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



EXHIBIT 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints John W. Huey, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact
and agents, with full power of substitution and revocation in each, for
him/her and in his/her name, place and stead, to sign any or all reports
(including reports on Form 10-K, Form 3, Form 4, Form 5, Schedule 13-D,
Schedule 13-G, and Form 144), and any amendments thereto, required or
permitted to be filed by him under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or
the Securities Act of 1933, with respect to beneficial ownership of, and
transactions in, equity securities of BUTLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation (the company), and with respect to other matters relating to the
company, and to file the same, with all documents required or permitted to be
filed in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting unto said 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 to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming
all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, or their
substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

|       |  |               |  |                                            
|------ |  | ------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|DATED: |  | March 4, 2003 |  | /S/ K. DANE BROOKSHER
K.DANE BROOKSHER     
|       |  |               |  |                                            
|DATED: |  | March 4, 2003 |  | /S/ GARY M. CHRISTENSEN
GARY M. CHRISTENSEN
|       |  |               |  |                                            
|DATED: |  | March 3, 2003 |  | /S/ SUSAN F. DAVIS
SUSAN F.DAVIS           
|       |  |               |  |                                            
|DATED: |  | March 4, 2003 |  | /S. C.L. WILLIAM HAW
C.L. WILLIAM HAW      
|       |  |               |  |                                            
|DATED: |  | March 3, 2003 |  | /S/ JOHN J. HOLLAND
JOHN J. HOLLAND        
|       |  |               |  |                                            
|DATED: |  | March 3, 2003 |  | /S/ MARK A. MCCOLLUM
MARK A. MCCOLLUM      
|       |  |               |  |                                            
|DATED: |  | March 6, 2003 |  | /S/ RONALD E.RUTLEDGE
RONALD E.RUTLEDGE    
|       |  |               |  |                                            
|DATED: |  | March 4, 2003 |  | /S/ GARY L. TAPELLA
GARY L. TAPELLA        
|       |  |               |  |                                            
|DATED: |  | March 6, 2003 |  | /S/ WILLAM D. ZOLLARS
WILLAM D. ZOLLARS
# EUR-Lex - 21998D1119(02) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 21998D1119(02)

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 23/98 of 31 March 1998 amending Annex VI (Social security) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 310 , 19/11/1998 P. 0003 - 0003 *

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 23/98 of 31 March 1998 amending Annex VI (Social security) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as 'the Agreement`, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas Annex VI to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 82/97 of 12 November 1997 (1);

Whereas Decision No 158 of 27 November 1995 on the model forms necessary for the application of Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 (E 201 to E 215) (2), adopted by the Administrative Commission of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers, is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 3.23 (Decision No 130) in Annex VI to the Agreement:

'- 396 D 0732: Decision No 158 of 27 November 1995 (E 201 to E 215) (OJ L 336, 27.12.1996, p. 1).`

Article 2

The texts of Decision No 158 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, which are annexed to the respective language versions of this Decision, are authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 April 1998, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee.

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA section of, and in the EEA supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 31 March 1998.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

F. BARBASO

(1) OJ L 134, 7.5.1998, p. 11.

(2) OJ L 336, 27.12.1996, p. 1.
#### Samuel Gordon RUCKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-77-647.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 26, 1978.

John T. Elliott, Public Defender, Frank Muret, Asst. Public Defender, Oklahoma County, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Bill J. Bruce, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles Rogers, Legal Intern, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Appellant, Samuel Gordon Rucker, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-76-4499, of the offense of Escape From a State Penitentiary, in violation of 21 O.S. 1971, § 443. His punishment was fixed at two (2) years’ imprisonment, and from said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has betn perfected to this Court.

The evidence at trial established that the defendant was an inmate at the Oklahoma City Community Treatment Center, a part of the Oklahoma State correctional system, on December 4, 1976. On that date, the defendant returned to the center at approximately 10:15 p.m. Treatment officers at the center testified that they believed the defendant had been drinking, a violation of the center’s rules. They took him to the Highway Patrol Training Center for a breathalyzer test and then to the Oklahoma County jail. Before the officers from the Community Treatment Center were able to turn the defendant over to the County authorities, the defendant escaped. He later turned himself into authorities, and at trial he admitted that he had escaped.

The defendant asserts in his sole assignment of error, that the trial court erred in directing a verdict of guilty to the jury. The State argues that because the defendant testified and admitted every material element of the offense the trial court properly instructed the jury that the only issue left was that of punishment. We must agree with the assertion of the defendant.

It has long been a constitutional and statutory right of accused in this state that a defendant has the right to a jury’s determination of his or her guilt, even in such cases where during the course of a trial the defendant admits his or her guilt. *Mougell v. State,*97 Okl.Cr. 180, 260 P.2d 447 (1953). The only exception to this rule is where a defendant stipulates to the former conviction or convictions during the second stage of a bifurcated trial. See, *White v. State,*
      *1006Okl.Cr., 520 P.2d 368 (1974), and *Coleman v. State,*Okl.Cr., 540 P.2d 1185 (1975).

The judgment and sentence is, accordingly, REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial.

CORNISH and BRETT, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TAYLOR LEE REYNOLDS; and

CONNIE B. EVANS,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL

NETWORK, INC.,

 Defendant,

 and

GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC;

EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE SERVICES,

LLC; and FEDERAL NATIONAL

MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-15339

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00910-RCJ-VPC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

FILED

APR 17 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted April 15, 2015** 

San Francisco, California

Before: KOZINSKI and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and BENSON,*** Senior

District Judge. 

Plaintiffs Taylor Lee Reynolds and Connie B. Evans appeal the district

court’s partial dismissal of their complaint and partial grant of summary judgment

to Defendants. Reviewing de novo, Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772,

777 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), petition for cert. filed, 83 U.S.L.W. 3631 (U.S. Jan.

13, 2015) (No. 14-825), we affirm.

1. Because Plaintiffs failed to raise to the district court their argument

concerning the endorsement of the note, the argument is waived. O’Guinn v.

Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1063 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007). In any event, it is

unpersuasive. In Nevada, "a promissory note and a deed of trust are automatically

transferred together unless the parties agree otherwise." Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y.

Mellon, 286 P.3d 249, 257 (Nev. 2012) (en banc). As the district court explained,

the deed of trust was transferred validly to the foreclosing entity, GMAC

Mortgage, LLC. Because GMAC Mortgage was the beneficiary of the deed and

 ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Dee V. Benson, Senior United States District Judge for

the District of Utah, sitting by designation.

2
the holder of the note, it had authority to foreclose on the property. Id. at 255. The

district court properly granted summary judgment.

2. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, "a mortgage note is a negotiable

instrument." Leyva v. Nat’l Default Servicing Corp., 255 P.3d 1275, 1279 (Nev. 

2011).

3. We have considered Plaintiffs’ other arguments and find none persuasive.

AFFIRMED.

3
Exhibit 31.2

               CERTIFICATION FOR QUARTERLY REPORTS ON FORM 10-QSB

I, James Kluber, certify that:

1.   I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of  Newgold,  Inc.
("Registrant");

2.   Based on my knowledge,  this  quarterly  report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

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

4.   The  Registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and we have:

     a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  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 being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the  effectiveness of the Registrant's  disclosure  controls
and  procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented  in  this  quarterly   report  our  conclusions   about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   The Registrant's  other certifying  officer and I have disclosed,  based on
our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of  Registrant's  board of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the  equivalent
function):

     a)   all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or operation of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  Registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls; and

6.   The  Registrant's  other  certifying  officer and I have  indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could







<PAGE>
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation,   including  any  corrective  actions  with  regard  to  significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  January 3, 2006


                                    /s/ JAMES KLUBER
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    James Kluber, Chief Financial Officer
# C_2012326EN.01039301.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/391

---

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

TITLE II

FREEDOMS

FREEDOMS

Article 8

Protection of personal data

1.   Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.

2.   Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.

3.   Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.

---
Exhibit 32.1

**Certification of President**

**Pursuant to****18 US.C. Section, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Gary L. Martin, Chairman of the Board and President of Capital Southwest Corporation, certify that, to my knowledge:

1.        The Form 10-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2009 (“accompanied 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 accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation.

| Date: May 29, 2009 |   |  By: |  /s/ Gary L. Martin                                  |   |   |
|--------------------|--------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                    |   |      | Gary L. Martin, Chairman of the Board and President  |   |
# Massachusetts_county_differenti
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE I

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 1

THE INSTITUTIONS

SECTION 1

SECTION 1

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Article 228

(ex Article 195 TEC)

(ex Article 195 TEC)

1.   A European Ombudsman, elected by the European Parliament, shall be empowered to receive complaints from any citizen of the Union or any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, with the exception of the Court of Justice of the European Union acting in its judicial role. He or she shall examine such complaints and report on them.

In accordance with his duties, the Ombudsman shall conduct inquiries for which he finds grounds, either on his own initiative or on the basis of complaints submitted to him direct or through a Member of the European Parliament, except where the alleged facts are or have been the subject of legal proceedings. Where the Ombudsman establishes an instance of maladministration, he shall refer the matter to the institution, body, office or agency concerned, which shall have a period of three months in which to inform him of its views. The Ombudsman shall then forward a report to the European Parliament and the institution, body, office or agency concerned. The person lodging the complaint shall be informed of the outcome of such inquiries.

The Ombudsman shall submit an annual report to the European Parliament on the outcome of his inquiries.

2.   The Ombudsman shall be elected after each election of the European Parliament for the duration of its term of office. The Ombudsman shall be eligible for reappointment.

The Ombudsman may be dismissed by the Court of Justice at the request of the European Parliament if he no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his duties or if he is guilty of serious misconduct.

3.   The Ombudsman shall be completely independent in the performance of his duties. In the performance of those duties he shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government, institution, body, office or entity. The Ombudsman may not, during his term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not.

4.   The European Parliament acting by means of regulations on its own initiative in accordance with a special legislative procedure shall, after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the consent of the Council, lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties.

---
#### Lester L. JOHNS, Petitioner, v. Norman HESS, Supervisor of Classification, et al., Respondents.

No. H-76-74.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 12, 1976.

*653ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

This is an original proceeding in which Lester L. Johns, an inmate of the State penitentiary at McAlester, seeks an order of this Court directing respondents to inform petitioner of the reasons they failed to recommend him for parole, or, in the alternative, directing his immediate release on parole.

The Court of Criminal Appeals is a court of special jurisdiction limited in exercise of its powers exclusively to criminal cases. Except where the law specifically provides that such court has original jurisdiction, all exercise of power must be by virtue of its appellate jurisdiction. A writ of mandamus can issue from this Court only in exercise of or in aid of its appellate authority. See, 20 O.S.1971, §§ 40 and 41; *Hurst v. Pitman,*90 Okl.Cr. 329, 213 P.2d 877; *Ex parte McCollum,*90 Okl.Cr. 153, 212 P.2d 161. An order directed to a State Board or an officer is the exercise of original jurisdiction. *State v. Cole, 4*Okl.Cr. 25, 109 P. 736.

For the above reasons this petition fails to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court and is hereby dismissed.

So ordered.

TOM BRETT, P. J.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, J.

C. F. BLISS, JR., J.
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 12



             CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
             COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                   AND PREFERRED DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                          Year Ended December 31
                                                 1995       1994     1993      1992    1991
                                             ----------   -------  -------   ------   -------
                                                          (dollars in thousands)
<S>                                         <C>           <C>      <C>      <C>       <C>
Fixed charges, as defined:                 
  Interest expense                           $    9,938     8,090    7,038    7,478   $ 7,793 
  Amortization of debt issuance expense             606       593      562      402       362 
                                             ----------   -------  -------   ------   -------

         Total fixed charges                 $   10,544     8,683    7,600    7,880   $ 8,155 
                                             ----------   -------  -------   ------   -------



Earnings, as defined:
  Net earnings                               $    7,732     5,760    9,103    4,843   $ 7,651 
  Add (deduct):
      Income taxes                                4,508     3,505    5,224    2,817     4,206 
      Cumulative effect of change
         in accounting method                         -         -     (209)     -          - 

      Fixed charges                              10,544     8,683    7,600    7,880     8,155 
                                             ----------   -------  -------   ------   -------

         Total earnings                      $   22,784    17,948   21,718   15,540   $20,012 
                                             ----------   -------  -------   ------   -------

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                 2.16      2.07     2.86     1.97      2.45 
                                             ----------   -------  -------   ------   -------
                                             ----------   -------  -------   ------   -------


Fixed charges and preferred
  dividend requirements:
         Fixed charges                       $   10,544     8,683    7,600    7,880   $ 8,155 
         Preferred dividend requirements            853       898      913      941       229 
                                             ----------   -------  -------   ------   -------

         Total                               $   11,397     9,581    8,513    8,821   $ 8,384 
                                             ----------   -------  -------   ------   -------

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
  and preferred dividend requirements              2.00      1.87     2.55     1.76      2.39 
                                             ----------   -------  -------   ------   -------
                                             ----------   -------  -------   ------   -------

</TABLE>


                                       50
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

In connection with the
Annual Report of MasTec, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A (the Report), I, C. Robert Campbell,
Executive Vice President  Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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



|                    |  |                                                                                  
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 22, 2012 |  | /s/ C. Robert Campbell                                                           
|                    |  | Name: C. Robert Campbell
Title: Executive Vice President/ Chief Financial Officer

The certification set forth above is being furnished as an Exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the certifying officers.