alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Second Division,

April 9, 1962

No. 66680.

#### Fedco, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 61/6433 and 61/6434 (Los Angeles).

*409Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Hibachis similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63217, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 10 to Registration
Statement No. 333-52711 of Hartford Life Insurance Company Separate Account
Three on Form N-4, of our report dated February 19, 2003 of Hartford Life
Insurance Company relating to the financial statements as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, and of our report dated February 21,
2003 of Hartford Life Insurance Company Separate Account Three 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

d0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

139151 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139151 

 COA: 292285 

Berrien CC: 2005-403828-FH 

MICHAEL MILO ENDERS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 15, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule Contains Summary Financial Information 
Extracted From Balance Sheets and Statements of Income
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000878616
<NAME>                        Erox Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    US
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS        
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            Dec-31-1996  
<PERIOD-START>                               Jan-1-1996   
<PERIOD-END>                                 Sep-30-1996  
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         1 
<CASH>                                            982,436 
<SECURITIES>                                            0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,793,159 
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (55,934)
<INVENTORY>                                     3,404,318 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                7,252,575 
<PP&E>                                            688,986 
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (613,848)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  7,327,713 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,871,745 
<BONDS>                                                 0 
<COMMON>                                       17,324,734 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0 
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,868,766)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    7,327,713 
<SALES>                                        13,665,684 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13,665,684 
<CGS>                                           3,738,410 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,738,410 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  301,670 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (21,113) 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   414,655 
<INCOME-TAX>                                       20,733 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               393,922 
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0 
<CHANGES>                                               0 
<NET-INCOME>                                      393,922 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.04 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.04 
        


</TABLE>
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00053

- CR

C HESTER B ENTLEY W ILLIAMS J R

. , Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County ( 1591502D )

May 13, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial cour t ’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mike Wallach

___________________ Justice Mike Wallach
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0151 Directorate Identifier: 2009NM205AD
84 - 32 - 60 --- 6/13/08 MRBR PSM 1 - 84 - 7, R6 --- 11/1/08 GOODRICH SCR 086 -07, RF --- 6/13/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
p. 1


# OAR Box 1672 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# {) ll-C- 2 Docket Number: 

# A-98-1 3

Printed 9/30/2008 11:01:00 AM Sheet 31 of 132P. 2 A-1S-I 3 From : Sel f <PES1RTP/GLAFLAM > To : jbneville@aol.co m Subject : EP

A Informatio n Gatherin g Copie s to : STEV E SHED D <SHEDD.STEVE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV> , "Ja y Helms " Dat e sent : Wed , 1 2 No v1997 09:07:07 -050 0 (EST ) T o Bria n Nevill e (ILTA) : PE S i s currentl ycollectin g informatio n an d dat a relate d t o th e organi cliquid s (non-gasoline ) distributio n industr ya s on e ofth e firs t phase s o f EPA' s NESHA P development
. W e nee d t o develo p a n industr yprofil e tha t describe s facilityoperations , includin g HAP/VO C emissio n points , a s wel l a s numbers , sizes , an d location s o f bul k termina l facilities , etc . W e are als o lookin g int o HA P contro l measure s presentl yi n use , includin g wastewate rcollectio n an d treatmen t system s tha t contai n feature s designe d t o reduc e ai r emissions
. I a m sendin g thi s messag e t o as k whethe ryou rorganizatio n has performe d o rknow s o f an yfairl yrecen t survey s o ranalyse s o f thi s industr y(coverin g you rmembershi p o ra broade rprofile ) tha t woul d contai n th e sor

t o f informatio n w e are seeking
. (W e hav e a copyo f th e curren t ILT

ADirectory. ) Ou rknowledg e ofth e industr ywil l b e on e o f th e bes t tool s t o ensur e tha t thi s rul e i s reasonabl e an d accuratel yconsiders th e issue s presente d t o u s b you rindustr

y contact s an d othe rcommenters . Pleas e ge t bac k

t o m e b ye-mai l o rb

yphon e i f yo u ca n refe ru s t o an y pertinen t information
. I wil l follo wu p thi s messag e wit h a phon e cal l i n th e nex

t fe wday s i f I don' t hea rfro m you . Thanks fo ryou rcooperation , Gre g LaFlam , PES , Inc
. (919)941-033 3
#### The East Rome Town Company *vs.*Brower *et al.*

1. Though the by-laws of a corporation invest a certain officer with power to make contracts and execute conveyances, yet where the contract is made directly with the corporation and is registered on its books, any papers executed by the officer to carry the contract into effect are *prima facie*unwarranted, in so far as. they depart from the terms agreed upon and so registered.

2. The court erred-in not granting a new trial.

March 3, 1888.

Equity. Corporations. Officers. Contracts. Before Judge Maddox. Floyd superior court. March term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

Joel Branham and Underwood *&*Rowell, for plaintiff in error.

*259C. N, Featiierston and W, W. Brookes, for defendants.

Bleckley, Chief Justice,

The object of the bill in- this case was to' correct a deed. There was evidence tending to'show that in the contract made between the parties, there was a reservation' absolute and unqualified as to a certain part of the premises, Whereas the'deed- qualified-in a material- respect'that reservation; The court, in charging- the' jury and dealing with the case throughout the trial, seemed to consider that the highest evidence of the contract was-the deed-itself, and-the'bond for titles in-pursuance of which the deed was made. But the evidence prbves conclusively that it was the understanding of both- parties that the contract should be and was' made directly with the corporation, whereas the bond for titles and the deed were- simply the acts of officers of the'corporation.- The corporation records-manifested the contract as the complainant contended that' it was; and if these records- were prbperly made, they were, in this litigation,, the highest and best- evidence of what it was. If they were improperly made, or did not speak-the truth, they would be reduced from this superior rank. The court,.we think, made the mistake of treating the secondary as the primary; like taking the moon for the sun. The bond’and- deed being executed-expressly in pursuance of the resolution-of tlie corporation,-could shine with' only a' reflected light; whereas the court treated them as shining with original, primary light. The fact that the by-laws of the corporation' invested the president with- certain powers; touching contracting-' and executing contracts, would not prevent the corporation' from--exercising like powers; as it is merely a business corporation, and when it acted-as principal, the president merely acted as agent in executing its orders. The court erred in not granting- a new trial.

Judgment reversed.
No. 67258.

protests 59/765, etc. (New York).

#### M. Adler’s Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass balls similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Joseph Markovits, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
|               |  |                                                                                                                                                  
|-------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|EXHIBIT 32.1  |  | CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the
Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010 of Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. (the Issuer). The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

Dated: February 14, 2011



|    |  |                 
|--- |  | ----------------
|By: |  | /s/ MARK P. MAYS

|      |  |             
|----- |  | ------------
|Name: |  | Mark P. Mays

|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
No. 51268.

Suit 4547.

#### *United States*v. *Standard Railway Equipment*Mfg. *Co.*

C. D. 976 dismissed by stipulation on May 29, 1946. C. A. D. — (not yet reported).
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

I, Gao Ren, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of China Linen Textile Industry, Ltd.

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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.

The company's other certifying officers 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 company 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 company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b.  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals; 

c.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the company'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 evaluations; and

d.  Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting: and 

5.

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

a.  All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company'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 company’s internal controls over financial reporting.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, RobertK. Weiler, Chief Executive Officer of Phase Forward Incorporated (the “Company”),in connection with the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof, hereby certifies pursuant to therequirements of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

 

·                       the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

 

·                       the information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

This certification isbeing provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of theReport, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ ROBERT K.  WEILER       |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |   | Robert K. Weiler            |
|   |   | Chief Executive  Officer    |
|   |   | Phase Forward  Incorporated |
|   |   | May 10,  2010          |

 

1

----
Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the  reference to our firm under the caption  "Experts" and to the
use of our report dated September 12, 2003, in the Registration  Statement (Form
S-4 No.  333-xxxxxx)  and related  Prospectus of MediaNews  Group,  Inc. for the
registration of $300,000,000 of 6 7/8% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2013.




/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Denver, Colorado
February 18, 2004
Before the Third Division,

October 21, 1952

No. 56909.

#### Schenley Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 123347-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
888 First Street, NE | Washington, DC 20426 | 202.502.8000

January 19, 2021

Robert R. Redfield, M.D.

Director

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

1600 Clifton Road

Atlanta, GA 30329

José R. Romero, M.D., FAAP

Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

1600 Clifton Road

Atlanta, GA 30329

Dear Director Redfield and Chairman Romero,

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the agency charged with regulating the 

transportation of oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids in interstate commerce along with its 

duties to oversee the reliability of the nation’s bulk power system. Over the course of the last 

year, workers in the oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquid sectors have helped ensure the 

functioning of our nation’s critical energy infrastructure. 

It has come to our attention that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) 

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has updated its vaccine allocation guidance to 

place the energy workforce in Phase 1c. We recognize that developing vaccine guidance is a 

complex, iterative task that requires the balancing of numerous equities. We write with a narrow 

request: as the Advisory Committee continues to review and update its recommendations, we 

urge you to consider including in Phase 1b highly trained pipeline and storage field workers, 

operators, and control room personnel that perform functions critical to safeguarding system 

reliability. Those workers’ duties can only be performed on-site, usually in close quarters, where 

full adherence to social distancing guidelines is impossible. And while these employees can be 

counted as among the most critical among the American workforce, they represent a relatively 

small population. We understand that the number is likely to be on the order of thousands of 

workers in each state. As such, we urge you to consider prioritizing these workers as the CDC 

continues revising its vaccine guidance. 

We would welcome the opportunity to engage in further discussion regarding the urgency of 

protecting this subset of essential energy workers and the importance of their work when it 

comes to safeguarding America’s critical energy infrastructure. 
888 First Street, NE | Washington, DC 20426 | 202.502.8000

Respectfully,

James P. Danly

Chairman

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Neil Chatterjee

Commissioner

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Richard Glick

Commissioner

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Allison Clements

Commissioner

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Mark C. Christie

Commissioner

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

cc: Mark W. Menezes, Deputy Secretary of Energy

 Brandon Wales, Acting Director, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 Report of SWS Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald W.
Hultgren, 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:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) pursuant to 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |                        
|----------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 9, 2007 |  | /S/ Donald W. Hultgren 
|                  |  | Donald W. Hultgren     
|                  |  | Chief Executive Officer
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

John Elie LeBlanc, Appellant

No. 06-19-00152-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 188th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 45834-A). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment 

of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment by changing the assessment 

of attorney fees to $476.00 and changing the fine to $0.00. We modify the certified bill of costs 

by changing the amount for “Attorney Fee” to $476.00, by changing the amount for “Fine” to 

$0.00, and by changing the amount for “Total Costs” to $940.00. As modified, the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, John Elie LeBlanc, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 26, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



                   CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
Integrated Process Equipment Corp.


         We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
on Form S-2 of Integrated Process Equipment Corp. of our reports dated June 26,
1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of SpeedFam International,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of May 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated
statements of earnings, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended May 31, 1998, and related schedule, and the
consolidated balance sheets of SpeedFam Co., Ltd. and subsidiaries as of April
30, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statement of earnings,
stockholder's equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended April 30, 1998, which reports appear in the 1998 Annual Report on
Form 10-K of SpeedFam International, Inc.

                                  /s/ KPMG LLP


May 5, 1999
Chicago, Illinois