alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2.

          Certification of CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                   as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this
Annual Report of Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company and its results
of operations as of and for the periods covered therein.


/s/ J. Kimbrough Davis
-----------------------------
J. Kimbrough Davis
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 16, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-15-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          76,355
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,657
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       5,807,497
<DEPRECIATION>                                 129,136
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,822,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      4,387,165
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       105,710
<OTHER-SE>                                     961,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,822,866
<SALES>                                      1,431,975
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,475,831
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,585,577
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             209,946
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (319,692)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (319,692)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (319,692)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 24.7**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

**(Annual Report on Form 10-K)**

The undersigned, an officer and/or director of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc., constitutes and appoints Nicholas Konidaris, Paul Oldham and KerryMustoe, and each of them, his or her true and lawful attorney and agent to do any and all acts and things and execute in his or her name as an officer or director of the Company the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 2,2011 and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and the undersigned does hereby ratify and confirm all that saidattorneys and agents and each of them shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. Any one of said attorneys or agents shall have, and may exercise, all powers conferred. 

Dated: May 25, 2011.
EXHIBIT 23.1




                          Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
Cytogen Corporation:


We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  registration  statements
(Nos. 33-30595, 33-52574, 33-57004, 33-63321, 333-00431,  333-04679,  333-27673,
333-48454,  333-58384,  333-59718,  333-75304) on Form S-8 and the  registration
statements (Nos. 33-35140, 33-77396, 333-43809, 333-83215, 333-34550, 333-33436,
333-72226,  333-100315)  on  Form  S-3  and the  registration  statements  (Nos.
333-68759,  333-67947)  on Form S-1 of Cytogen  Corporation  of our report dated
January 31, 2003,  which report is based in part on a report of other auditiors,
with  respect  to the  consolidated  balance  sheet of Cytogen  Corporation  and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of
operations,  stockholders'  equity and cash flows for the year then ended, which
report appears in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K/A  (Amendment
No. 2) of Cytogen Corporation.


Our report refers to our audit of the  adjustments  that were applied to restate
the 2001 and 2000 consolidated financial statements,  as more fully described in
Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements. However, we were not engaged to
audit,  review,  or apply  any  procedures  to the  2001  and 2000  consolidated
financial statements other than with respect to such adjustments.




                                         /s/ KPMG LLP
Princeton, New Jersey
September 19, 2003
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21.1 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Langer, Inc., a Delaware corporation, owns 100% of the outstanding capital stock
of each of the following corporations:

      1.    Langer (UK) Limited, a United Kingdom limited company (formerly
            known as The Langer Biomechanics Group (UK) Limited).

      2.    Langer Distribution Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (formerly
            known as GoodFoot Acquisition Co.).

      3.    Langer Canada Inc., a New Brunswick (Canada) corporation.

            Langer Canada Inc., owns 100 % of the outstanding capital stock of
            Bi-Op Laboratories Inc., a Quebec (Canada) corporation.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00296-CV

Robert SOTO Jr. and Sylvia Soto,

Appellants

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. and George 

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. and George Paniagua,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-04719

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 10. 2013

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellants filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1). Because the motion does not disclose an agreement of the parties regarding the 

assessment of costs, we order all costs assessed against appellants. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d)

(absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 11276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03023]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(j)(7)).
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than February 29, 2024.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Stephanie Weber, Assistant 
Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#db969a9bb6abb7a8f5bda9b9f5b4a9bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="307d71705d405c431e5642521e5f4257">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Mark J. Heinemann Trust Agreement dated January 23, 2024, Mark 
Heinemann and Allison Berg Heinemann, as co-trustees, all of Albert 
Lea, Minnesota; Leslie Heinemann and Lisbeth Heinemann, both of 
Flandreau, South Dakota; and Thomas T. Berg and Paula D. Berg, both of 
Albert Lea, Minnesota; as members of the Heinemann Family Control 
Group, a group acting in concert, to acquire voting shares of Minnesota 
Community Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting 
shares of Arcadian Bank, both of Albert Lea, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Ann E. Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-03023 Filed 2-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**542 CAF 14-01821**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JOEY J. AND ANGEL J.

------------------------------------------ ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PETITIONER-RESPONDENT;
ELEANOR J., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM D. BRODERICK, JR., ELMA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL).

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered September 29, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order terminated the parental rights of respondent. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, respondent mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. On appeal, the mother challenges the representation she received at the fact-finding hearing. We reject the mother’s contention that she was denied effective assistance of counsel inasmuch as she “did not demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s alleged shortcomings” ( Matter of Reinhardt v Hardison , 122 AD3d 1448, 1449 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Brown v Gandy , 125 AD3d 1389, 1390). Contrary to the mother’s contention, “[i]neffectiveness may not ‘be inferred merely because the attorney counseled [her] to admit the allegations in the petition’ ” ( Matter of Michael W. , 266 AD2d 884, 884-885; see Matter of Sean W. [Brittany W.] , 87 AD3d 1318, 1319, lv denied 18 NY3d 802).

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This FIRST  AMENDMENT  TO  EMPLOYMENT  AGREEMENT is made as of December
_______, 1997 between Merisel,  Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and
Dwight A. Steffensen ("Executive").

         WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement
dated as of February 12, 1997 (the "Agreement")  pursuant to which the terms and
conditions  governing  Executive's  employment by the Company were set forth and
providing for Executive to serve as Chief Executive Officer; and

         WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to modify the terms of the
Agreement as set forth herein;

         NOW,  THEREFORE,  the Company and  Executive  hereby agree to amend the
Agreement as set forth below.

1.      The following shall be added to the end of Section 9.2 of the Agreement:


         "In the event of a Sale of the  Company  consisting  of the  Stonington
         Conversion (as defined in the Company's  Proxy Statement dated November
         25,  1997),  the three year  period  referenced  in the first and third
         sentences of this Section 9.2 shall  commence upon  termination of this
         Agreement."


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed and delivered
this  First  Amendment  to  Employment  Agreement,  as of the day and year first
written above.


                                                       MERISEL, INC.


                                                 By:__________________________
                                                        James E. Illson
                                                    Senior Vice President and
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


                                                       DWIGHT A. STEFFENSEN


                                                  -----------------------------
#### Worden Churchill TYLER, Appellant, v. Worden P. CHURCHILL’S TRUSTEE (Citizens Fidelity Bank and Trust Company) et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Sept. 21, 1956.

*732Henry I. Fox, Louisville, for appellant.

Wm. H. Crutcher, Jr., Edwin G. Middleton, Louisville, for appellees..

CULLEN, Commissioner.

Under the terms of a trust having a Kentucky situs, the corpus of the trust became distributable to Worden Churchill Tyler. In an action brought in the Jefferson Circuit Court, by the trustee, in which Tyler and his former wife, Mrs. Helen Aber-crombie, were named as defendants, judgment was entered awarding Mrs. Aber-crombie some $10,500, out of the corpus of the trust, as support money for the two children who had been born to the parties during their marriage. Tyler filed notice of appeal from the judgment. Also, two months after the judgment was entered, he moved under CR 60.02 to have the judgment set aside as void. This motion was overruled and Tyler filed notice of appeal from the order overruling the motion. Tyler attempted to perfect both appeals but failed to file within the required time the record on the appeal from the judgment, and that appeal was dismissed by order of this Court. Accordingly there is before us only the appeal from the order overruling the motion to set aside the judgment. This means that the only question to be considered is whether the judgment is void.

Tyler asserts that the judgment is void both because of lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter and because of lack of jurisdiction of his person.

While the action was pending in the circuit court, and before judgment, Tyler sought a writ of prohibition from this Court to prohibit the circuit court from proceeding further with the action, on the ground that the circuit court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter. This Court denied the writ, holding specifically that the circuit court did have jurisdiction of the subject matter. Tyler v. Smith, Ky., 272 S.W.2d 454. The opinion in that case sets forth the facts out of which Mrs. Abercrombie’s claim for support money for the children arose, and the grounds of Tyler’s claim of no jurisdiction.

The decision in Tyler v. Smith, Ky., 272 S.W.2d 454 is res judicata on the question of jurisdiction of the subject matter. 2 Freeman on Judgments, sec. 149.8.

The contention of Tyler that the court did not have jurisdiction of his person is based on the fact that originally there was no service of process in the action. However, constructive service of Tyler was obtained on Mrs. Abercrombie’s amended cross-complaint, and this gave the court sufficient jurisdiction over Tyler to enable the court to subject the trust res to the claim of Mrs. Abercrombie.

*733Tyler makes a number of arguments that are addressed to errors of the court in granting judgment for Mrs. Abercrombie. As hereinbefore indicated, these cannot be considered because Tyler did not perfect his appeal from the judgment.

The order overruling the motion to set aside the judgment is affirmed.
#### Richard PROCTOR, Appellant, v. Calvin D. CRANFILL, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 1, 1957.

D. E. Wooldridge, La Grange, for appellant.

James A. Hall, La Grange, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal, from a judgment for appellee entered on a directed verdict in a suit by appellant to recover $200 arising out of an automobile collision.

This case has been here before. Proctor v. Cranfill, Ky., 280 S.W.2d 494. While appellant on this appeal argues at length the negligence of appellee, the only issue presented is whether or not appellant himself was contributorily negligent. The circumstances of the collision established this beyond a shadow of a doubt. The trial court properly directed the verdict.

The motion for an appeal is denied, and the judgment stands affirmed.
Exhibit 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements  No.
33-29616,  No.  33-61592,  No.  333-44595,  No.  333-44605  and No.  33-63021 of
Merisel,  Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated  February 23, 1999,  appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Merisel, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
1998.

Deloitte & Touche, LLP



Los Angeles, California
March 30, 1999
Order entered April 17, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00704
- CV CTMGT FRISCO 11, LLC , Appellant
V. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIV ERY COMPANY, LLC AND ROCK HILL ENTERPRISE S, LTD., Appellee s On Appeal from the 199th J udicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199
- 01359
- 2014 

### O RDER Before the Court are two motions: (1) Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to Clarify or, Alternatively, to Dismiss ERCOT as Appellee and (2) Public Utility Commission of Texas’s Unopposed Motion to Clarify or, Alternatively, to Dismiss the PUCT as Appellee. The motions are GRANTED . The Court takes notice that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. and the Public Utility Commission o f Texas are not parties to this appeal.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART PRESIDING JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 11333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02982]


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

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION


Grandfathering (GF) Registration Notice

AGENCY: Susquehanna River Basin Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists Grandfathering Registration for projects by 
the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in 
DATES.

DATES: January 1-31, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, 
Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and 
Secretary to the Commission, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: 
(717) 238-2436; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#650f0a1c09001725161707064b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dcb6b3a5b0b9ae9cafaebebff2bbb3aa">[email protected]</span></a>. Regular mail inquiries may be 
sent to the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice lists GF Registration for 
projects described below, pursuant to 18 CFR part 806, subpart E, for 
the time period specified above:
    1. State University of New York at Morrisville--SUNY Morrisville, 
GF Certificate No. GF-202401267, Village of Morrisville, Madison 
County, N.Y.; combined withdrawals from Wells 1 and 2, and Well 3; 
Issue Date: January 19, 2024.
    2. U.S. Silica Company--Mapleton Plant, GF Certificate No. GF-
202401268, Brady Township, Huntingdon County, Pa.; Juniata River, 
Quarry Sump, and consumptive use; Issue Date: January 19, 2024.
    3. York Building Products Co., Inc.--Lincoln Stone Quarry, GF 
Certificate No. GF-202401269, Jackson Township, York County, Pa.; 
Quarry Sump and consumptive use; Issue Date: January 19, 2024.
    4. York Building Products Co., Inc.--Roosevelt Quarry, GF 
Certificate No. GF-202401270, West Manchester Township, York County, 
Pa.; Quarry Sump and consumptive use; Issue Date: January 19, 2024.
    Authority: Public Law 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509 et seq., 18 CFR parts 
806 and 808.

    Dated: February 8, 2024.
Jason E. Oyler,
General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-02982 Filed 2-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7040-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1326

In re: DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:16-mc-00003-BO)

Submitted: May 23, 2017 Decided: May 25, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Johnson Willis, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Johnson Willis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing 

the district court to file his civil complaint. We conclude that Willis is not entitled to 

mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in 

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United 

States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is 

available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. 

Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin 

Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Willis is not available by 

way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 

we deny the petition and corrected petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED