alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 24.1
 
 STATE OF ARKANSAS       §
 COUNTY OF BENTON          §
 
 
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
 
 Know all men by these presents, that I, WILLIAM H. HENDERSON, a Director of AMERICA’S CAR-MART, INC., a Texas corporation, do constitute and appoint JEFFREY A. WILLIAMS my true and lawful attorney-in-fact, with full power of substitution, for me in any and all capacities, to sign, pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for AMERICA’S CAR-MART, INC. for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010 and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission and National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., together with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, and to sign on my behalf and in my stead, in any and all capacities, any amendments to said Annual Report, incorporating such changes as said attorney-in-fact deems appropriate, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact, or his substitute may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
 
 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 18th day of June, 2010.
 
 
 /s/ William H. Henderson
 WILLIAM H. HENDERSON
 
 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
 
 Before me this 18th day of June, 2010, came WILLIAM H. HENDERSON, personally known to me, who in my presence did sign and seal the above and foregoing Power of Attorney and acknowledged the same as his true act and deed.
 
 
 /s/ Kristen C. Begneaud
 NOTARY PUBLIC
Russell SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4250

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Rochelle DRIESSEN, etc., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1865

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Case: 3:18-mj-00169-SLO Doc #: 5 Filed: 03/27/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 83
Kenneth WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0797

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
**Exhibit
        24.3**
 STATE
        OF
        ALABAMA §
 COUNTY
        OF
        JEFFERSON       §
  POWER
        OF
        ATTORNEY
 
 Know
        all
        men by these presents, that I, J. DAVID SIMMONS, a Director of AMERICA’S
        CAR-MART, INC., a Texas corporation, do constitute and appoint TILMAN J.
        FALGOUT, III and JEFFREY A. WILLIAMS my true and lawful attorneys-in-fact,
        with
        full power of substitution, for me in any and all capacities, to sign, pursuant
        to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Annual Report
        on
        Form 10-K for AMERICA’S CAR-MART, INC. for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006
        and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission and National
        Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., together with all exhibits thereto
        and
        other documents in connection therewith, and to sign on my behalf and in
        my
        stead, in any and all capacities, any amendments to said Annual Report,
        incorporating such changes as said attorneys-in-fact deem appropriate, hereby
        ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact, or their substitute
        or
        substitutes may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
 
 In
        witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 10 th day of
        July, 2006.
 
 
 
 /s/
                  J. David
                  SimmonsJ.
                  DAVID SIMMONS
 
 
 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
 
 Before
        me
        this 10 th day of
        July, 2006, came J. DAVID SIMMONS, personally known to me, who in my presence
        did sign and seal the above and foregoing Power of Attorney and acknowledged
        the
        same as his true act and deed.
 
 
 
 /s/
                  Janet L.
                  DunawayNOTARY
                  PUBLIC
Ernest WALKER v. STATE

CR-15-0858

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017 Reh. denied February 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Misha SANDERS, DOC# K53694, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3321

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
(1)
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of StemCells, 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
quarterly 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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):
    /s/ Rodney K. B. YoungRodney K. B. YoungChief Financial Officer
IC for Serviced Schools - Perkins

The respondents are 1,854 Serviced Schools - Perkins.

There are 22,248 responses per year.

Total burden hours for this respondent type are 88,992.

There is no specific instrument that relates specifically to this group of respondents since 

all respondents use the same NSLDS system.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02575]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Docket No. ED-2020-SCC-0011]


Supplemental Support Under the American Rescue Plan (SSARP) 
Application; Correction

AGENCY: Department of Education (ED), Office of Postsecondary Education 
(OPE).

ACTION: Correction notice.

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

SUMMARY: On February 3, 2022, the U.S. Department of Education 
published a 60-day comment period notice in the Federal Register (Vol. 
87, No. 23, Page 6154, Column 1, 2 and 3) seeking public comment for an 
information collection entitled, ``Supplemental Support under the 
American Rescue Plan (SSARP) Application.'' The comment closing date of 
April 4, 2022, has been corrected to March 7, 2022, due to this being a 
30 day notice.
    The PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and Clearance, Office of 
the Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy 
Development, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    Dated: February 3, 2022.
Kate Mullan, PRA,
Coordinator, Strategic Collections and Clearance, Office of the Chief 
Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
[FR Doc. 2022-02575 Filed 2-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 60 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 60

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  limit the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may 
                                 serve.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 12, 2021

  Mr. Timmons (for himself and Mr. Phillips) submitted the following 
 joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  limit the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may 
                                 serve.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. No person who has been a Senator for two consecutive 
terms shall again be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate 
until the date that is one year after the end of such second 
consecutive term.
    ``Section 2. No person who has been a Representative for six 
consecutive terms shall again be eligible for election to the House of 
Representatives until the date that is one year after the end of the 
sixth consecutive term.
    ``Section 3. For purposes of this article, any term a person serves 
as a Senator or Representative to fill a vacancy shall not be included 
in determining the number of consecutive terms that the person has been 
a Senator or Representative unless the period of time for which the 
person fills the vacancy is greater than three years in the case of a 
Senator or greater than one year in the case of a Representative.
    ``Section 4. For the purposes of this article, any term that began 
before the date of the ratification of this article shall not be 
included in determining the number of consecutive terms that a person 
has been a Senator or Representative.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Luis R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. BAKER, C/o; Speer, C/o, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17273

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 24, 2017

Luis R.' Johnson, Pro Se

R. Lawrence Bragg, Esquire, AGCA-Offiee of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Luis R. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with retaliatory intent to chill his exercise of protected conduct. *See Brodheim v. Cry,*584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of retaliation claim in prison context).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Johnson’s August 3, 2015 motion for summary judgment and September 18, 2015 motion to. amend because Johnson filed them after the deadline for pretrial motions. *See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,*624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review); *FTC v. Gill,*265 F.3d 944, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court has broad discretion to control its docket and set deadlines).

We reject as without merit Johnson’s arguments that the district court erred by failing to rule separately on Johnson’s motion to strike and motion to remove the magistrate judge prior to entry of summary judgment.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587, F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Thomas M. SHELL & Sheri Shell, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, ASSN., as Successor, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D15-2117

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 01, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# Indian Navy Carries Out First Drug Interdiction as CMF Member

## From Combined Maritime Forces Public Affairs 

Talwar, a Talwar-class frigate, seized 453 kg of methamphetamines, 416 kg of hash and 71 kg of heroin from a dhow as part of Focused Operation Crimson Barracuda.

The Indian Navy joined CMF last November.

“I commend the crew of INS Talwar for their efforts throughout this Focused Operation and their hard work has paid off with this seizure of 940 kg of drugs,” said Royal Canadian Navy Capt. Colin Matthews, Commander, Combined Task Force 150. “This seizure, the fourth of this Focused Operation, demonstrates the effectiveness and professionalism of CMF, and of the Indian Navy, in deterring and disrupting criminal and terrorist activities at sea.”

Crimson Barracuda, which concluded on April 15, focused on countering terrorist and criminal organizations’ use of the high seas to conduct smuggling operations in the Western Indian Ocean region.

CTF 150 is one of five task forces under Combined Maritime Forces, the world’s largest international naval partnership. CTF 150’s mission is to deter and disrupt the ability of non-state actors to move weapons, drugs and other illicit substances in the Indian Ocean, the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Oman.

Combined Maritime Forces is a 42-nation naval partnership upholding the international rules-based order by promoting security and stability across 3.2 million square miles of water encompassing some of the world’s most important shipping lanes.
EXHIBIT
31.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Norman
Blashka, certify that:





1.
            I
      have reviewed this Form 10-K of Salon Media Group,
  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:





(a)
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 registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions 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





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





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):





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





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








/s/ Norman
Blashka


June
      26, 2009
            Norman
      Blashka


Chief Financial Officer
Randy Keith JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3931

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 27, 2018 Rehearing En Banc Denied April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Kenneth MCDONALD, DOC# T70470, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D12-2769

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Antoine D. JELKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3565

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Luis G. MONTOYA, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee.

No. 4D17-1472

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 15, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of David R., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 893]

*349Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold Lynch, J.), entered on or about October 19, 2001, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of obstruction of governmental administration in the second degree and attempted assault in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Delays in the completion of the fact-finding hearing did not violate appellant’s right to a speedy trial. By its plain language and structure, Family Court Act § 340.1 applies only to adjournments of the *commencement*of the fact-finding hearing, not to adjournments after the fact-finding hearing has started *(see e.g. Matter of Nathaniel F.,*1 AD3d 203 [2003]; *Matter of George T.,*290 AD2d 396 [2002], *revd on other grounds*99 NY2d 307 [2002]). Unlike the situation with respect to probable cause hearings *(see*Family Ct Act § 325.2 [4]), the statute is silent as to how soon a fact-finding hearing should be *completed*once it has been commenced.

Adjournments of a trial that has been commenced are addressed to the court’s sound discretion *(see e.g. Matter of Eric W.,*68 NY2d 633, 636 [1986]; *Matter of Anthony M.,*63 NY2d 270, 283 [1984]). While there are important policy reasons for swiftly completing a fact-finding hearing, especially when the juvenile is in detention *(see Matter of Bernard T.,*92 NY2d 738, 745 [1999]), and while we do not approve of “piecemeal” fact-finding hearings *(see Matter of George T.,*99 NY2d at 311), we find that the delay in completion of appellant’s fact-finding hearing does not warrant dismissal. We note that even if Family Court Act § 340.1 (6) governed postcommencement delays, in the main, the adjournments were justified by “special circumstances” under that provision, such as the death of the complainant’s brother, the complainant’s own illness and the illness of the law guardian *(see Matter of Irene B.,*244 AD2d 226, 226-227 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 809 [1998]; *Matter of Anthony H.,*219 AD2d 436, 443 [1996]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23


                 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

          We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statement Nos. 333-44103, 333-35055, 33-64133,
33-64135, 33-55730 and 33-33882 of SED International Holdings,
Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated September 22, 1999 appearing
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of SED International Holdings,
Inc. for the year ended June 30, 1999.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
September 28, 1999
<PAGE>
                                                     EXHIBIT 27

                     FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SED
INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

PERIOD-TYPE                   12-MOS
FISCAL-YEAR-END                          JUN-30-1999
PERIOD-END                               JUN-30-1999
CASH                                       3,266,000
SECURITIES                                         0
RECEIVABLES                               58,085,000
ALLOWANCES                                 3,253,000
INVENTORY                                 57,092,000
CURRENT ASSETS                           124,973,000
PP&E                                       6,994,000
ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION                   5,539,000
TOTAL-ASSETS                             141,090,000
CURRENT LIABILITIES                       79,780,000
BONDS                                              0
PREFERRED                                          0
PREFERRED MANDATORY                                0
COMMON                                       112,000
OTHER SE                                  52,698,000
TOTAL LIABILITY AND EQUITY               141,090,000
SALES                                    707,570,000
TOTAL REVENUES                           707,570,000
CGS                                      676,342,000
TOTAL COSTS                              676,342,000
OTHER EXPENSES                            69,812,000
LOSS PROVISION                                     0
INTEREST EXPENSE                             731,000
INCOME PRETAX                            (39,315,000)
INCOME TAX BENEFIT                        (1,407,000)
INCOME CONTINUING                        (37,908,000)
DISCONTINUED                                       0
EXTRAORDINARY                                      0
CHANGES                                            0
NET LOSS                                 (37,908,000)
EPS BASIC                                      (4.36)
EPS DILUTED                                    (4.36)