alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
                      As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
                         the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Eric Friedman, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Integrated
BioPharma, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)      the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the annual period
         ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
         U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated:   September 28, 2005


                                      By: /s/ Eric Friedman
                                      ---------------------
                                      Eric Friedman
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MELISSA LYNN RAlVIBOW 

Plaintiff, 

vs., 

NAL'!CY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

COMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY 

Defendant. 

Papak, Magistrate Judge: 

Civil No. 3: I 6-cv-00796-PK 

ORDER TO PAY SUPPLEMENTAL 

EAJAFEES 

Following my review of Plaintiffs Supplement Motion for EAJA Fees and supporting 

documentation, and after consideration of Defendant's stipulation, and pursuant to 

the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, $ 2,000.00 is awarded to Plaintiff in 

care of her attorney, Nancy J. Meserow, and the check for Supplemental EAJA fees shall 

be made payable to Nancy J. Meserow, based upon Plaintiffs assignment of these 

amounts to Plaintiffs attorney Nancy J. Meserow, subject to the satisfaction of Plaintiff's 

debts, if any, underAstrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010). No award for postage 

expenses, or photocopying costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1920 is ordered. Any check 

issued for EAJA fees shall be sent to Plaintiff in care of her attorney, Nancy J. Meserow, 

at her office, located at the following address: 

Law Office of Nancy J. Meserow 

7540 SW 51 st Ave. 

Potiland, OR 

97219. 

ORDER to pay Supplemental EAJA fees- 3:16-cv-00796-PK Page 1 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

ORDER to pay Supplemental EAJA fees- 3:16-cv-00796-PK Page 2
RB

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0523

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL VOYLES,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including January 14, 2024, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

December 11 2023

12/11/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0523
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,

Respondent

v.

DY PROPERTIES, LLC,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 20 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 25th day of June, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# L_2009046EN.01007901.xml

| 17.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 46/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 46/79

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009 of 26 January 2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 23 of 27 January 2009
  )

| — | On page 8, Annex, point 24, |
| --- | --- |

—

On page 8, Annex, point 24,

for:

‘Date of designation referred to in Article 7(2): 16.6.2005
  ’,

read:

‘Date of designation referred to in Article 7(2): 27.1.2009
  ’;

| — | on page 15, Annex, point 122, |
| --- | --- |

—

on page 15, Annex, point 122,

for:

‘Function/Reason for listing; Identifying data: Assistant Inspector Zimbabwe National Army.’,

read:

‘Function/Reason for listing; Identifying data: Assistant Zimbabwe Republic Police.’

---
EXHIBIT 3.3
                                   -----------

Article IV (Officers), Section 1 (Number) of the Bylaws of the Corporation shall
be amended to read as follows:

      SECTION  1.  NUMBER.  The  officers  of the  Corporation  shall be a Chief
Executive Officer, a President, a Secretary and a Treasurer,  each of whom shall
be  elected  by the  Board of  Directors.  The  Board of  Directors  may elect a
Chairman  of the  Board,  one or more  Vice  Presidents,  one or more  Assistant
Secretaries  and Assistant  Treasurers  and such other  officers as the Board of
Directors  may deem  appropriate.  Two or more  offices  may be held by the same
person.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Pest Management Research: Sidney, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NPARL
                        Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory
                                    Agricultural Systems Research Unit
                                    Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and ManagementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Sidney, Montana Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory Pest Management Research PMRU Docs Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and Management: Outbreak and Survey Info Forecast Maps





- NPARL Home
- PMRU Home
- ASRU Home
- Site Highlights
- Outbreak and Survey Info
- ID Tools | Apps
- Grasshopper Management
- IPM Handbook
- USDA Research | Contact Info

Outbreak Info: Grasshopper Forecast 1998headline bar /ARSUserFiles/30320505/grasshopper/Extras/images/Maps/hazard98.jpg < Previous Map    Back to Outbreak Info      Next Map >


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
| datetime   | inflow |
|------------|--------|
| 2010-01-01 | 11.0   |
| 2010-01-02 | 11.4   |
| 2010-01-03 | 11.1   |
| 2010-01-04 | 10.7   |
| 2010-01-05 | 10.8   |
| 2010-01-06 | 10.9   |
| 2010-01-07 | 11.7   |
| 2010-01-08 | 12.2   |
| 2010-01-09 | 12.0   |
| 2010-01-10 | 12.0   |
| 2010-01-11 | 11.9   |
| 2010-01-12 | 12.0   |
| 2010-01-13 | 12.2   |
| 2010-01-14 | 11.8   |
| 2010-01-15 | 11.4   |
| 2010-01-16 | 11.4   |
| 2010-01-17 | 11.9   |
| 2010-01-18 | 11.6   |
| 2010-01-19 | 11.3   |
| 2010-01-20 | 11.2   |
| 2010-01-21 | 11.0   |
| 2010-01-22 | 10.1   |
| 2010-01-23 | 9.99   |
| 2010-01-24 | 9.97   |
| 2010-01-25 | 10.1   |
| 2010-01-26 | 9.67   |
| 2010-01-27 | 9.53   |
| 2010-01-28 | 12.2   |
| 2010-01-29 | 10.4   |
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 17

- 00281

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF H .B. AND H.B., CHILDR EN

From the 361st District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 001947

- CV

- 361

ABATEMENT ORDER

The appellant’s brief is overdue in this appeal.

We abate this appeal to the trial court to conduct any necessary hearings within 14

days of the date of this Order pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2)

and (3). T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(b)(2), (3).

The supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records required by Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2) and (3), if any, are ordered to be filed within 21 days of

the date of this Order. See id

.

PER CURIAMIn the Interest of H.B. and H.B., Children Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal abated

O rder issued and filed November 15 , 2017
Exhibit 31.1
**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**
I, Jeffrey R. Rodek, Chief Executive Officer of Hyperion Solutions Corporation,certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of HyperionSolutions Corporation (the “Registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects 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) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theRegistrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those 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 reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theRegistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially 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 financialreporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theRegistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Dated: May 10, 2004
/s/ JEFFREY R. RODEKJeffrey R. Rodek
# March 19, 2014 Hydrology Summary

Snow water equivalent (SWE) as of March 19, 2014, for the Upper Green River and Yampa/White River Basins are 150 and 122 percent of median, respectively.  Flaming Gorge SWE is similar to 2011 and Deerlodge SWE is similar to 2008 as shown in Figures 1 and 2 below.  The Tower snotel site, used a reference point for Yampa snowpack and runoff, currently has 47.6 inches of SWE (126 percent of median).   The March midmonth forecast April-July unregulated inflow volume for Flaming Gorge Reservoir is 1,430 kaf and the Yampa River at Deerlodge is 1,500 kaf.  On March 19, Tower SNOTEL measured SWE inches of: 

· 2008 = 39.6 in; FG 728 kaf unreg inflow; Yampa 1,847 kaf obs spring vol

· 1993 = 51.3 in; FG 1,046 unreg inflow; Yampa 1,543 kaf obs spring vol

· 2006 = 48.9 in; FG 724 unreg inflow; Yampa 1,202 kaf obs spring vol

The difference between the Tower SNOTEL figures and Yampa River observed spring volume differs significantly and needs to be considered when comparing any values this early in the snow accumulation season. Additionally, the unregulated inflow volumes for Flaming Gorge Reservoir were significantly lower than the current March midmonth forecast of 1,430 kaf.  Operations for Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir will include considerations for dam safety and downstream flooding.  

Figure 3 illustrates the Yampa River at Deerlodge Park SWE as of March 19, 2014 and compares it against water years 1993, 2006, and 2008.  

FIGURE 1—Upper Green River Basin Snotel Tracking.  1981-2010 percent of median compared against 2014 YTD Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) and 2011 percent of average SWE

FIGURE 2- Upper Yampa River Basin Snotel Tracking. 1981-2010 percent of median compared against 2013 YTD Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) and 2008 percent of average SWE 

FIGURE 3- Yampa River above Deerlodge SNOTEL Group. 1981-2010 percent of average SWE compared against 2014 YTD, and analog years 1993, 2006, 2008 percent of median SWE

FIGURE 4-Yampa River at Deerlodge Chances of Exceeding River Levels based on Current Conditions as of March 17, 2014

FIGURE 5-Yampa River at Deerlodge One Week Chances of Exceeding River Levels based on Current Conditions as of March 17, 2014

FIGURE 6- Flaming Gorge release and Yampa and Jensen flows for WY1993.  Shaded grey area indicates larval presence. 

FIGURE 7- Flaming Gorge release and Yampa and Jensen flows for WY2006.  Shaded grey area indicates larval presence. 

FIGURE 8- Flaming Gorge release and Yampa and Jensen flows for WY2008.  Shaded grey area indicates larval presence. 

~ 1 ~

# image2.emf

# image3.png

# image4.gif

# image5.gif

# image6.png

# image7.png

# image8.png

# image1.emf
#### Cedric French et al., Respondents, v Cliff’s Place *293Ltd., Doing Business as The Lion’s Cage, Appellant.

— In an action pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11-101, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated July 9, 1985, which, *inter alia,*denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court’s function is to determine if a factual issue exists, and the court does not weigh the credibility of the affiants unless untruths are clearly apparent *(see, Mortimer v Lynch,*119 AD2d 558; *Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co.,*103 AD2d 252, 262). The burden on the court is not to resolve material issues of fact, but merely to determine whether such issues exist *(see, Barr v County of Albany,*50 NY2d 247; *Lonero v Kewaunee Scientific Equip. Corp.,*69 AD2d 852).

After reviewing the present record, we conclude that Special Term properly found that triable issues of fact are present, and that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was correctly denied. The defendant’s other contention that the plaintiffs participated in the alleged intoxication of the driver does not warrant the granting of summary judgment absent a showing of a much more affirmative role than that of drinking companions *(see, Mitchell v The Shoals, Inc.,*19 NY2d 338). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-5570-LA and No. 333-43899 on Form S-3 and Form S-8, respectively, and in
Amendment No. 3 to Registration Statement No. 333-50385 on Form S-3 of our
reports dated April 8, 2000 appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Bristol Retail Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31,
1999.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
----------------------------------------------
Costa Mesa, California
April 14, 2000
#### MARITIME TUG & BARGE, INC., as owner of the M/V Isabelle C, for exoneration from or limitation of liability, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, A Member of Royal Specialty Underwriting, Inc., Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-11373.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 25, 2007.

*915June Galkoski Hoffman, Fowler, Allan Richard Kelley, White, Burnett, P.A., Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Albert G. Dugan, Jr., Cozen O’Connor, Atlanta, GA, Patrick Michael Leahy, Jr., James F. Moseley, Moseley, Warren, Prichard & Parrish, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before CARNES, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Maritime Tug & Barge, Inc. appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing with prejudice its 46 App. U.S.C. § 185 petition for exoneration from or limitation of liability. It raises two issues.

As to Maritime Tug’s contention that we should vacate the district court’s judgment and instruct it to dismiss the petition without prejudice, we decline to do so because of the way we interpret the words “with prejudice” in the judgment. The district court dismissed Maritime Tug’s § 185 petition because it had not been filed within the six-month time period specified in the section. The dismissal properly was with prejudice as to any future § 185 petition by Maritime Tug. The district court, however, did not have before it a 46 App. U.S.C. § 183 affirmative defense nor did it rule on the merits of the limitation of liability issue. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment does not encompass the § 183 merits issue, and we do not interpret it as being with prejudice as to that issue. Nor do we interpret the district court’s judgment as implying any view on whether a state court has jurisdiction to decide the § 183 merits issue; the state courts themselves are quite capable of addressing issues involving their own jurisdiction.

Maritime Tug also contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying as futile the motion to amend the complaint. Insofar as the amended complaint sought to reassert the § 185 petition, the district court properly denied it. Insofar as the other claims that the motion to amend sought to assert, the amendment may not have been futile. However, given the fact that a proceeding involving those same claims is now pending in state court, it clearly would be within the district court’s discretion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action in favor of the state court proceeding. We have no doubt that if we remanded the case with instructions to permit the motion to amend, that is what would happen. Accordingly, we decline to vacate the district court’s decision denying the motion to amend.

The bottom line of our decision is that the district court correctly dismissed the § 185 petition without affecting any § 183 defense or other claim or defense that may be asserted in the state court.

AFFIRMED.
#### SCHOENECK v. SCHOENECK et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20, 1896.)

Action by Frank C. L.- Schoeneck against Charles W. Schoeneck, Joseph W. Kierst, and others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1

                  AWARENESS LETTER OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                  -------------------------------------------


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

                                                    Re: OYO Geospace Corporation
                                                        Registration on Form S-8

We are aware that our report dated August 8, 2000, on our review of interim
financial information of OYO Geospace Corporation as of June 30, 2000 and for
the three months and nine months ended June 30, 2000 and 1999, and included in
the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2000,
is incorporated by reference in the Company's registration statements on Form S-
8 (333-40893 and 333-80003).  Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act
of 1933, this report should not be considered a part of the registration
statement prepared or certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of
that Act.



                                                  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Houston, Texas
August 8, 2000
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


June 15, 2021


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2074


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2074 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined the Registration
Statement File No. 333-254382 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President