alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
      23.1





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
      Form
      S-8 (Nos. 33-88442, 33-99196, 33-94974, 333-65799, 333-36159, 333-82418, and
      333-82416) and on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-90017, 333-76614, 333-92174 and
      333-102334) of Data Systems & Software Inc. of our report dated April 11,
      2006, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules,
      which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.








/s/
      Kesselman & Kesselman


Certified
      Public Accountants


A
      member
      of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited








Tel
      Aviv,
      Israel


April
      11,
      2006
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3713]



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


COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Kansas Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that the Kansas 
Advisory Committee to the Commission will meet on Thursday, March 2, 
1995, from 6:00 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. at the Student Union, Oak Room, 
Coffeyville Community College, 400 West 11th Street, Coffeyville, 
Kansas 67337. The purpose of the meeting is to collect information on 
civil rights issues in order to plan for future projects in Kansas.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Melvin L. Jenkins, Director of the 
Central Regional Office, 816-426-5253 (TTY 816-426-5009). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least five (5) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, February 6, 1995.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 95-3713 Filed 2-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
#### G. B. WESTMORELAND v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation.

(Filed 12 October, 1960.)

Appeal and Error § 41—

The exclusion of evidence cannot be held prejudicial when the record fails to show what the witness would have testified had he been permitted to answer.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Craven, S. J.,*May 1960 Special Term, McDowell Superior Court.

Civil action to recover damages by fire alleged to have been ignited on and spread from defendant’s railway right of way to the plaintiff’s property, causing its damage and destruction. The plaintiff alleged defendant’s actionable negligence in the following particulars: (1) By permitting inflammable material to accumulate on its right of way; (2) by operating trains which permitted flakes of red hot metal to escape from the wheels and brakes of its trains and sparks to escape from its locomotives when it knew or should have known the danger of fire as a result of permitting these conditions to exist. The plaintiff further alleged that sparks from the locomotive and hot metal and sparks from the wheels and brakes set fire to the inflammable material on its right of way; that the fire spread to and damaged plaintiff’s property in the sum of $22,000.

The defendant, by answer, denied all allegations of negligence. Both parties introduced evidence. The court submitted issues as to *198defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s damage. The jury answered the first issue, “No.” The court entered judgment dismissing the action. The plaintiff appealed.

*Wm. D. Lonon, Paul J. Story for plaintiff, appellant.*

*W. T. Joyner, Proctor & Dameron for defendant, appellee.*

PeR Cueiam.

The court sustained the objections to two questions whether a fire will start along a railroad track (1) by reason of defective brakes and (2) by reason of friction between the wheels and the track. The plaintiff assigns the above as error No. 1. Failure to show what the witness would have answered renders the ruling nonprejudicial. Other objections need not be discussed.

The other seven assignments of error relate to the charge. Careful examination fails to show error in any of the particulars assigned.

The critical issue was one of fact which the jury answered against the plaintiff upon whom the law placed the burden of proof.

No error.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Pharus Funding, LLC, as Assignee of LHR, 

Inc., Appellant

No. 06-20-00090-CV v.

Jerry Solley and Lola M. Solley, Appellees

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 

1 of Johnson County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

C200800653). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice 

Burgess and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Pharus Funding, LLC, as Assignee of LHR, Inc., pay 

all costs incurred by reason of this appeal.

RENDERED APRIL 29, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **AND
        CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I,
        Dennis
        Calvert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
        to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
        NuWay,
        Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
        fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results
        of
        operations of NuWay Medical, Inc.
 Date: June
                  28, 2005
              By:
              /s/ Dennis
                CalvertDennis
                  Calvert
                President and Chief Executive
                  Officer
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        NuWay Medical, Inc. and will be retained by NuWay Medical, Inc. and furnished
        to
        the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 I,
        Dennis
        Calvert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
        to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
        NuWay
        Medical, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004
        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 Annual Report
        on
        Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
        and
        results of operations of NuWay Medical, Inc.
 Date: June
                  28, 2005
              By:
              /s/ Dennis
                CalvertDennis
                  Calvert
                Interim Chief Financial
                  Officer
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        NuWay Medical, Inc. and will be retained by NuWay Medical, Inc. and furnished
        to
        the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30758]



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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Revocation of License of Small Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration by the Order of the United States District 
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, dated 
November 3, 1995, the United States Small Business Administration 
hereby revokes the license of Diversified Capital Funding Corporation, 
a Texas corporation, to function as a small business investment company 
under the Small Business Investment Company License No.06/10-0125 
issued to Diversified Capital Funding Corporation on September 27, 1962 
and said license is hereby declared null and void as of December 13, 
1995.

Small Business Administration.

    Dated: December 11, 1995.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 95-30758 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3655 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 451
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3655

                          [Report No. 117-134]

 To amend the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 2018 to 
   extend the termination date of the Civil Rights Cold Case Records 
                             Review Board.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2022

  Mr. Ossoff (for himself, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Peters, Mr. Carper, and Ms. 
    Hassan) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

                             July 21, 2022

               Reported by Mr. Peters, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 2018 to 
   extend the termination date of the Civil Rights Cold Case Records 
                             Review Board.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Civil Rights Cold Case 
Investigations Support Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. CIVIL RIGHTS COLD CASE RECORDS REVIEW BOARD EXTENSION OF 
              TENURE.

    Section 5(n)(1) of Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 
2018 (44 U.S.C. 2107 note; Public Law 115-426) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``4 years'' and inserting ``7 years''; and
            (2) by striking ``4-year period'' and inserting ``7-year 
        period''.
                                                       Calendar No. 451

117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3655

                          [Report No. 117-134]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To amend the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 2018 to 
   extend the termination date of the Civil Rights Cold Case Records 
                             Review Board.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 21, 2022

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit 31.2




CERTIFICATIONS






I, Mark P. O’Neill, certify that:




1.
I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Hypertension Diagnostics, Inc.;





2.
Based on my knowledge, this 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 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 the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(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.





/s/ Mark P. O’Neill


Mark P. O’Neill


Manager of Finance and Accounting (principal financial officer)







Date:  February 16, 2010
Exhibit 4.2


 


DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE


 


	$25,000.00	Sarasota, FL
	 	December 13, 2022


 


For value received, and intending to be legally bound,
INVO Bioscience Inc. (the “Maker”), promises to pay the total sum of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) to ANDAX
LLC (the “Holder”) together with a financing fee (the “Fee”) of ten percent (10%). Should this demand
promissory note (this “Note”) not be repaid in full by January 31, 2023, interest shall accrue on the Note from the
date hereof until paid, at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months).
Principal, the Fee and any interest due shall be paid in full on demand, following ten (10) calendar day prior written notice, which may
be given by Holder starting on January 13, 2022. Payments shall be applied first to any accrued interest and then to the financing fee
and shall be made at such place as the Holder may direct.


 


This Note may be prepaid in whole or in part at any
time without penalty, premium or other consideration.


 


All presentment notice of protest or notice of nonpayment
or dishonor are hereby waived, and the failure of the Holder to exercise any of his rights hereunder in any instance shall not constitute
a waiver thereof in that or any other instance.


 


Notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary herein,
this Note shall become immediately due and payable, without any demand or notice whatsoever, upon the commencement of any bankruptcy,
reorganization, receivership or insolvency proceeding by or against the Maker, or upon the Maker making any assignment for the benefit
of creditors.


 


In the event that this Note, together with all accrued
but unpaid interest hereon, is not paid within ten (10) days after the date upon which payment becomes due pursuant to the terms of this
Note, then the Maker agrees to pay all reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred by the Holder in enforcing the obligations
of the Maker under this Note.


 


This Note may not be modified, amended, waived, extended,
changed, discharged or terminated orally or by any act or failure to act on the part of the Maker or the Holder, but only by an agreement
in writing signed by both the Maker and the Holder.


 


This note shall be construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of New York, without regard to those provisions related to choice of law.


 


[Signature follows on next page]


 






    	-1-



     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has executed
and delivered this instrument effective as of the date first written above.


 


	By Maker:	 	Reviewed and Approved By:
	 	 	 
	/s/ Steve Shum	 	/s/ Matthew Szot
	Steve Shum	 	Matthew Szot
	Chief Executive Officer	 	Chairman, Audit Committee
	INVO Bioscience Inc.	 	INVO Bioscience Inc.


 






    	-2-
Supreme Court

No. 2017 -177 -Appeal.

( WB 14 -532 )

James P. Manning :

v. :

Rose Hill Golf Club, Inc. :

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.

O R D E R

The Court being evenly divided, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Justice Flaherty did not participate.

Entered as an Order of this Court this ___ day of December, 2018.

By Order,

_____________

/s/_______________

Clerk 14thSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

SUPREME COURT

– CLERK’S OFFICE

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case James P. Manning v. Rose Hill Golf Club, Inc.

Case Number No. 201 7

- 177

- A ppeal

. (WB 14

- 532 )

D ate Order Filed December 1 4 , 2018

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.

Source of Appeal Washington County Superior Court

Judicial Officer From Lower Court Associate Justice Brian P. Stern

A ttorney(s) on Appeal For Pl aintiff:

Stephen F. Del Sesto , Esq.

For Defendant:

Robert E. Flaherty

, Esq.

SU

- CMS

- 02B (revised November 2016)
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

This
certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the "Form 10-K")
for the year ended December 31, 2007 of Manhattan Bancorp (the "Company").

I,
Dean Fletcher, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:



Dated:
March 20, 2008

| | /s/DEAN FLETCHERDean Fletcher Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
FOURTH DIVISION

DILLARD, C. J.,

BROWN and MARKLE, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be

physically received in our clerk’s office within ten

days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.

http://www.gaappeals.us/rules

December 20, 2018

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

A17A0391. LYNCHAR, INC. et al. v. COLONIAL OIL

INDUSTRIES, INC.

BROWN, Judge.

In Colonial Oil Indus. v. Lynchar, Inc., 303 Ga. 839 (815 SE2d 917) (2018),

the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed this Court’s decision in Lynchar, Inc. v.

Colonial Oil Indus., 341 Ga. App. 489 (801 SE2d 576) (2017). Accordingly, we

vacate our earlier opinion, adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court as our own, and

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment affirmed. Dillard, C. J., and Markle, J., concur.
### Proposed Provision: E3.10. Beginning in 2031, apply 2 percent payroll tax rate on earnings over the wage-indexed equivalent of $300,000 in 2017 (about $522,300 in 2031), with the threshold wage-indexed after 2031. Provide proportional benefit credit for additional earnings taxed, based on the payroll tax rate applied to the additional earnings divided by the full 12.4 percent payroll tax rate.

back
#### SHELBY JEAN COKER v. BILL VESTER COKER.

(Filed 21 October, 1959.)

1. Automobiles § 4 In—

Testimony of a passenger to the effect that the driver dimmed his lights in passing another car, and immediately after changing to his bright lights saw a black cow directly in front of the car, was unable to turn to the left because of oncoming traffic, and struck the cow, resulting in the injuries in suit, with further testimony that the driver was going about 45 m. p. h. and that plaintiff passenger did not know any way the driver could have avoided the accident, *is held*insufficient to establish actionable negligence on the part of the driver.

Higgins, J., not sitting.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Morris, J.,*January 26 Civil Term, 1959, of Wayne.

This is a civil action in which the plaintiff Shelby Jean Coker seeks to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligent operation of an automobile, in which she was a guest passenger, driven by the defendant Bill Yester Coker, her husband.

The plaintiff testified that she was riding in the automobile driven by her husband about 6:00 p.m. on 16 December 1957, going from their home in Goldsboro to the home of her husband’s mother who lived at Parkstown, when the automobile was involved in a collision with a cow on the highway. “The cow was standing in the road. I saw her just as we hit her.” She further testified that in her opinion the car was traveling about 60 miles per hour when the accident occurred.

On cross-examination the plaintiff testified, “The road on which we were traveling wa,s a black-topped road, and it was after dark. As we approached the scene of the accident there was a car meeting us. My. husband * * * dimmed his lights. As soon as we passed this car, my husband put on his bright lights again, and I saw the cow directly in front of.me, and I had not seen the cow before. * * * My husband did not have a chance to put on his brakes. * * * we were going up a long grade. It was after we had passed the top of the hill. My husband *92was driving on the right side of the paved road, and as soon as he hit the cow, he stopped. This was a solid black cow. * * * I was not looking at the speedometer. The opinion given to Mr. Thomson as to the speed was based, at least in part, on the degree of injury which I received.”

In the plaintiff’s signed statement made some weeks after the accident, among other things, she said: “I do not know of any way Bill (her husband) could have avoided the accident, we were going about 45 miles per hour.”

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. The motion was allowed, and from the judgment entered, the plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*J. Faison Thomson ■& Son for plaintiff.*

*Dupree & Weaver for defendant.*

Per Cueiam.

In our opinion, the plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to establish actionable negligence on the part of the defendant. Hence, the ruling of the court below will be upheld.

Affirmed.

Higgins, J., not sitting.