alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Sign Media Systems, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Antonio
      F. Uccello, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; 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: November
      14, 2006





/s/
      Antonio F. Uccello, III


Antonio
      F. Uccello, III


Chief
      Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7392

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILBERT HERMAN BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior 

District Judge. (7:06-cr-00098-jct-mfu-2; 7:08-cv-80102-jctmfu)

Submitted: March 22, 2010 Decided: April 7, 2010

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilbert Herman Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, 

Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wilbert Herman Brown seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The district court referred this case to a 

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). 

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and 

advised Brown that the failure to file timely objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, 

Brown failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Brown 

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Gregory A. Wells, Chief Financial Officer of NTS Realty Capital,Inc., the managing general partner of NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1.                                       The QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010(the “Report”), which accompanies this certificate, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: | November  3, 2010                                   |     |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------|
| Name:  | */s/  Gregory A. Wells*                             | * * |
|   | Gregory  A. Wells                                   |     |
| Title: | Chief  Financial Officer of                         |     |
|   | NTS  Realty Capital Inc., the Managing General      |     |
|   | Partner  of NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership |     |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,265,191
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  495,344
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (87,311)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      38,786,554
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,300,510)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,368,133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     20,648,972
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      6,643
<COMMON>                                        50,365
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,345,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,368,133
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,817,078
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,711,587
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,379,765
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,957,607)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,957,607)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,601,165)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.84)


</TABLE>
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5706 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase penalties for 

employing illegal aliens. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 3, 2008 

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase 

penalties for employing illegal aliens. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘10k Run for the Bor5 der Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN PENALTIES FOR EMPLOYING ILLEGAL 

7 ALIENS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 274A(e)(4)(A) of the Im9 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(e)(4)(A)) 

10 is amended— 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5706 IH

1 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘$250 and not 

2 more than $2,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$10,000 and not 

3 more than $80,000’’; 

4 (2) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘$2,000 and not 

5 more than $5,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$80,000 and not 

6 more than $200,000’’; and 

7 (3) in clause (iii), by striking ‘‘$3,000 and not 

8 more than $10,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$120,000 and 

9 not more than $1,600,000’’. 

10 (b) USE OF ADDITIONAL PENALTY FUNDS.—Not11 withstanding any other provision of law, of the additional 

12 amounts of fines paid under section 274A(e)(4)(A) of the 

13 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

14 1324a(e)(4)(A)) by one or more employers and that are 

15 attributable to the amendments made by subsection (a)— 

16 (1) if State or local law enforcement officials 

17 have provided material assistance in the investiga18 tion or prosecution of cases of such employers that 

19 resulted in such fines— 

20 (A) 80 percent shall be paid, in a manner 

21 specified by the Secretary of Homeland Secu22 rity, to the State or local State law enforcement 

23 agencies which employed such individuals; and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5706 IH

1 (B) 20 percent shall be used by the Sec2 retary to cover costs of detention of illegal 

3 aliens; and 

4 (2) if paragraph (1) does not apply— 

5 (A) 80 percent shall be paid to States (and 

6 political subdivisions of States) under the State 

7 Criminal Alien Assistance Program under sec8 tion 241(i) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1251(i)) for 

9 purposes of reimbursing those States and polit10 ical subdivisions for costs of incarceration of 

11 undocumented criminal aliens; and 

12 (B) 20 percent shall be used by the Sec13 retary to cover costs of detention of illegal 

14 aliens in Federal facilities. 

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 subsection (a) shall apply to violations occurring on or 

17 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
exv10w14



 






Exhibit 10.14




Allied
Waste Industries, Inc.

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan




Schedule A




(Amended and Restated Effective August 1, 2005)




	 	 	 
	Participant	 	Participation Date
	 
	John J. Zillmer

	 	May 27, 2005
	Peter S. Hathaway

	 	January 1, 2004
	Steven M. Helm

	 	January 1, 2004
	Thomas W. Ryan

	 	August 1, 2003
	Donald W. Slager

	 	January 1, 2004
	Donald A. Swierenga

	 	June 1, 2004
	James G. Van Weelden

	 	June 1, 2004
	John S. Quinn

	 	January 1, 2005
	James E. Gray

	 	January 1, 2005
STATE v. SPELLER.

No. COA05-1599.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Beaufort (04CRS51691, 04CRS51692).

Case without published opinion. No error.
SPEARS v. BETSY JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSP.

No. COA05-718.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 4, 2006.

Certification Date April 24, 2006.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #013245).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE ex rel. UTILITIES COM'N v. CP&L.

No. 649A03-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 20, 2006.

Edward S. Finley, Jr., Christopher J. Ayers, Robert B. Schwentker, Thomas K. Austin, Raleigh, Kodwo Ghartey-Tagoe, Charlotte, for Duke Power & NC Elec. Memb.

Leonard G. Green, Assistant Attorney General, for Attorney General.

Antoinette R. Wike, Raleigh, for Public Staff-Utilities Comm.

Thomas R. West, Pamela A. Scott, Raleigh, Michael S. Colo, Rocky Mount, for Municipal Power Agency.

Carson Carmichael, Ralph McDonald, Raleigh, for Carolina Industrial Groups.

James P. West, Raleigh, for Carolina Utilities Cus. Asso.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th day of April 2006 by Appellants (NCMPA # 1 and NCEMPA) to Withdraw Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 20th day of April 2006."
# L_2014109DE.01004801.xml

| 12.4.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 109/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 109/48

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 899/2012 der Kommission vom 21. September 2012 zur Änderung der Anhänge II und III der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 396/2005 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates hinsichtlich der Rückstandshöchstgehalte für Acephat, Alachlor, Anilazin, Azocyclotin, Benfuracarb, Butylat, Captafol, Carbaryl, Carbofuran, Carbosulfan, Chlorfenapyr, Chlorthal-dimethyl, Chlorthiamid, Cyhexatin, Diazinon, Dichlobenil, Dicofol, Dimethipin, Diniconazol, Disulfoton, Fenitrothion, Flufenzin, Furathiocarb, Hexaconazol, Lactofen, Mepronil, Methamidophos, Methopren, Monocrotophos, Monuron, Oxycarboxin, Oxydemeton-methyl, Parathion-methyl, Phorat, Phosalon, Procymidon, Profenofos, Propachlor, Quinclorac, Quintozen, Tolylfluanid, Trichlorfon, Tridemorph und Trifluralin in oder auf bestimmten Erzeugnissen und zur Änderung der genannten Verordnung durch Festlegung des Anhangs V mit einer Liste der Standardwerte

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 273 vom 6. Oktober 2012
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 273 vom 6. Oktober 2012

Seite 5, Anhang, Nummer 1 Buchstabe a (zur Änderung der Spalten für Acephat, Azocyclotin, Chlorfenapyr, Cyhexatin, Diazinon, Dicofol, Carbaryl, Carbofuran, Carbosulfan, Disulfoton, Fenitrothion, Methamidophos, Oxydemeton-methyl, Parathion-methyl, Phorat, Procymidon, Profenofos und Quintozen in Anhang II der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 396/2005 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates), Tabelle „Rückstände von Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln und Rückstandshöchstgehalte (mg/kg)“, Spalte 16, Tabellenkopf:

anstatt:

„Phorat (Summe aus Phorat, seinem Sauerstoffanalogon und ihren Sulfoxiden und Sulfonen, ausgedrückt als Phorat)“

muss es heißen:

„Phorat (Summe aus Phorat, seinem Sauerstoffanalogon und ihren Sulfonen, ausgedrückt als Phorat)“.

Seite 41, Anhang, Nummer 2 Buchstabe c (zur Änderung der Spalten für Acephat, Azocyclotin, Chlorfenapyr, Cyhexatin, Diazinon, Dicofol, Carbaryl, Carbofuran, Carbosulfan, Disulfoton, Fenitrothion, Methamidophos, Oxydemeton-methyl, Parathion-methyl, Phorat, Procymidon, Profenofos und Quintozen in Anhang III Teil B der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 396/2005 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates), Tabelle „Rückstände von Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln und Rückstandshöchstgehalte (mg/kg)“, Spalte 16, Tabellenkopf:

anstatt:

„Phorat (Summe aus Phorat, seinem Sauerstoffanalogon und ihren Sulfoxiden und Sulfonen, ausgedrückt als Phorat)“

muss es heißen:

„Phorat (Summe aus Phorat, seinem Sauerstoffanalogon und ihren Sulfonen, ausgedrückt als Phorat)“.

---
STATE v. Roger Allan FINCHER.

No. 279P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 27, 2006.

Brenda Eaddy, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of July 2006 by Defendant to Withdraw Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 27th day of July 2006."
TEXAS 

#3 

Ψρκ͘Θ^WEd/E

ηϭς

Ϯ͘εйK&^dd'W

ε͘εй

OF TOTAL U.S. 

Ψϭ͕ΘΘε

PER RESIDENT 

#2 

$43.4 B CONTRACT 

#3 

ϮϮκ͕ρϯϭEhDZ

#3 

Ψϭϭ͘κWZ^KEE>

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING OF PERSONNEL SPENDING 

 DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĂŶĚ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͗ κй ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͗ κй

ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͗ Ϯϭй

^ƵƉƉůŝĞƐĂŶĚ

ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ͗ ϳϬй

By Service 

Army 

25% 

Navy/Marines 

36% 

Air Force 

21% 

Other Defense 

18% 

ůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕LJdLJƉĞ

Reserve: 15% 

EĂƚŝŽŶĂů Active Duty: 54% Guard: 10% 

Civilian: 22% 

ůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕By Service 

Army 

60% 

Navy/Marines 

8% 

Air Force 

29% 

Other Defense 

2% 

Top Defense Contractors ;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐ͕сďŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

>ŽĐŬŚĞĞĚDĂƌƟŶ ΨϮϮ͘ρ

>ϯdĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐŝĞƐ ΨϮ͘Ϭ

ĞůůŽĞŝŶŐ:ŽŝŶƚWƌŽũĞĐƚKĸĐĞ Ψϭ͘ς

ZĂLJƚŚĞŽŶ Ψϭ͘ϯ

dĞdžƚƌŽŶ ΨεεΘ͘ϭD

ZŽLJĂůƵƚĐŚ^ŚĞůů ΨςϮϳ͘εD

'ĞŶĞƌĂůLJŶĂŵŝĐƐ Ψςϭϳ͘ϮD

ĞƌďĞƌƵƐĂƉŝƚĂůDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ Ψρϯϯ͘ςD

ůďŝƚ^LJƐƚĞŵƐ Ψκϯκ͘ΘD

ŝƌďƵƐ Ψϯκε͘ϳD

Contract Awards Performed ;LJ&ŝƐĐĂůzĞĂƌ͕ďŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

Ψκϯ͘κ ΨϯΘ͘ε Ψϯε͘κ

ΨϯϮ͘ϭ ΨϮε͘Ϯ

&zϭϮ &zϭϯ

ΨϮΘ͘ρ

&zϭκ &zϭρ

ΨϮκ͘ε ΨϮϯ͘κ

&zϭς &zϭϳ &zϭΘ &zϭε

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Ψϭϭ͘κ/>>/KE ϮϮκ͕ρϯϭ

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

dŽƉĞĨĞŶƐĞWĞƌƐŽŶŶĞů>ŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ

ŽƵŶƚLJ ĐƚŝǀĞ ŝǀŝůŝĂŶ EĂƟŽŶĂů ZĞƐĞƌǀĞ dŽƚĂů

ƵƚLJ 'ƵĂƌĚ

ĞdžĂƌ ϯς͕ςϭϮ ϮϮ͕ςϬς ϯ͕ϬΘρ ε͕ϭΘε ϳϭ͕κεϮ

Ğůů ϯϯ͕Θϭς ρ͕ϯκΘ ϳϮϬ Θςϳ κϬ͕ϳρϭ

ůWĂƐŽ Ϯς͕ϭϳϮ κ͕ϬϮϮ ϭ͕ϭΘϬ ϭ͕εϬϭ ϯϯ͕Ϯϳρ

dĂƌƌĂŶƚ ϭ͕ϭςρ Ϯ͕ϳϭρ ϭ͕ςϮϳ ς͕κΘκ ϭϭ͕εεϭ

,ĂƌƌŝƐ ςϳϭ ϳϮϯ ϯ͕ϬεΘ ϯ͕εεκ Θ͕κΘς

tŝĐŚŝƚĂ ς͕Ϭϳρ ϭ͕ϭϮε ϭϬκ ϭρϬ ϳ͕κρΘ

ĂůůĂƐ ρϯϭ εϭϭ ϭ͕ςκε ϯ͕εεϳ ϳ͕ϬΘΘ

EƵĞĐĞƐ ϭ͕κϬϬ ϯ͕ϳςκ ϭΘς ρϭϯ ρ͕Θςϯ

dĂLJůŽƌ κ͕ρϭς κες ϭεϯ ϯκϳ ρ͕ρρϮ

dƌĂǀŝƐ ϯκρ Θςε Ϯ͕ρρρ ϭ͕ϬΘΘ κ͕Θρϳ

ϭϬκ KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ>ŽĐĂůĞĨĞŶƐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶͶĞĨĞŶƐĞ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐďLJ^ƚĂƚĞ͕&zϮϬϭε
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 I S CAL YEAR TEXAS 2 0 1 8

FISCAL YEAR 2019 

tŝĐŚŝƚĂ

ĂůůĂƐ

Ğůů

,ĂƌƌŝƐ

ĞdžĂƌ

EƵĞĐĞƐ

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

WŽƚƚĞƌ

,ƵŶƚ

ŽůůŝŶ

dĂƌƌĂŶƚ

ĂůůĂƐ

ůWĂƐŽ

Ğůů

,ĂƌƌŝƐ

ĞdžĂƌ

,ŝĚĂůŐŽ

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS ;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐ͕сďŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

dĂƌƌĂŶƚ

ĂůůĂƐ

ĞdžĂƌ

,ĂƌƌŝƐ

ŽůůŝŶ

WŽƩĞƌ

,ƵŶƚ

ůWĂƐŽ

,ŝĚĂůŐŽ

Ğůů

;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐ͕сďŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

Ψϭϳ͘ς

Ψε͘ϯ

Ψϯ͘ε

$2.3 B 

Ψϭ͘ς

Ψϭ͘ς

Ψϭ͘ρ

ΨΘϭϮ͘ςD

ΨςϮε͘ΘD

ΨρςΘ͘ϬD

ĞdžĂƌ

Ğůů

ůWĂƐŽ

dĂƌƌĂŶƚ

EƵĞĐĞƐ

dĂLJůŽƌ

,ĂƌƌŝƐ

tŝĐŚŝƚĂ

ĂůůĂƐ

dƌĂǀŝƐ

Ψκ͘ϭ

$2.2 B 

Ψϭ͘Θ

Ψκϳϭ͘ΘD

Ψϯϳϭ͘ρD

ΨϮες͘ϮD

ΨϮςϳ͘ΘD

ΨϮρΘ͘ρD

ΨϮρς͘ρD

ΨϮϮϮ͘ϭD

&ĐƚŝǀĞ &'ƵĂƌĚ &ZĞƐĞƌǀĞ ƌŵLJĐƚŝǀĞ ƌŵLJ'ƵĂƌĚ ƌŵLJZĞƐĞƌǀĞ DĐƚŝǀĞ EĂǀLJĐƚŝǀĞ t,^

dĂƌƌĂŶƚ ůWĂƐŽ

dĂLJůŽƌ

dƌĂǀŝƐ

KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ >ŽĐĂůĞĨĞŶƐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶͶĞĨĞŶƐĞ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐďLJ^ƚĂƚĞ͕&zϮϬϭε ϭϬρ
Order entered October 31 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00945

- CR No. 05

- 14

- 00946

- CR

LADEREK KINTE REYNOL DS, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dalla s County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F09

- 58630

- Y , F 11

- 60044

- Y



### O RDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant has been deprived of the clerk’s and reporter’s records because of ineffective counsel, indigence,
or for any other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeals, it shall make a finding to that effect.

 If the tria l court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the clerk’s and reporter’s records. If appellant is entitled to proceed without p ayment of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel . If the trial court finds appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who

recorded the proceedings in this cause ; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can be filed.

 The trial court shall next determine the date by which the clerk’s records will be filed.

We OR DER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date
of this order. The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received,
whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
STATE v. GISH.

No. COA05-801.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 20, 2006.

Certification Date July 10, 2006.

Appeal from Onslow (03CRS60393).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
How much money 

could a community 

save if beach litter 

was ...

25% 50% 75%

Beachgoers may actively avoid using certain beaches because those areas are littered with 

marine debris. By choosing to avoid beaches with debris, individuals will likely spend more time 

and money to nd cleaner beaches. At 31 beaches in Southern California, NOAA estimated how 

much money Orange County residents could potentially save by reducing marine debris.

100%

reduced by reduced by reduced by reduced by

$148

million

REDUCING DEBRIS

ON BEACHES

*These estimates only represent potential savings to Orange County residents surveyed in this study. Further analysis is required to generate cost estimates for the 

state of California, which will likely be greater than the estimates presented in this study. The full report is available at www.MarineDebris.noaa.gov for more details.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
      (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 registrant, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  (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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 By:
    
    /s/ MATTHEW A. JONESName:
    
    Matthew A. JonesTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    November 7, 2008
 90
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 24
- 0151 SCOTT LARSEN AND KAREN LARSEN, Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. KEITH SAYERS AND DANIELLE SAYERS, Defendants and Appellees. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Peter M. Meloy,** whose name appears next on the list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App. P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment. A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED this April 2, 2024.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court
c: Brett Patrick Clark, Jeffrey Wade Dahood, Peter M. Meloy 04/02/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0151