alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.5


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT THE UNDERSIGNED CONSTITUTES AND APPOINTS
TERENCE C. SEIKEL HIS TRUE AND LAWFUL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT AND AGENT, WITH FULL
POWER OF SUBSTITUTION AND RESUBSTITUTION, FOR HIM AND IN HIS NAME, PLACE AND
STEAD, IN ANY AND ALL CAPACITIES, TO SIGN: (i) FORM 10-K BEING FILED ON OR ABOUT
THE DATE HEREOF BY ADVANCED ACCESSORY SYSTEMS, LLC, (THE "COMPANY"), (ii) ANY OR
ALL AMENDMENTS (INCLUDING POST-EFFECTIVE AMENDMENTS) TO THE COMPANY'S
REGISTRATION STATEMENT FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND
DECLARED EFFECTIVE ON OR ABOUT JUNE 10, 1998, AND TO FILE THE SAME, WITH ALL
EXHIBITS THERETO, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (INCLUDING ANY
AMENDMENTS THERETO), 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 OR HIS SUBSTITUTE OR
SUBSTITUTES, MAY LAWFULLY DO OR CAUSE TO BE DONE BY VIRTUE HEREOF.




                                                   /s/ Donald J. Hofmann
                                                   --------------------------
                                                   Name:  Donald J. Hofmann
                                                   Dated: March 15, 1999
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 189 

To require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract for the KC– 

X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to consider any unfair competitive 

advantage that an offeror may possess. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 26, 2011 

Mr. MORAN (for himself, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. ROBERTS, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. 

BLUNT, Mrs. MCCASKILL, and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract 

for the KC–X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to 

consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror 

may possess. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defense Level Playing 

5 Field Act’’. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 189 IS

1 SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVAN2 TAGE IN EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR KC–X 

3 AERIAL REFUELING AIRCRAFT PROGRAM. 

4 (a) REQUIREMENT TO CONSIDER UNFAIR COMPETI5 TIVE ADVANTAGE.—In awarding a contract for the KC– 

6 X aerial refueling aircraft program (or any successor to 

7 that program), the Secretary of Defense shall, in evalu8 ating any offers submitted to the Department of Defense 

9 in response to a solicitation for offers for such program, 

10 consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror 

11 may possess. 

12 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after submis13 sion of offers in response to any such solicitation, the Sec14 retary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense 

15 committees a report on any unfair competitive advantage 

16 that any offeror may possess. 

17 (c) REQUIREMENT TO TAKE FINDINGS INTO AC18 COUNT IN AWARD OF CONTRACT.—In awarding a contract 

19 for the KC–X aerial refueling aircraft program (or any 

20 successor to that program), the Secretary of Defense shall 

21 take into account the findings of the report submitted 

22 under subsection (b). 

23 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

24 (1) The term ‘‘congressional defense commit25 tees’’ has the meaning given such term in section 

26 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States Code. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 189 IS

1 (2) The term ‘‘unfair competitive advantage’’, 

2 with respect to an offer for a contract, means a situ3 ation in which the cost of development, production, 

4 or manufacturing is not fully borne by the offeror 

5 for such contract. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.2  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Brett D. Auguster, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bingham Canyon Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly 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 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 establishing and 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 and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’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 evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: August 8, 2007 /s/ Brett D. Mayer Brett D. Mayer, Principal Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of John M. Robeson, Petitioner, *v.*Hortense W. Gabel, as City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

March 3, 1966.

*Cox, Treanor & Shaughnessy*for petitioner. *Maurice A. Reichman*and *Arthur Kass*for respondent.

Birdie Amsterdam, J.

Landlord institutes this article 78 CPLR proceeding to review respondent’s determination denying landlord’s application for decontrol.

Landlord admits using the subject apartment for more than one year for business purposes primarily. He does not deny residence elsewhere during such period.

Landlord contends that such business use of the subject apartment qualifies it for decontrol pursuant to section 2 (subd. f, par. [11]) of the City Rent, Eviction and Rehabilitation Regulations; that there is nothing in the regulations limiting the use of the space to a residence.

The law is to the contrary. Landlord must have occupied tfie apartment as his own dwelling before it may be eligible for decontrol, If a landlord has utilized an apartment for business *887purposes, he has thus withdrawn it from the housing rental market for a period of time and cannot be rewarded for eventually restoring it to the rental housing market. The ehangeback from nonhousing to housing created no new housing accommodation, but merely had the effect of restoring the space to its original status.

Occupancy as referred in the regulation means not only physical presence, but the use of the subject apartment as one’s dwelling. Such interpretation of the statute is consistent with the Rent Control Law.

The Administrator found that the landlord’s use of the subject apartment did not qualify it for decontrol. This interpretation of a statute by the administrative agency under which it functions is entitled to the greatest weight *(White*v. *Winchester Club,*315 U. S. 32, 41; *Hotel Armstrong*v. *Temporary State Housing Rent Comm.,*11 A D 2d 395, 402).

Accordingly, the application is denied and the petition is dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0668

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

NICHOLAS WELLS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 6, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 28 2023

09/28/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0668
(Reap. Dec. 9902)

#### Inter Maritime Fwdg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 39807, etc.

(Decided January 16, 1961)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*George S. Leonard,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, that the merchandise on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the appeals listed in the Schedule A below, which Schedule A is made a part of this stipulation, consist of articles from Czechoslovakia which were appraised on the basis of export value, Section 402(d) Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, including a 15% commission paid by the American importers to the foreign commissionaires for services rendered in connection with the purchase of the merchandise in the foreign market, which commissions did not inure to the benefit of the sellers, and that the issues are the same in all material respects as those that were involved in the case of *Paramount Import Co. Inc. et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9697, wherein it was held that said 15% commission should not be included as a part of the dutiable values.

> It is further agreed that the values found by the appraiser with the 15% commission deducted are not higher than the foreign values as defined in Section 402 (e) of the same Act.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the record in the case of *Paramount Import Co., Inc. et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9697, be incorporated in the record in this ease, and that the appeals be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts and following my cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is the appraised values, less the item identified on the invoices covered by the entries involved herein as 15 per centum buying commission.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Frederick Smith, complainant-respondent, v. Edward C. Balch, defendant-appellant.

[Argued June 19th, 1918.

Decided November 18th, 1918.]

On appeal from the court of chancery.

*Mr. William Tyacke, Jr.,*for the respondent.

*Messrs. Day, Day, Smith & Slingerland,*for the appellant.

Per Curiam.

The decree in this case is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of this court in a case between the same parties, June term, 1918, No. 31, reported *ante p. 563.*

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Kalisch, Black, White, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 11.

*For reversal*— None.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration 

                    By Notice dated July 26, 2006, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 2, 2006, (71 FR 43814), Noramco Inc., 1440 Olympic Drive, Athens, Georgia 30601, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Methylphenidate (1724), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.                 

The company plans to bulk manufacture methylphenidate for a customer to use in the production of a controlled substance product. 

No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Noramco Inc. to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Noramco Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. 

Dated: May 14, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

 [FR Doc. E7-9651 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
No. 46481.

#### Protest 37220-K of Burns Lumber Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber*Sales *Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed only on the net footage imported. The protest was therefore sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1459 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1459

To prohibit air carriers from charging a fee for the transportation of 
checked baggage by members of the Armed Forces traveling to or from an 
                    overseas contingency operation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2011

  Mr. Baucus introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit air carriers from charging a fee for the transportation of 
checked baggage by members of the Armed Forces traveling to or from an 
                    overseas contingency operation.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Four Free Bags for Freedom Act''.

SEC. 2. BAGGAGE FEES PROHIBITED.

    (a) In General.--An air carrier (as defined in section 40102(a) of 
title 49, United States Code) may not charge any fee for the transport 
of 4 or fewer items of baggage checked by a member of the Armed Forces 
if such member--
            (1) is traveling in scheduled air transportation on 
        official military orders; and
            (2) is being deployed on, or returning from, an overseas 
        contingency operation.
    (b) Limitation.--As used in subsection (a), the term ``item of 
baggage'' does not include any item that weighs more than 80 pounds.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.11.16


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT


 


This First
Amendment to Subscription Agreement (this “Agreement”), dated January 24, 2007,
amends that certain Subscription Agreement (the “Subscription Agreement”) dated
effective as of November 15, 2007 by and between Education Media, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Sherwood Investors, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (“Buyer”).


 


The parties
agree as follows:


 


1.     Capitalized
terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in
the Subscription Agreement.


 


2.     The
Consulting Contract is hereby amended as follows:


 


a.               RECITALS:
“WHEREAS, Buyer wishes to
purchase from the Company197,470 shares of the Company’s Common Stock, par
value $0.0001 per share (the “Shares”); and


 


WHEREAS,
the Buyer wishes to purchase the Shares from the Company and the Company wishes
to sell the Shares to the Buyer on the terms and subject to the conditions set
forth in this Agreement.”


 


b.     Section 2.2  Purchase
Price: “As payment in full for the Shares being purchased under this
Agreement and against delivery of the certificates therefor, simultaneous with
the execution hereof, Buyer shall pay $1974.70  to the Company by wire transfer of immediately
available funds or by such other method as may be reasonably acceptable to the
Company, (the “Purchase
Price”).”


 


3.     In all other
respects the Subscription
Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Agreement to be effective as of the date first set forth above.


 


	
   

  	
  EDUCATION MEDIA, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/  Peter
  Kirsch

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name: Peter Kirsch

  
	
   

  	
  Title: Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SHERWOOD INVESTORS, LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/  John
  H. Young

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name: John H. Young

  
	
   

  	
  Title: Trustee, Sherwood Irrevocable Trust
#### F. W. Myers Company, Inc. (F. H. Leggett & Co.) *v.*United States

No. 8082.

Entry Nos. A-6372; A-6495; A-6630.

First Division, Appellate Term

(Order on motion for rehearing [Reap. Dec. 8062] dated February 7, 1952)

• *Marlow & Hines; John D. Rode,*associate counsel; for the appellant.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the appellee.

Before Olivee, Cole, and Mollison, Judges; Olives, C. J., concurring

ORDER

Upon reading and filing the motion of the appellant for a rehearing in the above-entitled oases and for an order remanding the cases to the trial court for the purpose of introducing proof concerning the rules, regulations, or procedure of the Wartime Prices and Trade Board of Canada; together with the affidavit of John D. Bode, verified the 18th day of December 1951 in support thereof, and upon the pleadings and all the proceedings had herein, it is

ORDERED, that the motion be and the same hereby is in all respects granted and the cases remanded to the trial court.

CONCURRING OPINION

Oliver, Chief Judge:

I concur in the granting of this motion, although, because of the conclusion reached by me in my dissenting opinion in this case, I am of opinion that no additional proof is necessary to support plaintiff's case.
No. 44357.

#### Petition 6036-R of Langfelder, Homma & Hayward, Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petition was dismissed.
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



I, Michael L. Hirschey state and attest that:

     (1) I am the Chief Executive Officer of OneSource Technologies, Inc.
(the"issuer").

     (2) Accompanying this certification is the Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2004, a periodic report (the "periodic report") filed by the
issuer with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), which
contains financial statements.

     (3) I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on my
knowledge:

          A. the periodic report containing the financial statements fully
     complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange
     Act, and

          B. the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents,
     in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
     of the issuer for the periods presented therein.


/s/ Michael L. Hirschey
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 15, 2004