alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32


Certifications  of Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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 on Form 10-KSB of SecureCARE  Technologies,
Inc. (the  "Company")  for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  we the
undersigned officers 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 Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) 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:  May 19, 2006               /s/ ROBERT WOODROW
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Robert Woodrow
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer



     Date:  May 19, 2006               /s/ NEIL BURLEY
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Neil Burley
                                       Chief Financial Officer
#### McDONALD et al. v. FULTON TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK et al.

No. 7287.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Decided Aug. 21, 1939.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 23, 1939.

Ralph D. Quinter, of Washington, D. C., and U. S. Webb and Hester Webb, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.

F. D. McKenney, J. S. Flannery, and G. B. Craighill, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before EDGERTON, VINSON, and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices.

PER CURIAM.

This is a bill for instructions, brought by the trustees under the will of James McDonald. Cf. McDonald v. Maxwell, 56 App.D.C. 287, 12 F.2d 822, in which the pertinent parts of the will are set out; Fulton Trust Company of New York et al. v. Bank of America of California, 60 App.D.C. 240, 50 F.2d 1005, certiorari denied 284 U.S. 674, 52 S.Ct. 129, 76 L.Ed. 570. In the latter case we upheld the validity of the testator’s provision that his grandchildren, James McDonald III and Robert Alexander McDonald, should receive only fixed annuities, and not the entire income from their shares of the estate, until the oldest surviving one reached the age of 30. Those grandchildren, then minors, were represented in that case by a guardian. They have since come of age, and are the appellants here. Neither has reached the age of 30. Each now receives $14,000 per year from the estate. The District Court has held that they are not yet entitled to receive more. We see nothing in the present situation which requires us to-reexamine the Bank of America case.

When that case was decided James McDonald, Jr., was alive. He has since died. Appellants contend that the testator’s whole purpose in creating the trust was accomplished at the death of James, Jr.; that the payment of the share of James, Jr., to his executor, which has now been made, leaves appellants as the sole beneficiaries of the trust fund; and that it should now be distributed to them. Their first premise, regarding the testator’s purpose, is erroneous. Clauses M and N of the will show that the testator sought to provide a trust for his grandchildren until they should reach thirty, whether or not James Jr. should die in the meantime. We need not decide whether Clause N is valid. Clause M, which was held valid in McDonald v. Maxwell [56 App.D.C. 287, 12 F.2d 823], provides that “Each child * * * shall * * * receive an Annuity * * * until the oldest surviving one shall reach the age of thirty * * the context, “when if James is still living the estate shall be divided *238as follows,” deals with the manner but not the time of distribution. The courts are sharply divided on the question whether they will terminate a trust, which is not a spendthrift trust, when some of its purposes are not yet fulfilled, but all the beneficiaries are of full age and sound mind and have petitioned for the distribution of the trust property. 4 Bogert, Trusts and Trustees, § 1002, p. 2933. The law of the District of Columbia is settled, adversely to termination, by Shelton v. King, 229 U.S. 90, 33 S.Ct. 686, 57 L.Ed. 1086.

Affirmed.
Agricultural 

Marketing 

Service 

Science and 

Technology 

Seed Regulatory and Testing Division

801 Summit Crossing Place

Gastonia, NC 28054

S&T 1005B Appendix 

June 2020

Page 1 of 1

USDA Accredited Seed Sampling Program (ASSP)

Specified Program Requirements - Appendix B

1 Purpose

This document sets forth the specified program requirements of the USDA Accredited Seed Sampling 

Program (ASSP). It also provides the requirements for the objective evaluation of a program submitted 

for accreditation and monitored by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Science and Technology

(S&T), Seed Regulatory and Testing Division (SRTD). 

The specified program requirements of the USDA ASSP must be met through an approved USDA 

Process Verified Program. The requirements of the USDA Process Verified Program are defined in S&T

1001 Procedure, Process Verified Program. The USDA Process Verified Program ensures that the 

requirements of the USA ASSP are supported by a documented quality management system. 

The USDA ASSP is a voluntary, user-fee service available to seed sampling entities or individuals. 

Accredited seed samplers, as listed on the Official Listing of Accredited USDA Process Verified Programs

for Seed, may represent themselves as a USDA Process Verified Program, USDA Accredited Seed 

Sampler.

2 Scope

The ASSP applies to seed samplers or sampling entities seeking accreditation under this Program. 

3 Specified Program Requirements

3.1 Accredited seed samplers must sample seed in accordance with the AASCO Seed Sampling 

Handbook, the OECD Authorization Guidelines, or the Federal Seed Act.

3.2 Accredited seed samplers are audited to determine expertise and implementation during actual 

sampling activities.

3.3 A portion of the seed lots entered for official certification for OECD shall be check-sampled by 

official seed samplers. That portion shall be at least 5 percent. Check sampling shall not apply 

to seed lots that have been sampled by approved automatic samplers.
<PAGE>
 
                               EXHIBIT 11

          AMERICAN BUSINESS INFORMATION, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
       For the three and six months ended June 30, 1996 and 1995
                (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Three Months Ended        Six Months Ended
                                                                             June 30                    June 30
                                                                        ------------------        -----------------
                                                                        1996         1995         1996         1995
                                                                        ----         ----         ----         ----
<S>                                                                   <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Average shares outstanding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      20,801       20,719       20,792       20,704
Net additional common equivalent shares . . . . . . . . . . . . .         202          507          202          423
                                                                      -------      -------      -------      -------

Average number of common and common equivalent
  shares outstanding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      21,003       21,226       20,994       21,127
                                                                      =======      =======      =======      =======

Net income for per share computation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     $ 4,376      $ 2,382      $ 9,085      $ 6,195
                                                                      =======      =======      =======      =======

Net income per average common and common
   equivalent share outstanding (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     $  0.21      $  0.11      $  0.43      $  0.29
                                                                      =======      =======      =======      =======


</TABLE>
____________________

(1)   This calculation is submitted pursuant to Regulation S-K item 601(b)(11)
      although not required by footnote 2 to paragraph 14 of APB Opinion No. 15
      because it will result in dilution of less than 3 percent.
Exhibit 24.5

POWER OF ATTORNEY

WHEREAS, CILCORP Inc., an Illinois corporation (herein referred to as the
Company), is required to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008; and

WHEREAS, each of the below undersigned is a director of the Company.

NOW, THEREFORE, each of the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Gary L. Rainwater and/or Warner L. Baxter and/or Steven R. Sullivan and/or Martin J. Lyons and/or Jerre E. Birdsong the true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact of the undersigned, for and in the name, place and stead of the undersigned, to affix the name of the undersigned to said Form 10-K and any amendments thereto, and, for the performance of the same acts, each with power to appoint
in their place and stead and as their substitute, one or more attorneys-in-fact for the undersigned, with full power of revocation; hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact may do by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands this 13th day of February 2009:



|                             |  |  |  |                        |  | 
|---------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------- |  | 
|                             |  |  |  |                        |  | 
|                             |  |  | 
|Daniel F. Cole, Director     |  |  |  | /s/ Daniel F. Cole     |  | 
|                             |  |  | 
|Patrick T. Stokes, Director  |  |  |  | /s/ Patrick T. Stokes  |  | 
|                             |  |  | 
|Steven R. Sullivan, Director |  |  |  | /s/ Steven R. Sullivan |  | 
|                             |  |  |  |                        |  | 





|                  |  |   |  |     |  | 
|----------------- |  | - |  | --- |  | 
|STATE OF MISSOURI |  | ) |  |     |  | 
|                  |  | ) |  | SS. |  | 
|CITY OF ST. LOUIS |  | ) |  |     |  | 

On this 13th day of February, 2009, before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said
State, personally appeared the above-named directors of CILCORP Inc., known to me to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing power of attorney and acknowledged to me that they executed the same as their free act and deed for the
purposes therein stated.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal.



/s/ Carolyn J. ShannonCAROLYN J. SHANNON Notary Public  Notary Seal STATE OF MISSOURI  ST. LOUIS COUNTY Commission #08383284 My Commission Expires
03/02/2012
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00237

- CR

Phillip Wayne GRIFFIS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 7th Judicial District Court, Smith County, Texas

Trial Court No. 007

- 1767

- 08

The Honorable Kerry L. Russell, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed.

SIGNED April 30 , 2014.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JONATHAN S. WALLACE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 13

- 0782 (KBJ)

)

UNITED STATES PAROLE )

COMMISSION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 30 , 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or,

alternatively, for summary judgment [ECF No. 1 3 ]. The Court advised the plaintiff of

his obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this

Court to respond t o the motion, and specifically warned plaintiff that, if he did not

respond to the motion by October 31, 2013 , the Court may treat the motion as conceded.

To date, the plaintiff neither has filed an opposition to the motion and nor has requested

more time to do so. Accordingly, the Court will grant the defendants’ motion as

conceded.

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: November 20, 2013 /s/

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON

United States District Judge
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6756
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versusTROY B. JACKSON, a/k/a Anthony Corey Alexander, a/k/a Troy Williams, a/k/a Troy Smith, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-94-589) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Troy B. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion to dismiss his indictment for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Jackson , No. CR-94-589 (D.S.C. May 8, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Kekona v. Abastillas.

24051

10/31/2006

Denied

111 Hawai'i 203, 140 P.3d 436
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Timothy Sherlock, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ARI Network Services, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;     Dated: March 17, 2006           By: /s/ Timothy Sherlock       By: Timothy Sherlock  Title: Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997             JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996             OCT-31-1995
<CASH>                                           5,012                   7,271
<SECURITIES>                                       100                  23,900
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,512                  26,984
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,536                   1,376
<INVENTORY>                                      3,037                      23
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,990                  60,714
<PP&E>                                         102,508                  93,989
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,856                  18,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 156,673                 165,198
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,982                  20,024
<BONDS>                                         56,710                  33,628
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           420                     418
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,813                 102,016
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   156,673                 165,198
<SALES>                                         36,074                  32,750
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,074                  32,750
<CGS>                                           11,237                  10,248
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,505                  21,693
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   171                     164
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   159                      91
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,011                     912
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,387                   9,981
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,282                   4,231
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,105                   5,750
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,105                   5,750
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35                     .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35                     .29
        

</TABLE>
Slip Op. 99 - 13

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: RICHARD W. GOLDBERG, JUDGE



 


JEFFREY S. BELL, 


 


Plaintiff, 





v. 
 Court No. 92-11-00764




UNITED STATES, 





Defendant. 







JUDGMENT ORDER

On November 12, 1993, the Court remanded the above-captioned

action to Customs so that plaintiff might present additional

evidence pertaining to the denial of his application for a customs

broker license. See Jeffrey S. Bell v. United States, 17 CIT 1220

(1993). On May 3, 1994, upon Order of the Court, the parties then

advised that the Secretary of the Treasury had granted Mr. Bell’s

appeal of the denial of his license application and that the

parties intended to file a stipulation to dismiss the abovecaptioned action pursuant to USCIT R. 41(a)(1)(B). 

Having subsequently failed to submit any papers whatsoever,

the Court issued an Order on December 7, 1998, requiring that

plaintiff in the above-captioned action show cause why the case

should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff failed

to respond to the Court’s show cause Order. Defendant responded in

a letter to the Court on January 20, 1998, indicating that it had

been unable to locate counsel for plaintiff. Upon consideration of

plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Order to show cause; upon all

other papers and proceedings had herein, and upon due deliberation,

it is hereby
ORDERED that above-captioned action is dismissed for failure

to prosecute.

SO ORDERED.

 

 JUDGE

Date: January 29, 1999

New York, New York
February 13, 2007

27512

#### Juan v. Shiroma

Affirmed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply519Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Eric Vitelli (... (not verified)PermalinkMay 16, 2016 - 4:54pmGreat work calls for great craftsman. It must be a huge task but very satisfying to work on this prestigious building!_x000D_
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
1 The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3327

___________ Michael Jeffery, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Southern District of Iowa. * Warden, John F. Ault, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 7, 2007 Filed: May 5, 2008

___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Michael Kelly Jeffery was sentenced to life in prison after an Iowa jury convicted him of kidnapping and robbery in violation of Iowa C ode Ann. §§ 710.1(3), 710.2, 711.1(1), 711.2 (West 2003). He appeals the district court’s 1 judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The issue is whether the Iowa Court of Appeals rendered a decision that was not contrary to, or involved no unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (concerning habeas claims adjudicated in state court); Iowa Code Ann. § 702.18 (West 2003) (defining-2- serious injury); Jeffery v. Iowa , No. 04-0351, 2005 WL 67591, at **1-2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2005) (affirming denial of petition for postconviction relief); Morales v. Ault , 476 F.3d 545, 549-50 & n.3 (8th Cir.) (whe n state prisoner files federal habeas petition, court of appeals, like district c ourt, undertakes limited and deferential review of state court decisions adjudicating his cl aims; to establish ineffective assistance, movant must demonstrate that his attorn ey’s performance was deficient and that he suffered prejudice as result) , cert. denied , 128 S. Ct. 177 (2007) ; Rodriguez v. United States , 17 F.3d 225, 226 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless challenge). Because Jeffery has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we dec line to expand the certificate of appealability granted by the district court to include Jeffery’s pro se arguments. We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is grante d, and Jeffery’s motion to appoint new counsel is denied.

______________________________