alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EHBIBIT 24.1


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

                     FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL 1998



      KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Norma B. Carter, until December 31, 1998, their
true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and
revocation, for them and in their name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign Vlasic Foods International Inc.'s Form 10-K Annual Report to
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended August 2, 1998,
and any amendments thereto, and to file the same with all exhibits thereto, and
other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to be done, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent
may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.



                         VLASIC FOODS INTERNATIONAL INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


<S>                                              <C>    
Signature                                          Dated as of October 6, 1998
---------                                          -----------------------------



------------------------------                     -----------------------------
Robert T. Blakely                                  Donald J. Keller



------------------------------                     -----------------------------
Robert F. Bernstock                                Lawrence C. Karlson



-------------------------------                    -----------------------------
Morris A. Cohen                                    Shaun F. O'Malley



-------------------------------
Richard L. Huber

</TABLE>
# C_2013032EN.01002606.xml

| 2.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/26

---

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Lilleborg v OHIM — Hardford Sweden (Pierre Robert)

(Case T-85/12) (1)

1

2013/C 32/46

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

1

---
FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 01/16/2015 3:46:30 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
33805, 33875.

#### JOHNSON v. JONES et al.; and vice versa.

Hall, Justice.

Lilla and Ollie Jones brought an ejectment action against William Johnson, seeking to recover possession of a tract of land in Stewart County. The jury found for the plaintiff and also awarded her $3,000 for the value of the land during Johnson’s wrongful possession. The defendant moved for a new trial which was denied. The defendant now appeals and enumerates as error the admission into evidence of the county surveyor’s unofficial plat, the sufficiency of the evidence and the amount of damages. The plaintiff has cross appealed from the denial of summary judgment for failure of the defendant to file with the court answers to interrogatories and a reply to a request for admissions. Because we affirm the verdict of the jury, we do not reach the issue presented in the cross appeal.

1. The court did not err in admitting a plat of the *320disputed property made by the county surveyor and identified by him. The survey was not an official one and did not meet the statutory requirements of Code Ann. § 23- 1112. However, an unofficial but properly verified survey is admissible for whatever weight the jury attaches to it *(Woodard v. Bowen,*213 Ga. 185 (97 SE2d 573) (1957); *Durden v. Kerby,*201 Ga. 780 (2) (41 SE2d 131) (1947)), and the court correctly instructed the jury on this issue. The ten-day notice requirement of Code Ann. § 24- 3384 is for official surveys, and failure to give notice does not bar the admissibility of an unofficial survey. *Darnell v. Betty’s Creek Baptist Church,*230 Ga. 461 (197 SE2d 714) (1973).

Case No. 33805, Submitted July 7, 1978;

Case No. 33875, Submitted July 28, 1978

Decided October 4, 1978.

*Jesse DuBose,*for appellant.

*Weyman Cannington, Jr.,*for appellees.

2. The deeds of appellee contained a sufficiently adequate description of the land for a writ of possession to issue. A review of the record demonstrates that the jury had adequate evidence on which to base its verdict and that it was not error to deny the motion for new trial. *Scarbor v. Scarbor,*226 Ga. 323 (175 SE2d 6) (1970).

3. Appellant admitted in his answer the yearly value of the land and cannot now complain of an award based on that amount.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Bowles, J., who concurs in the judgment only.*
#### EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Sharon ESTERS-THAMES, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 73703.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District. Division Four.

Sept. 15, 1998.

Sharon Esters-Thames, Ballwin, pro se.

Ernie Brasier, St. Louis, for defendant/respondent.

Before HOFF, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of defendant in this breach of trust action. We find the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm pursuant to rule 84.16(b).
p.1 

JUt J4 2013 

P.O. Box 331, Millwood, VA 22646 (540) 837-1602 

Task Force 

July 9, 2013 

-% Q 

BY HAND 

Document Control Office 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

Room 6428 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

I S 

CO 

o 

:% 

c

c

•

n 

n 

• T J O 

CBIC Control Number 

355072 

Re: Testing Consent Order for Ethylene Dichloride; 

Interim Report (Docket No. OPPT-2003-0010') 

Dear Sirs: 

Enclosed in sextuplicate is the six-month interim report required under the Enforceable 

Consent Agreement for Ethylene Dichloride, 68 Fed. Reg. 33125 (June 3, 2003) (the "EGA"), 

describing the status of testing conducted or to be conducted under the ECA. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if there is any question about this status report. 

Sincerely, 

Peter E. Voytek/Ph.D. 

Manager 

Enclosures 

cc: John E. Schaeffer 

W. Caffey Norman, Esq. 

4812-453D-6641. 
p

. 2 

I— 

I 

a 

E 

o 

o 

o CM CO 

c 

o u> 

c 

O 

CO 

o eg a> 

c 

3 "D 

I 

c 

o a . a) CC 

o "D 

U 

Q 

O 

c aj >. 

. c 

4-" 

LJJ i_ 

O 0) 0) 

5 

c "D 

o a. 0- "D C 

TO o> 

c 

u 

o 

H 

cc 

o 05 LU 

Q >- CC 

o 

o UJ 

o cc LU 

o 

o 

w 

c 

u 

Q HI •s . E > 

•3 o 

as to V, 2! * $ O) .Q .E v •a > « .2 v -5 3 3 » 8 D) " J 0) 

H 

< Q. UJ 

O 

+-> T3 

£ 

E 

n 

3 (0 

C 

TO Q. 

> 

3 

(/) 

o •D 

C V >. D) « 

TO O •E x .E 5 0) (j) I S 0) o § S "O »- 3 £ 

40 9 *r > ° O) 

TO .£ 

> 2 £ 

TO C < .2 Si 2 ? ! *r D> 

TO i, I § O) 

c 

"55 l -

<N CM CM 
p. 3 

2550 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037-1350 

Document Control Office 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

Room 6428 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460
EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                               State of
                                                                                                           Incorporation or
                                                                                      Percent of           Organization of
          Parent                                    Subsidiary                         Ownership          Parent/Subsidiary
          ------                                    ----------                         ---------          -----------------
<S>                                          <C>                                        <C>               <C>
Hudson River Bancorp, Inc.                   Hudson River Bank & Trust                  100%              Delaware/New York
                                             Company

Hudson River Bancorp, Inc.                   C. W. Bostwick, Inc.                       76.3%             Delaware/NewYork

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company            Hudson City Associates, Inc.               100%                   New York

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company            Hudson River Mortgage                      100%                   New York
                                             Corporation

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company            Hudson River Funding Corp.                 99.9%                  New York

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company            Hudson City Centre, Inc.                   100%                   New York

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company            SSLA Services Corp.                        100%                   New York

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company            Hudson River Financial Services, Inc.      100%                   New York

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company            ASB Insurance Agency                       100%                   New York

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company            Mohawk Valley Realty Corp.                 99.9%                  New York

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company            Cohoes Realty, Inc.                        99.9%                  New York

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company            CSB Funding, Inc.                          100%                   New York

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company            HRBT Services Corp.                        100%                   New York

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company            MCB Title Agency, Inc.                     100%                   New York

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company            19 Front Street, Inc.                      100%                   New York
</TABLE>
No. 44311.

#### Protest 31219-K of American Merchandise Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallingeb, J.

Savings banks stipulated to be similar to those the subject of Abstract 42749 were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
# C_2013026EN.01007001.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/70

---

Action brought on 27 September 2012 — ZZ v Europol

(Case F-103/12)

2013/C 26/141

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of Europol’s decision, taken to implement the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-37/09 Doyle v Europol, by which Europol granted the applicant a lump sum by way of compensation for the harm caused to her by the decision annulled by that judgment

Doyle

Europol

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the defendant awards the applicant EUR 3 000 in respect of compensation for the damage which she suffered, as full implementation of an earlier judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, and the decision of 29 June 2012 by which the complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 28 November 2011 was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the defendant awards the applicant EUR 3 000 in respect of compensation for the damage which she suffered, as full implementation of an earlier judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, and the decision of 29 June 2012 by which the complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 28 November 2011 was rejected;

| — | order Europol to pay the costs, including the salary of the legal representative. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the costs, including the salary of the legal representative.

---
EXHIBIT 23.2

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-69951, No. 333-90635) of our report dated August 5, 1998,
except as to the pooling of interests which is as of November 5, 1999, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of AnswerThink Consulting
Group, Inc. for the year ended January 2, 1998, included in its Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


New York, New York
March 9, 2000
# C_2014045EN.01003201.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/32

---

Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — von Storch and Others v ECB

(Case T-492/12) (1)

1

(Actions for annulment - Decisions adopted by the ECB - Technical characteristics relating to Eurosystem Outright Monetary Transactions - Measures seeking to maintain the availability of collateral - Temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral - Not directly affected - Inadmissibility)

2014/C 45/53

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Sven A. von Storch and Others (Berlin, Germany) and the 5 216 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: M. Kerber and B. von Storch, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: C. Kroppenstedt and G. Gruber, Agents, assisted by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment, primarily, of the ECB’s decision of 6 September 2012 concerning a certain number of technical characteristics relating to Eurosystem Outright Monetary Transactions on the secondary sovereign debt markets, secondly, of the decision of the ECB of 6 September 2012 adopting additional measures intended to maintain the availability of collateral for counterparties in order to maintain their access to Eurosystem transactions to provide liquidity and, in the alternative, of Guideline 2012/641/EU of the ECB of 10 October 2012 amending Guideline ECB/2012/18 on additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral (ECB/2012/23) (OJ L 284, p. 14).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | Mr Sven von Storch and the 5 216 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the present order shall bear their own costs and are ordered to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Sven von Storch and the 5 216 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the present order shall bear their own costs and are ordered to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

1

---
---

Exhibit 99.5


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 annual report of Pacific Rim Mining Corp. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended April 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven Krause, Chief Financial 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2)        The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. July 21,2010
     Steven KrauseSteven KrauseChief Financial Officer
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pacific Rim Mining Corp. and will be retained by Pacific Rim Mining Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


---
No. 96-7908.

#### Hooper *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0710

_________________ IN THE MATTER OF: G.F., A Youth in Need of Care. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five- justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Robert J . Whelan, District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 26 2023

07/26/2023
Case Number: DA 22-0710
No. 74-878.

No. 74-879.

#### National League of Cities et al. *v.*Dunlop, Secretary of Labor; and California *v.*Dunlop, Secretary of Labor.

Appeals from D. C. D. C. [Probable jurisdiction noted, *ante,*p. 906.] Motion of Florida Police Benevolent Assn, for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae*granted.
# C_2012080EN.01002201.xml

| 17.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/22

---

Action brought on 16 January 2012 — Fomanu v OHIM (Qualität hat Zukunft)

(Case T-22/12)

2012/C 80/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fomanu AG (Neustadt a.d. Waldnaab, Germany) (represented by T. Raible)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 October 2011 in Case R 1518/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 October 2011 in Case R 1518/2011-1;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the these proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of the these proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Qualität hat Zukunft’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 40.

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the Community trade mark concerned is distinctive.

Pleas in law:

---
Case No. 14,021.

#### TIBBETTS v. The ARCTURUS.

[Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
No. 47038.

#### Protest 78534-K of Bingham & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In view of .Abstract 45762 and stipulation of counsel that the ginger is not composed in chief value of manufactured sugar it was held that the tax is not applicable thereto.
**Exhibit 31.1**CertificationsI, Gary Allhusen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2006, of Caneum, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small businessissuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the smallbusiness issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in thesmall business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting;5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant rolein the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 20, 2006
No. 73-6009.

#### Hickman *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.