alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 24.6
 
 STATE OF TEXAS             §
 COUNTY OF DALLAS       §
 
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
 
 Know all men by these presents, that I, DANIEL J. ENGLANDER, a Director of AMERICA’S CAR-MART, INC., a Texas corporation, do constitute and appoint WILLIAM H. HENDERSON 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, 2009 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 14th day of July, 2009.
 
 
 /s/ Daniel J. Englander
 DANIEL J. ENGLANDER
 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
 
 Before me this 14th day of July, 2009, came Daniel J. Englander, 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/ Mary Sellner Thomas
 NOTARY PUBLIC
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1



                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant


SUBSIDIARY OR ORGANIZATION                  COUNTY OR STATE OF INCORPORATION
--------------------------                  --------------------------------

AdKnowledge Inc.                                        California
ADSmart Corporation                                     Delaware
Engage Asia Ltd.                                        Hong kong
Engage Australia Pty. Ltd.                              Australia
Engage Canada Company                                   Canada
Engage Canada Holdings Corp.                            Delaware
Engage Canada Holdings Corp. II                         Delaware
Engage France SAS                                       France
Engage Italia srl                                       Italy
Engage Securities Corporation                           Massachusetts
Engage Sverige AB                                       Sweden
Engage Technologies GmbH                                Germany
Engage UK Ltd.                                          United Kingdom
Flycast Communications Corporation                      Delaware
Flycast Deutschland GmbH                                Germany
Focalink Communications Corporation                     California
Internet Profiles Corporation                           California
Interstep, Inc.                                         Massachusetts
MediaBridge Technologies, Inc.                          Delaware
MediaBridge UK Limited                                  United Kingdom
Midsystems UK Limited                                   United Kingdom
Space Ad Network Sdn Bdh                                Malaysia
Space Asia Media Pty. Ltd.                              Singapore
Space Media Holdings Ltd.                               British Virgin Islands
SECOND MODIFICATION TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

WHEREAS EnerNOC, Inc., EnergyConnect, Inc., CPower, Inc., and

Innoventive Power, LLC (collectively, "Petitioners") and the United States

Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA" or "Respondent"), previously entered

into a Settlement Agreement ("Agreement"} on December 19, 2011, to resolve

Petitioners' challenges in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,

Nos. 10-1090 and 10-1 136, to the final Clean Air Act rules promulgated by EPA

titled "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating

Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule," 75 Fed. Reg. 9,648 (March 3, 201 d),

and "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating

Internal Combustion Engines," 75 Fed. Reg. S 1,570 (August 20, 2010); and

WHEREAS Petitioners and EPA previously entered into a modification of

the Agreement to extend the time under which EPA agreed to sign the notice of

proposed rulemaking referenced in paragraph 2 of the Agreement, from Apri120,

2012 to May 22, 2012; and

WHEREAS EPA requires additional time to sign a final action on the

proposed rulemaking referenced in paragraph 2 of the Agreement;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Petitioners and EPA {collectively the "Parties" to

this Modification to Settlement Agreement), intending to be bound by this
Modification to Settlement Agreement ("Modification"}, hereby stipulate and

agree as follows:

1. The date "December 14, 2012," set forth in paragraph 2 of the

Agreement is replaced with "January 14, 2013."

2. No provision of this Modification shall be interpreted as or constitute

a commitment or requirement that EPA obligate funds in contravention of the

Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341.

3. The undersigned representatives of each patty certify that they are

fully authorized by the party that they represent to bind that respective party to the

terms of this Modification. This Modification is final and effective once signed by

each of the undersigned representatives of each party.

IGNACIA S. MORENO

Assistant Attorney General

Environment &Natural Resources Div.

AUSTIN D. SAYLOR

U.S. Department of Justice

Environmental Defense Section

PO Box 23986

Washington D.C. 20026-3986

(202) 514-1880

DA~~ M. FRIEDLAND `~

BEVERIDGE &DIAMOND, PC

1350 I Street, NW

Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202} 789-6047

Counsel for United States Counsel for EnerNOC, Inc.,

2
Environmental Protection Agency

Dated: ~~~1~ /~~~

- 3-

EnergyConnect, Inc., CPower, Inc.,

and Inrioventive Power, LLC

Dated: ~ 6~~ ~ ~.
Sean WELLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1257

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed January 26, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Sean Kevin Gravel, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Sean Wells, appeals the trial court's order revoking his probation and sentencing him to thirty months in prison. We affirm, but remand for a corrected order.

The trial court orally found Appellant guilty of violating Condition 1 of his probation for failing to report in December 2016 and January 2017. At sentencing, defense counsel conceded that Appellant qualified as a violent felony offender of special concern, and the trial court made the oral pronouncement that Appellant's release posed a danger to the community pursuant to section 948.06(8)(e), Florida Statutes (2016).

On appeal, Appellant argues (1) the finding that he violated his probation was not supported by competent, substantial evidence, and (2) the trial court erred by failing to include its reasons for finding that he posed a danger to the community in its written order.

We affirm the trial court's revocation of Appellant's probation without further discussion. However, the State concedes that remand is appropriate for the trial court to reduce its orally pronounced reasons for finding that Appellant presents a danger to the community to writing. *See* *Bell v. State* , 150 So.3d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ; *see also* *Arnone v. State* , 204 So.3d 556, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("[W]here a court orally pronounces a reason, consistent with one or more of the factors listed under section 948.06(8)(e) 1., for its finding that the defendant, as a violent felony offender of special concern, poses a danger to the community, but fails to provide written reasons for its finding, the proper remedy is to affirm the revocation of the defendant's probation, but remand for entry of a written order conforming to the court's oral pronouncement."). Similarly, we note that although the trial court orally pronounced its finding that Appellant violated probation, the written order revoking probation does not specify which condition Appellant violated. *See* *Brown v. State* , 225 So.3d 399, 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). Thus, on remand, the trial court should enter a corrected order with appropriate written findings.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

PALMER, WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6237

BRENT EDWARD CLARK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00223-GMG)

Submitted: July 27, 2022 Decided: August 24, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brent Edward Clark, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6237 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Brent Edward Clark appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing Clark’s complaint under the Federal 

Tort Claims Act. We have reviewed the record and affirm. See Rich v. United States, 811 

F.3d 140, 144 (4th Cir. 2015) (stating that a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6237 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 166TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on April 8, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

Nell Ramey, Appellant

V.

Jessica A. Pollet, Appellee

No. 04-15-00106-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2013-CI-04119

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED.

We ORDER all costs of this appeal taxed against appellant Nell Ramey.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on June 17, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-15-00106-CV

Nell Ramey

v.

Jessica A. Pollet

(NO. 2013-CI-04119 IN 166TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

FILING $195.00 NOT PAID N/A

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: $195.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this June 17, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
#### Cornish vs. Sargent.

The defendant has until the calling of a cause in its regular order on the docket to file pleas to the merits, and the Court cannot abridge the time by a rule of practice. (2 *Eng. Rep.*117; 4 *ib.*137; 5 *ib.*443 ; 7 *ib.*718.)

*Appeal from Union Circuit Court.*

The Hon. Abner A. Stith, Circuit Judge.

Carleton, for the appellant.

Lyon, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Hanly

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was debt, brought by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff, in the Union Circuit Court, to the fall term, 1855.

It appears from the bill of exceptions taken in the Court below, that there was a rule of the Court requiring the pleading-in all causes pending therein to be made up by the fourth day of the term.

It further appears that on the morning of the fourth day of the return term of the writ in this cause, during rule hours, and whilst the Court was proceeding with the roll of attorney’s, and hearing and disposing of motions made by them, and before this cause was regularly reached upon the docket, the attorney for Sargent, the plaintiff below, moved the Court for judgment by default against the defendant Cornish, for want of a plea; upon which the counsel for Cornish proposed and offered to file *then*two pleas in bar, *to wit,*the general issue, and set off, and asked the Court to be permitted to file said pleas, which the Court refused to permit him to do, in consequence of the rule *267of practice above stated, and thereupon gave judgment by default against Cornish for the amount of the note declared on, with damages and costs. Cornish excepted, and brought error. He assigns for error:

1st. The refusal of the Court below to allow him to file his two pleas at the time proposed.

2d. And the rendering of judgment by default against him.

The question presented by the assignment in this case, has been so repeatedly adjudicated by this Court, that we shall content ourselves with disposing of the cause before us, by simply citing those adjudications. See *Norris vs. Kellogg*& *Co.,*2 *Eng. R.*117. *Hixon vs. Weaver as adr. use,*4 *Eng. R.*137. *North vs. Davis, same*138. *State vs. Jennings use of Bettison,*5 *Eng. R.*443. *State Bank vs.*Minnikin, 7 *Eng. R.*718.

We hold, therefore, that the Court below erred in refusing to permit the plaintiff in error to file his two pleas in bar, under the circumstances shown in this case, as stated.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the Court below to permit the plaintiff in error to file his two pleas in bar, at any time before the cause is reached in its order on the docket, and peremptorily called by the Court.

Absent, Hon. C. C. Scott.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, E. Thomas Hart, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of QuickLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 27, 2009, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of QuickLogic
Corporation.



By:

/s/ E. Thomas HartDate:

November 6, 2009Name:

E. Thomas HartTitle:

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


I, Ralph S. Marimon, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of QuickLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 27, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of QuickLogic Corporation.



By:

/s/ Ralph S. MarimonDate:

November 6, 2009Name:

Ralph S. MarimonTitle:

Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
----

|   | 1. | The      Report containing the financial statements fully complies with the      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of      1934, as amended, and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Pomeroy IT      Solutions, Inc. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May      15, 2008 |                                                  |
|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|              | /s/      Kevin G. Gregory                   |
|              | Kevin G. Gregory                            |
|              | Senior      Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer |

----
Jamel Lee BELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0289

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
EPA-Alliance-Global Meeting on 4WD and PHEV Test Procedures

June 13 2013 9:00 am Eastern

Agenda

1. Please join my meeting, Thursday, June 13, 2013 at 9:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time.

https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/274716329

2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone.

Dial +1 (312) 878-3080

Access Code: 274-716-329

Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting

Meeting ID: 274-716-329

1. Introductions

2. 4WD dyno testing

a. Overview

b. Testing / facility challenges

c. Clarification of 4WD dyno confirmation and phase-in 

d. Draft proposal

e. 4WD dyno factor program data review

3. E1x Fuel Equations

a. Feedback on R Factor = 1.0 proposal

b. Adoption of E1x fuel economy equation in Tier 3 Final Rule

4. Part 1066/1065/86/600 Issues

5. PHEV Test Procedures
Dustin KACZOROSKI, Appellant, v. Donna HOFFMAN, Don Hoffman, and Donnell Hoffman, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-1561

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 23, 2018

Rita M. Jackson of Powell, Jackman, Stevens & Ricciardo, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellant.

Scott J. Hertz of Intelligent Solutions Law Firm, PLLC., Cape Coral, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Darrel FISHER, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 17-6161

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Darrel Fisher, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer .Dee Dannels, FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER, Butner, North Carolina; Robert J. Dodson, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; David T. Huband,' BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darrel Fisher appeals the district court’s order denying his pro se motion seeking vacatur of a commitment order and a discharge hearing. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Fisher,*No. 5:10-hc-02234-BR (E.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal *109contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Annual Report of Terra Energy & Resource Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Alexandre Agaian, as Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  April 14, 2010





/s/ Alexandre AgaianAlexandre AgaianPrincipal Financial Officer
* Local Rule 47.5 provides : “The publication of opinions that

have no pre cedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50034

WILLIAMSON COUNTY, Commissioners Court,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BRUCE BABBITT, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Interior; UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

September 12, 1995 Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, GARWOOD and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM: We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the district

court. With respect to count VI, it in any event is without merit

under Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great
Oregon , 115 S.Ct. 2407 (1995).
Edward Phillip RUTHERFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-546

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Annunziata and Bumgardner 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

SIMON PHILIP POUND 

 

v. Record No. 2148-96-4 

TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

ARNOLD KARL ZINNECKER MAY 5, 1998 

 

v. Record No. 2149-96-4 

TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WARREN COUNTY 

Dennis L. Hupp, Judge 

 Franklin B. Reynolds, Jr., for appellants. 

 John B. Arledge, Town Attorney, for appellee. 

 Simon Pound and Arnold Zinnecker were charged with driving 

under the influence in violation of a Front Royal town ordinance. 

 Prior to trial, each defendant filed a motion to dismiss 

asserting that the town council had not enacted the ordinance in 

compliance with Virginia Constitution Article VII, Section 7. 

The trial court denied the motions. The evidence was stipulated 

as sufficient to prove guilt, and the defendants were found 

guilty. Their appeals were consolidated. 

 The Constitution states, "on final vote on any ordinance or 

resolution, the name of each member voting and how he voted shall 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

be recorded." Id. When the ordinance was adopted, the minutes 

of that meeting begin by recording the names of each council 

member present. The minutes then continue chronologically. When 

the council considers the ordinance, the minutes state that the 

vote was unanimous. The defendants argue this manner of 

recording the action taken by the town council does not fulfill 

the constitutional mandate. They argue that the minutes must 

list the name of each council member voting and the member's 

vote. They argued that this tabulation must appear at each place 

where a vote is recorded in the minutes. 

 The Supreme Court recently ruled on this issue in Town of 

Madison v. Ford, 255 Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (1998). An 

ordinance enacted in the same manner as that used in this case 

was held not to comply with the constitutional mandate, and the 

ordinance was held null and void. Because this case is 

controlled by that rationale, we reverse the convictions and 

enter final judgment. 

 Reversed and final judgment.