alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) of Ultratech Stepper, Inc. of our report dated January 23, 1997, included
in the 1996 Annual Report to Stockholders of Ultratech Stepper, Inc.
 
    Our audits included the financial statement schedule of Ultratech Stepper,
Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This Schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.
 
    We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-92572) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option/Stock
Issuance Plan and the 1995 Employee Purchase Plan of Ultratech Stepper, Inc. of
our report dated January 23, 1997 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Ultratech Stepper, Inc. incorporated by reference in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.
 
                                          [SIGNATURE]
 
San Jose, California
March 17, 1997
 
                                       61
Exhibit 12.1

IPC HOLDINGS, LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED
SHARE DIVIDENDS

Our consolidated ratios of earnings to fixed charges for each of the five fiscal years ended
December 31, 2008 are as follows:



|                                                                          |  |                         |         |      |   |          |  |      |          |  |      |          |   |  |   |        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ------- | ---- | - | -------- |  | ---- | -------- |  | ---- | -------- | - |  | - | -------
|                                                                          |  | Year ended December 31,
|                                                                          |  | 2008                    |         | 2007 |   | 2006     |  | 2005 |          |  | 2004
|                                                                          |  | ($ in thousands)       
|Net income (loss)                                                         |  | $                       | 90,447  |      | $ | 385,412  |  | $    | 394,585  |  | $    | (623,399 | ) |  | $ | 138,613
|Preferred share dividends                                                 |  |                         | 14,939  |      |   | 17,128   |  |      | 17,176   |  |      | 2,644    |   |  |   |       
|Fixed charges                                                             |  |                         |        |      |   |         |  |      |         |  |      |         |   |  |   |       
|                                                                          |  |                         |         |      |  
|Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred share dividends |  |                         | 6.1 : 1 |      |   | 22.5 : 1 |  |      | 23.0 : 1 |  |      | (1       | ) |  |   |       



|(1) | Earnings for the year ended December 31, 2005 were insufficient to cover combined fixed charges and preferred share dividends by $626.0 million.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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





We, Richard K. Coleman, Jr., the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Command Center Inc. (the “Company”), and
Cory Smith, the 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:





1)
 The
Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q, for the fiscal period
ended March 29, 2019 (the “Report”), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.





2)
 The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods covered
by the Report.





Dated: May 13, 2019





/s/ Richard K.
Coleman, Jr.

/s/ Cory
SmithRichard K. Coleman, Jr.

Cory
SmithPresident and Chief Executive
Officer

Chief
Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

*               *In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Alliance Bancshares California (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel L. Erickson, ExecutiveVice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                       | /s/ DANIEL L. ERICKSON                               |   |
|----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                       |                                                      |   |
|                       | **Executive Vice President Chief Financial Officer** |   |
|                       |                                                 |   |
| Date:  August 8, 2003 |                                                 |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Alliance Bancshares California and will beretained by Alliance Bancshares California and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000

Commission File Number: 333-61783

Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. issuer in
respect of Corporate Leased-Backed Certificates Series 1999-CLF1
(Exact Name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware      			3671416
(State or Other Juris-		(I.R.S. Employer
diction of Incorporation)     Identification No.)

245 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10167
(Address of Principal Executive Office)

212-272-2000
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)


Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:     None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:     None

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all
reports required to be filed  by Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to
file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes  X   No _

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein,
and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's
knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
incorporated by reference in part III of this Form 10-K or any
amendment to this Form 10-K.

Not applicable.

Aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of
the Registrant as of December 31, 2000.

Not applicable.

Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of December 31,
2000.

Not applicable.
# Tippah - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Northeast Mississippi Planning and Development District Executive Director Sharon Gardner Email &#x73;&#103;a&#x72;&#100;n&#x65;&#x72;&#64;&#x6e;&#x65;&#109;p&#x64;&#100;&#46;&#x63;&#x6f;&#109;The post Northeast Mississippi Planning and Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
**Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 November 2011 – Elliniki Nafpigokataskevastiki and Others v Commission**

**(Case T-384/08)**

State aid – Shipbuilding – Aid granted by the Greek authorities in the form of an indemnification guarantee – Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market – Concept of State aid – Imputability to the State – State resources – Private investor test

1.                     *State aid – Concept – Aid granted by a public undertaking – State-controlled undertaking – Whether aid measure automatically
attributable to the State – Not automatically attributable – Series of indicators to be taken into consideration (Art. 87(1)
EC) (see paras 50-54, 63-69)*

2.                     *State aid – Concept – Guarantee given by the State – Included – State resources not immediately and certainly mobilised –
Not relevant (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 89-90)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Article 16 of Commission Decision 2009/610/EC of 2 July 2008 on the measures C 16/04 (ex NN 29/04, CP 71/02 and CP 133/05) implemented by Greece in favour of Hellenic Shipyards SA (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 104). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Elliniki Nafpigokataskevastiki AE Chartofylakeiou, Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GmbH and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Trapeza Peiraios AE. |
================================================================================


                                  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 Quarterly  Report of Tari Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended  December 31, 2005 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the
capacities and on the dates indicated  below,  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 his 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:  March 13, 2007


/s/ Theodore Tsagkaris

------------------------------
Theodore Tsagkaris
Secretary, Treasurer & C.F.O.
(Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1320. MELVIN PLEAS v. THE STATE.

In 2001, Melvin Pleas pled guilty to highjacking a motor vehicle, armed

robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, fleeing or

attempting to elude a police officer, and reckless driving. He subsequently filed a

motion to vacate a void sentence, which the trial court denied.

1 Pleas filed this direct

appeal.

A direct appeal may lie from an order denying a motion to vacate a void

sentence, but only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in

fact, void. See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 217 n.1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009); Burg

v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). A sentence is void only if it

imposes punishment that the law does not allow. Crumbley v. State, 261 Ga. 610, 611

(1) (409 SE2d 517) (1991). “Motions to vacate a void sentence generally are limited

to claims that – even assuming the existence and validity of the conviction for which

the sentence was imposed – the law does not authorize that sentence, most typically

because it exceedsthe mostsevere punishment for which the applicable penalstatute

provides.” von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013).

1

In its order, the trial court noted that Pleas has filed multiple motions to

vacate a void sentence, which have been denied. Pleas appealed a prior order denying

a motion to vacate void sentence, which was dismissed as untimely. See Case No.

A19A0131, dismissed Sept. 5, 2018. Under the law of the case rule, Pleas is barred

from seeking further judicial review on this issue. See Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App.

326, 328 (713 SE2d 438) (2011) (law of the case rule bars successive void sentence

appeals).

February 14, 2019
Pleas does not contend that his sentence fell outside the permissible range.

Rather, he contends he was not adequately informed of his appellate rights and the

nature of the charges against him. These contentions, which pertain to the procedure

employed, do not constitute valid void sentence claims. See Jones v. State, 303 Ga.

App. 319, 320 (693 SE2d 499) (2010). Pleas also argues that his convictions for

highjacking and armed robbery merged as a matter of fact. Such a merger claim is a

challenge to a conviction rather than a sentence. See Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192,

194 (695 SE2d 244) (2010). And a motion to vacate a conviction is not one of the

established procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case,

and an appeal from an order denying such a motion must be dismissed. See id.;

Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). Because Pleas has not raised

a valid void sentence claim, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/14/2019
# C_2008272EN.01003201.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/32

---

Action brought on 5 August 2008 — Fitoussi v OHIM — Loriot (IBIZA REPUBLIC)

(Case T-311/08)

(2008/C 272/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Paul Fitoussi (Vincennes, France) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, T. van Innis and G. Glas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bernadette Nicole J. Loriot (Ibiza, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 7 May 2008 in Case R 1135/2007-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 7 May 2008 in Case R 1135/2007-2;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bernadette Nicole J. Loriot

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘IBIZA REPUBLIC’ for goods in Classes 25, 41 and 43 — application No 3 868 072

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark in the form of a five-pointed star surrounded by a circle, for goods in Class 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 in as much as i) the earlier mark consists of a representation of a five-pointed star surrounded by a circle and not only a star; ii) the earlier mark is an intrinsically strong mark and not a mark with little distinctive character; and iii) the graphic element of the earlier mark dominates the word element and not vice versa.

Pleas in law:

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 119 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

  Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and 
resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 300: Ms. Lee of California.
       H.R. 733: Mr. McCarthy of California.
       H.R. 996: Mr. Price of North Carolina.
       H.R. 1054: Mr. Markey and Ms. Chu.
       H.R. 1897: Mr. Cummings.
       H.R. 2168: Mr. Chabot.
       H.R. 2541: Mr. Bachus.
       H.R. 2600: Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Mr. Nunnelee, Mr. 
     Meeks, and Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
       H.R. 2794: Mrs. Capps.
       H.R. 3264: Mr. Miller of Florida.
       H.R. 3307: Ms. Tsongas.
       H.R. 3423: Mr. Boswell and Mr. Schiff.
       H.R. 3594: Mr. Gary G. Miller of California and Mr. Owens.
       H.R. 3687: Mr. Walz of Minnesota, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Amodei, 
     Mr. McDermott, Ms. Brown of Florida, and Mr. Kucinich.
       H.R. 3798: Ms. DeLauro and Mr. Dold.
       H.R. 4327: Mr. Reyes.
       H.R. 4405: Mr. Himes and Ms. Waters.
       H.R. 5744: Mr. McClintock.
       H.R. 5850: Mr. Nadler.
       H.R. 6028: Mr. Meeks.
       H.R. 6289: Mr. Schilling.
       H. Res. 733: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998    
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                          19,695
<SECURITIES>                                    62,246
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,306
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,089
<INVENTORY>                                        332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,040
<PP&E>                                          34,952
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,043
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 222,501
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,030
<BONDS>                                            392
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                     172,026
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   222,501
<SALES>                                        105,018
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               175,666
<CGS>                                           11,031
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                92,964
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,517
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,347)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,064)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,283)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,283)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.57)
        

</TABLE>
UNIVERSITY 

of HAWAl'r 

MANOA 

/•rARTMENTOF 

•i OPERATIONS 

^'t3 -2 A !M{ 1 

John A. Burns School of Medicine 

Department of Native Hawaiian Health 

Thursday, 13 January 2011 

Kevin Schlemmer 

EAS and Domestic Analysis Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Mr. Schlemmer: 

I wholeheartedly support Makani Kai Air Charter's bid to provide scheduled air service 

to Kalaupapa on the island of Moloka'i. I am the physician who regularly travels to 

Kalaupapa to serve my patients there. Makani Kai Air Charters has flown me to Moloka'i 

on a number of occasions, and I have found their service to be excellent and reliable. 

During the seven years I have served the patients there as faculty of the University of 

Hawai'i School of Medicine, I have flown to Kalaupapa with several other companies, 

and in my opinion Makani Kai Air Charters is the best offering service to that destination. 

The pilots are professionals and the aircraft are maintained in fine condition. 

Richard Schuman, the owner of Makani Kai, is dedicated to good customer service, and 

that philosophy is evident in the company's daily operations. This fine company should 

receive your every consideration for providing essential air service to Kalaupapa. 

Thank you for your time and attention! 

^W^ 

S. Kalani BradyiMD, MPH, HACP 

Associate Professor and Interim Chair 

677 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 1016B 

Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813 

Telephone: (808) 587-8570 

Fax: (808) 587-8565 

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5760]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

  Karen L. Haas, Clerk of the House, reported that on August 7, 2012, 
she presented to the President of the United States, for his approval, 
the following bills.

       H.R. 4240. To reauthorize the North Korean Human Rights Act 
     of 2004, and for other purposes.
       H.R. 1402. To authorize the Architect of the Capitol to 
     establish battery recharging stations for privately owned 
     vehicles in parking areas under the jurisdiction of the House 
     of Representatives at no net cost to the Federal Government.
       H.R. 3670. To require the Transportation Security 
     Administration to comply with the Uniformed Services 
     Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.

                          ____________________
```
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2016-4112 Directorate ID: 2014-SW-043-AD

Helicopter Model: 

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 33 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to exclude certain helicopters from the applicability

and restrict the VNE on other helicopters to prevent failure of the horizontal stabilizer and 

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $

Labor per Helicopter

(XX work hours X $85 for 

inspection)

$48

Other

(Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $1,403

Total US Fleet Cost

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Bob Grant