alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 15

                          ACCOUNTANTS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of KSW, Inc.:

We hereby acknowledge our awareness of the incorporation by reference of our
report dated October 30, 2003, included within the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of KSW, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, in the following
Registration Statements:

- Form S-8 dated February 13, 1997 (File No. 33-21735)

- Form S-8 dated April 16, 1998 (File No. 33-350293)

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


MARDEN, HARRISON & KREUTER
Certified Public Accounts, P.C.



White Plains, New York
November 13, 2003



                                       19
Consent of Independent Accountants:

To the Board of Directors and
Stockholders of Optika Inc. and subsidiaries:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No.333-04309) on Form S-8 of Optika Inc. of our reports dated January 21,
2000 except for Note 10, which is as of February 23, 2000, relating to the
consolidated balance sheet of Optika Inc and subsidiaries as of December 31,
1999 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for the year then
ended, and the related schedule, which reports appear in the December 31,
1999 annual report on Form 10-K, of Optika Inc. and subsidiaries.

                                /s/ KPMG LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 27, 2000
**Exhibit 10.7**

 

**AMENDMENT NO. 1**

**TO THE EDGE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.**

**2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN**

 

Pursuant to Section 4.5 of the Edge Technology Group, Inc. 2002 StockIncentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

 

1. The name of the Plan is hereby amended to be: “Axtive Corporation 2002 Stock Incentive Plan”. 

 

2. Section 3.1 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

 

**3.1.****Number of Shares**. The maximum number of shares of Common Stock reserved andavailable for issuance under this Plan shall be 17,000,000, subject to adjustment as set forth in Section 3.4. 

 

3. Immediately upon the effectiveness of the 1-for-10 reverse stock split approved by the Board of Directors of Axtive Corporation as of the date hereof,and without any further action by any party, Section 3.1 of the Plan shall be further amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

 

**3.1.****Number of Shares**. The maximum number of shares of Common Stock reserved and available for issuance under thisPlan shall be 5,000,000, subject to adjustment as set forth in Section 3.4. 

 

4. The definition of Company in Section 13 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

 

**“Company”** means Axtive Corporation, a Delaware corporation. 

 

Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect as originally executed anddelivered. Any reference in the Plan to the “Plan” shall refer to the Plan as amended by this Amendment No. 1. All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned to those terms in the Plan.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed thisAmendment effective as of May 23, 2003.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,080,095
<SECURITIES>                                   650,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  353,580
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,374,342
<PP&E>                                       1,337,576
<DEPRECIATION>                                 518,159
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,403,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,868,471
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,245
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,493,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,403,258
<SALES>                                      1,171,554
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,278,623
<CGS>                                            7,764
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,690
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,399,295
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,362,967)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,362,967)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,362,967)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.88)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11


                                    KSW, INC.

                         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION
                                OF LOSS PER SHARE


                                            Three Months          Three Months
                                               Ended                 Ended
                                           March 31, 2004        March 31, 2003
                                           --------------        --------------

Net loss                                    $ (644,000)          $  (58,000)
                                            ===========          ===========


Loss Per Share - Basic
Weighted average shares outstanding
    during the period                        5,470,311            5,470,311
                                            ===========          ===========


Loss per common share -
Basic                                       $     (.12)          $     (.01)
                                            ===========          ===========

Loss Per Share - Diluted
------------------------
Weighted average shares outstanding
    during the period                        5,470,311            5,470,311


Effect of stock options dilution                     0                    0
                                            -----------          -----------


Total shares outstanding for purposes
of calculating diluted earnings              5,470,311            5,470,311
                                            ===========          ===========


Loss per common and common equivalent
share - Diluted                             $     (.12)          $     (.01)
                                            ===========          ===========
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                                  EXHIBIT 12.1

      ARDEN REALTY INC. COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                      (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT RATIOS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                 ARDEN REALTY INC.
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          2001          2000          1999          1998         1997
                                        --------      --------      --------      --------      --------

<S>                                     <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Earnings Available to Cover Fixed
Charges:

Income before extraordinary items       $ 97,759      $ 96,710      $ 96,626      $ 90,675      $ 39,630

Add: Interest Expense                     84,195        78,406        60,239        43,403        19,511
                                        --------      --------      --------      --------      --------

Total Earnings Available to Cover       $181,954      $175,116      $156,865      $134,078      $ 59,141
                                        ========      ========      ========      ========      ========
Fixed Charges

Fixed Charges:
Interest Expense                        $ 84,195      $ 78,406      $ 60,239      $ 43,403      $ 19,511
Interest Capitalized                       9,095        12,646         9,587         8,920         1,178
Preferred Distributions                    4,312         4,312         1,354          --            --
                                        --------      --------      --------      --------      --------

Total Fixed Charges                     $ 97,602      $ 95,364      $ 71,180      $ 52,323      $ 20,689
                                        ========      ========      ========      ========      ========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges         1.86x         1.84x         2.20x         2.56x         2.86x
                                        ========      ========      ========      ========      ========

</TABLE>
#### Kingston, Commissioner of Banking, Receiver, Respondent, vs. Schultz and another, Appellants. Hagen and others, Commissioners of Banking, etc., Respondents, vs. Schultz and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *V. H. Cady*of Baraboo.

For the respondents: *Grotophorst, Quale & Langer*of Baraboo.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
#### John Crow *v.*The heirs of James Holland,

From Haywood.

Fraud which vacates a grant, being a compound question of law and of tael, a general verdict that a grant was h'audulently obtained, is not sufficient foundation for a judgment of repeal.

This was a petition to vacate a grant which issued to the ancestor of the Defendants, upon the ground that it had been fraudulently obtained.. The matters alleged in' the peiition were :

I. That the. land had been surveyed by *an?. Avery*for himself — that one *Walker*fraudulently obtained possession of *Avery's*field notes, and made sundry entries from them, for himself — that he gave the ancestor of the Defendants, the warrant and the survey upon which the grant sought to be vacated bad issued, in consideration of aid rendered to him in defrauding *Avery.*

g. That the survey upon which the grant issued, was never actually made by *Walker,*but was only signed by him as a D>pmy Smvejor — that this was known to the grantee, when he sued out the grant.

*4823. That the survey, upon its face, appeared to have been made by *Walker*for himself. *J*

These facts were all put in issue by the answer, and 011 j^e testimony was offered to the Jury by both parties.

His honor Judge Denied informed the Jury, that if the survey upon which the grant issued was never actually made, as required by law, and this fact was known to the grantee when he received it, such conduct was a fraud upon the State, and vitiated the grant; and also, that if the survey was made by *Walker*for himself, and this fact was known to the grantee when he sued out the grant, it was a fraud upon the land law's, which likewise vitiated the grant. — The Jury returned a general verdict for the Petitioner, and the Defendants appealed.

The case was argued by *Wilson*& *Badger,*for the Plaintiff, and *Gaston,*for the Defendants ; but the argument was upon points different from those on which it was decided.

Tayior, Chief-Justice.

The grant is sought to be set aside, on-the ground that it was obtained by means of several fraudulent acts, which are particularly stated in the petition, and the Jury have found that it was obtained by fraud. This may be an inference they have drawn, from some of the facts alleged in the petition, having been proved, but is not a necessary implication that it arises from the proof of all of them. Fraud is a compound question of law and fact. The facts going to establish it, are to be decided by a Jury. Whether, when proved, they will amount to such a fraud as will vacate a grant is a question for the Court to decide.— Were this grant to be set aside on this general finding, it would be deciding in the dark ; for we have no means of ascertaining of what the fraud found by the Jury consisted, and the Court ought to have a full assurance that *483Ihe grant was fraudulently obtained, before it w.as vacated. The issues ought to be tried again, and the specific facts constituting the fraud ascertained by the Jury, who may infer fraud *;*but then the Court will be enabled to determine whether it be so in point of law.

Per Curiam. — Judgment reversed.
# C_2005077EN.01003601.xml

| 31.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/36

---

EDICOM Grants Programme

Projects that may benefit from a Eurostat grant during the year 2005 under the EDICOM programme

Public information

(2005/C 77/09)

The actions listed in the Edicom 2005 grants programme are open for proposals. However, since these actions are directly linked to activities relating to the collection, production and dissemination of official statistics to be transmitted to the Commission (Eurostat), applicants must have the appropriate powers and responsibilities to meet the objectives in question.

collection, production and dissemination of official statistics

The electronic file, which gives the title and aims of the project, the legislative basis, the total amount, the results expected, the timetable and the operational unit can be found on the EUROPA server
  (http://europa.eu.int).

EUROPA server

(http://europa.eu.int)

From the Europa initial page you may reach the Grants Programme through the following path: ‘Institutions’, ‘Commission’, ‘Statistics’, ‘Eurostat activities’, ‘Other activities’, ‘Calls for tenders and grants’ and then ‘EDICOM Grant Programme for 2005’.

‘EDICOM Grant Programme for 2005’

Please read the information accompanying this file carefully, and you are kindly requested to inform us of your interest in participating in this programme by writing to:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Eurostat |
| Unit F-2 Secretariat |
| BECH A2/38 |
| 5, rue Alphonse Weicker |
| L-2920 Luxembourg (Kirchberg). |

European Commission

Eurostat

Unit F-2 Secretariat

BECH A2/38

5, rue Alphonse Weicker

L-2920 Luxembourg (Kirchberg).

You will receive acknowledgement that your expression of interest has been received.

Deadline for sending proposals of interest to participate: 30 April 2005 (date as post-marked). Failure to respect this deadline will automatically result in refusal of your application.

Deadline for sending proposals of interest to participate: 30 April 2005 (date as post-marked).

---
# C_2005082EN.01001502.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/15

---

Action brought on 7 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-47/05)

(2005/C 82/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by R. Lyal, Legal Adviser, and L. Escobar Guerrero, of the Commission's legal service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by having adopted and maintained in force, in the matter of life insurance and pensions, a system under which tax concessions (Article 48 of Law 40/1998) are applicable solely to contributions paid under contracts concluded with undertakings established in Spain but not to those paid under contracts concluded with undertakings formed in other Member States, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 39, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by having adopted and maintained in force, in the matter of life insurance and pensions, a system under which tax concessions (Article 48 of Law 40/1998) are applicable solely to contributions paid under contracts concluded with undertakings established in Spain but not to those paid under contracts concluded with undertakings formed in other Member States, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 39, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement;

| 2. | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The fact that tax treatment differs by reference to whether pension plans are taken out with undertakings established in Spain or with undertakings formed in other Member States is a restriction on the fundamental freedoms laid down by the EC Treaty (Articles 39, 43, 49 and 56 EC and Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement).

The requirement for establishment, in accordance with national law, which Spanish fiscal legislation imposes on pension managers, constitutes, as well as discrimination restricting the right of undertakings formed in the European Union or the EEA to provide their services freely to persons resident in Spain, a clear restriction on the freedom of movement of workers and of capital and on the freedom of establishment.

---
Exhibit
32.2








Certification
of Chief Financial Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned
officer of Tanger Properties Limited Partnership (the “Operating
Partnership”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:





(i)the accompanying Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Operating Partnership for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the
“Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Operating Partnership.








Date:
      May 9, 2008
            /s/ Frank C. Marchisello, Jr.Frank
      C. Marchisello, Jr.
              Vice
      President, Treasurer & Assistant Secretary of Tanger GP Trust, Sole
      General Partner of the Registrant
Exhibit 31.1
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sterling Chemicals, 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:
     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 the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
   Date: March 17, 2009
    /s/ JOHN V. GENOVAJohn V. GenovaPresident and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2004217EN.01003802.xml

| 28.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/38

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-304/99 (1)

1

(2004/C 217/68)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 10 June 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-304/99, Oliehandel Kuster B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.

1

---
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM July 2021

Initial setting: (1) On any type of 

upland land use where a recreational 

facility is needed for effective and 

safe use of a recreation resource, or 

(2) on existing recreation land where 

minimization of on and offsite 

impacts to resources is needed

Start

I.2 (+) Ability to 

maintain or gain full 

use of all available 

land and facilities

D.2 (+) 

Access

D.1 (+) Cost of 

materials, 

installation, and 

maintenance

D.5 (+) Runoff 

from area

I.4 (+) 

Recreational 

opportunities

Recreation Land Grading 

and Shaping (566)

1. Grading and shaping of 

undeveloped areas to install a 

recreational facility

Note: 

Effects are qualified with a 

plus (+) or minus (-). These 

symbols indicate only an 

increase (+) or a decrease (-) 

in the effect upon the 

resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

D.4 (+) 

Erosion

C.3 (+/-) 

Biodiversity

C.2 (+/-) Health of humans, 

domestic and wild animals

C.1 (+/-) Income and 

income stability 

(individuals and 

community)

I.1 (+/-) Net 

return

I.5 (+) 

Recreation 

business and 

support 

infrastructure 

I.11 (+) Flooding, 

ponding 

Waterbars and other 

structures to safely 

I.9 (+) Contaminants, convey runoff

pathogens, sediments to 

receiving waters

I.10 (+/-) Quality of surface 

waters and aquatic habitats

Water and Sediment 

Control Basin (638)

I.6 (+) Wildlife 

habitat 

fragmentation 

(upland)

Critical Area Planting (342)

Riparian Herbaceous Cover 

(390)

Filter Strip (393)

Riparian Forest Buffer (391)

Water and Sediment Control 

Basin (638)

I.3 (+) 

Land 

values 

I.7 (-) Upland 

wild animal 

movement; 

(+) stress

D.3 (+) 

Vehicular traffic 

I.8 (+) 

Compaction 

C.4 (-) Soil 

quality

Pathway

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Mitigating practice

Associated practice
BRITTANY GRUBB

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee.

__________________ _ ____________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF A PPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSI TION THEREOF IF FILED.

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 6244

Opinion filed September 12, 2014.

An ap peal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley , Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Colleen D. Mullen, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee , f or Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.