alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 24.8**

 

**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/ ROBERT R. WALKER |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert R. Walker          |

 

----
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 07/29 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50642 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALBERT SANCHEZ, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-94-CR-384

- - - - - - - - - - June 3, 1997 Before KING, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Albert Sanchez, Jr., appeals his sentence after being convicted of distribution of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Sanchez contends that the district court erred in assessing a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) after determining that he was an organizer in the offense. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that the district court’s determination did notNo. 95-50642 - 2 - have an adequate evidentiary basis. United States v. Jobe , 101 F.3d 1046 (5th Cir. 1996). The record is inadequate to show that Sanchez supervised Manzano in any activity for which Manzano was criminally liable. Accordingly, the two-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) was improper. It is ordered that the sentence imposed by the district court against Sanchez is VACATED. The case is REMANDED to the district court for resentencing.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
### SERVE D MARC H 9 , 201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . I N TH EMATTE RO F SKYDIV EKENTUCK Y LLC , Respondent . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP09CEOOO 4 (Civi l Penalt y Proceeding ) DM S NO . FAA-2009-104 7 ADMINISTRATIV ELA WJUDGE' S ORDE R

POSTPONIN GHEARIN G Complainan t

ha s submitte damotio n t o continu e th e hearing , no w schedule dt o tak e plac e o n Ma y 4 , 2010 . I n support

o f th e motion . Complainan t say s tha t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n attorney s wh o handl e personne l litigation , includin g her , ar e require dt o atten daconferenc e durin g th e wee k o f Ma y 3-7 . Complainan t request s tha t

th e hearin g b e re-schedule dfor adat e after

Jun e 7 , 2010 . I n consideratio n o f

th e foregoing , an dfor

goo dcaus e shown , th e motio n t o continu e th e hearin g i s granted . Th e dat e o f th e hearin g i s postponedt o Jun e 9 , 2010 . I t wil l b e hel di n Louisville , Kentucky . Th e exac t locatio n an dplac e o f

th e hearin g wil l b e announce di n anotic e t o b e issue di n th e future . I T I S S O ORDERED .

Isaa c D . Benki n Administrativ e La w Judg eFA A Docke t No . CP09CE000 4 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA Li

& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g -Suit e 2W1000 ' ON E COP Y Alle n K . Gailor , Respondent' s Counse l Th e Gailo r

La w Office , PLL C 100 Professional Art s Buildin g 73 0 Wes t Marke t Stree t Louisville , Kentucky 4020 2 TEL : 502-584-721 7 FAX : 502-584-484 8 Taneesh aD . Marshall , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , Southern Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Bo x 2063 6 Atlant aGA 3032 0 TEL : 404-305-520 0 FAX : 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benkin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorne y 202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t

202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service was b

y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the followin g address : Federa

l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D

C 20591 , Attention : Hearm g Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1767 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1767

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow expenses relating 
to all home schools to be qualified education expenses for purposes of 
                 a Coverdell education savings account.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2011

 Mr. Boustany introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow expenses relating 
to all home schools to be qualified education expenses for purposes of 
                 a Coverdell education savings account.

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

SECTION 1. ALLOWANCE OF HOME SCHOOL EXPENSES AS QUALIFIED EDUCATION 
              EXPENSES FOR PURPOSES OF A COVERDELL EDUCATION SAVINGS 
              ACCOUNT.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 530(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Private school.--For purposes of this 
                section, the term `private school' includes any home 
                school that meets the requirements of State law 
                applicable to such home schools, whether or not such 
                school is deemed a private school for purposes of State 
                law.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000,000
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                     18
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             303
<ALLOWANCES>                                9
<INVENTORY>                               228
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          694
<PP&E>                                  2,336
<DEPRECIATION>                            837
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          3,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     549
<BONDS>                                 2,526
<COMMON>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                              (538)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            3,174
<SALES>                                 3,022
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        3,022
<CGS>                                   2,523
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           2,523
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          290
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        196
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (249)
<INCOME-TAX>                             (96)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (153)
<DISCONTINUED>                              9
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          (13)
<CHANGES>                                 (3)
<NET-INCOME>                            (160)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .00
        



</TABLE>
#### Jessie James HOLLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27365.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 8, 1954.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal Feb. 2, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area; the penalty assessed is a fine of $200.00.

No notice of appeal appears in the record. In the absence thereof, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It is therefore dismissed.

On Motion To Reinstate The Appeal.

The appeal is now perfected, and the case will be considered on its merits.

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 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF



THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



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) each of
the undersigned officer(s) of Accelr8 Technology Corporation, a Colorado corporation (the "Corporation"), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended July 31, 2011 (the "Form 10-K") of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



|Date: October 27, 2011 |  | By:  /s/ Thomas V. Geimer
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------
|                       |  |                          
|                       |  |                          
|                       |  |
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Smith, Appellee.

(No. 27306

Decided April 19, 1939.)

*Mr. WilUam A. Ambrose,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Harold H. Hull,*for appellant.

*Mr. Robert D. Huxley*and *Mr. Henry C. Church,*for appellee.

*293Williams, J.

Whether the allowance of defendant’s motion for inspection and permission to take copies of defendant’s confessions was a final order from which the prosecuting attorney could appeal is squarely presented.

Although the record does not show that the question of jurisdiction was raised in the Court of Appeals, still if that court had no jurisdiction on appeal to hear and determine the cause on its merits this court likewise has none. There would be no waiver in such instance.

The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals is fixed by Section 6, Article IY of the state Constitution, and can not be increased, diminished or altered by statutory provision or through construction by the courts. The court, however, is required to interpret the meaning of the word “judgments” as used in the Constitution. By the terms of that constitutional provision the Court of Appeals (in addition to original jurisdiction in specified extraordinary legal remedies and appellate jurisdiction in the trial of chancery cases) has jurisdictional power to review, affirm, modify or reverse the judgments of the Courts of Common Pleas, Superior Courts and other courts of record within the appellate district as may be provided by law. It follows that judgments of the Courts of Common Pleas in criminal cases may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals with the sole exception that no appeal can be prosecuted from a judgment of acquittal where the defendant has been in jeopardy.

In the leading case of *Hoffman*v. *Knollman, ante,*170, appears this apt language: “Though this court has interpreted the term ‘judgments’ so as to include ‘final orders,’ it has limited its application to acts or decrees of the court which give final effect to the central purpose or some independent branch of the litigation-, finality being the touchstone in the determination pf that quality.”

*294In the instant case the order to the prosecuting attorney to permit defendant’s counsel to inspect and make copies of the alleged confession was a purely interlocutory order and lacked finality. The prosecuting attorney urges that if there is no right of appeal the state is remediless. The contention is of no avail since the character of the order is not changed merely because there may be no alternative. The state’s relation to the order made is the same as to any other order interlocutory in character; appeal therefrom does not lie.

For the reason that there was no judgment or final order in the Court of Common Pleas, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded to that court with instructions to dismiss the appeal and for further proceedings according to law.

*Judgment reversed and cause remanded.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6627** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. TIMOTHY ADAMS, a/k/a Smitt, a/k/a Rodney Clark , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Winston

- Salem
. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 6:94

- cr - 00302

- NCT

- 3 )

Submitted : September 13, 2011 Decided: September 16, 2011

Before AGEE , DAVIS, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Timothy Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Adams appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his “independent action for fraud upon the court.” We have reviewed the record and find no rever sible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Adams , No. 6:94

- cr - 00302

- NCT

- 3 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2011) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented i n the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
| CADIZ INC.                                                         | STODDARD                                                  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                    |                                                           |
| By: /s/ Keith Brackpool                                            | By: /s/ Richard E. Stoddard                               |
|        Keith Brackpool, CEO          |        Richard E. Stoddard  |
|                                                                    |                                                           |
|                                                                    |                                                           |
| ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED                                            |                                                           |
|                                                                    |                                                           |
| By: /s/ Murray H. Hutchison                                        |                                                           |
|       Murray H. Hutchison            |                                                           |
|       Chair, Compensation Committee  |                                                           |
Exhibit 32.2(*)
 
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer 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 Quarterly Report of WebEx Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael T. Everett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, for purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 ( 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: August 9, 2004
 
 
 /s/ MICHAEL T. EVERETT
 Michael T. Everett
 Chief Financial Officer
  
    
 
 
 
 
 
 _____________________________
 (*) In accordance with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K and SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986, Final Rule: Managements Reports on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and Certification of Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the certification furnished in this Exhibit 32.2 is deemed to accompany this Form 10-Q and will not be deemed filed for purpose of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, whether made before or after the date hereof irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in any such filing, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
Exhibit 99.1

                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 Quarterly Report of I-trax, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank A. Martin, Chief
Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18  U.S.C.ss.1350,  as
adopted pursuant toss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ Frank A. Martin
-------------------
Frank A. Martin
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2002



                                       32
EXHIBIT 10.7(d)

                              BANK RHODE ISLAND

                             AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO

                   SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN


      WHEREAS, Bank Rhode Island (the "Bank") desires to amend the
provisions of the Bank's Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the
"Plan") to provide a death benefit under the Plan; and

      WHEREAS, under Article VIII of the Plan, the Board of Directors of
the Bank may amend the Plan at any time, provided that such amendment shall
not reduce the vested benefit of any Participant or amend Section 6.1 or
6.2 of the Plan without the consent of all Participants; and

      WHEREAS, under Section 3.1 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the
Bank may from time to time select employees who shall be Participants in
the Plan and shall determine the Applicable Benefit Amount for such
Participants (as such terms are defined in the Plan); and

      WHEREAS, on the Board of Directors of the Bank approved amending  the
Plan and approved increasing the Applicable Benefit Amounts payable to
Participants under the Plan;

      NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:

      1.    That Section 5.2 is amended in its entirety to read:

            "5.2   Death Benefits.  No benefits will be payable to anyone
      under this Plan following the death of the Participant."

      2.    Schedule B of the Plan be amended to increase the Applicable
Benefit Amount payable to Merrill W. Sherman to $250,000 as set forth in
Schedule B attached hereto.

      3.    All other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect and are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed.

<PAGE>


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 5 to
the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan to be executed by its duly
authorized officer as of the 22nd day of January, 2002.

                                       BANK RHODE ISLAND


                                       By:  s/Malcolm G. Chace
                                            -----------------------------
                                            Malcolm G. Chace,
                                            Chairman

Attest:

S/ Margaret D. Farrell
---------------------------------
Secretary

<PAGE>


                                 SCHEDULE B


      Participants:                        Applicable Benefit Amount
      -------------                        -------------------------

      Sherman, Merrill W.                         $250,000

<PAGE>
### 0 260 520 780 1,040 130 0 1,000 500 Miles 0 380 Miles 

### Legend

Eco reg io n s Where "Other Waters" are Similarly Situated
In dividual An alysis o f Sig n ifican t Nexus 

### Great Lakes Alvars

Miles 

# .

No te: Fo r display purpo ses, the bo rders fo r eco reg io n s are displayed o n ly w here "o ther w aters" are similarly situated un der Optio n 2 (the shaded areas). Otherw ise, state bo un daries are displayed. So urce: U .S. En viro n men tal Pro tectio n Ag en cy, “Level III Eco reg io n s o f the Co n tin en tal U n ited States,” map scale 1:7,500,000 (Co rvallis, OR: U .S. EPA – Natio n al Health an d En viro n men tal Effects Research Labo rato ry, 2013), available at http://w w w.epa.g o v/w ed/pag es/eco reg io n s/level_ iii_ iv.htm. 

# Map A: Level III Eco reg io n s fo r Co n sideratio n U n der "Other Waters" in Sectio n III.H o f Defin itio n o f "Waters o f the U n ited States" U n der the Clean Water Act