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

### ** **

### **CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

### ** **

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the followingRegistration Statements:

(1)                                  RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 33-56623) pertaining to the Cintas Corporation Partners’Plan,

(2)                                  RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 33-23228) pertaining to the Incentive Stock OptionPlan,

(3)                                  RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 33-71124) pertaining to the 1990 Directors’ Plan and1992 Stock Option Plan,

(4)                                  RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-75015) pertaining to the Unitog Company 1992 and1997 Stock Option Plans,

(5)                                  RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-44654) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Option Plan,

(6)                                  RegistrationStatement (Form S-4 No. 333-78085), and

(7)                                  Registration Statement(Form S-8 333-1102221) pertaining to the 2003 Director’s Stock Option Plan

 

of our report dated July 22, 2005, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Cintas Corporation included herein, our report datedJuly 22, 2005, with respect to Cintas Corporation management’s assessment ofthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of CintasCorporation, included herein, and our report on the financial statementschedule of Cintas Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) ofCintas Corporation.

 

Our audits included the financial statement schedule of CintasCorporation listed in Item 15(a). This schedule is the responsibility of CintasCorporation’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based onour audits. In our opinion, as to which the date is July 22, 2005, thefinancial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation tothe basic financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly in all materialrespects the information set forth therein.

 

 
|             | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|------------------|--------------------------------|
|             |
|             |
| Cincinnati, Ohio |
| August 10, 2005  |

 

----
#### Lucinda JEFFERSON and Thomas Jefferson, Appellants, v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, Florida, a municipal corporation, and Theodore (Ted) Walker, Appellees.

No. 69-522.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 18, 1970.

William M. Holland, of Holland & Smith, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Larry Klein, of Cone Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, McKeown & Dell, West Palm Beach, for appellee-city.

McCAIN, Judge.

Plaintiffs, Lucinda Jefferson and Thomas Jefferson, appeal a final judgment after jury verdict in favor of defendant city and its police officer. We reverse.

Looking solely to plaintiffs’ most favorable allegations and proof, we observe: Lucinda Jefferson was arrested and convicted for disturbing the peace by officer Walker who was acting within the scope of his employment; during the arrest she *207received injuries from the officer’s excessive and unnecessary force; she was three months pregnant and after her arrest she complained of abdominal pains; during her incarceration, where she was left in a helpless state and ignored, she continued to sustain pain coupled with hemorrhaging and suffered two miscarriages.

After the case was under deliberation the jury returned and asked whether they were allowed to separate the verdicts as to the two defendants. The court, without objection, instructed “that the verdict shall be against — if it is against either defendant, it should be against both defendants”.

Plaintiffs’ failure to object to the court’s instruction in this instance is not fatal. In the interest of justice this court may notice fundamental error apparent in the record whether or not it has been argued in the briefs or made the subject of an assignment of error or of an *objection*or exception in the court below.1

The instruction given could reasonably have misled the jury to plaintiffs’ detriment,2 and we consider it fundamental error inasmuch as the jury might very well have found against the city but not against the officer, i. e., the jury *may*have found the city liable for the action or lack of it taken by the latter’s jail employees while finding officer Walker not liable.

Had plaintiffs not made allegations as to the city’s jail employees the instruction given would have been proper.

We have considered plaintiffs’ other points and find them to be without merit insofar as reversible error is concerned.

We therefore reverse and remand this cause for a new trial solely on the question of the defendant city’s liability for the acts or omissions of its jail employees.

Reversed and remanded.

CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.

1

. F.A.R. 3.7(i), 32 F.S.A. See Pittman v. Roberts, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 333.

2

. See Butz v. Rineheart, Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 125.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1992 

For the relief of Marcos Antonio Sanchez-Diaz. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 10, 2005 

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Marcos Antonio Sanchez-Diaz. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MARCOS 

4 ANTONIO SANCHEZ-DIAZ. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Marcos Antonio Sanchez-Diaz shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of that Act or for adjustment 

12 of status to lawful permanent resident. 
2 

•S 1992 IS

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Marcos Antonio 

2 Sanchez-Diaz enters the United States before the filing 

3 deadline specified in subsection (c), Marcos Antonio 

4 Sanchez-Diaz shall be considered to have entered and re5 mained lawfully and shall be eligible for adjustment of sta6 tus under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act as of the date of enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Marcos Antonio Sanchez-Diaz, the Secretary of 

16 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, dur17 ing the current or next following fiscal year, the total num18 ber of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

19 of the country of birth of Marcos Antonio Sanchez-Diaz 

20 under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

21 Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 

22 that are made available to natives of the country of birth 

23 of Marcos Antonio Sanchez-Diaz under section 202(e) of 

24 that Act. 

Æ
#### Reginald D. WILLIAMS v. Arthur SCHEINUK and General Accident Insurance Company.

No. 9019 Consolidated with No. 9020.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

April 11, 1978.

*341Douglas J. St. Romain, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Monte J. Ducote, New Orleans, for General Acc. Fire and Life Assur. Corp., Ltd., defendant-appellee.

Phillip S. Brooks, City Atty., Allen C. Hope, Jr., Asst. City Atty., for City of New Orleans, intervenor-appellant.

Before GULOTTA, STOULIG and BOU-TALL, JJ.

STOULIG, Judge.

The City of New Orleans has appealed a summary judgment dismissing its intervention in Civil District Court Proceeding No. 597-042 entitled *“Reginald D. Williams v. Arthur Scheinuk and General Accident Insurance Company.”*

Eleven days after plaintiff and the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice the principal demand for damages which they had compromised, the City filed a petition to have recognized its privilege on the damages recovered to the extent it had paid compensation benefits.1

C.C.P. art. 1039 requires that the incidental demand be filed *prior to*the dismissal of the suit in order to be unaffected by the dismissal.

The case was consolidated with another suit by Roy LaFleur,2 a co-worker of plaintiff, injured in the same accident. Again the City paid compensation and filed a petition of intervention asserting its privilege for reimbursement for compensation payments against LaFleur’s recovery. That petition was filed before the joint motion to dismiss with prejudice was filed by plaintiff and defendants. The City argues that because of the consolidation the petition of intervention in the LaFleur case, which was filed prior to the motion to dismiss in the instant case, also served to assert the incidental demand for reimbursement in both cases.

We disagree. The consolidation of these two cases did not in anywise enlarge or decrease the rights of the litigants in the prosecution of or the defense against the claims asserted. Procedural or substantive rights peculiar to one case are not rendered applicable to the companion suit by the mere fact of consolidation. Each case must stand on its own merits. Consolidation only effects an expeditious adjudication of common issues of law or fact presented in two *342or more cases. The timely filed petition of intervention limits the claim for reimbursement to the LaFleur situation.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

*AFFIRMED.*

1

. Petition for damages filed August 12, 1975. Joint motion to dismiss filed December 19, 1975. Petition of intervention filed by City of New Orleans on December 30, 1975.

2

. Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, Docket No. 597-814.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1158 

To impose a 6-month moratorium on terminations of certain plans instituted 

under section 4042 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

of 1974 in cases in which reorganization of contributing sponsors is 

sought in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. AKAKA, and Mr. LAUTENBERG) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To impose a 6-month moratorium on terminations of certain 

plans instituted under section 4042 of the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in cases in 

which reorganization of contributing sponsors is sought 

in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings. 

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 ‘‘Stop Terminating Our 

5 Pensions Act’’. 
2 

•S 1158 IS

1 SEC. 2. 6-MONTH MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN PLAN TERMI2 NATIONS COMMENCED BY THE PENSION BEN3 EFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—During the 6-month period begin5 ning on May 1, 2005, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Cor6 poration may not commence proceedings under section 

7 4042 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 

8 1974 to terminate a plan to which this section applies or 

9 execute termination or trustee agreements with respect to 

10 such plan under such section 4042, and any trustee ap11 pointed under such section may not terminate such plan. 

12 (b) APPLICATION TO PLANS.—This section applies to 

13 a single-employer plan if— 

14 (1) the unfunded benefit liabilities (as defined 

15 in section 4001(a)(18) of such Act) of the plan (de16 termined as of the proposed termination date) are at 

17 least $1,000,000,000; and 

18 (2) a contributing sponsor of such plan has 

19 filed, or has had filed against such sponsor, a peti20 tion in a case under title 11, United States Code, or 

21 under any similar law of a State or political subdivi22 sion of a State seeking reorganization, including 

23 such a case in which liquidation was sought but 

24 which has been converted to a case in which reorga25 nization is sought. 
3 

•S 1158 IS

1 (c) RESTORATION.—In any case in which, during the 

2 period described in subsection (a) and before the date of 

3 the enactment of this Act, the Pension Benefit Guaranty 

4 Corporation has commenced termination proceedings or 

5 executed a termination or trustee agreement subject to the 

6 moratorium provided under subsection (a), or a trustee 

7 appointed under section 4042 of the Employee Retirement 

8 Income Security Act of 1974 subject to such moratorium 

9 with respect to such a plan has terminated such plan, the 

10 Corporation or trustee shall cease any activities under11 taken to terminate the plan and shall take whatever action 

12 is necessary and within the power thereof to restore the 

13 plan to its status prior to the commencement of such pro14 ceedings. 

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1977 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1977

    To repeal section 5 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 8, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To repeal section 5 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SECTION 5 OF THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 
              1972.

    Section 5 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 
476) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
255 La. 562

#### MASSEY-FERGUSON, INC. v. Lawrence COURVILLE.

No. 50444.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 12, 1970.

In re: Massey-Ferguson, Inc. applying for writs of certiorari and stay order.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), John Sharp, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of Sequenom, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Quarterly Report)
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Quarterly Report), irrespective of
any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 14th day of August, 2006.



/S/ JOHN SHARPJohn Sharp Vice President, Finance and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 32

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the report on Form 10-QSB of Planktos Corp. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, Russ George, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|(1) |  | This Report 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the small business issuer at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of the small business issuer for the period covered by this Report.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Russ George

Russ George

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

May 15, 2007

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the small business issuer for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the small business issuer and will be retained by the small business issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDevelopment of 2 underseat energy absorbers for application to crashworthy passenger seats for general aviation aircraftThis report presents the methodology and results of a program conducted to develop two underseat energy absorber (E/A) concepts for application to nonadjustable crashworthy passenger seats for general aviation aircraft. One concept utilizes an inflated air bag, and the other, a convoluted sheet metal bellows. Prototypes of both were designed, built, and tested. Both concepts demonstrated the necessary features of an energy absorber (load-limiter); however, the air bag concept is particularly encouraging because of its light weight. Several seat frame concepts also were investigated as a means of resisting longitudinal and lateral loads and of guiding the primary vertical stroke of the underseat energy absorber. Further development of a seat system design using the underseat energy absorbers is recommended because they provide greatly enhanced crash survivability as compared with existing general aviation aircraft seats.Document ID19840024297Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsWarrick, J. C.*(Simula, Inc. Tempe, AZ, United States)*Desjardins, S. P.*(Simula, Inc. Tempe, AZ, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateSeptember 18, 1979Subject CategoryAir Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:158927NASA-CR-158927Accession Number84N32367Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-14583Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840024297.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


In connection with the Annual Report of Image Sensing System, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Arthur J. Bourgeois, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.




                                        /s/ Arthur J. Bourgeois
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Arthur J. Bourgeois
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        March 30, 2004




                                       38
#### Cindy KEANE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. George Robert DEVINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 76-2701 and 77-18.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 4, 1978.

*458Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Jerry L. Schwarz, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Benedict P. Kuehne, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ALDERMAN, Chief Judge.

The defendants were convicted of robbery. They appeal and raise several points, two of which require reversal.

Firstly, we hold that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendants to cross-examine the alleged victim as to a pending criminal charge against him to which he had pleaded guilty. When a prosecution witness is under criminal charges at the time he testifies, the defense is entitled to bring this fact out. *Blanco*v. *State,*353 So.2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); *Redden v. Wainwright,*340 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); *Fulton v. State,*335 So.2d 280 (Fla.1976); *Morrell v. State,*297 So.2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).

Secondly, we concluded that the comments and repeated interjections by the trial court during the course of the trial deprived the defendants of a fair trial. No purpose would be served in setting out the numerous gratuitous comments and interjections by the trial judge during the course of the trial. This court’s admonition in *Hunter v. State,*314 So.2d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), is applicable to the present case.

REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

CROSS, J., and DURANT, N. JOSEPH, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.