alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




Advanced Deposition Technologies, Inc.
Taunton, Massachusetts


     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of Advanced Deposition Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8, dated
December 11, 1996 (SEC file No. 333-17653), on Form S-8, dated April 24, 1997
(SEC file No. 333-25801), and on Form S-3, dated May 9, 1996 (SEC file 
No. 033-98400), of our report dated March 5, 1999, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Advanced Deposition Technologies, Inc., appearing in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1998.



                                   /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
April 15, 1999
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, ArthurZafiropoulo, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

·                    theAnnual Report of Ultratech, Inc. on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

·                    theinformation contained in such Annual Report fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of Ultratech, Inc.
| By:                              | /s/ ARTHUR  ZAFIROPOULO |   |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Name: Arthur Zafiropoulo         |
| Title: *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

I, Bruce Wright,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

·                    theAnnual Report of Ultratech, Inc. on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

·                    theinformation contained in such Annual Report fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of Ultratech, Inc.
| By:                              | /s/ BRUCE  WRIGHT |   |
|----------------------------------|-------------------|--------|
| Name: Bruce Wright               |
| Title: *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
.slick-loading .slick-list{background:#fff url(../images/ajax-loader.gif) center center no-repeat}.slick-slider{position:relative;display:block;box-sizing:border-box;-webkit-user-select:none;-moz-user-select:none;-ms-user-select:none;user-select:none;-webkit-touch-callout:none;-khtml-user-select:none;-ms-touch-action:pan-y;touch-action:pan-y;-webkit-tap-highlight-color:transparent}.slick-list{position:relative;display:block;overflow:hidden;margin:0;padding:0}.slick-list:focus{outline:0}.slick-list.dragging{cursor:pointer;cursor:hand}.slick-slider .slick-list,.slick-slider .slick-track{-webkit-transform:translate3d(0,0,0);-moz-transform:translate3d(0,0,0);-ms-transform:translate3d(0,0,0);-o-transform:translate3d(0,0,0);transform:translate3d(0,0,0)}.slick-track{position:relative;top:0;left:0;display:block;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto}.slick-track:after,.slick-track:before{display:table;content:''}.slick-track:after{clear:both}.slick-loading .slick-track{visibility:hidden}.slick-slide{display:none;float:left;height:100%;min-height:1px}[dir=rtl] .slick-slide{float:right}.slick-slide img{display:block}.slick-slide.slick-loading img{display:none}.slick-slide.dragging img{pointer-events:none}.slick-initialized .slick-slide{display:block}.slick-loading .slick-slide{visibility:hidden}.slick-vertical .slick-slide{display:block;height:auto;border:1px solid transparent}.slick-arrow.slick-hidden{display:none}
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 CONGRATULATING DR. THOMAS K. McINERNY, THE NEW PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE 
                     AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

                                 ______
                                 

                     HON. LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 14, 2012

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my esteemed honor and privilege to 
recognize Dr. Thomas K. Mclnerny of Rochester, N.Y., as the next 
elected President of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The AAP 
is the nation's largest pediatric organization, with a membership of 
60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists, 
and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety, and 
well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults.
  Dr. McInerny is Associate Chair for Clinical Affairs and Professor of 
Pediatrics at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Golisano 
Children's Hospital, and has worked as a primary care pediatrician at 
Panorama Pediatric Group in Rochester, N.Y., for 40 years. After 
earning his medical degree at Harvard Medical School, Dr. McInerny 
completed his residency at Cincinnati Children's Hospital and Boston 
Children's Hospital. Dr. Mclnerny has held numerous elected and 
appointed positions, including the AAP Task Force on Mental Health, the 
Task Force on Immunization, and the Steering Committee on Quality 
Improvement and Management. He has served as President of Chapter I, 
District II (Upstate NY), Treasurer of District II, and has served on 
the board of directors and as chief medical officer of the Rochester 
Community Individual Practice Association, a physician-run organization 
dedicated to maintaining a community-wide panel of health care 
professionals to provide high quality, cost-effective, and accessible 
health care to 500,000 residents of the Greater Rochester Area.
  It is our responsibility to ensure that children grow up in a safe 
and healthy environment--protecting children's health must be our top 
priority. This is why I am so pleased to see that dedicated doctors 
such as Dr. McInerny are recognized for their achievements.
  Dr. McInerny has spent decades working to protect the children and 
families of the Rochester area and now has the opportunity to broaden 
his positive impact nationwide. As President-elect, Dr. McInerny has 
stated that he will work with legislators and stakeholders to ensure 
that children have access to quality health care. I am confident that 
Dr. McInerny will be a strong and dedicated leader in protecting the 
health of our nation's children.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in warmly congratulating 
Dr. McInerny upon his election as President of AAP.

                          ____________________
```
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, 2009 (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 25, 2010 |  | /s/ John Bevan
|                    |  | Name:          |  | John Bevan             
|                    |  | Title:         |  | Chief Executive Officer
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4717 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a program to recognize 

farms that have been in continuous operation for 100 years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 21, 2017 

Mr. CRAWFORD (for himself, Mr. NOLAN, Mr. WESTERMAN, Mr. WOMACK, 

and Mr. HILL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a program to recognize farms that have been in continuous 

operation for 100 years. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Century Farms Act 

5 of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 

8 (1) the United States has a long history of 

9 farming and has historically appreciated the invaluVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:28 Dec 23, 2017 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4717.IH H4717

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4717 IH

1 able contribution of farming to domestic and global 

2 populations; 

3 (2) family farms represent 97 percent of all 

4 farms in the United States, of which 90 percent are 

5 small family farms; 

6 (3) over 30 States have established Century or 

7 Centennial Farm designations and awards; and 

8 (4) agricultural producers perform a vital public 

9 service that should be recognized and rewarded. 

10 SEC. 3. CENTURY FARMS PROGRAM. 

11 The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in this sec12 tion as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall establish a program under 

13 which the Secretary recognizes any farm that— 

14 (1) a State department of agriculture or similar 

15 statewide agricultural organization recognizes as a 

16 Century Farm; or 

17 (2)(A) is defined as a farm or ranch under sec18 tion 4284.902 of title 7, Code of Federal Regula19 tions (as in effect on the date of enactment of this 

20 Act); 

21 (B) has been in continuous operation for at 

22 least 100 years; and 

23 (C) has been owned by the same family for at 

24 least 100 consecutive years, as verified through 

25 deeds, wills, abstracts, tax statements, or other simiVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:28 Dec 23, 2017 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4717.IH H4717

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4717 IH

1 lar legal documents considered appropriate by the 

2 Secretary. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4592 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the two-year 

waiting period for divorced spouse’s benefits following the divorce. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2017 

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate 

the two-year waiting period for divorced spouse’s benefits 

following the divorce. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD 

4 FOR DIVORCED SPOUSE’S BENEFITS FOL5 LOWING THE DIVORCE IN CASES OF PRIOR 

6 RECEIPT OF SPOUSE’S BENEFITS. 

7 (a) WIFE’S INSURANCE BENEFITS.—Section 

8 202(b)(4)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 402(b)(4)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘divorced wife—’’ 

10 and all that follows through ‘‘shall be entitled’’ and insertVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:32 Dec 13, 2017 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4592.IH H4592

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4592 IH

1 ing ‘‘divorced wife meets the requirements of subpara2 graphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1), shall be enti3 tled’’. 

4 (b) HUSBAND’S INSURANCE BENEFITS.—Section 

5 202(c)(4)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(4)(A)) is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘divorced husband—’’ and all that 

7 follows through ‘‘shall be entitled’’ and inserting ‘‘divorced 

8 husband meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) 

9 through (D) of paragraph (1), shall be entitled’’. 

10 (c) EXEMPTION FROM DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF

11 WORK.—Section 203(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

12 403(b)(2)) is amended— 

13 (1) by striking ‘‘(2)(A) Except as’’ and all that 

14 follows through ‘‘the benefit to which’’ and inserting 

15 the following: ‘‘(2) In any case in which any of the 

16 other persons referred to in paragraph (1)(B) are 

17 entitled to monthly benefits as a divorced spouse 

18 under subsection (b) or (c) of section 202 for any 

19 month, the benefit to which’’; and 

20 (2) by striking subparagraph (B). 

21 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

22 The amendments made by section 1 shall apply with 

23 respect to benefits for months after the date of the enact24 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
Abstract Article References Cited By

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF(209K)

Keywords: Benefit transfer; Environmental economics; Literature synthesis; Non-market valuation

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF(209K)

like this article

Robert J. Johnston Randall S. Rosenberger All Authors

Find more content:

Find more content written by:

Robert J. Johnston1, Randall S.

Rosenberger2

Article first published online: 28 OCT 2009

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6419.2009.00592.x

© 2009 Blackw ell Publishing Ltd

Issue

Journal of Economic Surveys

Volume 24, Issue 3, pages

479–510, July 2010

How to Cite Author Information Publication History

Additional Information (Show All)

METHODS, TRENDS AND CONTROVERSIES IN CONTEMPORARY BENEFIT

TRANSFER

Abstract Benefit transfer uses research results from pre-existing primary research to predict welfare estimates for other sites of policy significance for which primary valuation

estimates are unavailable. Despite the sizable literature and the ubiquity of benefit transfer in policy analysis, the method remains subject to controversy. There is also a

divergence between transfer practices recommended by the scholarly literature and those commonly applied within policy analysis. The size, complexity and relative

disorganization of the literature may represent an obstacle to the use of updated methods by practitioners. Recognizing the importance of benefit transfer for policymaking and

the breadth of associated scholarly work, this paper reviews and synthesizes the benefit transfer literature. It highlights methods, trends and controversies in contemporary

research, identifies issues and challenges facing benefit transfer practitioners and summarizes research contributions. Several areas of future research on benefit transfers

naturally emerge.

More content like this

3/11/2011 METHODS, TRENDS AND CONTROVER...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/.../abstract 1/1
# INSPIRE Initiative - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Evaluation of ARC’s INSPIRE Initiative The East Tennessee State University (ETSU) Center for Rural Health Research, in collaboration with the ETSU Addiction Science Center, conducted an evaluation of the INSPIRE Initiative on behalf of ARC in 2022-2023. The evaluation was designed to advance understanding of the accessibility of the application process, implementation successes and challenges, and preliminary grant impacts. It [&#8230;]The post Evaluation of ARC&#8217;s INSPIRE Initiative appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Ray Lukin, as Administratrix of the Estate of Osias Lukin, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County,

November 12, 1959.

*747
      *Herman Davis*and *Francis X. Brickfield*for administratrix.

*Ernest M. Morrison*for petitioner.

John D. Bennett, S.

This is a petition to compel the judicial settlement of the account of the administratrix. The petitioner alleges that he is a judgment creditor of the decedent by reason of a United States District Court judgment in the amount of $42,000 against the decedent. The answer filed by the respondent denies that the petitioner is a judgment creditor.

As a first affirmative defense, the administratrix alleges that since distribution took place more than one year after letters were issued to her without the filing of a notice of claim, she cannot be compelled to account. Although section 208 of the Surrogate’s Court Act provides that if a notice of claim against a deceased person is not presented within seven months from the issuance of letters, the fiduciary is not chargeable for any assets distributed before the claim was presented, such distribution must be made in good faith. Therefore if it appears that the fiduciary had knowledge of the claim against the estate before distribution was made, the fiduciary may be held responsible *(Matter of Gill,*199 N. Y. 155; *Matter of Vigunas,*134 N. Y. S. 2d 216).

Since the status of the petitioner as a creditor has been denied by the respondent, the petitioner must demonstrate at a hearing and upon evidence there adduced that he is a creditor prima facie of this estate *(Matter of Eisenberg,*279 App. Div. 868).

In the event that it is respondent’s position that distribution was made in good faith by her, her answer should be amended accordingly and this issue also resolved at the hearing. A hearing date will be fixed upon application to the court.

No order need be submitted on this decision unless desired by counsel, in which event such order shall be submitted on five days ’ notice.
# C_2008092EN.01003802.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/38

---

Appeal brought on 8 February 2008 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 27 November 2007 in Case F-122/06, Roodhuijzen v Commission

Roodhuijzen

Commission

(Case T-58/08 P)

(2008/C 92/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Anton Pieter Roodhuijzen (Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 November 2007 in Case F-122/06 Roodhuijzen v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 November 2007 in Case F-122/06 Roodhuijzen v Commission;

Roodhuijzen

Commission

| — | dismiss the action brought by Mr Roodhuijzen; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action brought by Mr Roodhuijzen;

| — | order that each party shall bear its own costs of the present appeal and of the action before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that each party shall bear its own costs of the present appeal and of the action before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the Commission seeks annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 November 2007 in Case F-122/06 Roodhuijzen v Commission, which annuls the decision of the Commission refusing to recognise the non-marital partnership of the applicant as regards the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities.

Roodhuijzen

Commission

In support of its appeal, the Commission raises three pleas in law seeking annulment.

By its first plea, the Commission submits that the CST ruled ultra vires in breach of Article 1(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and in breach of the principle of non-discrimination, in that it rejected the appellant's argument relating thereto and substituted its own without, however, permitting the Commission to respond thereto, accordingly failing to respect the rights of the defence.

ultra vires

The second plea alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the notion of ‘partnership’ as contained in Article 1(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, entitling the partner of an official to be covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme.

The third plea, raised in the alternative, alleges incorrect interpretation of the principle of non-discrimination.

---
Exhibit 32.2





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David S. Anderson, Vice President 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 material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/David S. AndersonDavid S. Anderson(Chief financial officer)May 12, 2011
**Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 December 2009 – Media-Saturn v OHIM (BEST BUY)**

**(Case T-476/08)**

Community trade mark – Application for figurative Community trade mark BEST BUY – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 26-29, 32)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 591/2008‐4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BEST BUY as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark BEST BUY for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 5, 6 to 12, 14 to 17, 20 to 22, 27, 28, 35, 37, 38 and 40 to 42 – Application No 5189550 |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH to pay the costs. |
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I,Mark Nelson, Chief Executive Officer and President (principal executive officerand principal financial officer) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theAnnual Report of Polar Molecular Holding Corporation on Form 10-KSB for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatinformation contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of Polar MolecularHolding Corporation.

 

 
| By:/s/  Mark Nelson                           |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:  Mark Nelson                            |
| Title:  Chief Executive Officer and President |
| January  9, 2006                              |

 

**A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Polar Molecular Holding Corporation andwill be retained by Polar Molecular Holding Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

 

----