alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.1


Power of Attorney of Paul D. Beckham



STATE OF GEORGIA

COUNTY OF FULTON


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, Paul D. Beckham, a Director of EDUTREK
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Georgia corporation, do constitute and appoint Steve
Bostic and David J. Horn, jointly and severally, my true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact, each with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for
me in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
EDUTREK INTERNATIONAL, INC. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999,
pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and to
file such document with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 any of the said attorneys-in-fact
deems appropriate, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said
attorneys-in-fact, or his 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 6th day
of March 2000.



                                                   /s/   Paul D. Beckham
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   Paul D. Beckham




                                 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

BEFORE me this 6th day of March 2000, came Paul D. Beckham, 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/  Cynthia Gardere
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   NOTARY PUBLIC


                                                   State of Georgia

                                                   My Commission Expires:

                                                   September 11, 2003
LOGO

Exhibit 23.3

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-162888, 333-137273, 333-116528, 333-55838 and 333-35245) of Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., a Texas corporation (the Company),
relating to the Incentive Plan of the Company, and the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-159237) of the Company (collectively, the Registration Statements) of the information contained in our reserve report
that is summarized as in our summary letter dated February 9, 2012, relating to the oil and gas reserves and revenue, as of December 31, 2011, of certain interests of the company.

We hereby consent to all references to such reports, letters and/or to this firm in each of the Registration Statements
and each Prospectus to which any such Registration Statement relates, and further consent to our being named as an expert in each of the Registration Statements and each Prospectus to which any such Registration Statement Relates.



LaRoche Petroleum consultants, Ltd./s/ William M. KazmannWilliam M. Kazmann Senior Partner


Houston, Texas

February 29, 2012

2435 North Central Expressway, Suite 1500 
Richardson, Texas 75080  Phone (214) 363-3337  Fax (214) 363-1608
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4952

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES THOMAS MCBRIDE, a/k/a JT, a/k/a Jaemes Thomas McBride, 

a/k/a Jim McBride,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:14-cr-00175-AJT-1)

Submitted: November 13, 2015 Decided: November 18, 2015

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey D. Zimmerman, SMITH & ZIMMERMAN, PLLC, Alexandria, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States 

Attorney, William E. Johnston, Special Assistant United States 

Attorney, Kosta S. Stojilkovic, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Thomas McBride appeals his 42-month sentence 

following his convictions for one count of conspiring to produce 

false identification documents and causing the impersonation of 

diplomats, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012); one count of 

causing the impersonation of a diplomat, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 915, 2 (2012); and four counts of producing false 

identification documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 1028(a)(1), 2 (2012). Finding no error, we affirm.

McBride raises only one issue on appeal, arguing that the 

district court erred in applying an enhancement for use of an 

authentication feature pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual § 2B1.1(b)(11)(A)(ii) (2014). When evaluating Guidelines 

calculations, we review the district court’s factual findings 

for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United 

States v. Cox, 744 F.3d 305, 308 (4th Cir. 2014).

McBride argues that, because the identification cards 

issued by Divine Province did not appear to be issued by the 

State Department, the sentencing enhancement does not apply. We 

reject this argument and conclude that the verification system 

used by McBride was designed to mimic the one used to verify 

genuine diplomatic immunity cards issued by the State 

Department. Further, the false authentication feature produced 

by McBride and the accompanying identification cards were
3

designed to appear as if they were issued by “an international 

government or quasi-governmental organization.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1028(d)(6) (2012) (defining “issuing authority”); see United 

States v. Sardariani, 754 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Because McBride’s offense involved “the possession or use of any 

. . . authentication feature,” USSG § 2B1.1(b)(11)(A)(ii), we 

find no error and uphold the district court’s application of the 

enhancement.

Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately expressed in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Pharma-Bio Serv, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Elizabeth Plaza, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
      my
      knowledge:





1.
      The
      Report 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/
                Elizabeth PlazaElizabeth
                PlazaChief
                Executive Officer





September
      15, 2008
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Dynamic Gold Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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:  November 14, 2006

/s/ Tim Coupland
-------------------------------------------
Tim Coupland, Principal Financial Officer
David M. VECCHIO, Appellant, v. Barbara A. VECCHIO, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-522

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Vornado Realty L.P. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for year ended December 31, 2008**(the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

|           |   |   |
|----------------|--------|--------|
| March 10, 2009 |   |   | /s/ Steven Roth |
|           |   | Name:  | Steven Roth |
|           |   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer of Vornado Realty Trust, sole general partner of Vornado Realty L.P. |
|                |        |        |  |  |
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 26, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 26, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0056. STRATEGIC LAW, LLC v. PAIN MANAGEMENT & WELLNESS 

CENTERS OF GEORGIA, LLC et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

15A54555
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-51-2024]

On September 26, 2024, Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp., U.S.A. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 59A, in Lincoln, Nebraska.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (89 FR 80194, October 2, 2024). On January 24, 2025, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including section 400.14.                

Dated: January 24, 2025.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2025-01942 Filed 1-29-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER REQUESTING GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND WITNESS PHOTOS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER REQUESTING GLOSSARY OF 

TERMS AND WITNESS PHOTOS

The Court requests that by Monday, January 7, 2019, the parties file a glossary of key 

terms that will be used during the trial. If the parties cannot agree on a term’s definition, that term 

cannot be included in the glossary. 

The Court also requests that the parties provide a witness photo before each witness

testifies or before that witness’s deposition excerpt is shown. The photo shall include the 

witness’s name and date of trial live or deposition testimony. The photo shall reflect the witness’s 

appearance on the date of the trial live or deposition testimony. Because of the Court’s late 

request, the parties shall provide these photos starting on Monday, January 7, 2019. The parties 

shall provide the photos for the January 4 witnesses on January 7, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1097 Filed 01/03/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER REQUESTING GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND WITNESS PHOTOS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dated: January 3, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1097 Filed 01/03/19 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 1 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 1

    Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights 
                               amendment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 22, 2021

  Mr. Cardin (for himself and Ms. Murkowski) introduced the following 
joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights 
                               amendment.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding any time 
limit contained in House Joint Resolution 208, 92nd Congress, as agreed 
to in the Senate on March 22, 1972, the article of amendment proposed 
to the States in that joint resolution shall be valid to all intents 
and purposes as part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the 
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 16.2



              [LETTERHEAD OF RABER MATTUCK, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS]



December  21,  2001


United  States  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission
Division  of  Corporate  Finance
450  Fifth  Street,  N.W.
Washington,  D.C.  20549

To  Whom  It  May  Concern:

We  have  read  Item  8  of  the annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
September  30,  2001,  of  Duro  Enzyme Products Inc. (the "Company") and are in
agreement  with  the  statements contained therein. We have no basis to agree or
disagree  with  other  statements  of  the Company contained in the Form 10-KSB.

Very  truly  yours,


/s/  Raber  Mattuck

Raber  Mattuck,  Chartered  Accountants


<PAGE>
ex10_29.htm


    
      

    

    
      Exhibit
10.29

      


      November
14, 2008

      


      Dave
LePage

      4916
Harriet Avenue So.

      Minneapolis,
MN 55409

      


      Dave:

      


      This note
serves to confirm our conversation relative to your employment
status.  As we have discussed the following terms apply:

      


      
        	
                 
      

              	
                ·

              	
                The
      position of Senior Vice President, Operations will be
      eliminated

              


      

      
        	
                 
      

              	
                ·

              	
                You
      will need to work with Jennifer Morgans through December 15, 2008 to
      transition the helpdesk function

              


      

      
        	
                 
      

              	
                ·

              	
                You
      will be reporting into Rob Rueckl beginning December 1, 2008 for a term of
      not less than six months and not more than twelve months to assist in the
      transition of Operations functions and other duties as defined by you and
      Rob.  If you have stock options ready to vest within a short
      timeframe (2-3 months) from the end of your employment we will work with
      you to allow for the vesting of those
options

              


      

      
        	
                 
      

              	
                ·

              	
                At
      the completion of the transition your employment contract will be
      honored

              


      

      
        	
                 
      

              	
                ·

              	
                For
      FY 2009 you will not be participating in
EIP

              


      

      
        	
                 
      

              	
                ·

              	
                You
      will be provided outplacement assistance if you need it up to
      $10,000

              


      

      
        	
                 
      

              	
                ·

              	
                Your
      severance will be paid in a lump
sum

              


      

      


      As we get
closer to your employment ending you will receive a separation agreement and
packet from Human Resources that outlines all your terms and
benefits.

      


      Please
let me know how you would like to handle the communication.

      


      Sincerely,

      


      /s/ Vin
Riera

      Vin
Riera
Jennifer Lynn SCOTT, Appellant, v. Patrick W. CASSIDY, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3817

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 4, 2019

Moses R. Dewitt, of Dewitt Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Adam L. Pollack, of Law Office of Adam L. Pollack, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, COHEN and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
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





I,
William Hopke, 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
Espre Solutions, Inc., and Subsidiaries on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008, 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/A fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Espre Solutions, Inc. and
Subsidiaries.





Dated:
      November 12, 2008
              By:  /s/WilliamHopkeWilliam Hopke,
      Chief Executive Officer
# C_2019155EN.01001101.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin käräjäoikeus — Finland) — Metirato Oy, in liquidation v Suomen valtio/Verohallinto, Eesti Vabariik/Maksu- ja Tolliamet

(Case C-695/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/24/EU - Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures - Article 13(1) - Article 14(2) - Enforced recovery, by the authorities of the requested Member State, of claims of the applicant Member State - Procedure relating to an application seeking the restitution of those claims to the insolvency estate of a company established in the requested Member State - Defendant in those proceedings - Determination)

(2019/C 155/13)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin käräjäoikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Metirato Oy, in liquidation

Defendants: Suomen valtio/Verohallinto, Eesti Vabariik/Maksu- ja Tolliamet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) and Article 14(2) of Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures must be interpreted as meaning that, first, they apply to proceedings seeking restitution, to the insolvency estate of a company established in the requested Member State, of claims which were recovered at the request of the applicant Member State, if those proceedings are based on disputes concerning the enforcement measures, within the meaning of Article 14(2) and, second, the requested Member State, within the meaning of those provisions, must be regarded as the defendant in those proceedings, the fact that the amount represented by those claims has been separated from the assets of that Member State or merged with them being irrelevant in that regard.

---

(1)  OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.

---