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



Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Indiantown Cogeneration Funding Corporation for the quarter ended March 31,
2003, I, P. Chrisman Iribe, President Indiantown Cogeneration Funding
Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:



| | (1) |  | such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2003 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2003 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Indiantown Cogeneration Funding Corporation

|             |  |                                           
|------------ |  | ------------------------------------------
|May 14, 2003 |  | /s/ P. Chrisman Iribe                     
|             |  | P. Chrisman Iribe                         
|             |  | President                                 
|             |  | Indiantown CogenerationFunding Corporation

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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 498 

Designating June 15, 2016, as ‘‘World Elder Abuse Awareness Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 16, 2016 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. AYOTTE, Mrs. MCCASKILL, 

Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. CASEY, Mr. COTTON, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. MURPHY, and 

Mr. HELLER) submitted the following resolution; which was considered 

and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating June 15, 2016, as ‘‘World Elder Abuse 

Awareness Day’’. 

Whereas Federal Government estimates show that more than 

1 in 10 persons over age 60, or 6,000,000 individuals, 

are victims of elder abuse each year; 

Whereas the vast majority of the abuse, neglect, and exploitation of older adults in the United States goes unidentified and unreported; 

Whereas only 1 in 44 cases of financial abuse of older adults 

is reported; 

Whereas at least $2,900,000,000 is taken from older adults 

each year due to financial abuse and exploitation; 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

2 

•SRES 498 ATS 

Whereas elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation have no 

boundaries and cross all racial, social, class, gender, and 

geographic lines; 

Whereas older adults who are abused are 3 times more likely 

to die earlier than older adults of the same age who are 

not abused; 

Whereas 1⁄2 of all older adults with dementia will experience 

abuse; 

Whereas providing unwanted medical treatment can be a 

form of elder abuse and exploitation; 

Whereas public awareness has the potential to increase the 

identification and reporting of elder abuse by the public, 

professionals, and victims, and can act as a catalyst to 

promote issue-based education and long-term prevention; 

Whereas private individuals and public agencies must work 

together on the Federal, State, and local levels to combat 

increasing occurrences of abuse, neglect, and exploitation 

crime and violence against vulnerable older adults and 

vulnerable adults, particularly in light of limited resources for vital protective services; and 

Whereas 2016 is the 11th anniversary of World Elder Abuse 

Awareness Day: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates June 15, 2016, as ‘‘World Elder 

3 Abuse Awareness Day’’; 

4 (2) recognizes judges, lawyers, adult protective 

5 services professionals, law enforcement officers, long6 term care ombudsmen, social workers, health care 

7 providers, professional guardians, advocates for vicmstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

3 

•SRES 498 ATS 

1 tims, and other professionals and agencies for the 

2 efforts to advance awareness of elder abuse; and 

3 (3) encourages members of the public and pro4 fessionals who work with older adults to act as cata5 lysts to promote awareness and long-term prevention 

6 of elder abuse by reaching out to local adult protec7 tive services agencies, long-term care ombudsman 

8 programs, and the National Center on Elder Abuse, 

9 and by learning to recognize, detect, report, and re10 spond to elder abuse. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
View/Edit/Inactivate an Establishment Page 1 of 1

View/Edit/Inactivate an Establishment 

Complete the following steps to view and/or edit an establishment. Note: For additional

information place cursor over the information icon .

1. Select the “15TView Establishment List”15T button in the “For Manual Data Entry” section on the 

“15TInjury Tracking Application” 15Tscreen, or

2. Select the “15TView Establishment List”15T option from the dropdown “15TNavigation Menu”15T to 

display the list of establishments connected to your account.

3. To edit an establishment, select the establishment name in the “15TName”15T column. When the 

Establishment opens, select the “Edit Details” button in the “Establishment Details” section.

4. Update information as needed, paying close attention to any required fields (marked in red 

and with an asterisk).

5. Select the “15TSave”15T button.

6. To inactivate an establishment, on the “View Establishment” screen, select the “Remove” 

button and select a “Removal Reason” from the dropdown list.

7. Select the “Remove Establishment” button.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

July 30, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00617-CR

IN RE LAMONN E. BLUNT, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1132233-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 20, 2015, relator Lamonn E. Blunt filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable 

Chris Daniel, Harris County District Clerk, to file relator’s supplemental 

application for writ of habeas corpus.
2

This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by Section 22.221 of the 

Texas Government Code. Section 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus 

jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a district court judge or a 

county court judge in the court of appeals’ district; and (2) all writs necessary to 

enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. The

district clerk is not a district court or county court judge in this court’s district, and 

relator has not shown that the issuance of a writ compelling the requested relief is 

necessary to enforce this court’s appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not have 

jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk.

1

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of 

jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

 

1

In his petition, relator apparently has confused this court with the district court as his 

request for relief appears to be directed to the lower court.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 184 (Tuesday, December 9, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       REMARKS ON INAUGURAL BILL

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. EMANUEL CLEAVER

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 9, 2008

  Mr. CLEAVER. Madame Speaker, on January 20, this Nation will lay 
witness to a Presidential Inauguration like no other in our country's 
history. As my fellow Americans travel to the District of Columbia, in 
some cases without a place to stay, just to be part of this historic 
occasion, we must bear in mind that this event stands as a symbol of 
democracy, and that tickets should not be bought and sold to the 
highest bidder. It is egregious that tickets that are given out freely 
would then be sold for thousands of dollars. Even worse, are false 
promises of tickets that are made to individuals and families, who are 
then left with empty pockets and tales of disillusion.
  For these reasons, I have introduced a bill that will make it a crime 
to knowingly sell tickets to the Presidential Inaugural ceremony. This 
bill will also make it a criminal act to produce counterfeit tickets 
for the Inaugural ceremony. I am hopeful that this bill will work to 
stop the unscrupulous, yet devastating actions of the few, and preserve 
the dignity of this historic and celebratory occasion for the many.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                          Independent Auditors' Consent
                          -----------------------------


The Board of Directors
Aceto Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-38679) on Form S-8 of Aceto Corporation of our report dated August 26, 2003,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Aceto Corporation and
subsidiaries as of June 30, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss) and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2003,
and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the June
30, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Aceto Corporation.

Our report contains an explanatory paragraph indicating that the Company adopted
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (Statement) No. 141, "Business
Combinations" and Statement No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets", as
of July 1, 2002.

                                                     /s/KPMG LLP


Melville, New York
September 26, 2003



                                        1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Alliance Gaming Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statements (Nos.
33-45811, 33-45810, 333-25515, 333-20685, 333-10011 and 333-34077) on Forms S-3
and S-8 of Alliance Gaming Corporation of our report dated September 3, 1997,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Alliance Gaming Corporation and
Subsidiaries as of June 30, 1996 and 1997 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended June 30, 1997, which report appears in the
June 30, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of Alliance Gaming Corporation.



                                                      KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Las Vegas, Nevada
September 25, 1997
Exhibit 10.1


 


FOURTH AMENDMENT


TO


REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT


 


THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO
REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT (this
“Amendment”) is made and entered into as of October 13, 2010 by and
among TECHNISCAN, INC., (the “Issuer”),
BIOTEX PHARMA INVESTMENTS, LLC (the “Lead
Investor”).


 


R  E  C  I  T  A
L  S:


 


WHEREAS,
the Issuer and the Lead Investor desire to revise that certain Registration
Rights Agreement dated March 30, 2010 entered into by and among the
Issuer, the Lead Investor, and the other holders listed on Schedule I thereto,
as amended pursuant to that certain Amendment to Registration Rights Agreement
dated as of May 10, 2010, that certain Second Amendment to Registration
Rights Agreement dated as of September 30, 2010, and that certain Third
Amendment to Registration Rights Agreement dated as of October 5, 2010
(collectively, the “Agreement”).


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual benefits
to be derived from this Amendment, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


 


1.                                     Amendment of the Agreement.  (a)  Pursuant to Section 10 of the
Agreement, in Section 1 the definition for “Effectiveness
Deadline” shall be revised as follows:


 


Each reference to number 198 in clause (i) of
such definition shall be deleted and replaced with the number 215.


 


(b)  The reference to “Schedule
I” in the first paragraph of the Agreement is replaced by a reference to “the
signature pages.”


 


2.                                     Continued Effect of the Agreement.  All provisions of
the Agreement, except as modified by this Amendment, shall remain in full force
and effect and are reaffirmed.  Other
than as stated in this Amendment, this Amendment shall not operate as a waiver
of any condition or obligation imposed on the parties under the Agreement.


 


3.                                     Interpretation of Amendment.
 In the event of any conflict,
inconsistency, or incongruity between any provision of this Amendment and any
provision of the Agreement, the provisions of this Amendment shall govern and
control.


 


4.                                      Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in any number
of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which
together shall constitute one and the same agreement.  A facsimile or e-mailed “.pdf” data file copy
of an original written signature shall be deemed to have the same effect as an
original written signature.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to
Registration Rights Agreement as of the date first set forth above.


 


	
  TECHNISCAN, INC.

  	
  BIOTEX PHARMA INVESTMENTS, LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ David C. Robinson

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Robert Kessler

  
	
  David C. Robinson

  	
  Robert
  Kessler

  
	
  Chief Executive Officer

  	
  Member
United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

Washington, DC 20036-3457

REMAND ORDER

Before: MACDOUGALL, Chairman; ATTWOOD and SULLIVAN, Commissioners.

BY THE COMMISSION:

In an April 17, 2018 Decision and Order, Administrative Law Judge Brian A. Duncan 

affirmed a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(1) and assessed a penalty of $1,000. The decision 

became a final order of the Commission on May 18, 2018. Respondent subsequently filed a 

petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On November 20, 2018, 

the court issued an order granting the parties’ Joint Motion for a Remand and remanding the matter 

to the Commission “for the limited purpose of considering the parties’ settlement.” 

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

OVATION PLUMBING, INC.,

Complainant,

Respondent.

v. OSHRC Docket No. 17-0196
2

The Commission now remands the matter to Administrative Law Judge Brian A. Duncan

to review the settlement agreement and consider any objections pursuant to Commission Rule 100, 

29 C.F.R. § 2200.100.

SO ORDERED.

/s/

Heather L. MacDougall

Chairman

/s/

Cynthia L. Attwood

Commissioner

/s/

James J. Sullivan, Jr.

Dated: December 20, 2018 Commissioner
#### ELIZA F. JONES vs. JOHN JONES.

,,:Wheki’ ¡¡lie Superior Court, upoii ’'the facts submitted to and deterrüined by them,'refused a motion to dismiss 'a guardian ; *Hold,*that an appeáf could not be taken from their decision.

Thp case of *Bagley*v *Wood, ante-f.*cited andappróved.

Appeal from the Superior’ Court of Law of Jones County, ‘■■at the Spring Term 1851, his Honor Judge Caedweel pre- - siding.

Motion-to-remove the defendant from the guardianship “ of the infant children of Jonas Jones, dec’d. The plaintiff is the mother of the wards, and the defendant their grand-father. In the County Court, the judgment was, that the ‘ defendant be- removed, and the plaintiff be appointed in his .place. From this 'decision, 'the defendant appealed to the •Superior Court, where a motion was made by the Counsel -of the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal, on the ground, that -the defendant had no right to appeal. This was refused, •and the plaintiff then insisted tháfthe order of the County Court, -removing the-defendant from his guardianship,’ought ■•to be confirmed, unless the defendant showed that there was no error in law or in fact in said.order. This was defied by the Court, upon the ground that the trial in that ■Court was cie *novo.*A motion was then submitted by the ■defendant to dismiss the proceeding for error in the rule -and notice. This was overruled by the Court. The case ■states, that “ then the Court proceeded to hear the whole matter, upon evidence and witnesses introduced in Court-; and, after hearing the whole matter, the Court reversed the judgment of the County Court, removing the defendant from the guardianship of the infant children, and declaring that *99lie was the proper,person ta.be theirguardian,- and directed » *a-procedendo*to be issued to the County Court. Where-.. upon, the plaintiff appealed‘to this Court.

*J. Id.*Bryan, for the plaintiff..

*W. H. Haywood*and *J W. Bryan,*for the defendant..

Nash, J.

For the reasons set . forth in the case of *Bagley**v*Wood, decided at-this Term, without examining into , the testimony,-upon which the Superior Court acted, which, we have no power to do, the orders of said Court are affirm - ed, upon the ground that we have no power to revise a discretionary judgment of the Superior.Court,-.except-for error ■ ini law. Here, none isy.shown.,

Per Curjam. Orders affirmed.

*(Note.*— The *same point decided at this Term in,the. case.of Leavitt v Etheridge, from,Currituck.)*
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 97-20098

_____________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF: MBM INVESTMENT REAL ESTATE

L P; IN THE MATTER OF: MATZ REAL ESTATE 

SERVICES, INC., IN THE MATTER OF: INTERMARQUE

AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

 Debtors.

___________________________________________

STEWART A. FELDMAN AND MARLA B. MATZ, D.D.S.,

Appellants-Cross-Appellees,

VERSUS

NIEL MORGAN,

Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-2489)

______________________________________________________

December 10, 1997

Before DAVIS, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This appeal brings before us the propriety of the district

court's January 14, 1997 order directing the Feldmans to pay

sanctions to Morgan in the amount of $253,700. This sanction
2

followed the order of the bankruptcy court imposing sanctions that

totalled $499,700. The district court has broad discretion to

determine an appropriate sanction to obtain compliance with its

order. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

requiring Feldman to pay sanctions in the amount of $253,000. 

Although Feldman complains of earlier orders issued by the

bankruptcy court, he did not prosecute timely appeals from those

orders and they are therefore not properly before us.

AFFIRMED.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed January 27, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-01071-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF C.R.M.W. AND B.C.C.W., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 219-54312-2016 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Before the Court is appellant’s January 20, 2022 notice of nonsuit, which we 

construe as appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant appellant’s motion 

and dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

211071F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF C.R.M.W. 

AND B.C.C.W., CHILDREN 

No. 05-21-01071-CV 

 On Appeal from the 219th Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 219-54312-

2016. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Molberg and 

Goldstein participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered January 27, 2022
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Certification**
I, Harry L. Stephens, certify that:-  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10Q of Community Bankshares,Inc.; 
-  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport; 
-  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 
-  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
-  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared; 
-  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisquarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 
-  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
-  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):
-  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controlswhich could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial data and have identified for the registrant’sauditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 
-  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and
-  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in thisquarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  November 13, 2003   /s/ Harry L. Stephens                                                                                                                    Harry L. StephensExecutive Vice-President and                                  Chief Financial Officer