alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY


         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,  that the  undersigned  constitutes and
appoints  Jerry C. Moyes and William F. Riley,  III, and each of them,  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 the Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the  fiscal  year ended
December 31, 1996,  for filing with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission by
Swift Transportation Co., Inc., a Nevada corporation,  together with any and all
amendments  to such Form 10-K,  and to file the same with all exhibits  thereto,
and all  documents in connection  therewith,  with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission,  granting to such  attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  and each of them,
full  power  and  authority  to do and  perform  each and  every  act and  thing
requisite and  necessary to be done in and about the  premises,  as fully and to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming  all that such  attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  or each of them,  may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         DATED: February 17, 1997


                                       /s/ Earl H. Scudder, Jr.
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Earl H. Scudder, Jr.


STATE OF NEBRASKA         )
                          ) ss.
County of Lancaster       )


         On this 17th day of February,  1997, before me, the undersigned  Notary
Public,  personally appeared Earl H. Scudder,  Jr., known to me to be the person
whose name is  subscribed  to the within  instrument  and  acknowledged  that he
executed the same for the purposes therein contained.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.



                                       Laura J. Carlson
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Notary Public


My commission expires:
September 23, 2000
#### Ernest Jay TAMERS, Petitioner, v. William H. HEIDTMAN, Sheriff, Palm Beach County, Respondent.

No. 72-761.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 19, 1972.

Habeas corpus denied.
**Exhibit 15.1**

  

April 30, 2013

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

Commissioners:

 

 

 

We have read the statements made by JinkoSolarHolding Co., Ltd , which we understand will be filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission, pursuant to Item 16F of Form 20-F, as part of the Form 20-F of JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltddated April 30, 2013. We agree with the statements concerning our Firm in Item 16F(a)(1) in such Form 20-F.

  

 

Very truly yours,

  

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian CPAsLimited Company

  

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian CPAs Limited Company

Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7230 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7230

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at Block 1025, Lots 18 & 19, Northeast Corner of US Route 9 South and 
Main Street in the Township of Middle, County of Cape May, New Jersey, 
          as the ``George Henry White Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2020

 Mr. Van Drew introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at Block 1025, Lots 18 & 19, Northeast Corner of US Route 9 South and 
Main Street in the Township of Middle, County of Cape May, New Jersey, 
          as the ``George Henry White Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. GEORGE HENRY WHITE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at Block 1025, Lots 18 & 19, Northeast Corner of US Route 9 
South and Main Street in the Township of Middle, County of Cape May, 
New Jersey, shall be known and designated as the ``George Henry White 
Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``George 
Henry White Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOSEPH JONES

,

Defendant Below

– Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Plaintiff Below

– Appellee. §

§

§ No. 82 , 2019

§

§ Court Below

– Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No. 1712008278 (N)

§

§

§

§

Submitted: April 5 , 201 9

Decided: April 15 , 2019

ORDER

It appears to the Court that, o n March 1 9 , 2019 , the Chief Deputy Clerk issued

a notice, sent by certified mail, directing the appellant to show cause why this appeal

should not be dismissed for the appellant's failure to pay the Supreme Court filing

fee or fil e a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Appellant received the notice by

March 25, 2019, a nd has failed to respond within the required ten

- day period.

Dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2)

and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Tra ynor

Justice
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-390]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Aviation Safety

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Aviation Safety will 
meet in closed session on January 9 and January 16, 1997 at Strategic 
Analysis, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia. In order for the Task Force to 
obtain time sensitive classified briefings, critical to the 
understanding of the issues, these meetings are scheduled on short 
notice.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings the 
Task Force will identify and recommend actions to significantly reduce 
the rate of military aviation accidents that erode our readiness and 
resources.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has 
been determined that these DSB Task Force meetings concern matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly these 
meetings will be closed to the public.

    Dated: January 2, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-390 Filed 1-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
254 La. 851

#### E. E. RABALAIS & SON, INC. v. UNITED BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 50113.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 12, 1969.

In re: United Bonding Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Avoyelles. 226 So.2d 528.

Writ refused. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
| (1)   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: December 10, 2010  | By:   | /s/ William A. Johnson           |   |
|-------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |       | William A. Johnson,                   |   |
|                          |       | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                          |       |                                  |   |
| Date: December 10, 2010  | By:   | /s/ Michael K. Solomon           |   |
|                          |       | Michael K. Solomon,                   |   |
|                          |       | Chief Financial Officer               |   |
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

Each of the undersigned, in hisor her capacity as an officer of Cubic Corporation hereby certifies that:

 

1.               The  report of Cubic Corporation (the “Registrant”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”),which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such quarter and theresults of operations of the Registrant for such quarter.

 

 
| /s/ W. J.  Zable         |                     | /s/ W.W.  Boyle |   |
|--------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------|--------|
| W. J. Zable              | W. W. Boyle              |
| Chief  Executive Officer | Chief  Financial Officer |
|                     |                     |
| Date:  May 9, 2005  |                     |

 

----
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of order and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10 Cir. R. 36.3. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 3/13/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_____________________________ DONNA SACKETT, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) No. 95-1046 v. ) (D.C. No. 93-M-961) ) (D. Colorado) RUSS BERRIE AND COMPANY, ) INC., ) ) Defendant-Appellee. )

__________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

__________________________________ Before PORFILIO, ANDERSON, and TACHA, Circuit Judges.

___________________________________ After reviewing the briefs and the record and hearing the arguments of the parties, we concluded the district court did not commit error. We therefore AFFIRM itsjudgment for the reasons stated in the order granting summary judgment..

Entered for the Court John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge
254 La. 848

#### Gloria DELESDERNIER, wife of Paul MARCHAND v. GENE THORPE FINANCE, INC., and Siegfried B. Christensen.

No. 50101.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 10, 1969.

In re: Gloria Delesdernier, the former wife of Paul Marchand, now the wife of Clay N. Gerald applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 225 So.2d 485.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 16

- 00135

- CR

Darrell MOSQUEDA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR4036

Honorable Kevin M. O ’ Connell, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 28, 2016

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED, MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED , DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is granted, and this appeal

is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). Appointed appellate c ounsel’s motion to withdraw is

granted. 1

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court

of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition

for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must b e filed within thirty days after either this opinion

is rendered or the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court.

See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with th e clerk of the Court of Criminal

Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
#### Robert SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-215.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 24, 1978.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie King, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

SCHEB, Judge.

This appeal is from the summary denial of Robert Smith’s motion to vacate and set aside his sentence pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. Appellant Smith contends that his probation should be reinstated because it was revoked solely on the basis of his robbery conviction, which this court reversed on appeal. Appellant’s allegations, if true, would entitle him to the relief sought, and they are not refuted by the record. We therefore reverse and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing.

On December 2, 1974, appellant was placed on probation for two and a half years for the offense of grand larceny. On June 30, 1975, an affidavit and warrant were filed charging him with violating his probation in that he “was arrested on 20th *910day of June, 1975 by officers of the Sarasota Sheriff’s Office and charged with Robbery.” He was tried by jury on the robbery charge on September 22-24, 1975, and was convicted as charged. On October 31, 1975, appellant pled “nolo contendere” to the charge of violating his probation; his probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to five years in prison. The robbery conviction was reversed on appeal. *Bell v. State,*338 So.2d 1328 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). On August 29, 1977, appellant’s motion for discharge on the robbery charge was granted.

Appellant subsequently filed the instant motion to vacate and set aside his sentence, alleging that the revocation of his probation was predicated solely on his invalid robbery conviction and that his probation should be reinstated. The motion was denied without a hearing.

If, as appellant alleges, his probation was revoked solely on the basis of his invalid robbery conviction, the revocation cannot stand. *Jackson v. State,*314 So.2d 175 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). The record before this court does not refute appellant’s allegations. The notes of the probation revocation hearing have not been transcribed and, for reasons unconnected with this case, a certified transcript is probably not obtainable.

Because the available record does not refute appellant’s allegations, we find it necessary to vacate the trial court’s order and remand for an evidentiary hearing. *Estevez v. State,*206 So.2d 697 (Fla.2d DCA 1968). The trial court shall determine whether there was sufficient evidence (other than appellant’s robbery conviction) before the court at the original revocation hearing to support a finding that appellant violated his probation. If there was not, appellant’s probation must be reinstated. However, such reinstatement shall be without prejudice to filing a new affidavit and warrant, and conducting a new probation revocation hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Victor F. Sellier, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Argon ST, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 11, 2005   /s/ Victor F. Sellier     Victor F. Sellier
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3980]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-207-001]


Distrigas of Massachusetts Corporation; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

February 12, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 10, 1997, Distrigas of Massachusetts 
Corporation (DOMAC) tendered for filing in accordance with Order No. 
582 compliance tariff sheets to its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1, as specified in the letter order issued in this 
proceeding on January 24, 1997.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the public 
reference room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3980 Filed 2-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 32**

**THE DAYTON POWER ANDLIGHT COMPANY**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officersof The Dayton Power and Light Company (the “Issuer”) hereby certify that theIssuer’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006,which this certificate accompanies, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Issuer andwill be retained by the Issuer and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
| Signed:                   |
|---------------------------|
|                      |
|  /s/ Paul M.  Barbas |   |
| Paul M. Barbas            |
|                      |
|  /s/ John J.  Gillen |   |
| John J. Gillen            |
|                      |
|                      |
| Date: October 31, 2006    |
|                           |  |  |

 

----
U.S. Department ofJustice / -^^y~w~~~~~~ ~Antitrust Division

_
LibertyPlaceBuilding 325 Seventh StreetNW Washington, DC 20530

June 25, 1999
Mr. Mark Ginsburg Deputy Assistant Secretary Office ofBuilding Technology, State and Community Programs Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Department ofEnergy Washington, D.C. 20585 Re: Energy Policy and Conservation Act DearMr. Ginsburg: On May 14, 1999, you wrote asking our views regarding the "lessening ofcompetition" language in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended. That provision, found at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(I)(v), requires that, before adopting an energy conservation standard, DOE consider the views ofthe Attorney General on whether the proposed standard is likely to result in any lessening ofcompetition. You specifically asked ifour evaluation ofthe effect on competition ofnew standards relating to electric and gas water heaters would include consideration ofthe effects on competition between gas and electric utility industries or within either industry. The Antitrust Division's review ofthe competitive impact ofaproposed standard is not necessarily limited to a single market. In making our evaluation ofthe likely effect ofa proposed standard on competition, we would consider not only evidence ofthe effect on competition among water heater manufacturers, but also information relating to the likely effect on competition among energy suppliers. For example, in the eventthat a proposed appliance standard would harm competition among fuel suppliers, resulting in higher prices for fuels, such»-- » -information would be relevant to our analysis. However, as with our analysis ofthe impact ofa proposed standard on competition among heater manufacturers, our focus would be the effect on the overall level ofmarket competition, not on individual fuel suppliers or on shifts in consumer usage among alternate fuels. Ifyou have any further questions, please letme know. Sincerely,
Roger W. Fones Chief Transportation, Energy and

Agriculture Section