alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (1)    | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section      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. |

| /s/ Dean      Antonis                                            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dean      Antonis                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| President      and Principal Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| Date:  April 8,      2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
EXHIBIT 24.2

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 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 3,
2010 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 said
attorneys 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 12, 2010.



/s/ RICHARD J. FAUBERTRichard J. Faubert
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1403 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1403

    To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special 
  resource study of Point Peter in St. Marys, Georgia, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2011

 Mr. Kingston introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special 
  resource study of Point Peter in St. Marys, Georgia, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Point Peter Study Act''.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.

    (a) Study.--The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to 
as the ``Secretary'') shall conduct a special resource study of Point 
Peter in St. Marys, Georgia, the site of an American fort near 
Cumberland Island that was attacked by British forces in January 1815 
in one of the last battles of the War of 1812.
    (b) Contents.--In conducting the study under subsection (a), the 
Secretary shall--
            (1) evaluate the national significance of the site;
            (2) determine the suitability and feasibility of 
        designating the area as a unit of the National Park System;
            (3) consider other alternatives for preservation, 
        protection, and interpretation of the site by Federal, State, 
        or local governmental entities, or private and nonprofit 
        organizations;
            (4) consult with interested Federal, State, and local 
        governmental entities and private and nonprofit organizations, 
        and any other interested individuals, including owners of 
        private property located in the study area; and
            (5) identify cost estimates for any Federal acquisition, 
        development, interpretation, operation, and maintenance 
        associated with the alternatives.
    (c) Applicable Law.--The study required under subsection (a) shall 
be conducted in accordance with section 8 of the National Park Service 
General Authorities Act (16 U.S.C. 1a-5).
    (d) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which funds 
are first made available for the study under subsection (a), the 
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources of the Senate a report containing the results of the study 
and any conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.
                                 <all>
```
#### Johnny EARLS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 29, 1959.

O. Lander Bright, Flemingsburg, for appellant.

Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., William E. Allender, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Johnny Earls was convicted of assault and battery. His punishment was fixed at a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for six months in the county jail. He appeals.

Upon examination of the record we find no prejudicial error. The motion for appeal is therefore denied and the judgment is affirmed.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**519 CA 15-01485**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ.

PATRICIA PAGE AND JAMES PAGE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NIAGARA FALLS MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, CURLIN MEDICAL INC., B. BRAUN MEDICAL, INC., AND MOOG INC., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

HOGAN WILLIG, PLLC, AMHERST (LINDA LALLI STARK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.

ROACH, BROWN, MCCARTHY & GRUBER, P.C., BUFFALO (MARK R. AFFRONTI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT NIAGARA FALLS MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER.

HARRIS BEACH PLLC, PITTSFORD (SVETLANA K. IVY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS CURLIN MEDICAL INC., B. BRAUN MEDICAL, INC. AND MOOG INC.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered November 24, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the motions of defendants to dismiss the amended complaint.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed in the exercise of discretion without costs, defendants’ motions are denied, the amended complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Niagara County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In appeal No. 1, plaintiffs appeal from an order that, among other things, granted defendants’ motions pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) seeking dismissal of the amended complaint. In appeal No. 2, plaintiffs appeal from an order denying their motion seeking leave to reargue. At the outset, we dismiss plaintiffs’ appeal from the order in appeal No. 2 inasmuch as the order denying the motion for leave to reargue is not appealable ( see Serrano v Rajamani , 6 AD3d 1191, 1192; Ireland v Wilenzik , 296 AD2d 771, 773).

With respect to appeal No. 1, it is well established that “ ‘[a] trial court has broad discretion in supervising the discovery process, and its determinations will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion’ ” ( Daniels v Rumsey , 111 AD3d 1408, 1409). Nonetheless,**-2- 519 CA 15-01485** 
“where discretionary determinations concerning discovery and CPLR article 31 are at issue, [we are] vested with the same power and discretion as [Supreme Court, and thus we] may also substitute [our] own discretion even in the absence of abuse ” ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc. , 11 NY3d 843, 845). Under the circumstances of this case, we substitute our own discretion for that of the court, and we conclude that dismissal of the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) is not warranted. We therefore reverse the order insofar as appealed from, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. We note that, upon remittal, the court may impose alternative penalties.

Entered: July 1, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
  
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 
  
 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 Telecomunicações Brasileiras S.A. - Telebrás (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 
  
 The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 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 Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
  

			
	 Date: June 30, 2004
	 	 /s/ Minoru Oda


	 	 	 Minoru Oda
 Chief Executive Officer


  
 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. 







 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 
  
 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 Telecomunicações Brasileiras S.A. - Telebrás (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 
  
 The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 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 Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
  

			
	 	 	 /s/ Vera Lúcia Garcia Caulit


	 Date: June 30, 2004
	 	 Vera Lúcia Garcia Caulit
 Chief Financial Officer


  
 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.
### At C^M^a u APR 062015

Velva L Price, DistrictClerk Causa Kloi DH-feivH't-ooiqaCi 

### FredJia Lee. ^JolK^tDC^OO'Bms * Xn Yne. District Court rlaintitf # Census * latHi Judicial Outriri 

## ftissie O^enSj ftesiJfnj 6ffi&r,Texas * fioarj ofPardons Afl/ParoleSj etqLj X YrauiS County, YeX*LS OefiAJon-ts -#- ofTravis County, TexasAPR 0 6 2015 At Iftfrft M. \



## Wot/on in Request Br A TfueAnd Complete Copu OfYhe Clerte Records Pursuant Yo (?ute 3fi5 Yex.ft. Cm. Proct To; YeUfl L« Price 

### Yraviis County District Clerk Cjvj, Ofviij3oQ. Courtnousa. 

### IDOO Guadalupe. Street Ausiin, Texas 1&%1-9oo3 

### Comes MduS freddi'e Le. liialKeTj PLainfifT In the aLoue-stuLeJ Qnd 

# referenced Cause.} ly andthrough fiimselfj In Propria Person^ and pre sents this "fDo-t/onin Rarjue^-t BrA "ifue AnJ Complete Copi| frP.TheClerks Record Pursuant Yo ftuleJWiS Te^jRiC?vti Prod') and »n .Support o-Pjuch, Plaintiff presents "The FollowingI 

## l) On Jw£ 11*3101+,PlaintiffWed Ordinal Due. Process ofLauj Compl aint Pursuant Yo United .States Constitution Amendment fiurkenj Texas Constitution Article 1,Section I9j 5) fteauest for Serufce. of Process; 

## 3) Application Yo Proceed Yh forma Pauperis-Ynatilltvj Yo^Pqi) Costs)m

33 H

a n W) \\) o

m >r

D

-= ~s

= o

-sr. r = .P w t> (? 2 ri- ^ [2.

-- r-f- t»

o
rt> ZZ- w~ -S JC1> -.r»<iT) 2 n2^_ CV— ro JO gt= Do —* * O rt> ^ r* ss. f? L^ C? fc.
m E _i TTJ sa -J ZJC Uo t^" C? iS ~5» LU cr. Vr

( rs O O H^

©a

h£ ''.-„ o -f >• 1 -3 -s (*• ; W o 1** »J1
#### James Daniel JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 38913.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 8, 1965.

No attorney of record on appeal for appellant.

Stanley C. Kirk, Dist. Atty., Jim Phagan and Thomas F. Keever, Asst. Dist. Attys., Wichita Falls, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for burglary of a private residence at nighttime; the punishment, five years.

No statement of facts accompanies the record.

There are three formal bills of exception. The complaints in each bill pertain to the admission of evidence, but none of them shows that it contains all of the evidence on the question raised by the bill. Bishop v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 333, 269 S.W.2d 372. In the absence of a statement of facts these bills cannot be considered. Price v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 378 S.W.2d 312.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0361

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MAUREEN THERESE DOUBEK,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 18, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 13 2022

01/13/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0361
##### 



EXHIBIT 32

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

Michael V. Shustek, as Chairman of the Board of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., the sole
Manager of Vestin Fund I, LLC (the Registrant), and Lance K. Bradford, as
Chief Accounting Officer of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, that



| | (1) |  | the Registrants Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), fully complies with the
applicable requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 Registrant.                                                                                                                                       




|                       |  |  |  |                          
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------
|Dated: August 19, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael V. Shustek   
|                       |  |  |  |                          
|                       |  |  |  | Michael V. Shustek*      
|                       |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board    
|                       |  |  |  | of Vestin Mortgage, Inc.,
|                       |  |  |  | Manager of the Registrant
|                       |  |  |  |                          
|Dated: August 19, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/ Lance K. Bradford    
|                       |  |  |  |                          
|                       |  |  |  | Lance K. Bradford*       
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Accounting Officer 
|                       |  |  |  | of Vestin Mortgage, Inc.,
|                       |  |  |  | Manager of the Registrant




*   Michael V. Shustek and Lance K. Bradford function, respectively, as the
equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Registrant for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.2


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-73206 of Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc. on Form S-8 and in
Registration Statement No. 33-56951 of Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc. on
Form S-8 of our report dated August 19, 1994 appearing in this Annual Report 
on Form 10-K of Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc. for the year ended 
December 31, 1996.


/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 15, 1997
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Ms. Emma C. Cheuse 

Counsel for Sierra Club 

Earthjustice 

1625 Massachusetts Ave, Suite 702 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Dear Ms. Cheuse: 

MAR 2 7 2015 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency received three petitions for administrative 

reconsideration of the final rule, "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins" (79 FR 60898, October 8, 2014), which were submitted 

pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The petitioners are: (l) GeorgiaPacific LLC, (2) Sierra Club, and (3) Tembec BTLSR. 

Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), I grant reconsideration of the final rule on at least the 

following petitioners' claims: that the public was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to 

comment on the Maximum Achievable Control Technology floor analysis, supporting data and 

resulting emission standards for continuous process vents; and that the requirements associated 

with emissions from pressure relief devices should be reconsidered. 

We intend to issue a Federal Register notice initiating public review and comment on the issues 

for which we are granting reconsideration. We are continuing to review all issues raised in the 

petitions for reconsideration. 

If you have any questions regarding the reconsideration process, please contact Mr. Art Diem of 

my staff at (919) 54 l -1185. We thank you for your continued interest in this rule and look 

forward to hearing from you during the reconsideration process. 

Sincerely, 

Janet G. McCabe 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

Internet Address (URL) httpJ/www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
cc: Mr. Traylor Champion, Senior Vice-President, Environmental Affairs & Product Safety 

Georgia-Pacific LLC 

Mr. Bill Wehrum, Counsel for Georgia-Pacific 

Mr. James Bennett, Plant Engineer, Tembec BTLSR 

Ms. Martha Mann, Department of Justice, ENRD 

Ms. Sonja Rodman, EPA Office of General Counsel, ARLO 

Mr. Mike Thrift, EPA Office of General Counsel, ARLO 

Mr. Peter Tsirigotis, EPA Office of Air and Radiation, OAQPS 

Ms. Penny Lassiter, EPA Office of Air and Radiation, OAQPS 

Mr. Art Diem, EPA Office of Air and Radiation, OAQPS
#### E. J. WARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30865.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 21, 1959.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, 1959.

*888Richard D. Bird, Childress, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $200.

Deputy Sheriff Ingram testified that while on patrol on the night in question he met an automobile which was being driven on its wrong side of the road; that he turned around and gave chase; that when he overtook the automobile the appellant was driving and as he got out the appellant demanded to know “why in the hell” he was being stopped; that the appellant staggered, leaned on his automobile, talked with a thick tongue, smelled like beer, and he expressed the opinion that the appellant was intoxicated. Ingram’s testimony was corroborated by the witness Whitfield, who was riding with him on the night in question, and by Sheriff Owen, who saw the appellant after his arrival at the jail.

The appellant and his witnesses testified that he had drunk two beers on the night in question but denied that he was intoxicated.

The jury resolved the conflict in the evidence against the appellant, and we find it sufficient to support their verdict.

In his brief, the appellant refers to two formal bills of exception. A search of the record fails to reveal any such bills.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Subsequent to the delivery of the original opinion in this cause, a supplemental transcript containing two formal bills of exception not shown in the original transcript were forwarded to this court.

Appellant urges error because he never entered a plea to the information when it was read to the jury.

It appears from the bills of exception that the appellant did not in person or by counsel plead to the information when it was read to the jury.

Both the court’s charge to the jury and the judgment recite that the appellant plead “not guilty”.

The recitations in the court’s charge to the jury and in the judgment entered of ■record refute the claim that no plea was entered for the defendant when the information was read to the jury. Ward v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 328, 268 S.W.2d 669; Gonzalez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 318 S.W.2d 658; Seale v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 440, 256 SW.2d 86; Sims v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 323 S.W.2d 466-468.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the Court.