alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**MAXCO,
      INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**





**EXHIBIT
      23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
      FIRM**





Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





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 July 13, 2006 with respect to the consolidated
      financial statements of Maxco, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
      for the year ended March 31, 2006.








/S/
                REHMANN
                ROBSON




Troy,
      Michigan


July
      13,
      2006
### NUMBER 13

- 11

- 00 350

- CV


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ GUADALUPE MARTIN HERNANDEZ , Appellant ,

v.

THELMA JACKSON , Appellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

_ ___________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez , Benavides , and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This matter is before the Court on the appellant = s failure to file a brief or reasonably
explain his failure to do so. On October 27, 2011, appellant was notified that the
reporter’s record was due on August 24, 2011, that appellant had failed to request the
reporter’s record, and that if the defect was not cured, the Court would consider and
decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision

.2

Appellant failed to respond and on December 13, 2011, the Court notified appellant that
the briefing schedule had begun.
Appellant has previously requested and received three extensions of time to file
the brief. On June 13, 2012, this Court ordered the appellate brief to be filed on or before

J uly 6, 2012

. The order notified appellant that no further extensions would be granted

and that if the brief was not fil e d, the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of
prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless appellant
reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly injured by the
appellant's failure to timely file a brief.
Appel lant has failed to file h is brief. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a), 42.3(b) (c)

.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 26th day of July , 20 1 2

.
OPM.gov / 

Skip to main content

### In this section

### Resources For

          - New / Prospective Employees
          - Federal Employees
          - Retirees or Family Members
          - Benefits Officers

# New/Prospective Employees

Check out the types of retirement benefits that the Federal Government offers to all employees.

## Planning for Retirement

It is never too late to plan for retirement
                  - Federal Ball Park Estimate
                  - General Schedule (GS) Salary Calculator
                  - mymoney.gov
                  - ID Theft

## Insurance

Frequently referenced sources for Federal insurance programs
                  - FEHB Guides
                  - FEHB Human Resources
                  - FEHB Premium Conversion HR
                  - FEGLI Human Resources
                  - FEGLI Publications and Forms
                  - Long Term Care Insurance (LTCI) Program HR
                  - Flexible Spending Accounts

## Quick Links

Frequently accessed OPM links
                  - Leaving Government
                  - Online Tools

## Related Resources

These resources are designed to assist Federal Employees during their time with the Federal Government
                  - Social Security Administration
                  - Thrift Savings Plan
                  - Department of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation
                  - Flexible Spending Accounts
                  - Long Term Care Insurance (LTCI) Program
                  - Military Retired Pay
##### 








---



##### 



-1-




---



##### 



ARTICLE ONE
  Relation to Indenture
 Additional Definitions
          -2-




---



##### 



-3-




---



##### 



-4-




---



##### 



-5-




---



##### 



ARTICLE TWO
  Title of the Securities.
 Limitation on Aggregate Principal Amount. provided however
 Stated Maturity.
 Interest and Interest Rates
    -6-




---



##### 



Place of Payment.
 Place of Registration or Exchange; Notices and Demands With Respect to the Notes.
 Percentage of Principal Amount.
 Global Securities. Exhibit A
 Form of Securities. Exhibit A
 Securities Registrar.
 Defeasance and Discharge; Covenant Defeasance
    -7-




---



##### 



Sinking Fund Obligations.
 ARTICLE THREE
  Maintenance of Properties. provided however
 Payment of Taxes and Other Claims. provided however
 Restrictions on Liens. provided however
 -8-




---



##### 



-9-




---



##### 



-10-




---



##### 



Restrictions on Sale and Leaseback Transactions.
 -11-




---



##### 



Expiration of Restrictions on Liens and Restrictions on Sale and Leaseback
Transactions
 ARTICLE FOUR
  Redemption Price
   provided
 Make-Whole Premium Calculation
 -12-




---



##### 



Partial Redemption.
 Notice of Optional Redemption.
 ARTICLE FIVE
  Additional Event of Default; Acceleration of Maturity
  -13-




---



##### 



Expiration of Additional Event of Default
 -14-




---



##### 



ARTICLE SIX
        -15-




---



##### 



CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP.By:Name:
    Gary L. WhitlockTitle:
    Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer Attest:_____________________________________
Name: Richard B. Dauphin
Title: Assistant Corporate Secretary  THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, As TrusteeBy:Name:
    Marcella BurgessTitle:
    Assistant Vice President  -16-




---



##### 



Exhibit A
      No. _________
    
    $______CUSIP No. 15189W AC4
 provided
 A-1




---



##### 



provided however
   A-2




---



##### 



Dated:  October 23, 2007
    CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP.By:Name:
    Gary L. Whitlock(SEAL)
    
    Title:
    Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer Attest:_____________________________________
Name: Richard B. Dauphin
Title: Assistant Corporate Secretary  THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION  As Trustee  By:Authorized Signatory A-3




---



##### 



provided however
    A-4




---



##### 



A-5




---



##### 



A-6




---



##### 



A-7
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 Gurata Gold, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shaun P. Davis,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company and a member of the Board of Directors,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
      Company.







/s/
Shaun P. Davis


Shaun P.
Davis


Chief
Financial Officer




January
13, 2009
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3221 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require 

States to include information on the academic progress of homeless 

children and children in foster care in annual State report cards. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2015 

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts (for herself, Mr. MARINO, Mr. THOMPSON of 

Pennsylvania, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. MULLIN, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, 

Mrs. LAWRENCE, Ms. BASS, and Mr. LANGEVIN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to require States to include information on the 

academic progress of homeless children and children in 

foster care in annual State report cards. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeless and Foster 

5 Youth Achievement Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3221 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRED INFORMATION. 

2 Section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the Elementary and Sec3 ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(h)(1)(C)) 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) in clause (i), by inserting ‘‘, homeless sta6 tus, status as a child in foster care’’ after ‘‘English 

7 proficiency’’; and 

8 (2) in clause (vi), by striking the semicolon at 

9 the end and inserting ‘‘(and disaggregated by the 

10 same categories and subject to the same exception as 

11 described in clause (i));’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Atlantic Beach Property Owners’ Association, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Nautilus Management Corp. et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

February 24, 1958.

*263*Charles E. Lapp, Jr.,*for plaintiffs.

*House, Grossman, Vorhaus <& Hemley*for Nautilus Cabanas, Inc., and another, defendants.

Howard T. Hogan, J.

Plaintiffs seek a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from constructing a swimming pool on the beach beyond a distance of 36 feet south of their lot lines. Originally the defendant Edythe Realty Corp., filed plans for a permit to construct a pool approximately 80 feet south of the lot lines which allegedly was violative of certain restrictive covenants. This application, however, was amended, and at a rehearing before the board of appeals, the application was granted, ‘1 on condition that no structure shall be more than 36 feet south of the southerly boundary line of Lot No. 10 to Lot No. 14, both inclusive, as shown on applicant’s Exhibit 1 received by the Board on December 4,1957. ’ ’ A building permit conforming to this decision was thereafter issued.

Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence to indicate that defendant will not comply with the terms of the permit but argue that if such temporary injunction is not granted, they (the plaintiffs) will be required to continually police the distance to which defendant, Edythe, may go. On this presumption should this defendant be stigmatized with an injunction? This court thinks not. The permit issued by the building department is based upon the decision of the board of appeals and is admittedly in conformity. Hence, the issues have now become moot and academic. Injunctive relief will be denied without evidence of irreparable harm which is threatened and imminent and for which there is no adequate remedy at law *(Moyer*v. *Schleicher,*184 App. Div. 959; *Reynolds*v. *Everett,*144 N. Y. 189; *1130 President St. Corp.*v. *Bolton Realty Corp.,*300 N. Y. 63).

The right to a preliminary or temporary injunction is governed by balancing the equities and is granted with great caution *(Maloney*v. *Katzenstein,*135 App. Div. 224). It should not be granted upon the possibility of the happening of some event in the future *(Daroff & Sons*v. *Barney’s Clothes,*122 N. Y. S. 2d 124).

Accordingly, the motion is denied.
# L_2013217EN.01S00301.xml

| 13.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 217/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 217/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
Exhibit 15



                                       Re: Colonial Realty Limited Partnership
                                          (File No. 0-20707)
                                           Registrations on Form S-3


We are aware that our report dated April 21, 2004 on our review of interim
financial information of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership for the three-month
periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 and included in the Partnership's
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the periods then ended, is incorporated by
reference in the registration statement on Form S-3/A related to the Shelf
Registration filed on October 10, 2003 (File No. 333-105329). Pursuant to Rule
436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be considered a
part of the registration statement prepared or certified by us within the
meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.




                                              /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                                  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Birmingham, Alabama
May 7, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          1,303
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  36,208
<ALLOWANCES>                                    3,882
<INVENTORY>                                    23,304
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              120,279
<PP&E>                                         37,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                 27,524
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                175,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          91,058
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          220
<OTHER-SE>                                     75,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  175,542
<SALES>                                       296,623
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              296,623
<CGS>                                         245,023
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 280,878
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                427
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                14,751
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (6,643)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            21,394
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   21,394
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.03



</TABLE>
# C_2022333EN.01000101.xml

| 1.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 333/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 333/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10784 – BAIN CAPITAL / BPEA / CITIUSTECH)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 333/01)

On 2 August 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 (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). 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 (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). 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 32022M10784. 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 32022M10784. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2927 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2927

To authorize Hispanic-serving institutions receiving grants under part 
  A of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to use such grant 
 amounts to assist students in entering medical schools, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2015

Mr. Heck of Nevada (for himself, Mr. Ruiz, and Mr. Valadao) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
                           and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize Hispanic-serving institutions receiving grants under part 
  A of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to use such grant 
 amounts to assist students in entering medical schools, 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. AUTHORIZED GRANT ACTIVITIES.

    Subsection (b) of section 503 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 1101b(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (6), by inserting before the period at the 
        end the following; ``and student support programs designed to 
        facilitate the successful advancement from four-year 
        institutions to an allopathic or osteopathic medical school 
        accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or 
        association recognized by the Secretary pursuant to part H of 
        title IV'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (16) and paragraph (17); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (15) the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(16) Providing counseling, mentoring, and other support 
        services for underrepresented students studying in pre-medical 
        or other health and science fields designed to facilitate their 
        successful application to an allopathic or osteopathic medical 
        school accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency 
        or association recognized by the Secretary pursuant to part H 
        of title IV.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### BIRMINGHAM v. SHAMROCK MOTOR CO.

No. 1319.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Sept. 28, 1934.

Bouldin & Bouldin, of Mineral Wells, for appellant.

MeFarlane & McFarlane, of Graham, for appellee.

DESLIE, Justice.

S. S. Bates and R. D Cornish,., as the Shamrock Motor Company, a partnership of Graham, Tex., sued R. E. King and Jack Birmingham in a justice court of Young county. King filed no answer, but Birmingham answered by plea to the jurisdiction, general denial, etc. Judgment was rendered against each of the defendants. The case was-appealed to the county court of Young county, and a trial there resulted in a judgment against Birmingham for the sum of $92.50, from which that defendant appeals.

The judgment in the county court in part reads as follows: “The court, after hearing the testimony in the cause and the argument of counsel, finds that this cause was tried in-the Justice Court of Precinct No. 1, of Young County,' Texas, and that a judgment was rendered against R. E. King and this defendant Jack Birmingham therein for different amounts. That R. E. King did not appeal therefrom, but that this defendant Jack Birmingham did appeal and gave a supersedeas bond 5⁄8 ***7⁄8 so that R. E. King is not a party to the suit in this cause in this court.”

The court then proceeded to award the plaintiff judgment against Birmingham in the sum of $92.50. Upon this record this appeal must be dismissed. No final judgment in the cause was rendered in the' county court. The trial and judgment there took no notice of R. E. King as a party to the suit.

A trial de novo in the county court results when an appeal is taken from the judgment of the justice court. The parties occupy the same position in the county court' as in the justice court, and the case must be tried de novo. Article 5, § 16, Oonst. of Texas; article 2178, R. S. 1925.

An appeal by one party to a suit in a justice court operates as an appeal of the entire case and 'nullifies the judgment in its entirety, though another party fails to perfect his appeal. Moore v. Jordan, 65 Tex. 395; Ingraham v. Rudolph, 55 Tex. Civ. App. *298609, 110 S. W. 906; Harper v. Dawson (Tex. Civ. App.) 167 S. W. 311; Lasater v. Streetman (Tex. Civ. App.) 154 S. W. 657; Southwestern Land Corp. v. Neese (Tex. Civ. App.) 161 S. W. 1090; Martin v. Butner, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 223, 117 S. W. 442.

The judgment of the county court failing to dispose of the defendant R. E. King is not such a final judgment as will support an appeal to this court. The appeal is therefore 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 Quarterly Report of American Jianye Greentech Holdings, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yulin Yang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  November 13, 2010/s/ Yulin YangName:  Yulin Yang
Name:  Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)  This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.