alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| **Exhibit 24.8**      |
|-----------------------|
|                  |
| **POWER OF ATTORNEY** |

 

KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, the undersigned, do hereby appoint Lionel Reilly or Neal Soderquist, or either of them, attorney for me and in my name and on my behalf (i) to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PROFESSIONAL VETERINARY PRODUCTS, LTD. for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2008, and any such amendment thereto, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“**SEC**”) pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (ii) to file the Annual Report on Form 10-K, any amendment thereto, and all exhibits and documents required in connection therewith with the SEC, and (iii) generally to do and perform all things necessary to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of October, 2008.

 

| /s/ Vicky Wilkey, D.V.M. |
|--------------------------|
| Vicky Wilkey, D.V.M.     |

 

| STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA | ) |   |
|-----------------------|---|--------|
|                  | ) | ss.    |
| COUNTY OF HUGHES      | ) |   |

 

On this 23rd day of October, 2008, before me, a Notary public qualified for said County, personally came Vicky Wilkey, D.V.M., known to me to be the identical person who signed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the execution thereof to be his voluntary act and deed.

 

| /s/ Tammy Coldsmith    |
|------------------------|
| Notary Public          |
| My commission expires: |

 

| 12-12-12 |
|----------|
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (6.28 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Susan J. Allread, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Greenville FederalFinancial Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issueras of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the smallbusiness issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date: February 10, 2006 /s/ Susan J. Allread   Susan J. Allread   Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 15, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41392

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS FERNANDO OROZCO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-250-1

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DEMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Fernando Orozco appeals his guilty-plea conviction of

possession with intent to distribute approximately 14.45

kilograms of cocaine. Orozco argues that the district court

erred in failing to apply the “safety-valve” provision contained

in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 because he provided detailed information to

law enforcement agents at his arrest and before his initial

appearance and the fact that he provided information appeared in
No. 02-41392

-2-

the presentence report, which contains no statement that the

information was false or lacking in detail. According to Orozco,

the district court should have conducted its own independent

review of the facts provided. We review for clear error. See

United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 145 (5th Cir. 1996).

The record reveals that Orozco had not provided the name of

the individual who approached him to drive the car containing the

cocaine or the names of the people following him in another car.

It is plausible that Orozco did know the names or other

information about the other individuals. In any event, he did

not communicate to the Government that he did not know the

identities of the other individuals. See United States v.

Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 145 (5th Cir. 1996)(citing with approval

United States v. Rodriguez, 69 F.3d 136 (7th Cir. 1995)). Orozco

did not meet his burden of credibly demonstrating that he

provided the Government with all of the information that he could

reasonably be expected to possess. See United States v. Miller,

179 F.3d 961, 968 (5th Cir. 1999). Therefore, Orozco has not

demonstrated that the district court’s determination that Orozco

was not entitled to the safety-valve provision was implausible in

light of the entire record. See United States v. Davis, 76 F.3d

82, 84 (5th Cir. 1996).

Orozco also argues that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000), overruled previous jurisprudence holding that drug

quantity was a sentencing factor and not an element of the
No. 02-41392

-3-

offense and that the court cannot rewrite 21 U.S.C. § 841 to

correct its unconstitutionality. Therefore, Orozco argues that,

even under plain-error review, that statute must be stricken as

unconstitutional. As Orozco acknowledges, his argument is

foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th

Cir. 2000), but he raises it here to preserve it for further

review. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o o

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #* #*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#

#**

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

##*#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#* #*

#*

#* #*#* #*

#*#* #* #*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#* #* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nmnm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nmnm

nmnm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nmnmnmnmnmnm

nmnm

nm

nm

nm

nmnm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nmnm

nm

nm

nm

nmnm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nmnm nm

nmnm

nmnm

nm

nm

nmnmnm

nm

nm

nmnm

nm

nm

nm

nm nm

nmnmnmnm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nmnm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nmnmnm

nmnm

nmnmnm

nmnm

nmnm

nm

nm

nmnm

nm

nm

nmnmnm nm

nm

nm nmnm

nmnmnmnmnmnm

nmnm

nmnm

nm

nm nm

nmnm

nm

nm

nm nm

nm

nm

nmnmnmnmnm

nm

nm

nmnm

nm

nm

nm nmnmnm

nmnm nmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, USGS, NPS, Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA

!

UAV No Fly Zones in Range of BTS Projects

nm Subdivision outside UAV no fly zone

#* Subdivision in UAV no fly zone

o Airport

No fly zone

0 3 6 12 18 24

Miles

Data acquired from FGDL.org

and created by Bartram Trail Surveying, Inc.

Created by AT on 11/13/2014

UAV No Fly Zones in Northeast Florida
SCPR-14-0001306
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

IN RE JULIET ANN FOLLANSBEE, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN AND SURRENDER LICENSE ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C
. J
. , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k , a n d W i l s o n , J J
. )

Upon consideration of Petitioner Juliet Ann Follansbee’s petition to resign and surrender her license to practice law in the State of Hawai # i, filed pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i (RSCH), and of the affidavits and exhibits in support thereof,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g), that Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and record requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the name of Petitioner Juliet Ann Follansbee, attorney number 7121, from the roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai # i, effective with the filing of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, December 3, 2014. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPR-14-0001306 03-DEC-2014 10:13 AM
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,

Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Boulder Specialty Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge,
that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                                                                                  
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 14, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Stephen B. Hughes
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Stephen B. Hughes Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer (Principal executive officer)
July 8, 2015

Kristian Kolev 2505 Anthem Village Drive

Suite E-136 Henderson, NV 89147

Dear Kristian Kolev:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 29 th 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 2636), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Brittany Newton Program Analyst, Airmen and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
Market Trading Forum: GCVTC Annex; available at: 

www.wrapair.org/forums/mtf/gcvtc_annex.html
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.86 MB)

Tags:Naval Facilities Engineering Command Hawaii, Loglines, January 2019, fuel oil reclaimed

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Docket No. FAA-2012-0997
M A N D A T E

TO THE 93RD DISTRICT COURT of HIDALGO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 25th day of May,

2017, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Everett James Morris, Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-16-00323-CR (Tr.Ct.No. CR-4102-13-B)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal,

concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court orders

the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 9th day of August, 2017.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK

FILE COPY
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, against William Van Wieren, Appellant.

County Court, Orange County,

December 2, 1958.

*Veraldi, Van, Fleet & Eager (Samuel W.*Eager, *Jr.,*of counsel), for appellant.

*Abraham 8. Isseks, District Attorney (Malcolm J. Carrey*of counsel), for respondent.

Edward M. O’Cormah, J.

The defendant was convicted on May 13, 1958 of speeding in excess of 50 miles an hour along Route 84, in the Town of Montgomery, in violation of subdivision 3 of section 56 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The defendant now assigns as an error requiring the reversal of his conviction the failure of the proof given at his trial to establish *107that no greater speed than 50 miles an hour was permitted by the State Traffic Commission on Route 84 at that time and place, as alleged in the information.

While the return of the Justice of the Peace does not indicate any testimony in this connection, the affidavit submitted on behalf of the defendant on this appeal states that the only evidence concerning the speed limit on Route 84 in the area in which the defendant was stopped by the police officer was the following:

‘ ‘ By the Justice: Is any greater speed of 50 miles per hour permitted on Route 84?

*“*By the Trooper: No.”

Subdivision 3 of section 56 was amended by chapter 114 of the Laws of 1957, and the following language was added thereto: 1 ‘ Absence of signs erected pursuant to the provisions of section ninety-five-c of this article on any state highway outside of cities or incorporated villages shall be presumptive evidence that the state traffic commission has not fixed a maximum speed greater than fifty miles per hour at that location.”

While the foregoing standard of proof may be so vague that it is incapable of application, that question is not presented on this appeal, because the testimony of the trooper falls far short of the requirement of the provision.

An examination of the memorandum of the Joint Legislative Committee (McKinney’s Session Laws of New York [1957], p. 2039) in respect to the foregoing bill amending subdivision 3 of section 56, indicates that the purpose of the bill was to eliminate the requirement of a certificate of the State Traffic Commission, which has heretofore been a necessary part of the People’s case.

In the court’s opinion, while the Legislature, by the change in the statute, may have substituted a different manner of establishing the fact that the State Traffic Commission has not fixed a maximum speed greater than 50 miles per hour at the location in question, there is nothing in the statute to indicate that the Legislature intended by its amendment to shift to the defendant the burden of pleading or proving this fact.

For this reason, the failure of the People to establish the speed limit, either by a certificate of the State Traffic Commission or by proof with respect to the absence of signs erected pursuant to the provisions of section 95-c of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, requires that the judgment of conviction herein be reversed and the information be dismissed for failure of proof.

Submit order.