alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32d

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18
of the United States Code

I,
Ralph Izzo, Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Electric and Gas Company,
to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Annual Report of Public
Service Electric and Gas Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Public Service Electric and Gas Company.

| |                                         
| | ----------------------------------------
| | /s/
 Ralph Izzo                         
| |                                         
| | Ralph Izzo                              
| | Public
 Service Electric and Gas Company
| | Chief
 Executive Officer                
| | February
 26, 2009                      

---
# C_2023227EN.01000101.xml

| 29.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10659 – VITERRA / GAVILON AGRICULTURE INVESTMENT)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 227/01)

On 28 July 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10659. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10659. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# Official Journal C 210/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.210.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 210 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 533 August 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.210.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 210

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 533 August 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2010/C 210/01 | Adoption of a Council Decision establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service | 1 |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 210/02 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| 2010/C 210/03 | Commission Decision of 30 July 2010 establishing the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2010/C 210/01

Adoption of a Council Decision establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service

1

European Commission

2010/C 210/02

Euro exchange rates

3

2010/C 210/03

Commission Decision of 30 July 2010 establishing the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain

4

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 210/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5941 — BDMI/DuMont Venture/Learnship) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 6 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2010/C 210/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5941 — BDMI/DuMont Venture/Learnship) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors




We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Forms
S-8 No. 33-48351 and S-8 No. 333-67539) pertaining to the Maxco, Inc. Incentive
Stock Option Plan and the Maxco, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan and in the related
prospectus of our report dated May 28, 1999, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Maxco, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 1999.



                                           /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP






Detroit, Michigan
June 25, 1999
#### ALLUMBAUGH v. STATE.

No. 20779.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 24, 1940.

G. H. Crane, of Dallas, for appellant..

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of ■ Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is negligent homicide; the punishment, confinement in jail for thirty days.

*999The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 134990 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134990 COA: 279290 Marquette CC: 05-043176-FH BRIAN SCOTT ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 30, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1119 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
#### Ex parte ANDERSON.

No. 20557.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 14, 1939.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1939.

No attorney for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., "of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Navarro County refusing relief to relator who was alleged to be in the custody of the sheriff of that, county by virtue of a capias issued out of the County Court of Navarro County, directing that Garland Anderson be held thereunder until he had paid off and discharged a certain fine and costs adjudged against him on a charge of drunkenness, tried in the County Court of said county, and a fine of $25 assessed therein. That case was appealed to this court, Anderson v. State, 126 S.W.2d 29, on March 8, 1939, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, hence the issuance of this capias.

The trial in that County Court was had as an appeal from the justice court of precinct No. 3 of Navarro County, and was de novo. The County Court trial resulted in a conviction in the amount of the fine, the basis of this capias.

There are statements in the application for a writ of habeas corpus relative to the trial in the justice court, and attempting to have a review of the same by this court, but with these proceedings we have no concern. The county court proceedings were de novo, and had no relation to the justice court matter other than to again and anew try the question presented by the complaint. This was done, and the appeal from that proceeding was dismissed because we had no jurisdiction over such matter.

The district judge before whom this writ was tried took into consideration all the papers, documents and testimony offered and heard in the case, and rendered his opinion that the relator was legally held in custody by the sheriff of Navarro County, and remanded relator to the custody of the sheriff. There is no testimony brought forward in the record.

*961It is our judgment that the district judge arrived at the correct conclusion, and entered the proper order in this matter, and his judgment denying the writ is affirmed.

Relator’s Motion for Rehearing.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

We have re-examined the record in the light of the motion for rehearing and are constrained to adhere to the conclusion expressed in the original opinion.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
republic logo

|Nevada                                                         | 87-0285520                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------
|(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization) | (I.R.S. Employer
 Identification No.)

# 743 Horizon
Court, Suite 333
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506
(970) 245-5917

# List of
Subsidiary Companies:

EnviroWall,
Inc.
A Louisiana Corporation
401 Whitney Avenue, Suite 405
Gretna, Louisiana 70072

Republic
E&P Company
A Colorado Corporation
743 Horizon Court, Suite 333
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506

---
Order entered March 26, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01143-CV

LAKEITH AMIR-SHARIF, Appellant

V.

QUICK TRIP CORPORATION, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-09-13818-E

ORDER

The Court has before it appellees’ March 21, 2013 third motion for extension of time to 

file their brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that appellees’ brief be filed by 

March 28, 2013. No further extensions will be granted without a showing of exceptional 

circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Name: Rung Huynh

Email: RungJHuynh@gmail.com Phone: 469 -835 - 2180 Address: 1624 San Francisco St Carrollton, TX 75007



# FAA 333 Exemption **Petition** The specific applicable regulations from which relief is required (CFRs): 14 CFR 11.81 FAA 333 Exemption How the operator will maintain an equivalent level of safety or no adverse impact to safety: I will not fly no higher than 400 feet. Keep eyesight at my UAS at all times, will not fly over unprotected persons or moving vehicles. Do not fly under the influe nce of alcohol or drugs. Avoid airports and be two miles away from there. Remain clear of other aircrafts, people, objects and others that can cause an accident, How granting the exemption would be in the public interest: The public/client will be willi ng to pay for aerial photos and videos for their interest such as weddings, real - estates and other events . The proposed operations: My drone is to fly commercial and to make money from photography/video s from weddings, real - estate s and other events . Th e make and model of the aircraft for proposed operations (aircraft manuals are not necessary): Make: DJI Phantom Model: Phantom 3 Professional
[No. 24347-4-II.

Division Two.

November 3, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. James Earl Lawhead, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 98-1-01941-7, Robert L. Harris, J., entered February 3, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Armstrong, C.J., and Bridgewater, J.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133227 & (52) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MONEY SOURCE FINANCIAL, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Justices Cross-Appellee, 

v SC: 133227 

 COA: 270084 

Washtenaw CC: 03-001378-CZ 

ANN ARBOR COMMERCE BANK, 

Defendant/Third-Party PlaintiffAppellee/Cross-Appellee, 

v 

NATIONAL CITY BANK, 

Third-Party Defendant/CrossPlaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, 

and 

WILLIAM DAVIS and WILLIAM FAULKNER, 

Third-Party Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The application 

for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is therefore moot and is DENIED. 

s0618 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk
# Official Journal C 393/7 No

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 393 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 577 November 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 393

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 577 November 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 393/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |
| 2014/C 393/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (2) | 13 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 393/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

2014/C 393/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (2)

13

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 393/03 | State aid — Romania — State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) — Implementation of Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) | 27 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2014/C 393/03

State aid — Romania — State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) — Implementation of Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1)

27

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty

2

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### CATHEY v. STATE.

No. 17028.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 21, 1934.

Fred Chandler, of Stephenville, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of one year and one day.

*515An inspection of the indictment discloses «hat the same is defective in that it merely charges the appellant with the “unlawful transportation of liquor capable of producing intoxication.” In the case of Bob Offield v. State, 75 S.W.(2d) 882, delivered October 81, 1934, not yet reported [in State Reports], this court, in passing upon a similar indictment, held the same insufficient. We do not deem it necessary to again discuss the error therein pointed out but refer to the same for a full discussion thereof.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the trial court be and the same is hereby reversed, ahd the prosecution is ordered dismissed and the appellant discharged.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
Exhibit 31.2
                           CERTIFICATION

I, David T. Nguyen, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Portsmouth Square,
Inc.;

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

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

    a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

    b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

    c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):

    a) all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

    b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: September 28, 2007                      /s/ David T. Nguyen
                                              ---------------------------
                                              David T. Nguyen, Treasurer
                                              and Controller (serving as
                                              Chief Financial Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Ken Paxton, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Texas, 

et al.

Appellate case number: 01-22-00480-CV

Trial court case number: 2022-38397

Trial court: 269th District Court of Harris County

The following attorneys, who are licensed to practice law in New York and represent the 

real parties in interest in this original proceeding, have filed unopposed motions to appear pro 

hac vice in this Court:

1. Claire Abrahamson, New York State Bar No. 5857891

2. Astrid Ackerman, New York State Bar No. 5670203

3. Julia H. Kaye, New York State Bar No. 5189733

4. Nicolas Kabat, New York State Bar No. 5623111

5. J. Alexander Lawrence, New York State Bar No. 4084232

6. Jamie A. Levitt, New York State Bar No. 2548477

7. Carleigh E. Zeman, New York State Bar No. 5911102

The motions comply with Rule 19 (“Requirements for Participation in Texas Proceedings 

by a Non-Resident Attorney”) of Supreme Court of Texas’s Rules Governing Admission to the 

Bar of Texas. See https://ble.texas.gov/rules (effective February 15, 2022); see also TEX. GOV’T 

CODE § 82.0361. Each motion was accompanied by a motion from David Donatti, a resident 

practicing Texas attorney with whom the attorneys listed above are associated in this original 

proceeding. Mr. Donatti stated that he found each attorney listed above to be a reputable 

attorney, and he recommended that the Court grant permission for each to participate in this 

proceeding. 
The motions are granted.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Peter Kelly_______

Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ____July 7, 2022____
#### CATES v. STATE.

No. 16891.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 6, 1934.

Dloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for fifteen years.

The appeal must be dismissed because of the absence from the record of the judgment of conviction.

The appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
EXHIBIT 11



STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



The following presents the computation of per share earnings reflecting the assumption that dilutive stock options are exercised.





(IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)2005
        
        2004
        
        2003Net earnings (1)
        
        $
        16,417
        
        $
        15,441
        
        $
        15,477Weighted average common shares outstanding (2)
        
        
        6,826
        
        
        6,821
        
        
        6,820Common share equivalents relating to stock options
        
        
        1
        
        
        2
        
        
        1Adjusted common and common equivalent shares for computation (3)
        
        
        6,827
        
        
        6,823
        
        
        6,821Net earnings per share:Basic  (1/2)
        
        $
        2.41
        
        $
        2.26
        
        $
        2.27Diluted (1/3)
        
        $
        2.40
        
        $
        2.26
        
        $
        2.27






---