alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT24.7

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESEPRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints each ofDamien M. Sullivan, Ross G. Landsbaum and Barry F. Schwartz or any ofthem, each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact andagent, with full power of substitution, for him and in his name, placeand stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with thePANAVISION INC. (the "Corporation")Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 underthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, withoutlimiting the generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in thename and on behalf of the Corporation or on behalf of the undersignedas a director or officer of the Corporation, and any amendments to theForm 10-K and any instrument, contract, document or other writing, ofor in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments thereto, and to filethe same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connectiontherewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities andExchange Commission and any applicable securities exchange orsecurities self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-factand agents, each acting alone, full power and authority to do andperform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be donein and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as hemight or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all thatsaid attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substituteor substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtuehereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed thesepresents this 30th day of March, 2006.

|  | /S/ MARTIN D. PAYSON MARTIN D.PAYSON |
|--|--------------------------------------|

----
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
June 9, 2010

ERRATA

______________________

Appeal No. 2009-5078

STRATEGIC HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION OF TRAVIS COUNTY,

v. UNITED STATES,

Decided: June 7, 2010 Precedential Opinion

______________________
Please make the following change:

Page 7, line 18, change “higher” to --lower--.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED 
FROM SMITH CORONA CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
AND NOTES THERETO OF THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          24,506
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,934
<ALLOWANCES>                                       756
<INVENTORY>                                      9,812
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,994
<PP&E>                                          40,389
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,710
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,934
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             3
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,337
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,030 
<SALES>                                         46,893 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,893 
<CGS>                                           34,360 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,360 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (149)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (779)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,348)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       293
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,641)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    460
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,181)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.81)
        


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 2, 2016

No. 04-16-00335-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.,

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-05876

Honorable Renée Yanta, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s brief was originally due November 23, 2016. Neither the brief nor a motion 

for extension of time has been filed. We order appellee’s brief due December 12, 2016. If the 

brief is not filed by the date ordered, we may order the case submitted without an appellee’s 

brief.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         357,384               5,146,327
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  309,365                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               566,749               5,150,281
<PP&E>                                       5,426,902                  94,065
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,951                   1,842
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,327,697               5,374,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,311,734                 730,125
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                         80                   1,080
<COMMON>                                        16,000                  15,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,465,564               5,382,901
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,327,697               5,374,341
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,139,108                 419,982
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (156,392)                (26,180)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,982,716)               (393,802)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,982,716)               (393,802)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,816,487)               (370,562)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)                  (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)                  (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### Daniel Adams, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Thomas J. Carter, defendant in error.

Where a 'father and son, both living on the place, *farm together*under an agreement that the father is to furnish the land and the stock and provisions for the stock, and the son to furnish the hands and to superintend the work, and the crop to be equally divided between them, and nothing more appears, they are, as to third persons, partners in the enterprise.

Partnership. Before Judge Hill. Houston Superior Court. May Term, 1874.

Carter brought complaint against R. R. & Daniel Adams for $199 38, besides interest. The defendant, Daniel Adams, leaded the general issue and no partnership.

*161Upon the question of partnership the evidence presented the following case: R. R. Adams was the son of Daniel Ac[ams. They both lived on the farm of Daniel, and cultivated it under an agreement that the latter should furnish the land, stock and the provisions for tli'e stock, whilst R. R. Adams furnished and paid the labor and superintended the same, the crop to be equally divided.

The court charged the jury that there being no question as to the correctness of the account as against R. R. Adams, that if the jury believed the facts to be as above stated, a partnership existed between the defendants, and they should find for the plaintiff. A verdict was rendered accordingly.

A motion was ' made for a new trial in behalf of Daniel Adams, on account of error in the charge aforesaid. The motion was overruled, and said defendant excepted.

H. M. Holtzclaw ; S. D. Killen, for plaintiff in error.

. Duncan & Miller, for defendant.

McCay, Judge.

The evidence shows that these parties *farmed together,*and that they were jointly interested in the profits and losses of the crop. This comes within the very letter of the definition of a partnership, as contained in the Code, section 1890. There is nothing in the evidence contained in the record to qualify this relation, nothing going to show that one was the servant of the other, or that one was the landlord and the other a cropper. They farmed together; both seemed to have had' equal control and a joint ownership. Under the peculiar circumstances of the country growing out of the relation of the late slaves to their employers, we have construed these contracts not to be partnerships, when there was anything indicating such was not the intent. But there is nothing here at all qualifying the ordinary meaning of the contract, and we think the judge was right.

Judgment affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, Steven E. Shebik, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Allstate Life Insurance Company;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| November 10,  2004 |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
|                    |
|                    | /s/  Steven E. Shebik |   |
|                    | Steven  E. Shebik |
|                    | Senior Vice President  and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

E-4

----
Dated: April 01, 2013


 


		To:	The board of director



Sun Line Industrial Limited
(新麗工業有限公司))


(the “Company”)


Unit 2101, Aitken Vanson Centre,
61 Hoi Yuen Road, Kwun Tong, Kowloon 


 


Dear Sirs,


 


Written Confirmation


 


We, the undersigned, Mr. Kin Sun SZE-TO
and Mr. Ho Leung NING, are writing to confirm for the sake of good record that our respective employment contracts entered into
with the Company (as amended on December 16, 2010) have been terminated by mutual consent on April 01, 2013 and on a no recourse
basis, while Mr. Kin Sun SZE-TO continues to serve as a director of the Company on a no pay basis going forward.


 


For the avoidance of doubt, we hereby confirm
that we have no claim whatsoever (now and in future) against the Company whether for compensation or damages for loss of office
or otherwise or arising from the termination of our employment contracts with the Company or in respect of any cause, matter or
thing and that there is no outstanding agreement or arrangement or understanding under which the Company has or could have any
obligations vis-à-vis any of us.


 


	/s/ Kin Sun SZE-TO	 	/s/Ho Leung NING
# FILED
October 1, 199 7 Cecil Crowson, Jr
. App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COUR T OF CRIMIN AL APPEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE JA NUARY 1997 SESSION

ROBERT F. TUR NER, ) ) Appellant, ) No. 03C01-9603- CR-00098

) ) Hamilton County v. ) ) Honorable Stephen M. Bevil , Judge ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) (Post-Conv iction) ) Appellee. ) For the Appell ant : For the Appell ee : Robert F. Turn er, Pro Se Charles W. Burson # 167179 Attorney Gen eral of Tennessee Turney Center

Annex and Route One Eugene J. Honea Only, TN 3714 0 Assistant Att orney Gener al of Tennessee 450 James Roberts on Parkway Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 William H. Cox Distric t Attorney General 600 Market Str

eet, Suite 310 Chattanooga, TN 37402

OPINION FILE D:____________________
AFFIRMED Joseph M. Tipton Judge2 O P I N I O N The petitioner, R obert F. Turner , appeals as of ri ght from the Hami lton County Cr iminal Court ’s dismiss al of his second p ost-convi ction petiti on without a hearing. H e contends that he i s entitled to post-convi ction reli ef because the use of the term “moral c ertainty”

in the reasonabl e doubt jury instructi on given at his tria l allow ed the jury to convict him based on a lower standard of proo f than is constitutionally required.
In 1983, the petiti oner was c onvicted of ag gravated kidnapping and robbery and received a sentence of f orty years and five to ten years, respectively. This court affirmed his convicti on. State v. Ear l Allen Bail ey and Rober t Turner , [no number in origi nal], Hamilto n County ( Tenn. Crim. App. J an. 6, 1984). On January 10, 1996, the petitioner filed the present petition, all eging that the reasonable d oubt instruct ion given at his trial is unconstitutional under Cage v. Louisiana , 498 U.S. 39, 111 S. Ct. 328 (1990). The trial court dismissed the petition because it conclud ed that the jury was proper ly instr ucted on the state’ s burden of proof at the petitioner’s trial. We agree.
The following instruction was given at the petitioner’s trial: Reasonable doubt is that dou bt engendered by an investigation of all the p roof in th e cas e and an in abil ity, after such investi gation, to let the mind rest easily as to the cert ainty of guilt. R easonable doubt does not mean a doubt that may arise from possibil ity , or an imagi nary or c aptious doubt. Absolute certainty of guilt is not de manded by the law to convict of any

criminal c harge, but mor al certainty

is requi red as to every

proposition of proof requisi te to constitut e th e offense. Thi s is a corre ct statement of the bur den of proof for crimina l trials in Tennessee. See Nichols v. State , 877 S.W.2d 722, 734 (Tenn. 1994); State v. Sex ton , 917 S.W.2d 263, 266 (Tenn. Crim. App. 199 5); Pettyjohn v . State , 8 8 5 S

. W. 2d 364, 36 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).3 In considerati on of the foregoing and the record as a whole, t he judgment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

Joseph M. Tipton, Judge

CONCUR:

Gary R. Wade, Judge

William M. Barker, Judg e
Exhibit 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.’s 333-153139, 333-87944, 333-27973, 333-128959, and 333-174114 on Form S-8 of our reports dated August 15, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Schiff Nutrition International, Inc., and the effectiveness of Schiff Nutrition International, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Schiff Nutrition International, Inc. for the year ended May 31, 2011.





/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP








Salt Lake City, Utah


August 15, 2011







Back to 10K
**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 Quarterly Report of PLX Technology, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Salameh, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
      for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
      that to the best of my knowledge:




1.
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
                as
                applicable, 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
                at the dates and for the periods indicated.




This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.




Date:
      August 4, 2006 
 By:
              
              
              /s/
                  Michael J. Salameh
                Michael
                  J. Salameh
                
                
                Chief
                  Executive Officer
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3110 

To require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to issue 

guidance relating to reporting by agencies on Federal financial assistance 

programs that do not provide Federal financial assistance during the 

1-year period preceding the date of the report. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2021 

Ms. ERNST (for herself and Mr. BRAUN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget to issue guidance relating to reporting by agencies on Federal financial assistance programs that do 

not provide Federal financial assistance during the 1- 

year period preceding the date of the report. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Zombie Programs Sur5 vival Guide Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GUIDANCE FOR AGENCIES. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3110 IS

1 (1) COVERED AGENCY.—The term ‘‘covered 

2 agency’’ means— 

3 (A) an Executive agency, as defined in sec4 tion 105 of title 5, United States Code; and 

5 (B) an independent regulatory agency, as 

6 defined in section 3502 of title, 44, United 

7 States Code. 

8 (2) FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE; PRO9 GRAM.—The terms ‘‘Federal financial assistance’’ 

10 and ‘‘program’’ have the meaning given those terms 

11 in section 1122(a) of title 31, United States Code. 

12 (3) RELEVANT REPORT.—The term ‘‘relevant 

13 report’’ means— 

14 (A) a report described in section 

15 3516(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code; or 

16 (B) the consolidated report described in 

17 section 3516(a)(1) of title 31, United States 

18 Code. 

19 (b) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

20 of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 

21 Management and Budget shall issue guidance that re22 quires the head of each covered agency to include, on an 

23 annual basis, in a relevant report— 

24 (1) a list of each program and revolving fund 

25 of the covered agency that— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3110 IS

1 (A) provides Federal financial assistance; 

2 and 

3 (B) did not provide Federal financial as4 sistance during the 1-year period preceding the 

5 date of the report; 

6 (2) an explanation of why each program or re7 volving fund described in paragraph (1) did not 

8 award Federal financial assistance during the 1-year 

9 period preceding the date of the report; and 

10 (3) the amount of budget authority available for 

11 each program or revolving fund described in para12 graph (1). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
| | EXHIBIT 23.1 | 
| | ------------ | 

Consent of Independent Accountants

| | We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form
S-8 of our report dated January 23, 2002 relating to the financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Borland Software Corporation, which appears in Borland
Software Corporations Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2001. | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

| | /s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
| | -------------------------------

| | San Jose,
California May 20, 2002
| | ---------------------------------