alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1107

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the inclusion in the

Office of the Under Secretary for Health of the Department of Veterans

Affairs of health care personnel appointed to positions in the Veterans

Health Administration.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 15, 1993

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the

inclusion in the Office of the Under Secretary for Health

of the Department of Veterans Affairs of health care

personnel appointed to positions in the Veterans Health

Administration.

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

3 SECTION 1. OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR

4 HEALTH.

5 The second paragraph (8) of section 7306(a) of title

6 38, United States Code (relating to other personnel), is—

7 (1) redesignated as paragraph (9); and
2

•S 1107 IS

1 (2) amended by inserting ‘‘and by chapter 74 of

2 this title’’ before the period at the end.

Æ
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB ("Form 10-QSB") of Smart-tek

Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with

the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Donald Gee, Chief Executive

Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant

to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)   The Form 10-QSB 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all

material respects, the financial condition and results of operations

of the Company.



/s/ Donald Gee

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

Donald Gee

Chief Executive Officer

May 12, 2006
#### Charles C. ROGERS v. FLORIDA PROBATION AND PAROLE COMMISSION.

No. 38577.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Mandamus denied without opinion.
#### PRINGLE *v.*MORTON SALT CO.

Appeal and Error — Inadequacy op Award — Rehearing.

Inadequacy of award, not having been raised on certiorari, nor urged before decision, may not be considered on rehearing.

Certiorari to Department of Labor and Industry.

Submitted June 5, 1930.

(Docket No. 44, Calendar No. 34,838.)

Decided April 24, 1931. Submitted on rehearing January 19, 1932.

Decided June 6, 1932.

Wilmot E. Pringle and another presented their claim against Morton Salt Company for accidental injuries resulting in the death of their son, Harold James Pringle, and later attempted discontinuance of same, and commenced action at law. From the award made, plaintiffs bring certiorari.

Affirmed on rehearing,

*Stewart & Black,*for plaintiffs.

*Cady & Pepper,*for defendant.

*416On Rehearing.

Clark, C. J.

Rehearing granted in *Thomas*v. *Morton Salt Co.,*253 Mich. 613, involved rehearing in this case, 254 Mich. 179. The *Thomas Case,*having been affirmed again, *ante,*231, this case must have like result.

We are now asked to set aside the award as inadequate. This point was not raised on certiorari, nor urged before decision, and may not be considered now. *Booker*v. *Grand Rapids Medical College,*156 Mich. 95 (24 L. R. A. [N. S.] 447).

Affirmed.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
#### ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and Travelers Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Carl BAYS and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 37059.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 5, 1968.

Jesse F. Sparks, Jr., Gurney, Gurney & Handley, Orlando, for petitioners.

Thomas R. Mooney, of Meyers, Mooney & Langston, Orlando, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lake-land, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. After argument and upon further consideration, we have determined the writ was improvidently issued. The writ must be and is discharged and the petition is dismissed. The petition for attorney’s fees is granted in the amount of $350.00.

It is so ordered.

CALDWELL, C. J., ROBERTS, ERVIN and ADAMS, JJ., and SPECTOR, District Court Judge, concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 21.0

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

The following list contains the names and jurisdictions of organization of
Habersham Bancorp's direct and indirect subsidiaries. Habersham Bancorp owns
100% of the outstanding stock of each listed entity, except for BancMortgage
Financial Corp. and Advantage Insurers, Inc., which are wholly owned
subsidiaries of Habersham Bank.

Name and Jurisdiction

Habersham Bank, a Georgia state bank.
The Advantage Group, Inc. a Georgia corporation.
BancMortgage Financial Corp., a Georgia corporation.
Advantage Insurers, Inc., a Georgia corporation.
#### Frank S. CILINCEON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 41010.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

McCAIN, J., dissents.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, J. Norman Rokosh, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Analytical Surveys, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 annual report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual 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 presented in this annual report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and the registrant’s have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on suchevaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this annual report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

Date: December 23, 2003

/s/ J. Norman Rokosh

      J. Norman Rokosh

      President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Loretta C. O'NEILL *v.*B. C. SCHRAM, Receiver of First National Bank-Detroit, a National Banking Association.

No. 7434.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 10, 1937.

Fildew & DeGree, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Robert S. Marx, of Detroit, Mich., for appellee.

Before PUCKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

HICKS, Circuit Judge.

Upon reading and filing the stipulation of counsel for the parties in the above-entitled cause, and the court being advised that said cause has been amicably settled, it is hereby ordered that the above-entitled cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, with prejudice and without cost to either party.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1170

To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to provide for leasing of certain lands

for oil and gas purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 29 (legislative day, JUNE 22), 1993

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

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to provide for leasing

of certain lands for oil and gas purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. Section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act

4 (30 U.S.C. 226) is amended by adding the following new

5 subsection at the end thereof:

6 ‘‘(o)(1) AUTHORITY TO LEASE.—Notwithstanding

7 any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior,

8 in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, may lease

9 for oil and gas exploration, development and production

10 the public domain lands located in Garfield County, Colo-
2

S 1170 IS

1 rado, reserved by Executive order of the President dated

2 December 6, 1916 (as amended by Executive order of the

3 President dated June 12, 1919), and by Executive order

4 of the President dated September 27, 1924, subject to

5 valid existing rights, and pursuant to the requirements of

6 this Act.

7 ‘‘(2) MANAGEMENT.—The Secretary of the Interior,

8 through the Bureau of Land Management, shall hereafter

9 manage the surface estate in the lands covered by this

10 subsection, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Man11 agement Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.), and other

12 laws applicable to the public lands.

13 ‘‘(3) ROYALTY.—A lease of lands by the Secretary

14 of the Interior under this subsection shall be conditioned

15 upon the payment of a royalty pursuant to subsection (b)

16 of this section, except that the Secretary may establish

17 a sliding scale royalty of not less than 12.5 per centum

18 and not more than 25 per centum in amount or value of

19 the production removed or sold from the lease.

20 ‘‘(4) EXISTING EQUIPMENT.—The lease of lands by

21 the Secretary under this subsection may include the trans22 fer, at fair market value, of wells, gathering lines, and re23 lated equipment owned by the United States on the lands

24 referenced in paragraph (1) and suitable for use in the
3

S 1170 IS

1 exploration, development or production of hydrocarbons on

2 such lands.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000946747
<NAME> S.D. WARREN HOLDINGS
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-03-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-1997
<CASH>                                          67,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,965
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,165)
<INVENTORY>                                    191,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               379,400
<PP&E>                                       1,277,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (174,600)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,733,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          311,000
<BONDS>                                        853,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           91,500
<PREFERRED>                                     50,900
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                     289,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,733,500
<SALES>                                        314,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               314,500
<CGS>                                          267,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  310,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,400)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.56)
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Cause number: 01 12-00447-CV

ConocoPhillips Company

v Bascom Craddock and Robert S. Kennedy

Style:

In light of the parties’ joint request, the submission and oral argument of thIs case, currently scheduled for November 27,

2012, is CANCELED and removed from the Court’s docket, to be rescheduled at a later date.

. Further, the Court ORDERS that the supplemental briefing requested by the Court’s November 5, 2012 order shall be filed

with, and actually received by, the Court no less than two weeks prmr to the date of submission of this appeal, if and when

submission is rescheduled.

Finally, the Court requests letter briefing from the parties, filed with the Court on or before December 18, 2012, advising the

Court of the status of the relevant arbitration proceedings and whether the parties contend that events m the arbitration proceedings

resolve, moot, or otherwise eliminate any issues in this appeal.

Judge’s signature: /s/Harvey Brown

Justice Harvey Brown

[] Acting individually [] Acting for the Court

Date: November 6, 2012

November 7, 2008 Revision
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1999 10K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,752
<SECURITIES>                                    15,289
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,607
<PP&E>                                           8,323
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,405
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,748
<BONDS>                                          1,195
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          4
<COMMON>                                           421
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,397
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,765
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   591
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,354
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 117
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,951)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,951)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,951)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.59)


</TABLE>
#### Thomas Clifton FOLSOM v. STATE.

No. 38813.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 223 So.2d 399.
EXHIBIT 10.25
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED CREDIT AGREEMENT
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 Amendment VIRCO MFG.
CORPORATION Borrower WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION Bank Credit
Agreement
   Section 1. Amendment to Section 1. 2(c) of the Credit Agreement.
 Unused Commitment Fee
 Section 2. Amendment to Section 5.13 of the Credit Agreement.
 Maximum ConsolidatedApplicable Fiscal Quarter
    
    Leverage RatioFiscal quarter ended
    
    1.75 to 1.00January 31, 2009Fiscal quarter ended
    
    3.25 to 1.00April 30, 2009Fiscal quarter ended
    
    4.00 to 1.00July 31, 2009Fiscal quarter ended
    
    1.25 to 1.00October 31, 2009Fiscal quarter ended
    
    1.25 to 1.00January 31, 2010
 1




---



##### 



Maximum ConsolidatedApplicable Fiscal Quarter
    
    Leverage RatioFiscal quarter ended
    
    3.25 to 1.00April 30, 2010Fiscal quarter ended
    
    4.00 to 1.00July 31, 2010Fiscal quarter ended
    
    1.25 to 1.00October 31, 2010Fiscal quarter ended
    
    1.25 to 1.00January 31, 2011
 Section 3. Amendments to Annex A to the Credit Agreement .
 Amendment No. 2
 Second Amendment Effective Date
  Consolidated EBITDA plus minus
 Line of Credit Termination Date
 Maximum Line of Credit Amount
     2




---



##### 



Section 4. Restatement of Exhibits . Exhibit A Exhibit A
 Section 5. Consent to Amendments .
 Section 6. Representations and Warranties.
 Representations and Warranties in Credit Agreement
 Authority
 Enforceability of Obligations
 3




---



##### 



No Event of Default
 Section 7. Conditions to Effectiveness.
           Section 8. Admissions and Acknowledgments.
   4




---



##### 



Section 9. Reference to and Effect on Loan Documents.
     Section 10. Benefits of Amendment .
 Section 11. Interpretation .
 Section 12. Execution in Counterparts .
 Section 13. Severability .
 Section 14. Governing Law .
 Section 15. Expenses .
 Section 16. No Course of Dealing.
 Section 17. Arms Length Agreement.
 Section 18. Entire Agreement.
  5




---



##### 



VIRCO MFG. CORPORATION,
     as the BorrowerBy:
    /s/ Robert E. DoseName:
    Robert E. DoseTitle:
    Vice President - Finance, Secretary and
Treasurer VIRCO, INC.,
      as a GuarantorBy:
    /s/ Robert E. DoseName:
    Robert E. DoseTitle:
    Vice President - Finance, Secretary and
Treasurer VIRCO MGMT. CORPORATION,
      as a GuarantorBy:
    /s/ Robert E. DoseName:
    Robert E. DoseTitle:
    Vice President - Finance, Secretary and
Treasurer 6




---



##### 



WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONBy:
    /s/ Jeffrey HeisingerName:
    Jeffrey HeisingerTitle:
    Vice President 7




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
FORM OF LINE OF CREDIT NOTE
<PAGE>   1



                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Analytical Surveys, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-53950, No. 33-59940 and No. 333-47365) on Form S-8 of Analytical Surveys,
Inc. of our report dated January 12, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Analytical Surveys, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 1999 and
2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
September 30, 2000, which report appears in the September 30, 2000 Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Analytical Surveys, Inc.



KPMG LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
January 12, 2001


                                       42
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 
  Section 1350

I, Thomas M. ODonnell, acting as President and Chief Executive
Officer of Sand Technology Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form
20-F for the Fiscal Year ended July 31, 2011 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as
amended and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Sand Technology Inc.

Date: November 7, 2011

| | By: | /s/ THOMAS M. ODONNELL      
| | --- | -----------------------------
| |     | Thomas M. ODonnell          
| |     | Chief Executive
      Officer

This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for
any other purpose. It is not being filed as part of the Annual Report or as a
separate disclosure document.

---
# C_2022284EN.01003101.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2022 — TK v Commission

(Case T-435/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2020 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 15 - Comparing merits - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 284/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TK (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff and L. Hohenecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment, first, of the decision of the European Commission of 18 November 2020 not to include his name on the list of officials promoted to grade AD 15 under the 2020 promotion exercise and, second, of the decisions to promote to grade AD 15 officials belonging to the Senior Management Staff promoted under the 2020 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders TK and the European Commission to each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TK and the European Commission to each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 349, 30.8.2021.

---