alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the use, in this Annual Report of Localiza Rent a Car S.A. on Form
20-F filed on June 29, 2004 (File No. 333-8128), which is incorporated by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 filed on August 24, 2001
(Registration No. 333-13852), of our report dated April 2, 2004



Belo Horizonte, Brazil

June 29, 2004

/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Auditores Independentes
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 21
                              CERPROBE CORPORATION
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


SUBSIDIARIES OF CERPROBE CORPORATION:
  Cerprobe Interconnect Solutions, Inc.
  SVTR, Inc.
  Cerprobe Europe Limited
  Cerprobe Asia Holdings Pte Ltd
  Cerprobe Europe S.A.S.
  OZ Technologies, Inc.


SUBSIDIARIES OF OZ Technologies, Inc.
  Triple S Engineering, Inc.


SUBSIDIARIES OF CERPROBE ASIA HOLDINGS PTE LTD:
  Cerprobe Asia Pte Ltd.


SUBSIDIARIES OF CERPROBE ASIA PTE LTD.:
  Cerprobe Singapore Pte Ltd
  Cerprobe Taiwan Company Ltd

* 70% owned by Cerprobe Corporation until August 18, 1997, at which time
Cerprobe's ownership was reduced to 60%.
The file BARTModelingParameters.csv contains the modeling parameters that were 

used for the CAMx screening modeling performed by Environ.

For more information on this modeling see:

- the Draft Final Modeling Protocol, Screening Analysis of Potentially BART 

Eligible Sources in Texas, December 15, 2005 and;

- the Draft Report, Screening Analysis of Potential BART-Eligible Sources in 

Texas, September 2006.

The units of the modeling parameters are:

- STKHGT=feet, 

- STKDIAM=feet, 

- STKTEMP=Fahrenheit, 

- STKVEL=feet/second, 

- VOC=tons per year, 

- NOX=tons per year, 

- SO2=tons per year, 

- PM10=tons per year.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

VINCENT SICILIA

v.

API ROOFERS ADVANTAGE PROGRAM (WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD)

PETITION OF: API ROOFERS

ADVANTAGE PROGRAM :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 287 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of February, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED . The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Did the Commonwealth Court impermissibly expand the holdings in Duffey v. WCAB (Trola

- Dyne, Inc.) , 152 A.3d 984 (Pa. 2017) . . . as to usurp the authority of the Workers’ Compensation Judge to determine the nature and extent of the compensable injury?

(2) Did the Commonwealth Court err in reversing the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board by substituting [its] assessment of the credible testimony for that

of the fact finder?
Exhibit 99



On April 24, 2003, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Exult, Inc. (the
Company) provided a written statement accompanying the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. A copy of that written statement is set
forth below as Exhibit 99. The information in Exhibit 99 shall not be deemed filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to liabilities thereunder. Furthermore, the information in Exhibit 99 shall not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into the filings of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933.



Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Exult, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



This statement, dated April 24, 2003, is provided pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed by Exult, Inc. (the Issuer) with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the Report).



We hereby certify that, to our knowledge, (a) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (b) the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.



This statement is given in our capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Exult, Inc.



/s/    JAMES C. MADDEN, VJames C. Madden, V Chief Executive Officer




/s/    MICHAEL F. HENNMichael F. Henn Chief Financial Officer




34
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1585 ) LOREAN REAVES, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed February 2, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Cheryl K. Thomas, Judge. Ezequiel Lugo of Banker Lopez Gassler, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Shea T. Moxon and Celene H. Humphries of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa; and Anthony T. Martino and Anthony D. Martino of Clark Martino, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1335 

To revise the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to include 

the Gettysburg Train Station, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2011 

Mr. PLATTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To revise the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military 

Park to include the Gettysburg Train Station, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK 

4 BOUNDARY REVISION. 

5 Section 1 of the Act titled ‘‘An Act to revise the 

6 boundary of the Gettysburg National Military Park in the 

7 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and for other purposes’’, 

8 approved August 17, 1990 (16 U.S.C. 430g–4), is amend9 ed by adding at the end the following: 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1335 IH

1 ‘‘(d) ADDITIONAL LAND.—In addition to the land 

2 identified in subsections (a) and (b), the park shall include 

3 the following, as depicted on the map titled ‘Gettysburg 

4 National Military Park Proposed Boundary Addition’, 

5 numbered 305/80,045 and dated January 2010: 

6 ‘‘(1) The land and interests in land commonly 

7 known as the ‘Gettysburg Train Station’ and its im8 mediate surroundings in the Borough of Gettysburg. 

9 ‘‘(2) The land and interests in land located 

10 along Plum Run in Cumberland Township.’’. 

11 SEC. 2. ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF LAND. 

12 Section 2 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 430g–5) is amended 

13 by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following: ‘‘The 

14 Secretary is also authorized to acquire publicly owned 

15 property within the area defined in section 1(d)(1) by pur16 chase, from willing sellers only, if efforts to acquire that 

17 property without cost have been exhausted. The Secretary 

18 may not acquire property within the area defined in sec19 tion 1(d) by eminent domain.’’. 

Æ 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellant, v. Dayton MAYFIELD, Jr., Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 15, 1965.

Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., David Mur-rell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Frank E. Haddad, Jr., Louisville, for ap-pellee.

MILLIKEN, Judge.

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth to obtain a certification of the law. The trial court had suppressed evidence procured by the police when they searched the truck of the accused, Mayfield, after his arrest for a traffic violation and after taking him to police headquarters. The search admittedly was made in the absence of the accused, without his consent, and without a search warrant. The truck contained seven air conditioners which were plainly visible at the time of the arrest, but the subsequent search revealed the name of their manufacturer and their serial numbers which enabled the police, three days later, to establish that they had been stolen from the warehouse of a distributor. The truck was not registered in the name of the accused and the person in whose name it was registered could neither be found nor identified. Ultimately, the truck was sold for storage charges, and the accused was indicted for knowingly receiving stolen property. Shortly after his arrest for the traffic violation the accused signed a statement which is not in the record before us, but in which he apparently denied ownership of the truck or the air conditioners.

The Commonwealth contends that freedom from unreasonable search is a personal right under the Fourth Amendment and that the accused’s constitutional right has not been violated in this case because he denied ownership of the truck or the air conditioners, citing United States v. Shelton, D.C., 59 F.Supp. 273; Ragland v. Commonwealth, 204 Ky. 598, 265 S.W. 15; Lakes v. Commonwealth, 200 Ky. 266, 254 S.W. 908.

We think it is clear enough in the case at bar that the accused, Mayfield, had control of the truck at the time of his arrest regardless of how he obtained it, and in Lane v. Commonwealth (1964), Ky., 386 S.W.2d 743, this Court reviewed the cases in which we had held that only the owner usually could complain about an illegal search of his property, but concluded that *915where Lane had had control of the car, “even though he was not the owner, he was entitled to have the evidence obtained by reason of the search suppressed.”

On the authority of the Lane case and Preston v. United States (1964), 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777, we conclude that the search here was illegal and that the evidence thus obtained was properly suppressed, and the law is so certified.

The judgment is affirmed.

HILL, J., dissenting.
#### Mabel Plumley WILSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28551.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 7, 1956.

■ No attorney for- appellant of record on appeal.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted for the "offense of being a narcotic addict, in violation .‘of art. 725c, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.; her punishment was assessed at a term of 2 years; and the execution of sentence was deferred In accordance with the terms-of the Adult Probation Law, art. 781b, Vernon’s Ann. cap. .

This purports to be an appeal from an Order revoking such probation. ;

The record does not reflect that a notice of appeal was given and entered of record, as required by art. '827, V.A.C.C.P. In the absence thereof, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cytogen Corporation (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Christopher P. Schnittker, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                     
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: March 15, 2004 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Christopher P. Schnittker                                       
|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                     
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Christopher P. Schnittker Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### M. M. VICARS, Petitioner, v. H. L. STOKELY, Respondent.

No. A-6158.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 13, 1957.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1957.

Sharpe, Cunningham & Garza, Brownsville, for petitioner.

Cox, Wagner, Adams & Wilson, Brownsville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves an election contest.

We have jurisdiction of the case under Articles 1728 and 1821, Vernon’s Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, because the judges of the Court of Civil Appeals disagreed upon a question of law material to the decision of the case. 296 S.W.2d 599. We also have jurisdiction under such Articles because the Court of Civil Appeals has held differently from a prior decision of another Court of Civil Appeals upon a question of law material to the decision of the case.

The Court of Civil Appeals has held in this case that ballots should not be counted when the corresponding stubs do not bear the signature of the voter. 296 S.W,2d 603-604, 605-607. That holding is in conflict with the holding of the El Paso Court of Civil Appeals in Fox v. Nail, 294 S.W.2d 407, 409. On the question indicated a majority of this Court agree with the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals in the instant case.

The order on the application for writ of error in the instant case will be “Refused. <No Reversible Error.” Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Curis, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Daniel R. Passeri, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 4, 2010



/s/    DANIEL R. PASSERIDaniel R. Passeri
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
**EXHIBIT 24.5**

 

**POWER OF ATTORNEY(Annual Report on Form 10-K)**

 

The undersigned, anofficer and/or director of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc.,constitutes and appoints Nicholas Konidaris and J. Michael Dodson, and each ofthem, his or her true and lawful attorney and agent to do any and all acts andthings and execute in his or her name as an officer or director of the Companythe Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 28, 2005 andany and all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibitsthereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities andExchange Commission; and the undersigned does hereby ratify and confirm allthat said attorneys and agents and each of them shall do or cause to be done byvirtue hereof.  Any one of said attorneysor agents shall have, and may exercise, all powers conferred.

 

Dated:  July 21, 2005.

 
|   | /s/ GERALD F. TAYLOR |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | Gerald F. Taylor          |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I,Javier O. Lamoso, President of ClearComm, L.P., certify that:

 

1.                                       I have reviewed this annual report ofClearComm, L.P.;

 

2.                                       Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.                                       Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.                                       The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.                                       The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)          All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:July 26, 2005

 
|   |   | /s/  Javier O. Lamoso    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | Javier  O. Lamoso        |
|   |   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
#### J. B. FIERCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28118.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 29, 1956.

No appearance for appellant.

Howard M. Fender, Criminal Dist. Atty., Vernon C. Mayfield, Hugh F. King, Con-ard Florence, Asst. Criminal Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is negligent homicide; the punishment, a fine of $1,000.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
**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 Kerry Mustoe, and eachof 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 March 28, 2009 and any andall 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 said attorneys and agentsand 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 14, 2009.
H. R. 1423 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 115 4th 

Avenue Southwest in Ardmore, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Specialist Micheal E. Phillips 

Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST MICHEAL E. PHILLIPS POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 115 4th Avenue Southwest in Ardmore, Oklahoma, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Specialist Micheal 

E. Phillips Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Specialist Micheal E. Phillips Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1227 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1227

 To prohibit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from offering any new products 
    during the term of any conservatorship or receivership of such 
                              enterprises.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2011

 Mr. Schweikert (for himself, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Pearce, and 
 Mr. Hensarling) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from offering any new products 
    during the term of any conservatorship or receivership of such 
                              enterprises.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``GSE Risk and Activities Limitation 
Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON NEW PRODUCTS DURING CONSERVATORSHIP OR 
              RECEIVERSHIP.

    Section 1321 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 
(12 U.S.C. 4541) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(g) Prohibition of New Product Approvals During Conservatorship 
or Receivership.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
during the term of any conservatorship or receivership of an enterprise 
pursuant to section 1367, the Director may not newly approve any 
product of the enterprise for initial offering during such 
conservatorship or receivership.''.
                                 <all>
```