, etc., shall be applied to such foreign vessels which are applied to similar U.S.-flag vessels of 150 gross tons or over.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10058, July 12, 1968, as amended by CGFR 68-126, 34 FR 9013, June 5, 1969]
# C_2012133EN.01001801.xml

| 5.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Rose Marie Bark v Galileo Joint Undertaking, in liquidation

(Case C-89/12)

2012/C 133/32

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: Rose Marie Bark

Appellant in cassation:

Respondent in cassation: Galileo Joint Undertaking, in liquidation

Respondent in cassation:

Question referred

Question referred

Should Article 11(2) of the Statutes of the Galileo Joint Undertaking, annexed to Council Regulation (EC) No 876/2002 (1) of 21 May 2002 setting up the Galileo Joint Undertaking, in conjunction with Article 2 of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union, and more specifically the pay conditions of those conditions of employment, are applicable to staff of the Galileo Joint Undertaking who are employed on fixed-term contracts?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 138, p. 1.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 8, 2021

No. 04-21-00317-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.E., C.J.V., T.A.W., R.A.C., AND S.S.H., CHILDREN,

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021PA00277

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This court has jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and certain interlocutory orders the 

Legislature has designated as appealable. In re C.R.D., Nos. 03-19-00561-CV, 03-19-00562-CV, 2019 

WL 4281929, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 11, 2019, no pet.) (dismissing appeals for lack of 

jurisdiction because the trial court’s order did not dispose of all parties’ parental rights and it continued 

the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services as temporary managing conservator as to three

of the children); In re F.M.-T., No. 02-12-00522-CV, 2013 WL 1337789, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

Apr. 4, 2013, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction when the trial court’s interlocutory 

termination order did not dispose of one parent’s rights as to one child). An order is final for purposes of 

appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and issues in the case. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 

191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

Here, appellant L.M.W. filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s August 21, 2021 

interlocutory order terminating her parental rights as to her children, J.M.E., C.J.V., T.A.W., R.A.C., and 

S.S.H. However, the order appealed from does not dispose of all parties in the underlying case. 

Specifically, the order does not dispose of M.C.E.’s parental rights to J.M.E., C.J.V.’s parental rights to 

C.J.V., D.D.C.’s parental rights to T.A.W., and A.C.’s parental rights to R.A.C. Additionally, the trial 

court’s August 21, 2021 is captioned “Interlocutory Order of Termination as to [L.M.W.] and [W.K.H.].”

We, therefore, ORDER appellant L.M.W. to show cause in writing on or before September 24, 

2021, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We suspend all appellate deadlines 

pending our determination of whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of September, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 31.1
 BANCORPSOUTH, INC.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OR 15d-14 OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BancorpSouth, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/   Aubrey B. PattersonAubrey B. PattersonChairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
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: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending May 8, 2010

|Filer                                 | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                                 
|------------------------------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------
|CONNECTICUT BANK & TRUST COMPANY, THE | * Branch       | Application by Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, 58 State House Square, Hartford, Connecticut, to establish a de novo branch office at 114 Woodland Street, Hartford, Connecticut, pursuant to section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act and section 208.6 of Regulation H. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                            | Not available 
|Federal Register:                     | Not applicable
|FIRST COMMUNITY BANK OF NEW HAVEN     | * Branch       | Application by Start Community Bank, New Haven, Connecticut to establish a de novo branch office at 258 Grand Avenue, New Haven, Connecticut, pursuant to section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act and section 208.6 of Regulation H.                                        | Newspaper:05/15/2010Federal Register:Not applicable   
|Newspaper:                            | 05/15/2010    
|Federal Register:                     | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                             | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|-------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|CHELSEA PROVIDENT CO-OP BK, CHELSEA, MASSACHUSETTS | 170976 | 11/30/2009 | 03/29/2010     | S         | Small Bank 

## 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
#### S. B. Hall v. The State.

*No. 180.*

*Decided February 17.*

1. Complaint, Sufficiency of.—A complaint is sufficient which states that affiant has good reason to believe, and does believe,” the accused committed the offense charged therein.

2. Idem Sonans.—The names “ George” and “ Georg” are idem sonans.

Appeal from the County Court of Greer. Tried below before Hon. Charles M. Thacker, County Judge.

Appellant was prosecuted by information for aggravated assault, and upon trial was convicted, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $5.

A motion was made to quash the affidavit or complaint upon which the information was based, because affiant had not stated positively that the assault had been committed, but had only sworn that “ he had good reason to believe, and does believe,” that said assault was committed. This motion to quash was overruled.

There is no statement of facts or bill of exceptions in the record.

No brief for appellant.

*H. L. Henry,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The complaint upon which the information is predicated, states that the affiant “ has good reason to believe, and does believe,” the defendant committed the offense charged.

It is urged that this does not sufficiently charge that an offense has been committed. The point is not well taken. Brown v. The State, 11 Texas Cr. App., 451; Clark v. The State, 23 Texas Cr. App., 260.

In repeating the name of George Manes, the alleged assaulted party, the name George is written Georg, omitting the final letter e from the termination of the name, and this is made a ground of the motion to quash. The court did not err in overruling the motion. The names are idem sonans.

In the absence of the testimony and bills of exceptions, we are unable to review the remaining questions suggested.

As presented to us, we find no error requiring a reversal of the judgment, and it is therefore affirmed.

*Affirmed.*

Judges all present and concurring.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 3116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-275]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Closed Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Deterrence 
Skills will meet in closed session on February 1-2, 2007; at the 
Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these 
meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess all aspects 
of nuclear deterrent skills as well as the progress Department of 
Energy (DoE) has made since the publication of the Chiles Commission 
report.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been 
determined that these Defense Science board Task Force meetings concern 
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the 
meetings will be closed to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Clifton Phillips, USN, Defense 
Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-
3140, via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9cac5c0cfddc6c787d9c1c0c5c5c0d9dae9c6dacd87c4c0c5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="beddd2d7d8cad1d090ced6d7d2d2d7cecdfed1cdda90d3d7d2">[email protected]</span></a>, or via phone at (703) 
571-0083.
    Due to scheduling difficulties, there is insufficient time to 
provide timely notice required by Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act and Subsection 102-3.150(b) of the GSA Final Rule on 
Federal Advisory committee Management, 41 CFR part 102-3.150(b), which 
further requires publication at least 15 calendar days prior to the 
meeting.

    Dated: January 18, 2007.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 07-275 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Same *v.*William Allison, *Appellant*.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinions by

Dykman and Cullen, JJ.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-20457 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

DWAYNE DUPREE and 

SHAWN PEARSON, 

 Defendants. 

________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT 

SHAWN PEARSON’S MOTION TO STRIKE PROPOSED EXPERT 

TESTIMONY (ECF #93) 

On August 27, 2016, Defendant Shawn Pearson (“Pearson”) filed a motion 

to strike the proposed expert testimony of Government witness Joseph Jensen 

(“Jensen”) (the “Motion”). (See ECF #93.) In the alternative, Pearson asked the 

Court to adjourn the scheduled September 7, 2016, trial date to allow him to retain 

his own rebuttal expert. (See id.) The Court held a hearing on the Motion on 

September 6, 2016. 

For the reasons stated on the record at the September 6, 2016, hearing, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion (ECF #93) is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART as follows. The Motion is DENIED to the extent that it seeks 

to exclude Jensen’s testimony on the grounds that the Government failed to 

Case 2:15-cr-20457-MFL-APP ECF No. 103, PageID.367 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 2
2

provide timely disclosure of Jensen’s anticipated testimony. The Motion is 

GRANTED to the extent it seeks an adjournment of the scheduled trial date to 

allow Pearson to retain his own rebuttal expert and to file a Daubert motion 

challenging Jensen’s proposed testimony. 

Counsel shall work together with the Court’s Case Manager to determine a 

date and time for a Daubert hearing with respect to Jensen’s testimony. Once a 

date and time for that hearing is determined, counsel shall file a stipulated order 

with the Court setting forth the briefing and hearing schedule for the Daubert 

motion. The stipulated order shall also memorialize the Speedy Trial Act waivers 

that were placed on the record on September 6, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: September 7, 2016 

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

and/or counsel of record on September 7, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

Case 2:15-cr-20457-MFL-APP ECF No. 103, PageID.368 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 2
#### Dennis Mahoney, *as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v.*The City of Buffalo, *Appellant*.

Judgment and order affirmed. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.