alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of John Malandrino et al., Appellants, v Board of Elections of the County of Westchester, Respondent, and Robert F. Meehan et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Robert F. Meehan, Robert P. Astorino, and Joan A. Maybury as candidates in the Conservative Party primary election to be held on September *89412, 1991, for the nomination of that party as its candidates for the public offices of Supervisor and Members of the Council (respondents-respondents Astorino and Maybury) of the Town of Mount Pleasant, respectively, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), entered August 7, 1991, which dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of standing.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Because it is conceded that the petitioners are not members of the Conservative Party and their challenge is not based upon defects in the designating petition but instead to claimed defects in party procedure, they lack standing to challenge the validity of the certificates of authorization at issue *(see, Matter of Bennett v Justin,*51 NY2d 722; *Matter of Wydler v Cristenfeld,*35 NY2d 719). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Harwood, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

        We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements listed below of Gehl Company of our report dated
February 10, 1998 appearing in the 1997 Annual Report to Shareholders which 
is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  We also consent to the 
incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial Statement Schedule,
which appears in this Form 10-K.

        1.  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-38392)

        2.  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-39150)

        3.  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-02195)

        4.  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-04017)

        5.  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-9173)



PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 11, 1998
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5805]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 prayer

  The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
  Let us pray.
  O God, the light of the world, as You illuminate our path, may we 
walk in the brightness of Your presence. Use our Senators to select the 
plans that most honor You. May they feel concern when our Nation drifts 
from Your precepts and labor to restore those values that will keep 
America strong. Lord, help them to do their very best each day and 
leave the results to You. Give them the wisdom to lift each other's 
burdens by being as encouraging to others as You have been to them.
  We pray in Your sacred Name. Amen.

                          ____________________
```
<page>

Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form, 10-Q/A (the "Report") of Amaru,
Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Colin Binny, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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) 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.



/s/ Colin Binny
------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
November  13, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Company's
Form 10-K for the twelve months ended December 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          23,901
<SECURITIES>                                    23,396
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,692
<PP&E>                                          13,860
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (5,997)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,333
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,197
<BONDS>                                         11,418
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           166
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,552
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,333
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,916
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,548
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (39,627)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (39,627)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (39,627)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.49)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, C. Eugene Olsen, Chief Financial Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the
"Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:       August 15, 2006

/s/ C. Eugene Olsen
------------------------------
C. Eugene Olsen
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,753
<SECURITIES>                                    28,584
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,293        
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,957)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,953
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,001
<PP&E>                                          17,341
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,701)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,711
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        42,421
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,884
<SALES>                                         65,802
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,802
<CGS>                                           14,144
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,578
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,621)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,701
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,425
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,276
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .78
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Orange County Department of Social Services, on Behalf of Rebecca T., and Others, Respondent, v Roy T., Appellant.

— In a child abuse proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from a dispositional order of the Family Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), entered September 14, 1990, which upon a finding, made after a fact-finding hearing, that the children had been abused by him, *inter alia,*barred the father from coming within 1,000 feet of the children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant contends that the Family Court improperly exercised its jurisdiction in this child protective proceeding because there was a pending custody proceeding in Kentucky. We disagree.

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) applies to all proceedings in which a custody determination is at issue, including any action or proceeding to annul a marriage, for a separation or for a divorce. The UCCJA, however, specifically excludes State child protective proceedings *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 75-c [3]) because of the manifest need for appropriate and immediate State action to protect youngsters regardless of the presence or absence of a custody decree *(see,*Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 75-c, at 298).

In view of the foregoing, the UCCJA is not applicable to the case at bar and the Family Court’s exercise of jurisdiction was proper (Family Ct Act § 1013). Moreover, under the facts of this case, the Family Court could have and did, in fact, exercise jurisdiction under the "emergency” provision of the UCCJA (Domestic Relations Law § 75-d [1] [c]), which confers jurisdiction when the child is physically present in the State and has been abandoned or " 'it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child’ ” (Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKin*131ney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 75-c, at 298-299). Mangano, P. J., Kooper, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

10 June 2008

Case T-127/07 P

**Francesco Bligny**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Appeal – Civil service – Open competition – Conditions governing admission – Not admitted at the stage of correction of the written test – Competition notice – Incomplete application – Proof of citizenship – Appeal manifestly unfounded)

**Appeal:**against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 February 2007 in Joined Cases F‐142/06
and F‐142/06 AJ *Bligny* v *Commission* [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that order set aside.

**Held:**The appeal is dismissed. Francesco Bligny is to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

**Summary**

1.      *Officials – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations*

2.      *Officials – Competitions – Conditions for admission*

*(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Arts 2 and 5)*

1.      The concept of excusable error which arises in the case-law on time-limits for appeals applies by analogy in relation to the
mandatory time-limits for the submission of an act or document to the administration itself. That concept, pursuant to the
principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, can concern only exceptional circumstances in
which, in particular, the conduct of the administration, out of which the party’s error arose, has been, either alone or to
a decisive extent, such as to give rise to a pardonable confusion in the mind of a party acting in good faith and exercising
all the diligence required of a normally experienced person.

(see paras 40-41)

See: T‐12/90 *Bayer* v *Commission* [1991] ECR II‐219, para. 29

2.      An application for a competition to join the European civil service, which clearly and unequivocally states that candidates
must include proof of citizenship for the application to be valid, is not such as to mislead a candidate acting in good faith
and exercising all the diligence required of a normally experienced person, who could not reasonably conclude that his application
might be acceptable without such proof, even if the application document fails to refer to the provisions of the competition
notice making this a requirement.

(see paras 44-46)
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Treasure Mountain Holdings, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2004,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, George I. Norman,  III,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Sec.  906 of the
Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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/   George I. Norman III
------------------------------------
George I. Norman, III
Chief Executive Officer
August 19, 2004

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-QSB solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
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 American HealthChoice, Inc. (the
 "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as
 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
 "Report"), I John C. Stuecheli, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
 certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as adopted pursuant to S 906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (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/ John C. Stuecheli

 John C. Stuecheli
 Chief Financial Officer
 December 29, 2003
# C_2009282EN.01000801.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg — Austria) — Arthur Gottwald v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Bregenz

(Case C-103/08) (1)

1

(Freedom of movement for persons - Citizenship of the Union - Article 12 EC - Issue of an annual toll disc in respect of a motor vehicle free of charge to disabled persons - Provisions restricting the issue of that disc to disabled persons resident or ordinarily resident in national territory)

2009/C 282/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Arthur Gottwald

Applicant:

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Bregenz

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 12 of the EC Treaty — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — National legislation under which a toll disc made available free of charge to disabled persons is granted only to persons resident or ordinarily resident in national territory.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 EC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts the issue of an annual toll disc free of charge to those disabled persons who are resident or ordinarily resident in the territory of the Member State concerned, including also those persons who regularly travel to that State for professional or personal reasons.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10(bb)



         ANNUAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION (IC) PLAN FOR SENIOR EXECUTIVES
         -------------------------------------------------------------


I.     Eligibility

EDWARDS, his direct reports (Campbell, Gaffney, Goldman, Tipermas), and the
three group presidents (Grumbly, Kesavan, Watson).

II.    Payment

Awards will be paid partially in cash and partially in restricted stock that
vests over three years.

III.   Calculation of Pools

Edwards and the four direct reports are paid solely from the "Corporate Pool".
The three group presidents are paid from the "Corporate Pool" and from their
"Group Pool," as shown below.  Discretionary bonuses outside of this plan may be
granted to any of these individuals for meritorious performance.

IV.    Determination of Corporate Pool

The size of the Corporate Pool is determined solely by the earnings-per-share
performance of ICF Kaiser International, as follows:

$80,000 plus 24,000 restricted shares for each $.01 EPS over $.10 EPS and below
$.20 EPS; $120,000 plus 36,000 restricted shares for each $.01 EPS over $.20
EPS.  For example:

          1998 EPS    Cash            Restricted Shares
          --------    ----            -----------------
          $0.10       $        0                      0
          $0.15       $  400,000                120,000
          $0.20       $  800,000                240,000
          $0.25       $1,400,000                420,000

The final accounting for EPS may be adjusted by the Compensation and Human
Resources Committee, after discussion with the CEO, for any one-time voluntary
capital transaction, either positive or negative.

(Note: The EPS numbers must be net of the cash and restricted stock issued under
this plan. This means, for example, that, to yield an EPS of $.20, we would have
to earn approximately $0.26 before the target payment of $0.8 million of cash
under this plan, 240,000 shares of restricted stock [at an assumed $2.00 per
share] to be paid under this plan, and the 300,000 shares of restricted stock to
be paid under the LTI Plan.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nate Thompson, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Forma, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
# C_2008260EN.01000601.xml

| 11.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Angelo Grisoli v Regione Lombardia and Comune di Roccafranca

(Case C-315/08)

(2008/C 260/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Angelo Grisoli

Applicant:

Defendant: Regione Lombardia

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it compatible with Articles 152 and 153 of the Treaty on the European Union that there is a single pharmacy in communes with a population of less than 4 000 inhabitants? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with Articles 152 and 153 of the Treaty on the European Union that there is a single pharmacy in communes with a population of less than 4 000 inhabitants?

| 2. | Is it compatible with Articles 152 and 153 of the Treaty on European Union to make the establishment of the second pharmacy in communes with a population of over 4 000 inhabitants subject to conditions such as population over that amount of at least 50 per cent of the levels, distance of at least 3 000 metres from the existing pharmacy, and existence of particular requirements of the pharmacy service in relation to the topographical and road conditions, to be assessed by both the health units (local health companies) and the local association of pharmacists or in any event by the authorities competent for matters of organisation and review of the pharmacy service? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it compatible with Articles 152 and 153 of the Treaty on European Union to make the establishment of the second pharmacy in communes with a population of over 4 000 inhabitants subject to conditions such as population over that amount of at least 50 per cent of the levels, distance of at least 3 000 metres from the existing pharmacy, and existence of particular requirements of the pharmacy service in relation to the topographical and road conditions, to be assessed by both the health units (local health companies) and the local association of pharmacists or in any event by the authorities competent for matters of organisation and review of the pharmacy service?

---