alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23






                       Consent of Independent Accountants





The Board of Directors
Xanser Corporation:

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  registration  statements
numbers  333-101996,  333-87446,  333-83970,  333-83968,  333-68558,  333-34496,
333-60195,  333-22109,  333-14071,  333-14069,  333-14067, 333-08727, 333-08725,
333-08723,  33-58981, 33-54027 and 33-41295 on Form S-8 of Xanser Corporation of
our report dated  February 25, 2004,  with respect to the  consolidated  balance
sheets of Xanser  Corporation  as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related
consolidated  statements of income,  changes in stockholders'  equity,  and cash
flows for each of the years in the  three-year  period ended  December 31, 2003,
and all related  financial  statement  schedules,  which  report  appears in the
December 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of Xanser Corporation.  Our report
refers to a change in accounting for goodwill in 2002.


                                    KPMG LLP



Dallas, Texas
March 25, 2004
DMZ - Visual Observer 

Training Procedures

Training Procedures
Overview

 Initial Qualifications Check – (5 Minutes)

 Medical

 In-Person Interview (30 Minutes)

 Mental Check

 Establish an understanding for the importance of the role

 Discussion of the responsibilities assigned to the role

 Visual Observance – Learning Seminar (60 Minutes)

 What is perception?

 How is it influenced?

 Strategies of Observance

 Classroom Training (90 Minutes)

 Introduction to the Role

 Responsibilities Review

 Terminology

 FAA Regulation Review for Applicable Airspace

 COA Provisions Review

 Flight Training (20 Hours Total)

 Real World Simulations with Person In Command

 PIC will need to perform 20 hrs. of Flight Training and w/ exemption, will be required to have a VO, so the PIC and VO will 

train together for flight training and thus have the same hours. 
Initial Qualifications Check

 Initial Medical Check

 Preliminary check to make sure Visual Observer meets qualification standards

 Medical Check

 All observers must have a valid Class 2 Medical from the FAA or equivalent

 DMZ will accept a valid U.S. Drivers license as that is currently considered an equivalent for 

the Person In Command of the Aircraft
In-Person Interview

 Mental Check

 Establish an understanding of the importance of the VO role

 Why are VO’s necessary?

 Why do they need training?

 VO’s are crewmembers

 Mission-Critical Responsibilities

 Assessment of airspace

 Air traffic

 Obstacles

 Flight Hazards

 Ensure the safety of sUAS flights

 Avoid manned aircraft

 Prevent accidents with obstacles

 Prevent hazards/notify PIC of hazards
Visual Observance – Learning Seminar

 Learning Objectives

 Challenges to human visual perception 

 Limits of human visual perception 

 Describe how orientation, context, and extraneous cues impact our visual 

perception

 Describe how relative motion, altered light angles, contrast, and loss of depth cues 

can impact visual perception. 
Classroom Training

 Classroom – PowerPoint and/or Video Training Module

 Introduction to the Role

 What is a Visual Observer?

 Responsibilities Review

 Ensure the Safety of the Flights

 Terminology

 Return to Home

 Land Immediately

 Avoidance Dive

 FAA Regulation Review for Applicable Airspace

 Right of Way

 Weather Minimums

 Operations near other aircraft

 COA Provisions Review

 Height, Weight, Speed, Proximity Rules, etc.
Flight Training

 Person In Command/Visual Observer Joint Operations

 Review Pre-Flight Checklists

 Review Aircraft Maintenance

 Review Weather Minimum Rules and make current weather observation

 Review flight logs and log the flights

 Take-Offs & Landings

 In-Flight Operations and Communication

 Evasive Maneuvers

 Emergency Action Plan Steps and Execution
Questions?

 Please contact:

 Document Preparer –

DMZ Marketing, LLC.

Zach Fiene

1501 Parkview Court

Prairie du Sac, WI 53578

USA

 dmzaerial@gmail.com

 (608) 370-2858
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of
American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. (the "Company"), that the Quarterly Report
of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company for
the period covered by the Report.

                                        By: /s/ Kenneth H. Traub
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Kenneth H. Traub
                                        Chief Executive Officer




Date: August 13, 2002
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/22/2023 1

Preventing Long Lines 

Florida Democratic Party v. Detzner (Joan A. Lenard 

and Ursula Ungaro, S.D. Fla. 1:12-cv-24000) 

Late on the Saturday before the 2012 general election, because of 

long lines during early voting, a party filed a complaint seeking relief from anticipated long lines on election day at the polls in three 

counties. The assigned judge was out of the district when the case 

was filed, so another judge, selected at random, handled the emergency motion. In response to the lawsuit, the counties created additional opportunities for in-person absentee voting. 

Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Absentee ballots; early 

voting; case assignment. 

Late on the Saturday before the 2012 general election, Florida’s Democratic 

Party filed a federal complaint in the Southern District of Florida, seeking 

relief from anticipated long lines on election day in Broward, Miami-Dade, 

and Palm Beach Counties, because of long lines during early voting.1 With its 

complaint, the party filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.2

Judge Joan A. Lenard drew the case, but she was out of the district when 

the case arrived, so the emergency motion was randomly assigned to Judge 

Ursula Ungaro.3

Apparently as a result of the lawsuit, the three defendant counties allowed in-person absentee voting on Sunday and Monday.4

On Monday, the plaintiff’s attorney filed a stipulation for each county by 

which each county agreed to provide election-day in-person absentee voting 

at county offices.5 That day, Judge Ungaro approved the stipulations, retaining the court’s jurisdiction to enforce them.6

On the day after the election, Judge Lenard issued an order to show cause 

why the case should not be dismissed as moot.7 On November 14, the party 

dismissed the action voluntarily.8

1. Complaint, Fla. Democratic Party v. Detzner, No. 1:12-cv-24000 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 

2012), D.E. 1; see Lloyd Dunkelberger, Lawsuit Is Filed in Florida After Early Voting Ends, 

Sarasota Herald Trib., Nov. 5, 2012, at A4; Jane Musgrave, Scott Eyman & Dara Kam, Elections Office Taking Absentee Ballots Today, Palm Beach Post, Nov. 5, 2012, at 1A. 

2. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, Fla. Democratic Party, No. 1:12-cv-24000 

(S.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2012), D.E. 6. 

3. Email from Hon. Joan A. Lenard to Tim Reagan, Dec. 5, 2012. 

Judge Ungaro retired on May 31, 2021. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of 

Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

4. See Dunkelberger, supra note 1; Musgrave et al., supra note 1. 

5. Stipulations, Fla. Democratic Party, No. 1:12-cv-24000 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2012), D.E. 

18–20. 

6. Order, id. (Nov. 5, 2012), D.E. 21. 

7. Docket Sheet, id. (Nov. 4, 2012). 

8. Notice, id. (Nov. 14, 2012), D.E. 24.
November 30, 2015

Dear Mr. Scruggs:

This letter is to inform you th at the following information is missing from your petition (Docket

No. FAA

− 2015

− 3426). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture a nd Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove clos ed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information has b een submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary in formation), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exe mptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by 12/15/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/S/ Program Analyst
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                                         23,025
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  35,838
<ALLOWANCES>                                   570
<INVENTORY>                                    7,079
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               71,065
<PP&E>                                         383,078
<DEPRECIATION>                                 121,717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 402,273
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          50,642
<BONDS>                                        181,052
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    5,792
<COMMON>                                       4,234
<OTHER-SE>                                     68,421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   402,273
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               236,936
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  178,276
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             15,531
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                13,432
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,789
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            10,643
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   10,643
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.30
        

</TABLE>
April 20, 1960

No. 64114.

Suit 4973.

#### Olavarria & Co., Inc. *v.*United States.

C.D. 2008 affirmed January 6, 1960. C.A.D. 729.
Before the Second Division,

February 7, 1945

No. 49999.

#### Protests 685141-G, etc., of Collin & Gissel et al. (Galveston, etc.)

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON DONNELL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0050 DFL JFM P

vs.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON,

Facility “C” Administration of 

Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 1, 2006, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address and

an opposition to defendants’ March 22, 2006 motion for summary judgment . These documents

were not served on defendants. Plaintiff is advised that every document submitted to the court

for consideration must be served on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Plaintiff is required to serve

all documents in this action conventionally in accordance with the relevant provisions of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 5. See Local Rule 5-135(b). Since an attorney has filed a document with the court on

behalf of defendants, documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not

on the defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(1). Conventional service is usually accomplished by

mailing a copy of the document to the attorney’s address of record. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

Case 2:04-cv-00050-DFL -JFM Document 44 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

5(b)(2)(B). Plaintiff must include with every document filed in this action a certificate stating

the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to defendants’ attorney and the address to

which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within ten days from the date of

this order plaintiff shall serve a copy of his June 1, 2006 notice of change of address and

opposition to defendants’ March 22, 2006 motion for summary judgment on counsel for

defendants and shall file with the court a certificate attesting to such service. Failure to comply

with this order, or failure to properly serve any documents subsequently filed in this action and 

to include a proper certificate of service with such filing, may result in a recommendation that

this action be dismissed.

DATED: June 15, 2006.

12/mp

will0050.35jfm

Case 2:04-cv-00050-DFL -JFM Document 44 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 2
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/14/2023 1

Preclearance for a Soil-and-Water 

Conservation District 

Evans v. Bennett (Beverly B. Martin, N.D. Ga. 1:04-cv-2641) 

Five days before a scheduled election for soil-and-waterconservation-district supervisors, two voters filed a federal complaint claiming that matters relating to the election had not received 

preclearance pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The 

election was canceled, and preclearance was obtained three months 

later. 

Subject: Election dates. Topics: Section 5 preclearance; 

enjoining elections. 

On September 9, 2004, two voters filed a federal complaint in the Northern 

District of Georgia charging that matters relating to a September 14 election 

for two supervisors for the soil-and-water conservation district of Dekalb 

County had not received preclearance pursuant to section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act.1

 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction2

 and a motion for designation of a three-judge district court to hear their case.3

Judge Beverly B. Martin held a telephone conference with the parties on 

September 13, at which she learned that immediate action was not necessary 

because the election had been canceled.4 At a September 27 telephone conference, the parties informed Judge Martin that the elections were awaiting 

preclearance,5 and the plaintiffs withdrew their motions.6

On notice that preclearance was granted on December 21,7 Judge Martin 

dismissed the action on January 20, 2006.8

1. Complaint, Evans v. Bennett, No. 1:04-cv-2641 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 9, 2004), D.E. 1; see

Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, § 5, 79 Stat. 437, 439, as amended, 52 U.S.C. 

§ 10304 (requiring preclearance of changes to voting procedures in jurisdictions with a certified history of discrimination and requiring that preclearance disputes be heard by a threejudge district court). 

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court declined to hold section 5 unconstitutional, but the 

Court did hold unconstitutional the criteria for which jurisdictions require section 5 preclearance. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). 

2. Motion, Evans, No. 1:04-cv-2641 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 9, 2004), D.E. 2. 

3. Motion, id. (Sept. 9, 2004), D.E. 4. 

4. Minutes, id. (Sept. 13, 2004), D.E. 5. 

Judge Martin was elevated to the court of appeals on January 28, 2010, and she retired on 

September 30, 2021. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article III Federal 

Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

5. Minutes, Evans, No. 1:04-cv-2641 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 27, 2004), D.E. 6. 

6. Order, id. (Sept. 27, 2004), D.E. 7. 

7. Motion, id. (Jan. 18, 2006), D.E. 9. 

8. Order, id. (Jan. 20, 2006), D.E. 10.
December 20, 1961

No. 66312.

#### Bruce Duncan Co., Inc., a/c School Furniture Import Co. *v.*United States,

protest 312348-K.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CounterPath Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the three-month period ended January 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Karp, the Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Principal Reporting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.

Date: March 9, 2007.

/s/ David Karp                                                   

David Karp

Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer

(Principal Executive Officer)
R ecord of Discussion Docket No
. FAA- Dir ector ate ld e nti fier: -AD
With whom outside the FAA h as this AD action bee n discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA , NBAA, RAA , AOPA , ALPA , GAMA , etc)?

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

### A irline s 4 America Robert Irel and 

### IZ,ft't/1.0 

## ta.f No response.

Other/Additional inf ormation:
No. 66821.

#### S. P. Eisner & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/12853, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Eord, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of metal articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 65737, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 62541.

#### Quon Quon Company *v.*United States,

protests 287219-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of iron pictures the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Marshall Field & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 676), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items involved in protests 287219-K, 293330-K, and 299122-K at 22J4 percent under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802), for articles or wares in chief value of base metal, not specially provided for; and (2) the items involved in the remaining protests at 21 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 54108).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000052617
<NAME> IRWIN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          47,215
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          26,785
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                59,025
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     27,092
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          37,508
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            37,464
<LOANS>                                        733,424
<ALLOWANCE>                                      8,555
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,680,847
<DEPOSITS>                                     870,318
<SHORT-TERM>                                   473,103
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            100,275
<LONG-TERM>                                     29,784
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           48,071
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,965
<OTHER-SE>                                     129,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,680,847
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 48,978
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,026
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                73,609
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               126,613
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              25,220
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,794
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           71,819
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    4,443
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  14
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                214,111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 57,334
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      57,334
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,156
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.54<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.51<F1>
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     .05<F2>
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,157
<LOANS-PAST>                                       147
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 9,888
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,231
<RECOVERIES>                                       503
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                8,555
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             8,555
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          3,995
<FN>
<F1>Information not in 1,000 and earnings per share reported in basic and diluted
<F2>Information not in 1,000
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR ANDERSON, )

 )

Petitioner, ) No. CIV-04-1172 GEB GGHP 

 ) Eastern California 

v. ) (Sacramento)

 )

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON ) ORDER EXTENDING TIME

TERMS, et al., ) TO FILE AMENDED 

 ) HABEAS PETITION

Respondents. ) 

____________________________________)

 

For good cause shown, the time for Petitioner to file his Amended

Habeas Petition in the above-entitled case is extended from April 25,

2005 to May 16, 2005. 

DATED: 4/26/05

 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 ___________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 United States Magistrate Judge

ande1172.eot04

Case 2:04-cv-01172-GEB-GGH Document 24 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 1