alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 11/9/05 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2005 ND 182

In the Interest of L.J., a child 

Tamera Ressler, L.S.W., Petitioner and Appellee

v.

Director, Cass County Social 

Services, D.J., D.J., D.Z., 

John Doe, L.J., and Douglas 

Nesheim, Guardian ad Litem, Respondents 

------------------------------

D.J., Respondent and Appellant

No. 20050078

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Douglas R. Herman, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Jared S. Simonson, P.O. Box 2723, Fargo, N.D. 58108-2723, for respondent and appellant.

Constance L. Cleveland, Assistant State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 3106, Fargo, N.D. 58108-3106, for petitioner and appellee.

In Interest of L.J.

No. 20050078

Per Curiam.

[¶1]D.J. appeals from a memorandum opinion and order affirming the findings and order of the juvenile court referee terminating her parental rights to her child, L.J.  On appeal, D.J. argues the evidence presented at trial does not support the court's finding that the deprivation of L.J. was likely to continue, and the court erred when it did not determine that terminating D.J.'s parental rights would cause irreparable harm to L.J.

[¶2]We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom
EXHIBIT 23
                                
                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-04524, 33-74026 and 33-89146) and in the
Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File
No. 333-21557) of Data Broadcasting Corporation of our report appearing on
page 19 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial Statement Schedule,
which appears on page 34 of this Form 10-K.  



Price Waterhouse LLP
Salt Lake City, Utah
September 26, 1997
• 

REF ID:A67549. 

LICBRSB 

IHBRBAS, I 1 t'.1111• r. Fr1e4ca, ot iJea!dagton, Dtetrtct or Columbia, 

an e:npl07ee ot tbe COwl'allmnt, 11114 

WHE:"1BAS, in pursuance ot 1aid emplo1111nt I lla•e inventld certain tmprovementa 

In ~RAPBIC mncs 

tor •hich I SCI about to IJ:ake application tor Letters Patent ot the United States, an4 

IHERBAS, the nature ot m.v emploJlllnt, ancl the conditions an4 circU1111tancea under 

which said invention wae made, are auch as to justly and lawtully entitle the Government or Lhe United States ot America to !lave a non-exclusive license an4 right to 

make an4 uae said invention throughout the United States, its territories an4 dependencles, together with &11.J and all improvementa thereon and inventions relatirg thereto that I !Jave made, or Ill&)' hereafter make, •bile l!:lployed and 1111&1sd b7 the United 

States Government; 

HOW, TllERBFOIB, in conaidaration or the premiaea I do hereb,v give and grant 

unto the Government ot the United States ot .America a non-exclusive license to make, 

to have made, to use and/or to sell, said invention aa described in the aPQcification 

executed by ma on the , 19~1 , and arw and all 

Let~are Patent which o:ay be granted therefor and all divisions, reissues, continuationa, and extenaiona thereof, together with any and all improvmaent& thereon and inventtona relating thereto made b7 me while employed or eng111ecl 'b7 the U~ited St~tea 

Government, or tor which I ma,y hereafter make application tor Letters Patent while 

employed or engaged b7 tbl United States Government, reaervin1 to the applicant in 

each caee the unre1tricted po11e11ton of all other patent rllbta not bereb.Y or other-

•i•e licensed to the Government ot the United Statea of Allerica Said license hereb7 

1ranted or agreed to be 1rante4 eball extend throuabaut tbe United State1, it• territorie1 amt depenilenciea and shall continue in force tor tile full t.era tor •Inell aaicJ 

Lettera Patent ~ ba sranted. 

SIGRID at. 

thla . ... .. '-e.tJa . c1q ot .PgtcJ•••· . . . .... . ... , 11.a1, 

Wltneaaea 

l"f'~q~ Q .-l.JJ~Q pproved for Release by NSA on 09-09-2013 pursuant to E.O. 

r 13526
11 August 1949 

RECEIVED FROM CIVILIAN 'mAmNG SCHOOL THE FOLLOWING EQ.UIPMENT: 

lea M209 - ConTerter -~ _/ 

LAST IT.EJd ( 

.__.... 

··~~:1 

ROBERT H. CAMPBELL 

Captain FA 

AS 22 Tel 317
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23(b)

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT



  The Board of Directors
  The Netplex Group, Inc.:


  We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
  (No. 333-19115) on Form S-8 of The Netplex Group, Inc. of our report dated
  April 19, 1999, relating to the consolidated statements of operations,
  stockholders' equity, and cash flows of The Netplex Group, Inc. and
  subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 1998, before the reclassification
  to reflect the e-Infrastructure segment as a discontinued operation as
  described in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements, and the related
  schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2000, annual report on Form
  10-K of The Netplex Group, Inc.


  KPMG LLP

  McLean, VA
  March 30, 2000
I 

.. E03.3(h) (2) 

PL 86~36/50 USC 3605 

mft AllD llEIURll 

--.... ,...
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0676

_________________

RITA M. BLADES, Temporary Guardian and

Conservator for H.A.G.,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

GARRY DOUGLAS SEAMAN,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Shane A. Vannatta, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 2 2023

08/02/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0676
DISCRETIONARY APPEALS ALLOWED

99-239.

#### State v. Reiner.

Lucas App. No. L-97-1002. Discretionary appeal allowed.

Resnick, J., not participating.

Discretionary cross-appeal allowed.

Cook, J., dissents.

Peggy Bryant, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.

*Sua sponte,*cause consolidated with 99-427, *supra.*

Resnick, J., not participating.
CERTIFICATE OF INCREASE

                                       OF

                      SERIES A CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK

                                       OF

                            U.S. ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.

        (Pursuant to Section 151 of the Delaware General Corporation Law)
                          -----------------------------

         U.S. Energy Systems,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation  acting pursuant to
Section 151 of the General  Corporation Law of Delaware,  does hereby submit the
following  Certificate  of  Increase  of  additional  shares  of  its  Series  A
Convertible Preferred Stock.

         FIRST:    The name of the corporation is U.S. Energy Systems, Inc. (the
"Corporation").

         SECOND:   The certificate of designation  of  the  Corporation  with
respect to its Series A Convertible Preferred Stock was filed with the Secretary
of State of Delaware on March 23, 1998.

         THIRD:    The Board of Directors  of  the Corporation  duly adopted the
following resolution as of July 28, 2000:

                  RESOLVED, that the Corporation hereby designates an additional
538,888 shares of the  Corporation's  Preferred  Stock which is authorized to be
issued as Series A Convertible  Preferred Stock,  such that the number of shares
of the Corporation's Preferred Stock which is designated as Series A Convertible
Preferred  Stock shall be a total of  1,138,888  shares and the  officers of the
Corporation  are  authorized and directed to file with the Secretary of State of
Delaware a Certificate of Increase to that effect.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  this  certificate has been subscribed on the date
set forth below by the undersigned,  who affirms that the statements made herein
are true under the penalties of perjury.

         Executed on this 31st day of July, 2000.




                                        /s/Goran Mornhed
                                           ------------------------
                                           Goran Mornhed, President
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII 901 NORTH 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 September 23, 2011

Dear Owner/Resident: Luis E Galvez Omaha, Nebraska 68105 1309 South 28 Street

1309 South 28 Street

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performe d on your property by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether a signific ant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior surface of structures, where deteriorating paint co nditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist that might increase lead concentrations in the yardabove acceptable levels. Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 1309 Sou th 28 Street. The EPA has developed paint stabilization eligibility criteria that involve mea suring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a structure and calculating the concentration of leadin soils around the home that would result if all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fall to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessmen t, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint observed on structure surfaces was estimated and th e lead content in the deteriorated paint was measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument. The data obtained during the LBP assessment was use d to estimate the increase in soil lead concentration that would result if all of the deteriorating paint identified in the assessment were to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil within six feet of the foundation of the structure. For purposes of this calculation, the deterioratingLBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the ground surface within six feet of the foundation an d be uniformly mixed with the top one inch of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the so il potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP provides a measure of the severity of LBP deterioration on individual structures. The EPA uses these criteria to rank properties based on the pote ntial for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint stabilization is being offered at only those househ olds with the most severe LBP problems, particularly where children under the age of seven reside. Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the a bove criteria indicated that your house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization. RE: SAID: 20380Enclosures

Para información en español, llame al EPA Informati on Center (402) 731-3045. Sincerely,

Pauletta R. France-Isetts Project Coordinator Environmental Protection Agency If you have any questions or concerns, please conta ct the EPA Public Information Center at (402) 731-3045.*rnaha Lead Site LBP Assessment 

# 1111111 11111 

# 11111 IIIIIII~I IIIII 203 80 .EGEND: H 

## - N 

### - P 

### - 01 - 12345 Samples Analyzed BVlD Number
- Sample Number Materlal P = Paint e of Structure N = North S = South E = East W = West Substrate Color Deteriorated (wood, concrete, etc.) Area Sample Number Concentration StructurelFeature (Window, siding, porch, etc3



# Red 1 ft2

ft'
ft2
EXHIBIT 12.2

CERTIFICATION



I, Wilman Wong, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Chai-Na-Ta Corp.(the Company);



2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



3.

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



4.

The Company's other certifying officers 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 Company and have:

1.

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

2.

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

3.

Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

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

1.

All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

2.

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control over financial reporting.





/s/ WILMAN WONG

________________________________

Wilman Wong, Chief Financial Officer

Date:  March 31, 2005
REF ID:A64194 

Lena ft,. Potts Comi;e.ny 

River Road e.n4 :a. & o. 1'9.ilroa.d. 

Vuhi1.1&ton 16, D. c. 

Dear Mr. Pottat 

310 Secolld. Street, S.E .. Washington 3, D. o. 

8 Dece:aiber 1954 

ln accordance v1th our agreement, I enclose herewith '1111 

check tor *426.&?, 1n payment in t'u1l or account tor -.teria.la 

and rooting work done :recently at JIG" home at the above add.re••· 

This check takes the place ot the two montblT piymenta which 

otherwise would have beeu due on l January and l J'ebruar,y 1 1955· 

I ba.ve deducted. 4~ from the total baance due tor labor 

($11-36.00), IJ~Vi~ me a diacount ot tJ.7,44, and l.e&V17:l1 a net 

balance ot 4418. 56 due tor labor,. Thie amount plUJJ fa .. 26, 1;ha 

D.C. Sal•• Tax, gives a total ot $426.82. 

Please return the receipted bill ao that I can lr.eep it 

lf'ith l2W' accounts relating to thia job. 

Incle. 

l. Check tor $426 .. 82 

2. Bill dtd 2 Dec 54 

Sincerely, 

@'pproved for Release bv NSA on 07-09-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352\3
ex10_4-20112q.htm


EXHIBIT 10.4







Occidental Petroleum Corporation







Form of Acknowledgement Letter







On July 16, 2008, you were granted a Return on Equity Incentive Award with a performance period of July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2011 (the “Award”).  On July 18, 2011, the Executive Compensation and Human Resources Committee (the “Committee”) of Occidental Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”) determined that events which have occurred in Libya over the course of the performance period may result in a loss or impairment of the Libyan contract, which may in turn cause the Company to write down the value of certain assets (such action, the “Write-Down”) in such a manner that, had such Write-Down occurred before the end of the performance period, the value of the Award would have been less than the value of the Award as certified by the Compensation Committee.







By signing below, you hereby acknowledge that you have been informed that if the Write-Down is taken on or prior to June 30, 2013, for every $100 million of a Write-Down, after-tax, the Committee intends to reduce your future compensation from the Company by a pre-tax amount up to $______ (the aggregate reduction amount, the “Reduction Amount”) within a period determined by the Committee. Such reduction may apply to one or more of the following:   base salary, separation or retirement pay, bonus, and stock and incentive awards (through the Committee’s exercise of negative discretion with respect to any outstanding incentive awards), until the earlier of the attainment of the Reduction Amount or  the end of the period determined by the Committee, except to the extent such reduction is not permitted under applicable law, or would cause the imposition of additional taxes and/or penalties under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.







Any determinations of the Compensation Committee shall be conclusive and binding on you.












___________________


[Name of Executive]


Date:_________________
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  Foamex  L.P.  and  Foamex  Capital
Corporation  on Form 10-K for the period ending  December 28, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Thomas E. Chorman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Foamex International
Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Foamex
     International Inc.

Foamex L.P.                                   Foamex Capital Corporation



/s/ Thomas E. Chorman                         /s/ Thomas E. Chorman
------------------------------------          ---------------------------------
Thomas E. Chorman                             Thomas E. Chorman
President Chief Executive Officer             President
March 5, 2004
----

| Dated:                      March      24, 2009 | CPI      AEROSTRUCTURES, INC. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                          | (Registrant)                  |
|                                                                                                                                                          |                          |   |
|                                                                                                                                                          | By:                           | /s/      Edward J. Fred |
|                                                                                                                                                          |                          | Edward      J. FredChief      Executive Officer, President andDirector |

| Dated:                      March      24, 2009 | CPI      AEROSTRUCTURES, INC. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                          | (Registrant)                  |
|                                                                                                                                                          |                          |   |
|                                                                                                                                                          | By:                           | /s/      Vincent Palazzolo |
|                                                                                                                                                          |                          | Vincent      PalazzoloChief      Financial Officer and Secretary |

----
#### The Attorney General vs. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company.

*Cause not ready for final judgment. Effect of changes in the statutes regulating rates of toll on railways.*

Upon an information filed in August, 1874, to restrain the defendant from charging in excess of the maximum rates of toll fixed hy eh. 273 of 1874, a temporary injunction, in accordance with the prayer, was granted in September, 1874 (35 Wis., 425). The cause coming on at this term for final judgment on the original pleadings and proofs, and such final judgment being asked by both parties, and it appearing that the classification of railroads and (he maximum rates of toll have been materially changed by chaps. 113 and 334 of 1875, the court holds that the cause is not ripe for judgment, and (being about to close the term) orders its continuance until the next term.

Ryan, C. J.

The.information in this case proceeds upon ch. 273 of 1874 ; avers the defendant’s disregard of the *maximum*rates of fare and freight fixed by that statute; and prays a temporary injunction *pendente*lite, and judgment of perpetual injunction restraining tbe defendant from taking higher rates than those of that statute. And when the case came be-, fore us on motion for interlocutory injunction, we ordered a *70writ according to that prayer (35 Wis., 425), which has not since been brought before us for consideration.

Since then, eh. 278 of 1874 has been amended by chaps. 89, 118 and 834 of 1875. We have looked into these acts, and some of the amendments seem to us to be of grave importance in this litigation. The classification of railroads is changed by ch. 113 of 1875, and the maximum rates by ch. 384 of 1875.

At the present term, and after the passage of these acts of 1875, the cause came on for hearing on pleadings and proofs ; and we were pressed to proceed to final judgment, by both parties. We then suggested to counsel that the cause might not be ready for hearing, and that the information might first require amendment to make it correspond with the law as it now stands.

Our suggestion has not been acted on, and the cause remains in the same condition. We are about to close the term. And we have to determine what we should do with the cause as it is.

It is a little singular that no application should have been made for a modification of the injunction; and that the defendant should remain apparently bound by rates changed by law some four months ago. But, whatever may be the reason of that, we certainly cannot decree perpetual injunction not to disregard statutory rates which have, at least in part, ceased to be obligatory, or obedience to a statute as originally passed, which has since been materially amended.

Other grave questions, arising from the change of law, were suggested at the hearing, which may call for amendment of pleadings and corresponding proofs. And it seems to us very plain that the cause is not ripe for judgment.

Under these circumstances, we consider it proper to continue the cause to the next term, when both parties will have opportunity to take such course as they may be advised.

*By the Court.*— Let the cause be continued.