alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  EXHIBIT 24.5


                              POWER OF ATTORNEY






             KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned officer and/or
     director of ANTEC Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"),
     which is about to file an annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
     the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended on Form 10-K, hereby 
     constitutes and appoints Lawrence A. Margolis, Daniel J. Distel and James
     E. Knox, each of them his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and
     agents, with full power and all capacities, to sign the Corporation's Form
     10-K and any and all amendments thereto, and any other documents in      
     connection therewith, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange 
     Commision, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents 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 she or he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying 
     and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or their 
     substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue 
     hereof.




             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto set his or her
     hand and seal as of the 15th day of March, 1997.



                                
                                                 /s/ Samuel K. Skinner
                                                 ------------------------------
Exhibit 13  Certification pursuant to Rule 15d-14b under the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934



---

Exhibit 13.1





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 Alumina Limited, an
Australian corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) 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
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |  |  |                |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | -------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 26, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ John Bevan
|                    |  |  |  | Name:          |  | John Bevan             
|                    |  |  |  | Title:         |  | Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ANTEC CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES IN ANTEC CORPORATION'S
FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,971
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  197,350
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,505
<INVENTORY>                                    215,216
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               458,371
<PP&E>                                          94,601
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,195
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 760,072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          205,537
<BONDS>                                        183,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           378
<OTHER-SE>                                     346,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   760,072
<SALES>                                        826,556
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               826,556
<CGS>                                          661,574
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  661,574
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               122,530
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 93,016
<INCOME-TAX>                                    38,493
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             54,523
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    54,523
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.33


</TABLE>
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 Milestone Scientific, Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas Stuckey, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (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 result of
operations of the Company.


                                /s/ Thomas M. Stuckey
                                -----------------------
                                Thomas M. Stuckey
                                Chief Financial Officer
                                April 8, 2004
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1


                            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 of Corniche Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigned's
knowledge, that:

         (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.



08/19/2002                                 /s/ Sahra Partida
---------------                            -------------------------------------
Date                                       President and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2009113EN.01001102.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-184/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 - Article 18 - Market for detergents and for surfactants for detergents - Sanctions)

2009/C 113/21

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or communicate within the prescribed time-limit dissuasive, effective and proportionate sanctions for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents (OJ 2004 L 104, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit, sanctions in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit, sanctions in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.

1

---
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 Cornerstone Realty Income Trust, Inc. (the company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company as of December 31, 2004 and for the period then ended.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/  STANLEY J. OLANDER, JR.                   
|Stanley J. Olander, Jr. Chief Financial Officer



March 16, 2005
#### ELEANOR MOLESKI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MORRIS BOHEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

See same case below: 1 N. J. Super. 136; 62 A. 2nd 745.

*Messrs. Harkavy & Lieb*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Archie Elkins*for the respondent.

April 4, 1949.

Denied.
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan

ORDER

People of MI v Frank James Neal

Docket No. 345748

LC No. 16-039732-FC

Mark J. Cavanagh 

Presiding Judge

Jane M. Beckering 

Elizabeth L. Gleicher 

Judges

The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED, and this Court’s opinion issued April 16, 

2020 is hereby VACATED. A new opinion will be issued. 

On the Court’s own motion, if either party files a letter request for oral argument within 7 

days of the date of this order, the Court will schedule argument via Zoom video conference at a date and 

time in September 2020 to be determined by the Court.

_______________________________

Judge

Cavanagh, P. J., will not be participating with regard to the motion for reconsideration.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  A TRIBUTE TO NYEMASTER, GOODE, P.C.

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LATHAM

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise once 
again to recognize the Des Moines-based law firm, Nyemaster Goode, for 
being named a recipient of the 2012 Freedom Award from the Employer 
Support of the Guard and Reserve. Nyemaster Goode was nominated in 2011 
by Doug and Kristina Stanger.
   The Freedom Award is the greatest honor bestowed on employers by the 
Department of Defense for ``exceptional support'' of Guard and Reserve 
employees. In 2011, the ESGR received an incredible 3,236 nominations 
from across the Nation, in the hopes their employer would be chosen 
among the Nation's best companies for Guard and Reserve employees. 
Earlier this month, it was confirmed that Nyemaster Goode would receive 
this prestigious award with 14 other companies from across the country 
that will be honored in Washington, D.C. this September at the 17th 
annual Freedom Award Ceremony. Nyemaster Goode can now count itself 
among the 175 elite employers that have won this award since its 
establishment in 1996.
   Doug and Kristina Stanger, both members of the Army National Guard, 
nominated Nyemaster Goode because they knew firsthand that the efforts 
the company took to accommodate our citizen soldiers were truly 
something special. Doug and Kristina felt that Nyemaster Goode 
represented the ``perfect example'' of how employers should go above 
and beyond to support our local heroes in their companies and 
communities. After weighing the merits of more than 3,200 nominations, 
the Department of Defense has wholeheartedly agreed with the Stangers 
and proudly recognized Nyemaster's job-well-done on a national level.
   Mr. Speaker, Nyemaster Goode's receipt of the 2012 Freedom Award 
highlights the rewarding Iowa traditions of hard work and commitment to 
our neighbors. I thank Doug and Kristina for their nomination of 
Nyemaster Goode, and I thank Nyemaster Goode for setting a pristine 
example for employers across our great Nation. I ask my colleagues in 
the House to join me again in congratulating Nyemaster Goode for their 
outstanding accomplishment and wish them continued success in the years 
ahead. May God continue to watch over all of our soldiers and their 
families, across the world and here at home.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                            8756
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   358011
<ALLOWANCES>                                      6857
<INVENTORY>                                     353425
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                734466
<PP&E>                                         3657648
<DEPRECIATION>                                  662023
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4427592
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           452771
<BONDS>                                        1129964
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       1211049
<OTHER-SE>                                     1016842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4427592
<SALES>                                        2325929
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2325929
<CGS>                                          1740758
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1740758
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                137531
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               81439
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 366201
<INCOME-TAX>                                     69063
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             297138
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    297138
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.68
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. BARLETTA:
       H.R. 6296.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       This bill makes changes to existing law relating to 
     ``Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution Clause 18.''
```
#### Lester E. GREEN, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12636.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 17, 1958.

*584John L. Ward, Jr., Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Judge.

Lester Earl Green was charged by information filed in the court of common pleas of Tulsa County with the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor; was tried before the court, convicted and his punish» ment assessed at a fine of $100.00 and costs, and to serve 30 days in the county jail.

Appeal was duly perfected to this court, although plaintiff in error did not file brief until September 9, 1958. The case had been assigned for oral argument to be heard on September 10, 1958. At that time the case was submitted, but the Attorney General was given 15 days in which to file an answer brief. Over three months have expired without the State filing an answer brief or seeking an extension of time. In fact, that matter has been specifically called to the attention of the Attorney General.

Plaintiff in Error has filed a persuasive brief. We have carefully read the record.

There was a close fact question at hearing to support defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. Only the arresting officer and the defendant testified.

The officer's excuse for stopping defendant, who was driving a new 1958 Ford car, was to check lights and brakes, and driver's license. No traffic violation or law violation of any kind was charged as having taken place in the officer's presence. The officer saw a blanket in the back of the car. It actually covered lugs of whiskey, but it required lifting the blanket to so discover. But the officer thought he could smell liquor, and that such gave him the right to lift the blanket and make the search. No broken bottles were found nor were there leaking bottles. Defendant claimed the search was the result of subterfuge. A number of cases highly persuasive are cited.

In paragraph 9 of syllabus by the court, we said in Louis v. State, 92 Okl.Cr. 156, 222 P.2d 160, 161:

> *585"Where defendant files brief, citing numerous authorities, to sustain assignments of error, and counsel for state files no brief, such action by counsel for state will be treated as a confession of error."

See also Washburn v. State, 90 Okl.Cr. 306, 213 P.2d 870-871, 15 A.L.R.2d 751; Bush v. State, 93 Okl.Cr. 188, 226 P.2d 445; Mathis v. City of Tulsa, 97 Okl.Cr. 152, 260 P.2d 437.

This case is therefore reversed and re manded, with directions to dismiss.

BRETT, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.
# C_2020313EN.01000701.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/7

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — SC Banca E S.A. v G.D.

(Case C-381/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Introduction of a new legal remedy in the course of the proceedings - Principles of legal certainty and effectiveness)

(2020/C 313/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Banca E S.A.

Respondent: G.D.

Operative part of the order

The principles of legal certainty and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding a procedural rule which modifies the system of legal remedies provided for under national law, by introducing an additional legal remedy and an additional level of jurisdiction, and which applies to proceedings between a consumer and a seller or supplier already in progress at the time of that modification, where that new legal remedy is available to both the consumer and the seller or supplier.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mr. NADLER:
        H.R. 6339.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Clauses 3, 9 and 18 of Section 8 of Article I of the 
     Constitution.
```
#### Virgil GOODING, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12745.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Aug. 5, 1959.

Virgil Gooding, plaintiff in error, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

Plaintiff in error, Virgil Gooding, was charged by information in the District Court of Pawnee County, Oklahoma, with the crime of rape in the second degree, allegedly committed on the 28th day of June, 1958. He was tried by a jury, convicted, and his punishment fixed at eight years in the state penitentiary. Judgment and sentence were entered accordingly, from which this appeal by transcript has been perfected.

Examination of the transcript reveals that the information is clear and concise. It charges the defendant in the language of the statute with unlawfully having had sexual intercourse with the female victim, under the age of sixteen years, not the wife of the said Virgil Gooding, and thus committing the crime of second degree rape. The information advised the defendant of the charge against him and the demurrer to the information was properly overruled. Upchurch v. State, 49 Okl. Cr. 81, 292 P. 379; Brasel v. State, 48 Okl. Cr. 403, 291 P. 807, holding it is not necessary to allege the age of the male.

Where an appeal is by transcript, the Court will examine the transcript only for fundamental error, and if none is found, the judgment and sentence will be affirmed. Cherry v. State, 61 Okl.Cr. 376, 69 P.2d 407. We have carefully examined the transcript of the record and considered the same. The proceedings leading up to the judgment appear to be regular. A careful examination of the instructions given by the court disclose no fundamental error. The judgment conforms to the charge and the sentence imposed is within the limit allowed by statute. 21 O.S.1951 § 1116.

Finding no fundamental error, the judgment and sentence is affirmed.

POWELL, P. J., and NIX, J., concur..