alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 24.5

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Know all by these presents, that I, the undersigned, do hereby appoint Mike
Kinney and Robert E. Brummels, or either of them, as my attorney-in-fact with full power of substitution, to execute in their respective names, individually and in my capacity as director, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2006 (the 2006 Annual Report) of Husker Ag, LLC and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the 2006 Annual Report, any and all such amendments, and exhibits and documents thereto required in connection therewith
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto each attorney-in-fact and any substitute, full power and authority to do and to perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully as I
might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and their substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20thday of March, 2007.



/s/ James HallJames Hall




|                  |  |   |  |    
|----------------- |  | - |  | ---
|STATE OF NEBRASKA |  | ) |  |    
|                  |  | ) |  | ss.
|COUNTY OF PIERCE  |  | ) |  |    

On this 20thday of March, 2007, before me, a Notary public qualified for said County, personally came James Hall, known to me to be the
identical person who signed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the execution thereof to be his voluntary act and deed.



/s/ Kristine C. WackerNotary PublicMy commission expires: 2-28-2010
No. 90-6387.

#### Camilo *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
CAUSE NO. 03-14-00560-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT

_____________________ CHRISTOPHER NEWBERRY

Appellant VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS

____________________ Cause No. C1CR-14-209349, Travis County, Texas, County Court #5, Honorable, Nancy Hohengarten, presiding

____________________ APPELLANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS: COMES NOW, CHRISTOPHER NEWBERRY, appellant, pursuant to U.S.Const., Amends. 5 & 14, Tex.Const., Art. I, Secs . 13 & 19, and T.R.A.P., not limited to Rules 4.1, 10.5, 38.6 and 38.9, and moves the Court to extend the time for filing appellant’s brief THIRTY (30) days to April 15, 2015, and shows: I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On or about August 7, 2014, on plea of not guilty, a jury convicted appellant of driving while intoxicated, a class B misdemeanor. The court assessed sentence of 120 days Travis County jail, no fine. Motion for New Trial apparently was timely filed August 28, 2014. Notice of Appealwas filed prematurely on August 28, 2014, and an Amended Notice of Appealwas filed October 14, 2015 (correcting the defendant’s name in the body of the Notice ). The reporter's record was filed December 16, 2014. II. ONE PRIOR EXTENSIONS. Appellant has received no extensions of time to file his brief. III. TIME OF MOTION. The brief was due March 16, 2015. This motion is filed by mailing within 15 days thereof. IV. REASONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. ACCEPTED 03-14-00560-CR 4683514 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/29/2015 2:28:23 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKAppellant requests for an extension of time based o n the following:

1. Counsel is presently working on the brief in the appeal of Cause No. 03-14-00193, Martin Lopez Montejo v. The State of Texas

. 2. In the last 30 days, counsel represented some 45 clients with some 86 cases (approximately 37/71 appointed and/or jail requirin g prompt disposition) and disposed of some 17 defendants and 27 cases (approximately 10/1 7 etc.. 3. Therefore, asks this Honorable Court to extend t he time for filing brief THIRTY (30) days to April 15, 2015, so appellant will be given a full and meaningful appeal and accorded due process and due course of law, his rig ht to appeal and effective assistance of counsel. WHEREFORE, appellant prays this Court grant this mo tion and extend the time for filing his brief THIRTY (30) days to April 15, 2015. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, /s/ Christopher P. Morgan Christopher P. Morgan State Bar N o. 14435325 3009 N. IH 35 Austin, Tex as 78722 (512) 472-9717 // FAX: 472-9798 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I, Christopher P. Morgan, certify a true and corre ct copy of this Motion was served on the Office of the County Attorney for Travis County, Texas on March 30, 2015, by mail to P.O.Box 1748, A ustin, TX 78767 . /s/ Christopher P. Morgan
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




In connection with the Annual Report of El Capitan Precious Metals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Charles C. Mottley, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.






Date:  January 13, 2011
/s/ Charles C. MottleyCharles C. MottleyChief Executive Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Capitan Precious Metals, Inc. and will be retained by El Capitan Precious Metals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| **EXHIBIT 99.2** |
|------------------|

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, I, the undersigned Director of Finance of AML Communications, Inc.(the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

 
| • |   | the Quarterly Report of  the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002 fully complies  with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of  1934; and |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| • |   | the information contained  in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial  condition and results of operation of the Company.                                     |

 

 
| Dated:  August 12, 2002 |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
| /s/ David A. Swoish          |   |
|                         |
| David A. Swoish,             |
|                         |
| Director of Finance          |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-11116 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VINCENT MULINAX, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CR-45-2-A

-------------------- April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *Vincent Mulinax appeals his sentence following his guiltyplea conviction for conspiracy to fraudulently use identities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1028. He argues that the district court abused its discretion in imposing an upward departure. Mulinax asserts that his case did not fall outside the “heartland” of cases covered by the Sentencing Guidelines, so that an upward departure was not warranted under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, p.s. He additionally maintains that the harm sufferedNo. 01-11116 -2- by some of the victims was not serious enough to warrant an upward departure. The district court’s decision to depart from the Guidelines is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Koon v. United States , 518 U.S. 81, 96-100 (1996). Contrary to Mulinax’s contention, the Guidelines specifically encourage upward departures based on the factors delineated by the district court at the sentencing hearing. See id. ; United States v. Wells , 101 F.3d 370, 373-74 (5th Cir. 1996)(recognizing that application notes to U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 encourage upward departures based on non-monetary and psychological harm). Furthermore, in light of our decision in Wells , the district court could have reasonably concluded that the hardships suffered by the victims in this case made their harm unusual, taking this case out of the heartland of the Guidelines and making the two-level upward departure appropriate. See Wells , 101 F.3d at 374-75. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upward departure. To the extent that Mulinax seeks to appeal the denial of his motion for downward departure, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See United States v. Landerman , 167 F.3d 895, 899 (5th Cir. 1999)

. AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 11


                        Computation of Earnings Per Share
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Three Months Ended                      Six Months Ended
                                                          ---------------------------           -------------------------------
                                                          Sept. 30,          Sept. 30,          Sept. 30,               Sept. 30,
                                                            1997                1996              1997                    1997
                                                            ----                ----              ----                    ----

<S>                                                            <C>               <C>                <C>                 <C>      
Weighted average common shares outstanding                     7,562,500         7,562,500          7,562,500           7,150,416
Dilutive effect of common equivalent  shares (a)                       -            38,900                  -              38,900
                                                               ---------         ---------          ---------           ---------
Weighted average shares outstanding                            7,562,500         7,601,400          7,562.500           7,189,316
                                                               =========         =========          =========           =========
Net Loss                                                   $ (1,059,218)      $(2,238,803)      $ (1,955,804)       $ (3,152,551)
Fully diluted earnings per share                           $       (.14)      $      (.31)      $       (.26)       $       (.44)

</TABLE>


(a)  Calculates the dilutive effect of outstanding  stock options based upon the
     "Treasury Stock Method".

(b)  As fully  diluted  earning  per share and  primary  earnings  per share are
     equal,  only fully diluted earnings per share will be disclosed in the Form
     10-QSB.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                            REUNION INDUSTRIES, INC.

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                        (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER DATA)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                MARCH 31,      
                                                        ------------------------
                                                           1997          1996
                                                        ---------     ----------
<S>                                                       <C>          <C> 
 
Income (loss) from continuing operations                  $  295         $ (420)
Income (loss) from discontinued operations                   ---           (122)
                                                          ------         ------ 
                                                                                
Net Income (loss)                                         $  295         $ (542)
                                                          ======         ====== 
                                                                                
Weighted average common shares outstanding                3,855           3,855 
                                                                                
Net additional shares outstanding assuming all                                  
stock options exercised using the Treasury                                      
Stock Method (a)                                              94            --- 
                                                          ------         ------ 
                                                                                
Average common shares and common share                                          
equivalents outstanding                                    3,949          3,855 
                                                          ======         ====== 
                                                                                
Net income (loss) per common share and                                          
common share equivalent--Primary and fully diluted                              
                                                                                
  Income (loss) from continuing operations                $(.07)         $ (.11)
  Income (loss) from discontinued operations                 --            (.03)
                                                          ------         ------
  Net income (loss)                                       $(.07)         $ (.14)
                                                          ======         ====== 
 
</TABLE>
Notes:

(a)  The 1996  computation of common share equivalents excldues anti-dilutive
     shares.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00155-CV

City of Bee Cave, Texas, Appellant

v.

AusPro Enterprises, L.P., Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-11-003892, HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its appeal, explaining that

the parties have settled their dispute. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.1(a).

____________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Henson

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: September 13, 2012
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Collection of Abbreviations (NUREG-0544, Revision 5)

On this page: 
        - Publication Information
        -  Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-0544, Revision 5 (PDF - 3.10 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** November 2016**Date Published:** December 2016

**Prepared by:** C. Hsu

Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has compiled this list of abbreviations commonly used by the agency staff, the regulatory community, and the nuclear industry. To create this list, the NRC staff sought to identify abbreviations that are so commonly used that some staff may not first define the term before using it either in writing or in speaking. This list of abbreviations is descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words, this NUREG does not recommend one abbreviation to the exclusion of others. Nor does this NUREG intend to capture every abbreviation ever used in an NRC document. The audience of this NUREG is the public, stakeholders, industry, and NRC employees. The goal of this NUREG is to improve communication with and within the NRC.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
|   | (i)      the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended      December 31, 2008 (the “Report”), fully complies with the      requirements of section 13(a) 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 the      Company. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                              |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                              |
| /S/ MICHAEL    TATE                                                               |
| Michael      TateVice      President and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 4,2009 |

|   | A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has      been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon      request. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
*SILVERSTAR HOLDINGS LTD - 10-Q*

 

 

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 Silverstar Holdings, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawrence Litowitz, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,        adopted pursuant to Section 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; 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 14, 2008

 

| /s/ Lawrence R. Litowitz                                            |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Lawrence R. Litowitz                                                |
| Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

 

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Silverstar Holdings, Ltd. and will be retained by Silverstar Holdings, Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]

 

 

28

 

 

 

 

----
# C_2004118EN.01003302.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/33

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) by order of that court dated 17 March 2004, in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) National Association of Health Stores 2) Health Food Manufacturers Ltd against 1) Secretary of State for Health 2) National Assembly for Wales

(Case C-155/04)

(2004/C 118/62)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) dated 17 March 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 26 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) National Association of Health Stores 2) Health Food Manufacturers Ltd and 1) Secretary of State for Health 2) National Assembly for Wales on questions which are identical to those in Case C-154/04 (1).

1

---

(1)  See page 34 of this Official Journal.

1

---
# North Dakota MLRA Soil Survey Offices

916 E. Interstate Ave.Ste. 5BismarckND58503

701-250-4518

916 E. Interstate Ave.Ste. 5BismarckND58503

North Dakota

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Contact 
-  State Office Contacts 
-  North Dakota 
-  North Dakota MLRA Soil Survey Offices 

North Dakota MLRA Soil Survey Offices

**Bismarck MLRA Soil Survey Office**916 E. Interstate Ave., Ste. 5Bismarck, ND  58503**Dickinson MLRA Soil Survey Office**2493 4th Ave. W., Room CDickinson, ND 58601**Fargo MLRA Soil Survey Office**1665 43rd Street SouthFargo, ND 58103

## Key Contacts

### Perry F. Sullivan - Bismarck

                -    701-989-6166 
                -    perry.sullivan@usda.gov 

### Vacant - Dickinson

                -    701-495-7678 
                -    jeanne.heilig@usda.gov 

### Brianna Wegner - Fargo

                -    701-219-7162 
                -    brianna.wegner@usda.gov 

----

##   North Dakota Soil Survey Offices
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Report on Waste Burial Charges: Changes in Decommissioning Waste Disposal Costs at Low-Level Waste Burial Facilities (NUREG-1307)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, February 14, 2023
#### Schloff, Respondent, vs. Braff and another, Appellants.

For the appellant Joseph L. Braff: *Nash & Nash*of Mani-towoc.

For the appellant James Crowe: *Healy & Joyce*of Mani-towoc.

For the respondent: *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Kenneth Grubb*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

— Judgment affirmed.
No. 82-6029.

#### Scharstein *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-145489, 333-133702, 333-152720 and 333-160407 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 30, 2009 (October 27, 2009 as to the effects of theRestatement – Stock-based Compensation discussed in Note 17), relating to the consolidated financial statements of Taleo Corporation and subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) (which report expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement of the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007), for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Taleo Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California 

March 9, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. EDWARD SCOTT, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 728 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 24th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.