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




                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, David M. Mulder, Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer and
Senior Financial Officer of Salton, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
         period ended December 28, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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





Dated: May 13, 2003                            /s/David M. Mulder
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               David M. Mulder
                                               Executive Vice President,
                                               Chief Administrative Officer and
                                               Senior Financial Officer
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1121

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United

house’’.Federal Building and United States Courtin Newnan, Georgia, as the ‘‘Lewis R. MorganStates courthouse located at 18 Greenville Street
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1121

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 18 Greenville Street in Newnan, Georgia, as the ‘‘Lewis R. Morgan Federal Building and

United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1121 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse

3 located at 18 Greenville Street in Newnan, Georgia, shall

4 be known and designated as the ‘‘Lewis R. Morgan Fed5 eral Building and United States Courthouse’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

9 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec10 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lewis

11 R. Morgan Federal Building and United States Court12 house’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 4, 1999.

Attest:

Clerk.
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ Mark R. KellerName:
    Mark R. KellerTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) By:
    /s/ Michael J. GreenName:
    Michael J. GreenTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
# (2013&2017 Manual)

# (2007 Manual)
Exhibit 23.1

                          DAVIS ACCOUNTING GROUP, P.C.
                       A Certified Public Accounting Firm
         1957 West Royal Hunte Drive, Suite 150, Cedar City, Utah 84720
                       (435) 865-2808 o FAX (435) 865-2821

================================================================================


Mr. Lavi Krasney, President, CEO and Director
Mr. Asher Zwebner, Treasurer, CFO and Director
CDoor Corp.
20A Rehov Sharei Torah
Bayit Vegan, Jerusalem
Israel 96387

Dear Messrs. Krasney and Zwebner,

                   CONSENT OF REGISTERED INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation in the Annual Report of CDoor Corp. on
Form 10-KSB of our report on the financial statements of the Company as its
registered independent auditors dated March 15, 2006, as of and for the periods
ended December 31, 2005, and cumulative from inception (November 18, 2004)
through December 31, 2005. We further consent to the reference to us in the
section Changes In and Disagreements on Accounting and Financial Disclosures.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/  Davis Accounting Group P.C.

Cedar City, Utah,
March 30, 2006.
Before the Third Division,

May 18, 1956

No. 59925.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 7140-R (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Prom the testimony, it appeared that there was a difference of opinion between the importer and the customs officials as to the proper dutiable value of the merchandise, and ajj test case jwas brought in order to arrive at the proper value. At the conclusion of the testimony, Government counsel read into the reeord statements from the special agent’s report, indicating that there was no intention to defraud the revenue or to conceal or misrep-present the facts or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. On the record presented, the petition was granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE RELATED STATEMENTS OF
INCOME AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE PERIOD FROM THE ITT CORPORATION MERGER (ITT
MERGER) ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1998. NO RESULTS PRIOR TO
FEBRUARY 23, 1998 ARE REPORTED AS A RESULT OF THE ITT MERGER REVERSE PURCHASE
PRICE ACCOUNTING.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000048595
<NAME> STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              36
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      283
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   326
<PP&E>                                           4,676
<DEPRECIATION>                                     207
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              418
<BONDS>                                            592
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              212
<PREFERRED>                                          6
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,305
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,569
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    82
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       18
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     61
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 61
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        61
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        


</TABLE>
S02A0436.

#### BURKHARDT v. BURKHARDT.

(561 SE2d 822)

Fletcher, Chief Justice.

The trial court denied Scott Burkhardt’s motion to set aside the final judgment and decree in a divorce action brought by his wife Kristi Burkhardt. Mr. Burkhardt appeals, contending that service in Wisconsin on his mother at her house while he was living there was ineffective. Because Mr. Burkhardt is a resident of Georgia, service upon him outside the state must be made directly to him. Therefore, service upon his mother was not sufficient and we are constrained to reverse the denial of the motion to set aside.

Mrs. Burkhardt’s complaint for divorce alleged that her husband was a resident of Dawson County, Georgia. Service attempted at his last known address was unsuccessful. At a hearing on a motion for a protective order against Mr. Burkhardt, Mrs. Burkhardt’s counsel informed the trial court that Mr. Burkhardt had gone to live with his mother in Wisconsin. The trial court directed that service be attempted at the Wisconsin address. Subsequently, a deputy sheriff of Marathon County, Wisconsin handed the summons and complaint to Mr. Burkhardt’s mother at her home, and she delivered the papers to Mr. Burkhardt.

1. Under OCGA § 9-11-4 (e) (7), service on a person of “suitable age and discretion then residing” at the defendant’s “dwelling house or usual place of abode” constitutes personal service on the defendant if made in this state. Under this definition, service upon a defendant’s mother at her house when the defendant is living there is sufficient.

2. The legislature, however, has provided a more stringent requirement for service made outside the state upon Georgia residents. OCGA § 9-11-4 (f) (2) requires that service of the summons and complaint “shall be made ... in person to the persons served.” This specific provision for personal service on Georgia residents outside the state controls over the more general provision defining personal service.1 Applying this provision to the facts of record *143demands the conclusion that service in this case was improper because it was not made upon Mr. Burkhardt directly. Without proper service, the trial court did not obtain jurisdiction over Mr. Burkhardt and should have granted his motion to set aside.

Decided March 28, 2002

Reconsideration denied April 29, 2002.

*Robert B. Thompson,*for appellant.

*Germano & Kimmey, C. David Turk III, Richard A. Vandever,*for appellee.

3. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Burkhardt, we need not address the remaining issues raised.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

*Savannah v. Savannah Elec. & Power Co.,*205 Ga. 429, 436-437 (54 SE2d 260) (1949) *143(specific statutory provision controls over general provision).
No. 57572.

#### Hurricane Import Co. *v.*United States,

protests 147680-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the two classes of merchandise are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Calif-Asia Co., Ltd.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 133, C. A. D. 475). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited decision, the items marked *“A”*were held duti*275able at 20 percent under paragraph 412, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802), and the items marked “B” were held dutiable at 1254 percent under said paragraph, as modified by said T. D. 51802.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                             SPECTRUM HOLOBYTE, INC.

                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATE)
                                   (UNAUDITED)


                                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                JUNE 30,
                                                        ------------------------
                                                           1997          1996
                                                        ----------    ----------
Loss before extraordinary item                          $  (8,312)    $  (4,183)
Cumulative preferred dividend                                 (70)          (70)
                                                        ---------     ---------
Loss for the purpose of calculating the loss
   per share before extraordinary item                     (8,382)       (4,253)
   Extraordinary item, net of tax effect                        -         2,668
                                                        ---------     ---------
Net loss for the purpose of calculating
   the net loss per share                               $  (8,382)    $  (1,585)
                                                        ---------     ---------
                                                        ---------     ---------

Per share data:
   Loss before extraordinary item                       $   (0.30)    $   (0.18)
   Extraordinary item, net of tax effect                        -          0.11
                                                        ---------     ---------
   Net loss                                             $   (0.30)    $   (0.07)
                                                        ---------     ---------

Number of shares used in computation of
   per share data                                          28,304        24,384
                                                        ---------     ---------
                                                        ---------     ---------


                                       21
No. 63974.

protests 280066-K, etc. (New York).

#### H. Rosenhirsch Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Accounting and Reporting of Financial Instruments, Docket No. RM02-3-000

Comprehensive Income, Derivatives and Hedging

Activities

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

(November 15, 2002)

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Register of

November 6, 2002 a Final Rule amending its regulations to update its accounting and

financial reporting requirements under its Uniform Systems of Accounts. The effective

date is incorrect as published in the Federal Register. In the Federal Register Document

02-26809 published on November 6, 2002 (67 FR 67692) make the following

correction: On page 67692, in the second column, correct the EFFECTIVE DATE

section

to read as follows:

"EFFECTIVE DATE: The rule will become effective December 6, 2002."

Linwood A. Watson, Jr

 Deputy Secretary.

20021115-3088 Received by FERC OSEC 11/15/2002 in Docket#: RM02-3-000
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 73930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23718]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12227]

Determination Under Section 620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
of 1961 Relating to Assistance to Zimbabwe

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 620(q) of the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), Executive Order 12163, and 
Department of State Delegation of Authority 513, I hereby determine 
that targeted assistance to Zimbabwe in the areas of health, good 
governance and respect for human rights, education, leadership, 
agriculture/food security, poverty reduction, livelihoods, family 
planning and reproductive health, macroeconomic growth (including anti-
corruption efforts), helping victims of trafficking and combatting 
trafficking, and advancing biodiversity and wildlife conservation, as 
well as the continuation of assistance that would have a significant 
adverse effect on vulnerable populations if suspended, is in the 
national interest of the United States and thereby waive the 
application of section 620(q) of the FAA with respect to such 
assistance.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register and, 
with the accompanying Memorandum of Justification, shall be transmitted 
to Congress.

    Dated: September 28, 2023.
Richard Verma,
Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.
[FR Doc. 2023-23718 Filed 10-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-26-P
```
May 27, 2015 

 

Mr. Rob Hansen 

2535 Solano Avenue 

Napa, CA 94558 

Dear Mr. Hansen: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 15, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-1026), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Registration
Statement No. 333-101947 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company
Separate Account Ten on Form N-4, of our report dated March 26, 2003 of
Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company relating to the statutory
financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 and of
our report dated February 21, 2003 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance
Company Separate Account Ten relating to the financial statements as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2002, appearing in the Statement of
Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and
to the reference to us under the headings "Experts" in such Statement of
Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
October 6, 2003
IA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 62

To grant the consent of Congress to the boundary change between Georgia

and South Carolina.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 22, 1999

Mr. LINDER (for himself, Mr. KINGSTON, and Mr. SPENCE) introduced the

following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

To grant the consent of Congress to the boundary change

between Georgia and South Carolina.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CONSENT OF CONGRESS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The consent of Congress is given

5 to the establishment of the boundary between the States

6 of Georgia and South Carolina.

7 (b) NEW BOUNDARY.—The boundary referred to in

8 subsection (a) is the boundary—

9 (1) agreed to by the State of Georgia in Act

10 Number 1044 (S.B. No. 572) approved by the Gov-
2

•HJ 62 IH

1 ernor on April 5, 1994, and agreed to by the State

2 of South Carolina in Act Number 375 (S.B. No.

3 1315) approved by the Governor on May 29, 1996;

4 (2) agreed to by the State of Georgia in Act

5 Number 1044 (S.B. No. 572) approved by the Gov6 ernor on April 5, 1994, and agreed to by the State

7 of South Carolina in an Act approved by its Gov8 ernor not later than 5 years after the date of the en9 actment of this joint resolution;

10 (3) agreed to by the State of South Carolina in

11 Act Number 375 (S.B. No. 1315) approved by the

12 Governor on May 29, 1996, and agreed to by the

13 State of Georgia in an Act approved by its Governor

14 not later than 5 years after the date of the enact15 ment of this joint resolution; or

16 (4) agreed to by the States of Georgia and

17 South Carolina in Acts approved by each of their

18 Governors not later than 5 years after the date of

19 enactment of this joint resolution.

20 (c) COMPACT.—The Acts referred to in subsection (b)

21 are recognized by Congress as an interstate compact pur22 suant to section 10 of article I of the United States Con23 stitution.

Æ
Case No. 13,029.

#### SMITH et al. v. COLEMAN et al.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 237.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1821.

Deposition — Name in Caption — Notice-Practice.

1. If the name of one of the defendants be omitted in the caption of a deposition, it cannot lie road in evidence in the cause.

*4892. It is not necessary that the magistrate who ■takes a deposition under the act of congress [•'i Stat. 350], should certify that the opposite party had no attorney within one hundred miles of the place of caption, in order to excuse the want of notice.

3. If the defendant call upon the plaintiff to produce a certain account at the trial, and, when produced, refuses to read it,- in evidence, the plaintiff cannot read it to the jury, in evidence, because called for by the defendant.

[Cited in Griffin v. Jeffers, Case No. 5,817.]

[This was an action by Joseph Smith it Son against George Coleman and others.]

This was a cause transmitted from Alexandria county, for trial in this county.

Mr. Key, for defendants,

objected to the deposition of Charles H. Hall, because it does not appear to be taken in this cause. — -the name of James Anderson, one of the defendants. having been omitted in the caption.

Mr. Jones, contra.

On an indictment for perjury, it might be averred that the deposition was made in this cause, notwithstanding the omission of the name. So, in special pleading, it might be averred to be taken in this suit, and proved by parol.

THE COURT

(nem. con.) rejected the deposition. because it did not appear to be taken in a cause in which James Anderson is a defendant.

Mr. Key also objected to the deposition of David Seldom because the judge had not •certified that the defendants had no attorney within one hundred miles of the place of caption. He had certified that no notice was given to the adverse parties, because they were within one hundred miles, but said nothing of their attorney.

THE COURT (nem. con.) overruled the objection, because the judge was not required, by the act of congress, to give any reason for not giving notice: and, if he had, his certificate would not be conclusive evidence ■of the fact that neither the party nor his attorney was within one hundred miles of the place of caption. The defendants, not having had notice, may object, on that ground, and the plaintiffs may show, in fact, that neither the defendants nor their attorney were within the one hundred miles. Ac.

The defendants having given notice to the plaintiffs to produce a certain account at the trial, and the plaintiffs having produced it accordingly, the defendants declined to use it; whereupon the plaintiffs offered to read it, in evidence, to the jury. To this the defendants objected, and

THE COURT (nem. eon.) sustained the objection. and refused to permit the plaintiffs to read it to the jury. The plaintiffs became nonsuit, but the court permitted the cause to be reinstated, upon payment of the costs of the term.

The cause, at a subsequent term, was, bv consent, returned to the Alexandria docket.