alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.b CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Alec Brophy, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, of Morgan Beaumont, Inc. (the Company); 2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 inExchange Act Rules13a-15 and 15d-15) for the Company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the Evaluation Date); and (c) Presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 5. The Companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report      financial data and have identified for the Companys auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and 6. The Companys other certifying officers and I have indicated in this report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. Date: August 21, 2006
        /s/ Alec BrophyAlec Brophy, Chief Financial Officer  * Provide a separate certification for each principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the Company. See Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a).
No. 45385.

#### Protests 493345-G, etc., of Abraham & Straus, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  into the  Registration
Statements  on Form S-3 (No.  33-29744 and No.  333-01313)  and on Form S-8 (No.
33-35816 and No.  333-01685) of our report dated  November 14, 1997 with respect
to the consolidated  financial  statements of Water-Jel  Technologies,  Inc. and
Subsidiaries  included  in the Annual  Report  (Form  10-KSB) for the year ended
August 31, 1997.



s/ Holtz Rubenstein & Co., Ltd.
HOLTZ RUBENSTEIN & CO., LTD.
Melville, New York
February 26, 1998
EXHIBIT 21
                                
                            XCL Ltd.
                                
                          SUBSIDIARIES
                                
      All of the subsidiaries of the Company are included in  the
Company's  consolidated financial statements.   XCL-Texas,  Inc.,
formerly  L.  Texas Petroleum, Inc. (incorporated in Texas);  The
Exploration  Company of Louisiana, Inc., formerly XCL Exploration
& Production, Inc. (incorporated in Louisiana); XCL-Acquisitions,
Inc. (incorporated in Delaware); XCL Land, Ltd. (incorporated  in
Delaware);  XCL-China Ltd. (incorporated in  the  British  Virgin
Islands);  and XCL-China Coal Methane Ltd. (incorporated  in  the
British  Virgin  Islands)  are the largest  subsidiaries  of  the
Company.  All other subsidiaries, considered in the aggregate  as
a   single   subsidiary,  would  not  consitute   a   significant
subsidiary.
Exhibit
      5.1


**[LUSE
      GORMAN POMERENK & SCHICK LETTERHEAD]**

















(202)
      274-2000








July
      18,
      2007








Citizens
      South Banking Corporation


519
      South
      New Hope Road


Gastonia,
      North Carolina 28054-4040





Ladies
      and Gentlemen:





We
      have
      acted as special counsel to Citizens South Banking Corporation, a Delaware
      corporation (the “Company”), in connection with the registration under the
      Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by the Company of an aggregate of 2,000,000
      shares of common stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “Shares”), and the
      related preparation and filing by the Company with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission of a Registration Statement on Form S-3 (the “Registration
      Statement”).  In rendering the opinion set forth below, we do not
      express any opinion concerning law other than the federal securities laws and
      the corporate law of the State of Delaware.




We
      have
      examined originals or copies, certified or otherwise identified, of such
      documents, corporate records and other instruments, and have examined such
      matters of law, as we have deemed necessary or advisable for purposes of
      rendering the opinion set forth below.  As to matters of fact, we have
      examined and relied upon the representations of the Company contained in the
      Registration Statement and, where we have deemed appropriate, representations
      or
      certificates of officers of the Company or public officials.  We have
      assumed the authenticity of all documents submitted to us as originals, the
      genuineness of all signatures, the legal capacity of natural persons and the
      conformity to the originals of all documents submitted to us as
      copies.  In making our examination of any documents, we have assumed
      that all parties had the corporate power and authority to enter into and perform
      all obligations thereunder, and, as to such parties, we have also assumed the
      due authorization by all requisite action, the due execution and delivery of
      such documents and the validity and binding effect and enforceability
      thereof.




Based
      on
      the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the Shares to be issued and sold
      by
      the Company have been duly authorized and, when issued and sold as contemplated
      in the Registration Statement and the Citizens South Banking Corporation
      Dividend Reinvestment Plan, will be validly issued and outstanding, fully paid
      and non-assessable.







Citizens
      South Banking CorporationJuly 18, 2007Page 2








We
      consent to the filing of this opinion as an Exhibit to the Registration
      Statement and to the reference to our firm under the heading “Legal Matters” in
      the Prospectus that is part of such Registration Statement.




Very
                truly yours,\s\
                Luse Gorman Pomerenk & Schick, P.C.LUSE
                GORMAN POMERENK & SCHICKA
                Professional Corporation
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Ray PLOUFFE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-30045.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 13, 2006.

Joseph E. Thaggard, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jeremy S. Yellin, Esq., Havre, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before RONALD M. GOULD and MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAM W SCHWARZER,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation, or 4,200 words and may be in the form of letters to the clerk of this court.

ORDER

The parties are directed to file supplemental letter briefs addressing whether the court has jurisdiction to review the reasonableness of Appellant’s sentence, which is within the Guidelines range, in light of *United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.*220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); our *pre-Booker*precedent such as *United States v. Reed,*914 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir.1990), and *United States v. Pelayo-Bautista,*907 F.2d 99 (9th Cir.1990); and the holding of *Miller v. Gammie,*335 F.3d 889, 893, 900 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).

The parties are directed to file simultaneous letter briefs on or before fifteen (15) days from the filed date of this order. The briefs shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages (double-spaced)
TS- CDBA22

Attachment #7

Pt. 2, Sec. B, 1a

Processing Information on the New Chemical Substance at Industrial Sites Controlled

by Others
# C_2014184EN.01000301.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/3

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Gmina Wrocław v Minister Finansów

(Case C-72/13) (1)

1

((VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Disposal by a municipality of parts of its assets))

2014/C 184/04

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gmina Wrocław

Applicant:

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Taxation of the transactions of a municipality — Sale of property acquired by operation of law, by inheritance or by donation — Transfer of such property to companies

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding transactions such as those envisaged by the gmina Wrocław (municipality of Wrocław) from being subject to value added tax, in so far as the referring court states that those transactions constitute an economic activity within the meaning of Article 9(1) of that directive and such transactions are not carried out by that municipality as a public authority within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 13(1) of that directive. However, if those transactions were to be considered to be carried out by that municipality acting as a public authority, the provisions of Directive 2006/112 would not prohibit their taxation to the extent that the referring court should find that their exemption would be capable of giving rise to significant distortions of competition within the meaning of Article 13(2) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 18.05.2013.

1

---
No. 00-727.

#### Friese *v.*Hawk Sawyer, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32(b)


              SECTION 1350 Certification (Chief Financial Officer)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Coastal Financial  Corporation,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I Jerry L. Rexroad, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best
of 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
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.

This Certification is provided as of May 10, 2006.


                                                  /s/  Jerry L. Rexroad
                                                  ------------------------
                                                  Jerry L. Rexroad
                                                  Executive Vice President and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer



                                       41
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 22 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 22

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend and 
 expand the additional standard deduction for real property taxes for 
                             nonitemizers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend and 
 expand the additional standard deduction for real property taxes for 
                             nonitemizers.

    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 ``Homeowner Tax Fairness Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF ADDITIONAL STANDARD 
              DEDUCTION FOR REAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR NONITEMIZERS.

    (a) Permanent Extension.--Subparagraph (C) of section 63(c)(1) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``in the case 
of any taxable year beginning in 2008 or 2009,''.
    (b) Removal of Dollar Limitation.--Paragraph (7) of section 63(c) 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(7) Real property tax deduction.--For purposes of 
        paragraph (1), the real property tax deduction is equal to the 
        amount allowable as a deduction under this chapter for State 
        and local taxes described in section 164(a)(1). Any taxes taken 
        into account under section 62(a) shall not be taken into 
        account under this paragraph.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2422 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain adjustable metal lighting fixtures. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain adjustable metal 

lighting fixtures. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ADJUSTABLE METAL LIGHTING FIX4 TURES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2422 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Adjustable metal lighting fixtures, with a parabolic or ellipsoidal reflector, each capable of being focused and with 

a color-media holder, the 

lamp enclosure in a U-shaped 

mounting yoke allowing 360 

degree rotation on an axis 

perpendicular to the projection path of the light and 

with plastic-covered locking 

handle and clutch mechanism 

intended to allow adjustment 

of the fixture in multiple directions and to lock the fixture for prolonged use, the 

foregoing whether for mounting with a c-clamp to a pipe 

or with any other suitable 

hanging mechanism for 

mounting to a structurally 

sound surface capable of supporting the fixture (provided 

for in subheading 

9405.40.60) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Dennis J. DeVany Chief Essential Air Service Division US Dept. ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave. SE Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Sir, This letter is to letyou knowthat I support continuance of Essential Air Services at Visalia, Ca. and that my preferred carrier is Great Lakes Airline.

Thank you, James Fouch 1610 Lindley Dr. Prescott, Az. 86303
Exhibit 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004


In connection with the Quarterly Report of IEH Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Knoth,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectfully certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004,
that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of the section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Robert Knoth
----------------
Robert Knoth
Chief Financial Officer, Controller and Principal Financial Officer

Date: January 31, 2007



                                       30
#### Ex parte Jesse Joe PATRICK.

No. 23159-03.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

April 22, 1998.

Roy E. Greenwood, Austin, for Appellant.

*589Lindsey C. Roberts, Assistant District Attorney, Dallas, Matthew Paul, State’s Attorney, Austin, for State.

BAIRD, Judge,

concurring.

This is a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.071. Applicant alleges he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the habeas process when the habeas judge denied counsel’s request to review the prosecuting attorney’s file. The habeas court correctly determined the statute contains no express provisions controlling post-conviction discovery and:

> merely mandates that “if the convicting court determines that controverted, previously unresolved factual issues material to the legality of the applicant’s confinement exist,” the habeas court may utilize affidavits, depositions, interrogatories, personal recollections, and evidentiary hearings to resolve those controverted issues. *See*Article 11.071 § 9(a).

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, p. 38. (emphasis in the original).

In all post-conviction cases, but especially a capital ease, the more prudent course of action would be to allow access to the prosecutor’s files. In the vast majority of cases, surely there is nothing to hide and no harm can be done. However, if the file contains exculpatory evidence justice demands that it be disclosed. *See, Cook v. State,*940 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.Cr.App.1996); *Ex parte Mitchell,*853 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1993); and, *Ex parte Adams,*768 S.W.2d 281 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). And this disclosure may be accomplished by court order, even though the statute contains no express provisions controlling post-conviction discovery. *See generally, Thomas v. State,*841 S.W.2d 399 (Tex.Cr.App.1992).

With these comments, I concur.
#### Bimemiller, Appellant, *v.*Bimemiller.

*Divorce*— Desertion—Refusal *of libellant to live with husband.*

Where, in an action for a divorce on the ground of desertion, the evidence established that libellant refused to go with her husband and that she had determined not to live with him, the libel is properly dismissed.

Argued April 27, 1926.

Appeal No. 85, April T., 1926, by libellant, from decree of C. P. Allegheny County, January Term, 1923, No. 2219, in the case of Catherine E. Bimemiller v. Maurice W. Bimemiller.

Before Porter, P. J., Henderson, Tkexler, Keeler, Linn, Gawthrop, and Cunningham, JJ.

Affirmed.

Libel in divorce. Before Shaeer, P. J., Reid and Rowand, JJ.

Shaeer, P. J., filed the following opinion:

The libel alleges a desertion on November 24, 1920. The letters of the libellant to the respondent written *36in December, 1920, show plainly that the libellant refused to go with her husband thereafter, determination not to live with her husband thereafter, assigning certain reasons for it. These letters were written at the time and show the state of affairs more surely than the testimony either of them may now give, as to what was said about their living together. There is nothing in the remainder of the evidence to show that the libellant’s attitude towards her husband ever was different from that shown in these letters, and so the evidence fails to show a wilful and malicious desertion. We are of the opinion that the exceptions, so far as they relate to the fact of a desertion, should be sustained. The exceptions are sustained and the libel dismissed.

*Error assigned*was the order of the court.

*Leonard S. Levin,*for appellant.

*Elmer L. Kidney,*for appellee.

April 30, 1926:

Per Curiam,

This was an action of divorce; the charge was desertion. The court below dismissed the libel on the ground that the evidence did not support the allegation. AH that need be said in support of that conclusion appears in the opinion of President Judge Shaper. For the reasons stated by him, we dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed at the cost of appellee, respondent below.
### Owosso Delisting Christopher Lambesis to: Terri Zick 09/22/2009 02:23 PM Cc: Todd Ramaly

From: Christopher Lambesis/R5/USEPA/US

To: Terri Zick <tzick@cticompanies.com > Cc: Todd Ramaly/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

Terri: I plan to get back to reviewing the Owosso delisting petition in about two weeks . I would help if you could provide a summary of all sampling dates, the date Owosso switched from using TCE to the water-based cleaner, and the date Owosso switched from the water-based cleaner to the new cleaner. Also, please let me know if Owosso has changed any other parts of its process. Thanks. -Chris

Christopher Lambesis Environmental Scientist U.S EPA Region 5 Land and Chemicals Division (312) 886-3583