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

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), Dr. Stephen A. Levine, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Allergy Research Group, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

         The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2003, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.2
(the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of
this 14th day of November 2003.



                            /s/ Stephen A. Levine
                            ---------------------------------------------------
                            Dr. Stephen A. Levine, Ph.D.
                            CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129735 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129735 COA: 263706 Ottawa CC: 04-028096-FC BENJAMIN FRANKLIN MIKLUSICAK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the August 29, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan , lv gtd 472 Mich 881 (2005).

s1219 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
**Exhibit 32.1**
 
 
 
 
 **Stratus Services Group, Inc.**
 **Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 **(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**
 
 
 In connection with the quarterly report of Stratus Services Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph J. Raymond, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
 
 Dated: February 14, 2005
By: /s/ Joseph J. RaymondJoseph J. RaymondChairman of the Board of Directors,President and Chief Executive Officer
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ No. 1D 19

- 1657

_____________________________ C ARL S. M ILLS , Petitioner ,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

June 11, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

. W OLF , W ETHERELL , and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Carl S. Mills, pro se , Petitioner

.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent

.
EXHIBIT
15.1




CONSENT OF INVESTMENT
ADVISOR




We hereby
consent to the reference to our firm and valuation model in this Annual Report
on Form 20-F of MIND C.T.I. Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2009 and to the
incorporation by reference of this Annual Report in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-117054, No. 333-100804 and No. 333-54632)
filed by MIND C.T.I. Ltd.





105 W.
Madison, Suite 1500


Chicago,
      IL 60602
              /s/Houlihan Smith &
      CompanyJune
      21, 2009
              Investment
      Advisors
#### In the Matter of Thurman Brooks, Appellant, v Thomas A. Coughlin et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination, dated August 30, 1984, denying the petitioner’s grievance concerning a disciplinary disposition which found, after a hearing, that he violated a prison rule, and a determination dated September 18, 1984, denying the petitioner’s grievance with respect to his suspension from his job assignment, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Braatz, J.), dated August 1, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The denial of petitioner’s grievance is supported by the record. There is no merit to the contention that the disciplinary Hearing Officer failed to set forth adequate factual findings in his decision. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6102 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 to extend the authority of the Secretary of 

the Navy to enter into multiyear contracts for F/A– 

18E, F/A–18F, and EA–18G aircraft. 

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


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6102 RDS

1 SECTION 1. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR F/ 

2 A–18E, F/A–18F, AND EA–18G AIRCRAFT. 

3 (a) EXTENSION OF CERTIFICATION.—Paragraph (2) 

4 of section 128(a) of the National Defense Authorization 

5 Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 

6 2217) is amended by striking ‘‘a reference to March’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘a reference to September’’. 

8 (b) REQUIRED AUTHORITY.—Such section 128 is 

9 further amended by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(e) REQUIRED AUTHORITY.—Notwithstanding any 

11 other provision of law, with respect to a multiyear contract 

12 entered into under subsection (a), this section shall be 

13 deemed to meet the requirements under subsection (i)(3) 

14 and (l)(3) of section 2306b of title 10, United States 

15 Code.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Airspace Docket No. 2000-ASW-05]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice confirms the effective date of a direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Jasper, TX.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

The direct final rule published at 65 FR 8043 is effective 0901 UTC, June 15, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 817-222-5593.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 17, 2000, (65 FR 8043). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the  public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written  notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on June 15, 2000. No adverse comments were received, and, thus, this action confirms that this direct final rule will be effective on that date.                

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 12, 2000.

Robert N. Stevens,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.

[FR Doc. 00-9836  Filed 4-20-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports datedApril 7, 2006 accompanying the financial statements and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the annual report of Design Within Reach, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statement of Design Within Reach, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-117190, effective July 7, 2004). 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

San Francisco, California 

April 7, 2006
# Comunicados de Prensa

Esta página contiene actualizaciones de comunicados de prensa que impactan la inmigración legal.

USCIS Aumenta la Extensión Automática de Ciertos Documentos de Autorización de Empleo para Mejorar el Acceso a los Permisos de Trabajo

04 de abril de 2024

USCIS Anuncia la Reapertura de la Oficina Local en Tegucigalpa, Honduras

22 de marzo de 2024

El Secretario Mayorkas Anuncia la Extensión y Redesignación de Birmania (Myanmar) para el Estatus de Protección Temporal

22 de marzo de 2024

USCIS Atendió una Cifra sin Precedentes de 10 Millones de Casos de Inmigración en el Año Fiscal 2023 y Redujo su Acumulación de Casos por Primera Vez en Más de una Década

09 de febrero de 2024

USCIS Anuncia Medidas de Integridad Reforzadas para el Programa H-1B

30 de enero de 2024

USCIS Emite Regla Final para Ajustar Ciertas Tarifas de Inmigración y Naturalización

30 de enero de 2024

Secretario Mayorkas Anuncia la Extensión y Redesignación de Siria al Estatus de Protección Temporal

26 de enero de 2024

USCIS a Punto de Lanzar Cuentas Organizacionales, Permitiendo la Colaboración y Presentación de Registros H-1B en Línea

12 de enero de 2024

DHS Publica Notificación del Registro Federal que Anuncia Extensiones de los Periodos de Reinscripción para el Estatus de Protección Temporal para El Salvador, Haití, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua y Sudán

13 de diciembre de 2023

USCIS Anuncia Disponibilidad de Visas H-2B Adicionales para el Año Fiscal 2024

16 de noviembre de 2023

1 - 10 líneas en total

-  Previa
- Siguiente**

    Feed RSS  

0 / 2000Para proteger su privacidad, por favor no incluya ninguna información personal en sus comentarios. Revise nuestra Política de Privacidad.
(8 Misc. Rep 307.)

#### JOHNSON v. BARG.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

May 17, 1894.)

Landlord and Tenant—Rent—Eviction of Tenant.

Eviction of a tenant is no defense to an action for rent which was due at the time of eviction.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by Augusta A. Johnson against John Barg for rent, under a letting from month to month; the rent payable in advance on the 1st of each month. There was a judgment in favor of defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before BOOKSTAVER, BISCHOFF, and PRYOR, JJ.

A. B. Carrington, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Assuming that an eviction on November 20th was proved, it constituted no defense to an action for rent payable on the 1st of that month. Giles v. Comstock, 4 N. Y. 270; O’Brien v. Smith (Sup.) 13 N. Y. Supp. 408; Rice v. Bliss, 66 How. Pr. 189. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant.
Exhibit 31.2  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Brett D. Mayer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Bingham Canyon Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s  internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.    Date: March 27, 2007 /s/ Brett D. Mayer Brett D. Mayer Principal Financial Officer
[870 NE2d 679, 839 NYS2d 440]

#### In the Matter of Bethelite Community Church, Great Tomorrows Elementary School, Respondent, v Department of Environmental Protection of the City of New York et al., Appellants.

Decided June 7, 2007

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel,*New York City *(.Ronald E. Sternberg*of counsel), for appellants.

*Anthony C. Jones,*New York City, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

*1002Petitioner is a religious corporation that operates a church and school in a building it occupies in Manhattan. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination of the Department of Environmental Protection of the City of New York denying it a full exemption from water and sewer charges under chapter 696 of the New York Laws of 1887, as amended by chapter 893 of the Laws of 1980, and section 24-514 (e) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, respectively.

Respondents do not now dispute the denial of their preanswer motion to dismiss the proceeding. They only challenge that Supreme Court proceeded to the merits without permitting them to submit an answer. Supreme Court erred in granting the petition without first affording respondents an opportunity to answer *(see*CLPR 7804 [f]; *Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County,*63 NY2d 100, 102-104 [1984]). Accordingly, this case must be remitted to Supreme Court to allow respondents to submit an answer and for further proceedings on the pleadings.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 01-726

SHELIA WINSETT, PETITIONER,

 V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, RESPONDENT.

Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY,

HOLDAWAY, IVERS, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges.

O R D E R

On June 1, 2001, in a single-judge order, the Court denied the pro se petitioner's petition for

extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus. The order also directed the Clerk of the

Court to reject any future petitions for extraordinary relief submitted by the petitioner without

payment of the filing fee. In an August 7, 2001, per curiam order, the petitioner's motion for

reconsideration of the June 1, 2001, order was denied, and a panel of the Court denied the petitioner's

motion for a panel decision. On August 16, 17, and 31, 2001, the petitioner filed a series of motions

for, inter alia, a full Court decision and amendment of that part of the June 1, 2001, single-judge

order that directed the Clerk of the Court to reject any future petitions for extraordinary relief filed

by her without payment of the filing fee. On September 27, 2001, the Court denied the motion for

a full Court decision.

On October 4, 2001, the petitioner filed motions: (1) to amend the June 1, 2001, single-judge

order; (2) to quash the full Court's September 27, 2001, order; (3) to reconsider her petition; and (4)

to stay the case pending a Department of Veterans Affairs regional office's action on certain of her

claims pending before it.

Motions for a full Court decision are not favored. Ordinarily they will not be granted unless

such action is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the Court's decisions or to resolve a

question of exceptional importance. It is not sufficient merely to allege that one of the two foregoing

criteria are met; it must be demonstrated. The petitioner has shown neither.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED by the single judge that the motion to amend the Court's June 1, 2001, order is

denied. It is further 
2

ORDERED by the full Court that the motion to quash the Court's September 27, 2001, order,

the motion for reconsideration, and the motion to stay proceedings are each denied. In light of the

circumstances set forth in the Court's June 1, 2001, order and this order, the Clerk of the Court is

directed to return to the petitioner all future pleadings filed by her in this matter. See generally In

re Matter of Packer Ave. Assoc., 884 F.2d 745, 747-49 (3d Cir. 1989); Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons

Co., 775 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1985); In Re Hartford Textile Corp., 613 F.2d 388 (2d Cir. 1979);

Kinnear–Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil Refining Co., 441 F.2d 631 (5th Cir. 1971). 

DATED: January 17, 2002 PER CURIAM.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6118 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6118

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, in Washington, D.C., as the ``Dorothy I. 
                         Height Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DOROTHY I. HEIGHT POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, in Washington, D.C., shall be 
known and designated as the ``Dorothy I. Height Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dorothy I. 
Height Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 30 
      (legislative day September 29), 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```