alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.10



                              POWER OF ATTORNEY


The undersigned director and/or officer of Karrington Health, Inc. (the
"Company"), does hereby constitute and appoint Richard R. Slager and Alan B.
Satterwhite, or either of them, my true and lawful attorneys and agents, each
with full power of substitution, to do any and all acts and things in my name
and on my behalf in my capacity as a director of the Company and to execute
any and all instruments for me and in my name in the capacity indicated
above, which said attorneys or agents, or either of them, may deem necessary
or advisable to enable the Company to comply with the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and any rules, regulations and requirements of the
Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder, in connection with the filing
requirements of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 1996 (the "1996 Form 10-K"), including specifically but
without limitation, power and authority to sign for me in my name, in the
capacity indicated above, the 1996 Form 10-K and any and all amendments to
such 1996 Form 10-K; and I do hereby ratify and confirm all that the said
attorneys and agents, or their substitute or substitutes, or either of them,
shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

                                        /S/ HAROLD A. POLING
                                        ----------------------
                                        Harold A. Poling
                                        Director
A  C  I ARMANDO C. IBARRA
                  CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION



Armando C. Ibarra, C.P.A.
Members of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants
Registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board




January 12, 2006



To Whom It May Concern:


The  firm  of  Armando C. Ibarra, Certified Public Accountants, consents to the
inclusion of our  report  of  December  16,  2005,  on  the  audited  financial
statements  of  Valcom  Studios,  Inc. as of September 30, 2005, in any filings
that are necessary now or in the near  future  with  the  U.S.  Securities  and
Exchange Commission or other regulatory agency.




/s/ ARMANDO C. IBARRA, C.P.A.
-----------------------------
    ARMANDO C. IBARRA, C.P.A.


                     371 E. STREET, CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
                              TEL: (619) 422-1348
                              FAX: (619) 422-1465
Workbook Contents

U.S. Residual Fuel Oil Sulfur Greater Than 1% Wholesale/Resale Price by Refiners (Dollars pe

Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data

Worksheet Name Description

Data 1 U.S. Residual Fuel Oil Sulfur Greater Than 1% Wholesale/Resale Price by Refiners (Do

Release Date: 11/1/2011

Next Release Date: 11/1/2012

Excel File Name: ema_epprh_pwg_nus_dpga.xls

Available from Web Page: http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMA_EPPRH_PWG_NU

Source: Energy Information Administration

For Help, Contact: infoctr@eia.doe.gov

(202) 586-8800
by Refiners (Dollars per Gallon)

# Of Series Frequency Latest Data for

1 Annual 2010

&s=EMA_EPPRH_PWG_NUS_DPG&f=A

12/27/2011 7:27:05 PM
Back to Contents Data 1: U.S. Residual Fuel Oil Sulfur Greater Than 1% Wholesale/Resale Price by R

Sourcekey

EMA_EPPRH_PWG_NU

S_DPG

Date > 1% < 1%

1978 0.275 0.314 0.039

1979 0.389 0.468 0.079

1980 0.523 0.675 0.152

1981 0.673 0.829 0.156

1982 0.611 0.747 0.136

1983 0.611 0.695 0.084

1984 0.659 0.72 0.061

1985 0.582 0.644 0.062

1986 0.317 0.372 0.055

1987 0.396 0.447 0.051

1988 0.3 0.372 0.072

1989 0.344 0.436 0.092

1990 0.4 0.505 0.105

1991 0.306 0.402 0.096

1992 0.312 0.389 0.077

1993 0.303 0.397 0.094

1994 0.33 0.401 0.071

1995 0.377 0.436 0.059

1996 0.433 0.526 0.093

1997 0.403 0.488 0.085

1998 0.287 0.354 0.067

1999 0.362 0.405 0.043

2000 0.566 0.708 0.142

2001 0.492 0.642 0.15

2002 0.544 0.64 0.096

2003 0.651 0.804 0.153 $0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

2003 0.651 0.804 0.153

2004 0.692 0.835 0.143

2005 0.974 1.168 0.194

2006 1.173 1.342 0.169

2007 1.35 1.436 0.086

2008 1.889 2.144 0.255

2009 1.306 1.413 0.107

2010 1.619 1.92 0.301

updated 1/25/12 updated 1/25/12

source: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_refoth_dcu_nus_m.htm

5 yr avg 0.184

10 yr avg 0.165

15 yr avg 0.139

$0.00

$0.50

olesale/Resale Price by Refiners (Dollars per Gallon)

Series1

Series2

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Series1

Series2

Series3
0

0.5

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year > 1% < 1%

1978 $0.275 $0.314

1979 $0.389 $0.468

1980 $0.523 $0.675

1981 $0.673 $0.829

1982 $0.611 $0.747

1983 $0.611 $0.695

1984 $0.659 $0.720

1985 $0.582 $0.644

1986 $0.317 $0.372

1987 $0.396 $0.447

1988 $0.300 $0.372

1989 $0.344 $0.436

1990 $0.400 $0.505

1991 $0.306 $0.402

1992 $0.312 $0.389

1993 $0.303 $0.397

1994 $0.330 $0.401

1995 $0.377 $0.436

1996 $0.433 $0.526

1997 $0.403 $0.488

1998 $0.287 $0.354

1999 $0.362 $0.405

2000 $0.566 $0.708

2001 $0.492 $0.642

2002 $0.544 $0.640

2003 $0.651 $0.804

2004 $0.692 $0.835 Year > 1% S < 1% S difference

2005 $0.974 $1.168 Year > 1% S < 1% S difference

2006 $1.173 $1.342 2006 $ 1.09 $ 1.20 $ 0.12

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

> 1% < 1%

2006 $1.173 $1.342 2006 $ 1.09 $ 1.20 $ 0.12

2007 $1.350 $1.436 2007 $ 1.31 $ 1.41 $ 0.09

2008 $1.889 $2.144 2008 $ 1.84 $ 1.92 $ 0.08

2009 $1.306 $1.413 2009 $ 1.34 $ 1.34 $ (0.01)

2010 $1.619 $1.920 2010 $ 1.68 $ 1.76 $ 0.08

average $ 0.07

std dev $ 0.05

high $ 0.16

low $ (0.02)
^ ITO F^ 

### 5/ 

## ^01 0 SE P 1 3 P 1-3 8 QFlh&LOOO^ . (f^Ppicl^K) ^ (b(^<^Z


## /le\jif(/ ^ c^Q- / / dA^/ " f/^c^ , /Q-e(/e.y ^ osf^c ^ * 

# 3
- f j/lo ^ /^J/J^iA^^J . 0 ^ Slnodit<^< Jai r Kou ^ Sty e ^/) ^ k ^ 4c ^ )Ac ^ JT^/^u.'c f /^^- s /7^i^<rp ^ ^c/e/'^ ^

Merce r/ ? W / > ? gC^ ^

^O^-^c: ^

1 ~ffe< ^

Kr^ . .J ^

J 

# 4 f f U- . 

## yfn^

^ V p T> T ^ r ^ ^ > -few* - ^^' H3 0 201 0 ""2** '
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 8, 

2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________ 

NO. 14-11-00487-CV

____________

DAWN JOHNSON WHATLEY, Individually and as the Executrix of the Estate of 

Perry Lee Whatley, and MICHAEL EASTON, Appellants

V.

MYLUS JAMES WALKER, JR., Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 355,095

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from an order signed May 11, 2011, sustaining the contests to 

appellant Dawn Johnson Whatley’s affidavit of indigency. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. On

October 27, 2011, appellants filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal because the 

case has been settled. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.
2

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and McCally.
**Exhibit 10.20FIRST AMENDMENT TOMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING**        This **FIRST AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING** (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of December 30, 2002, among **ALTERRA HEALTHCARE CORPORATION**, a Delaware corporation (“**Guarantor**”), **ALS LEASING, INC.**, a Delaware corporation (“**Tenant**”) and **JER/NHP SENIOR LIVING ACQUISITION, LLC**, a Delaware limited liability company (“**Landlord**”).**R E C I T A L S****A.        **Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain Master Lease dated October 7, 2002 (the “Lease”) pursuant to which Tenant has leased from Landlord the Premises as described therein.**B.        **Pursuant to its separate Guaranty of Master Lease and Letter of Credit Agreement dated October 7, 2002, Guarantor unconditionally guaranteed to Landlord, among other things, the performance by Tenant under the Lease.**C.        **Pursuant to that certain Memorandum of Understanding dated October 7, 2002 (the “Original Memorandum of Understanding”), Tenant and Guarantor requested, and Landlord agreed, to forbear from exercising certain remedies available to Landlord upon a bankruptcy filing by Guarantor and certain other potential defaults under the Lease and the Guaranty.  Initially capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to them in the Original Memorandum of Understanding.**D.**        Guarantor and Tenant have requested, and Landlord has agreed, to modify certain terms and provisions of the Original Memorandum of Understanding, and to clarify certain terms and provisions of the Lease, as hereinafter set forth. **A G R E E M E N T        **NOW**,**THEREFORE**, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals (which by this reference are incorporated herein), and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:1.        **Filing Deadline**.  The definition of the Filing Deadline in Section 7 of the Original Memorandum of Understanding is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following substituted in lieu thereof:**“Filing Deadline”** shall mean January 31, 2003.2.        **Insurance**.  The final sentence of Section 3 of the Original Memorandum of Understanding is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the following substituted in lieu thereof:**
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 7731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02221]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Pistoia Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 4, 2023, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (the ``Act''), Pistoia Alliance, Inc. 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ISOMETRICA, Calne, 
UNITED KINGDOM; GO FAIR Foundation, Leiden, NETHERLANDS; IQD (AURP), 
College Park, MD; and Patrick Pijanowski (individual member), 
Greenwood, MO; have been added as parties to this venture.
    Also, Zapata Computing Inc., Cambridge, MA; Kalleid, Cambridge, MA; 
BLS Group, Cormano, ITALY; and Kvantify, Copenhagen, DENMARK have 
withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to 
file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original 
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 
6(b) of the Act on July 15, 2009 (74 FR 34364).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 7, 
2023. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal 
Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on September 26, 2023 (88 
FR 66058).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2024-02221 Filed 2-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1286 KA 09-01499 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MYRON LUMPKIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TYSON BLUE, MACEDON, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

RICHARD M. HEALY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LYONS (MELVIN BRESSLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (Stephen R. Sirkin, J.), rendered June 9, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the first degree and gang assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]) and gang assault in the second degree (§ 120.06), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. Defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review both because his motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specifically directed at the alleged deficiencies identified on appeal ( see People v Gray , 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Adair , 84 AD3d 1752, 1753, lv denied 17 NY3d 812), and because he failed to renew his motion after presenting evidence ( see People v Hines , 97 NY2d 56, 61, rearg denied 97 NY2d 678). In any event, that contention is without merit ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495).

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, County Court properly denied, without conducting a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) to set aside the verdict ( see generally People v Carter , 63 NY2d 530, 536; People v Morgan , 77 AD3d 1419, 1420, lv denied 15 NY3d 922). We also reject defendant’s contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel ( see generally People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147). Rather, we conclude that the “cumulative effect of defense counsel’s alleged deficiencies, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, did not deprive defendant of effective assistance of counsel” ( People v Marcial , 41 AD3d 1308, 1309, lv-2- 1286 KA 09-01499

denied 9 NY3d 878). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or

severe.

Entered: December 30, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Marshall D. Sorokwasz, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended November 30, 2004 of Impreso, Inc. (the “Report”); 2.  Based on my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by the Report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in the Report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in the Report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b)  [Omitted in reliance on SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986 Section III.E.];  c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthe Report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by the Report based on suchevaluation; and  d)  Disclosed in the Report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting;
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information;and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
6.  Item 4 Controls and Procedures in the Company’s Form 10-Q is incorporated herein byreference.   Date: January 14, 2005 /s/ Marshall D. Sorokwasz  **Marshall D.Sorokwasz** **ChiefExecutive Officer and President**
Exhibit 10.43







December 6, 2016

















Dear Craig:







The purpose of this letter is to document your appointment to serve as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO):








		1.	
Position.  Effective December 6, 2016, your new title is President and CEO, reporting directly to the Executive Chairman of the Board.













		2.	
Compensation.  The Company will compensate you at the rate of $460,000 per annum.  In addition, you will be eligible for a discretionary target bonus of up to 50% of your base salary based on your achievement of corporate and personal goals as established by the Company.  The determination of whether you have achieved the goals, whether you will receive a bonus, and, if so, the bonus amount that will be paid, shall be made by the Company in its sole and absolute discretion.













		3.	
Stock Option Grant.  The Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) has approved a stock option (“Option”) entitling you to purchase 300,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company on December 6, 2016.  The Option exercise price has been set at 100% of the fair market value of the Common Stock, or $1.47, at the grant date of December 6, 2016.  The option shall vest during the course of your employment, with 25% of the shares vesting upon the first anniversary of your grant date, 75% of the shares vesting in 36 equal monthly installments at the end of each full calendar month that commences thereafter, for so long as you remain employed by the Company, such that subject to your continued employment the stock option shall be fully vested on the fourth anniversary of its vesting start date.













		4.	
Section 16 Officer.  Concurrent with your appointment, you are designated as a section 16 officer of the Company.  You are expected to comply with all of the Company’s trading policies and filing requirements with the Securities Exchange Commission under Securities Exchange Act of 1934.













		5.	
Unless subsequently notified by the Company, no change in this letter will constitute or constitutes changes to the existing terms of your employment with the Company.  You are expected to comply with all the Company’s policies and practices.












Sincerely,












	
By:

	
/s/ May Liu

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
May C. Liu

	
 


	
 

	
Senior Vice President

	
 


	
 

	
Finance & Administration

	
 





 












ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO AS SET FORTH ABOVE:












	
Dated:  

	  December 6, 2016 	 	
/s/ Craig Thompson

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
Craig Thompson
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 475 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 82
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 475

                          [Report No. 104-60]

 To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel LADY HAWK.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 27 (legislative day, February 22), 1995

  Mr. Stevens introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                             April 18, 1995

    Reported, under authority of the order of the Senate of April 6 
  (legislative day, April 5), 1995, by Mr. Pressler, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel LADY HAWK.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as 
applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation for the vessel 
LADY HAWK, United States official number 961095.
                                     

                                                        Calendar No. 82

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 475

                          [Report No. 104-60]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel LADY HAWK.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 18, 1995

                       Reported without amendment
```
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JANUARY 25, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-15150

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-20117-CR-PCH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

JAIME HIGINIO BUCKLAND-GIROD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(January 25, 2007)

Before DUBINA, CARNES and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Joel DeFabio, appointed counsel for Jaime Higinio Buckland-Girod, has
2

filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the

entire record reveals no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED and Buckland-Girod’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.