alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31(b) - RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION (CFO)

I, Marshall Chadwell, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Monarch Services,
    Inc.;

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 statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
information included in this annual report, fairly presents 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 annual report;

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer 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 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 annual
        report is being prepared;

    b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
        and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
        of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

    c)  Presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effect-
        iveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
        evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

    a)  All significant deficiencies in the design of operation of internal
        controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
        record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
        identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses
        in internal controls; and

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

6.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

/s/    MARSHALL CHADWELL

Marshall Chadwell
Chief Financial Officer
Date:  July 29, 2004
Case 1:07-cv-05308-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05308-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05308-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05308-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05308-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05308-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05308-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 21


                    LIST OF IMCO RECYCLING INC. SUBSIDIARIES



Wholly owned unless otherwise indicated as of March 2, 1998.


1.    IMCO Investment Company,  a Delaware Corporation

2.    Interamerican Zinc, Inc.,  a Delaware Corporation

3.    IMCO Recycling of Ohio Inc.,  a Delaware Corporation

4.    IMCO Management Partnership L.P.,  a Texas Limited Partnership

5.    IMCO Recycling of California, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

6.    IMCO Energy Corp., a Delaware Corporation

7.    IMCO International, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

8.    IMCO Recycling of Indiana Inc., a Delaware Corporation

9.    IMCO Recycling of Illinois Inc., a Delaware Corporation

10.   IMCO Indiana Partnership L.P., an Indiana Limited Partnership

11.   Metal Mark, Inc., an Illinois Corporation

12.   Pittsburg Aluminum, Inc.,  a Kansas Corporation

13.   VAW-IMCO Gu(beta) und Recycling GmbH, a private company with limited
      liability organized under the laws of Germany (50% owned)

14.   IMCO Recycling of Michigan L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company

15.   IMCO Recycling (UK) Ltd., a private company limited by shares and 
      organized under the laws of England and Wales

16.   IMSAMET, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

17.   IMCO Recycling of Idaho Inc., a Delaware Corporation

18.   IMCO Recycling of Utah Inc., a Delaware Corporation



<PAGE>   2

                    LIST OF IMCO RECYCLING INC. SUBSIDIARIES



19.   Imsamet of Arizona, an Arizona General Partnership (70% owned)

20.   Solar Aluminum Technology  Services, a Utah General Partnership
      (50% owned)

21.   Rock Creek Aluminum, Inc., an Ohio Corporation

22.   Alchem Aluminum, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

23.   IMCO Recycling Holding B.V., a Dutch BV
A92A1145.

#### BUSBEE v. THE STATE.

(423 SE2d 3)

Carley, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of criminal trespass. She appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdict.

Appellant enumerates as error the trial court’s failure to give three jury instructions, including an unrequested instruction on the defense of alibi. In its original brief, the State summarily conceded that the failure to give the unrequested charge on alibi was reversible error and declined to address the merits of appellant’s two remaining enumerations of error. However, appellant’s two remaining enumerations of error related to the jury charge and were, therefore, obviously likely to recur at the retrial that the State had otherwise conceded was mandated. Accordingly, this court ordered the State to file a supplemental brief addressing those two remaining enumerations. In neither its original nor its supplemental brief did the State ever apprise the court that the right to enumerate *any*error in the trial court’s jury charge had clearly been waived by appellant. “In order to avoid waiver, if[, as here,] the trial court inquires if there are objections to the charge, counsel must state his objections or follow the procedure ... of reserving the right to object on motion for new trial or on appeal. Here defense counsel neither objected nor reserved the right to later object, and under such circumstances, the defendant has *534waived the right to raise the issue [of error in the charge] on appeal.” *Jackson v. State,*246 Ga. 459, 460 (271 SE2d 855) (1980).

Decided September 8, 1992

Reconsideration denied September 23, 1992

*L. David Wolfe & Associates, Susan E. Teaster,*for appellant.

*Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Solicitor, David M. Fuller, Assistant Solicitor,*for appellee.

Moreover, even absent waiver, none of appellant’s enumerations would have merit. Contrary to the State’s summary concession, it was clearly *not*error to fail to give an unrequested charge on alibi. *Rivers v. State,*250 Ga. 288, 299 (8) (298 SE2d 10) (1982); *Thomas v. State,*176 Ga. App. 53, 55 (4) (335 SE2d 135) (1985); *Johnson v. State,*174 Ga. App. 751, 752 (2) (330 SE2d 925) (1985). The circumstances of this case did not demand a finding that any of the State’s witnesses wilfully and knowingly testified falsely and it was, therefore, not error to fail to give an unrequested charge on OCGA § 24-9-85 (b). *Fugitt v. State,*256 Ga. 292, 298 (6) (348 SE2d 451) (1986); *Warnock v. State,*195 Ga. App. 537, 538 (1) (394 SE2d 382) (1990). Likewise, it was not error to fail to give an unrequested charge on impeachment. *Kelly v. State,*189 Ga. App. 67 (2) (375 SE2d 81) (1988).

Accordingly, notwithstanding the State’s summary concession regarding the failure to give the unrequested charge on alibi, it is clear that the trial court did not err and that appellant’s judgment of conviction must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope and Johnson, JJ., concur.*
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11063]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[CC Docket No. 96-45; FCC 01-120]


Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service: Children's 
Internet Protection Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects errors in the final rule portion 
regarding implementation of the Children's Internet Protection Act 
(CIPA) published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2001.

DATES: Effective May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Secrest or Narda Jones, 
Attorney, Common Carrier Bureau, Accounting Policy Division, (202) 418-
7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This summary contains corrections to the 
rule portion of the Commission's Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45; 
FCC 01-120, 66 FR 19394 (April 16, 2001). The full text of the 
Commission's Report and Order is available for public inspection during 
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 
Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20554.

Correction

    1. On page 19396, in the third column, ``Subpart H--
Administration'' is corrected to read ``Subpart F--Universal Service 
Support for Schools and Libraries''.
    2. On page 19396, in the third column, in paragraph 2, ``subpart 
H'' is corrected to read ``subpart F''.
    3. In Sec. 54.20, on page 19397, in the third column, in paragraphs 
(c)(2)(iii)(A), (c)(2)(iii)(B), and (c)(2)(iii)(C), the phrase ``for 
which you have requested or received Funding Commitments'' is corrected 
to read ``on this Form 486.''
    4. In Sec. 54.520, on page 19397, in the third column, paragraph 
(c)(3)(i) is corrected by inserting after the phrase ``paragraph (a)(3) 
of this section,'' the following phrase ``other than one requesting 
only discounts on telecommunications services for consortium members.''
    5. In Sec. 54.520, on page 19398, in the first column, in paragraph 
(c)(3)(ii) the phrase ``duly completed and signed certifications'' is 
corrected to read ``duly completed and signed Forms 479,'' and the 
phrase ``received under the universal service support mechanism by'' is 
corrected to read ``that I have been approved for discounts under the 
universal service support mechanism on behalf of,'' and by inserting 
opening quotation marks after the phrase ``or I certify''.
    6. In Sec. 54.520, on page 19398, in the third column, in paragraph 
(f), ``December 21, 2000'' is corrected to read ``April 20, 2001'' and 
by inserting the phrase ``or library'' after the phrase ``in which the 
school''.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-11063 Filed 5-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 21, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
130108 & (21) (22) Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. ANTONIO L. THOMAS and ANTONIO Stephen J. Markman, L. THOMAS ASSOCIATED, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 130108 COA: 266779 Wayne CC: 02-220633-CZ LA-VAN HAWKINS and URBAN CITY FOODS, LLC, Defendants-Appellees,

and

MELVIN BUTCH HOLLOWELL, Receiver-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion fo r immediate consideration is GRANTED. The motion for stay of trial court proceedings is also GRANTED, and proceeds of the sale of the Sweet Georgia Brown restaurant sh all not be distributed during the pendency of the stay. The application for leave to ap peal the December 2, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals remains under consideration.

s1221 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 21, 2005

Clerk
Certification Pursuant to Section 302
 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   I, Joseph P. Hubert, certify that:
  1. I have reviewed this annual report of Excalibur Industries on Form 10-K;
  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 statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such 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 annual 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 annual report;
  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;
  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
  c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
  5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
  6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
   Date July 23, 2010
  /s/ JOSEPH P. HUBERT
 President, Chief Executive Officer,
 Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10(a)


                     AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement (the "Amendment") made as
of January 27, 1999, by and between NovaCare Employee Services, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), and Loren J. Hulber (the "Executive"),

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, the parties have heretofore entered into an Employment
Agreement, dated as of January 10, 1997, and as amended on July 1, 1998 (the
"Employment Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the parties now wish to further amend the Employment Agreement
to modify the definition of "Change in Control" as set forth in Section 6.7 of
the Employment Agreement;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual
agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties hereby agree as follows:

         A. Section 6.7 is hereby amended by including the following subsection
immediately following subsection "(iv)" of Section 6.7:

         "(v) Employer's common stock is no longer admitted for trading on a
         national securities exchange or reported on the National Market System
         or the Small Cap Market of the National Association of Securities
         Dealers Automated Quotation System."

         B. In all other respects the Employment Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect without change.




<PAGE>   2



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as
of the date first above written.

                                              NOVACARE EMPLOYEE SERVICES, INC.


                                              By:
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Aven A. Kerr
                                                  Chief Operating Officer


                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Loren J. Hulber
William J. Smith (WJS-9137) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

~ RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 21 MC 102 (AKH) 

ANGEL SERRANO (AND WIFE, TANNY 

SARMIENTO) 

NOTICE OF THE 

BROOKFIELD 

V. PARTIES' ADOPTION OF 

AMENDED ANSWER 

TO MASTER 

COMPLAINT 

222 BROADWAY, LLC, ET. AL., 

CASE NUMBER: (AKH) 

07 CV 4516 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants Brookfield Financial Properties, 

Inc., Brookfield Financial Properties, L.P., Brookfield Properties One WFC Co. LLC 

f/k/a WFP Tower A Co. L.P., Brookfield Properties One WFC G.P. Corp. f/k/a WFP 

Tower A Co. GP Corp., WFP Tower B Co. L.P., WFP Tower B Co. GP Corp., WFP 

Tower D Co. L.P. and WFP Tower D Co. GP Corp. (collectively the "Brookfield 

Parties"), as and for their responses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by 

Adoption (Check-Off Complaint) Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above 

referenced action, hereby adopt the Brookfield Parties' Amended Answer to Master 

Complaint, dated October 16, 2007, which was filed in the matter of In re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

WHEREFORE, the Brookfield Parties demand judgment dismissing the above 

captioned action as against each ofthem, together with their cost and disbursements. 

Case 1:07-cv-04516-AKH Document 27 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
Dated: New York, New York 

October30 2007 

Faust, Goetz, Schenker & Blee, LLP 

By: /Willia~n J. Smith (~FTB~ 37) 

A eys the Brookfield Parties 

Two\Rec Street, 20th Floor 

New YGPk. NY 10006 

(21'2) 363-6900 

Case 1:07-cv-04516-AKH Document 27 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 26 , 2018

NO. 03

- 17

- 00296

- CR

Robert Isreal, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 450TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUST ICES GOODWIN AND FIE LD

AFFIRMED IN PART ON MOTION FOR REHEARING ; VACATED IN PART ON

MOTION FOR REHEARING

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgm ents of conviction entered by the trial court. The Court’s

opinion and judgment dated August 8 , 201 8 are withdrawn

. Having reviewed the record and the

parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial court’s judgments

of c onviction as to Counts 2 and 3 . Therefore, the Court vacates the trial court’s judgments of

conviction for second degree aggravated family violence assault in Counts 2 and 3 and affirms

the trial court’s judgment of conviction for first degree aggravated family violence assault in

Count 1

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Clear All

        15 March 2024    

                    USS Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) Arrives In Narvik, Norway After Successful Participation In Steadfast Defender                  
                USS Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) arrived in Narvik, Norway, March 15, 2024, following its participation in the largest NATO exercise since World War II, Steadfast Defender.             

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Order filed April 24, 2012

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 11

- 00122

- CR

____________ REGINALD TYRRELL PRI CE , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1268303



### ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to T ex as R ule of App ellate P rocedure 34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State's Exhibit 70

.
The clerk of the 263rd District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk o f this court the original of State's Exhibit 70, on or before May 4, 2012

. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State's Exhibit 70, to the clerk of the 263rd District Court.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE> 1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'
                   CONSENT OF ERNST AND YOUNG LLP



<PAGE> 2


                     Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Graybar Electric Company, Inc. of our report dated February 20, 1998,
included in the 1997 Annual Report to Shareholders of Graybar Electric
Company, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Graybar Electric
Company, Inc. listed in Item 14(a) for the years ended December 31, 1997 and
1996. This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion,
the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in
relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.


                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
February 20, 1998