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

                                                                    Exhibit 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     The undersigned, ______________________________, hereby authorizes and
appoints William W. Krippaehne, Jr., Warren J. Spector and David D. Hillard, and
each of them, with full power of substitution and resubstitution and full power
to act without the other, as his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent to
act in his name, place and stead and to execute in the name and on behalf of
him, individually and in each capacity stated below, and to file, the Annual
Report of Fisher Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002 (the "Annual Report"), any and all amendments to the Annual
Report, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto
said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to
do and perform each and every act and thing, ratifying and confirming all that
said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them or their and his or her
substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
thereof.


Date:  March ___, 2003                          ________________________________
                                                Signature
#### STATE OF LOUISIANA v. Rhine REYNOLDS

No. 2010-KO-1213.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Reynolds, Rhine; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 072482; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 2257.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 99.4**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE**

I, Robert L. Weisgarber,the Chief Financial Officer of DSI Toys, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that:

 

# **1.**               theForm 10-K, as amended byAmendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A and AmendmentNo. 2 on Form 10-K/A**,** for the Company’s fiscal year ended December31, 2002 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

# **2.**               the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of DSI Toys, Inc.

 

/s/ ROBERT L.WEISGARBER

                                                                                                Robert L. Weisgarber

Chief Financial OfficerJune 10, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 22, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 32


Hunting and Fishing

CFR Correction

    In Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 18 to 199, 
revised as of October 1, 2009, on page 385, in Sec.  32.43, the entry 
for ``Coldwater National Wildlife Refuge'' is moved to precede the 
entry for ``Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge'' on page 383.
[FR Doc. 2010-23769 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementNo. 333-74784 and 333-53621 on Form S-8 and No. 333-68001 and No. 333-140330 on Form S-3 of our reports dated April 14, 2008, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Noble International, Ltd., andour report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which report excludes from the scope of our audit internal control over financial reporting at the Arcelor Business and the effectiveness thereof for 2007 appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Noble International, Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Detroit, Michigan 

April 14, 2008
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated April
14, 2005 on the consolidated balance sheets of WidePoint Corporation as of December 31,
2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
stockholders equity, and cash flows of WidePoint Corporation for the years ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2004, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of our report in Form S-8 in the companys
previously filed Registration Statement No. 333-55993.

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

GRANT THORNTON LLP
 Chicago, IllinoisApril 14, 2005
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of United Microelectronics Corporation, or the Company, on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, or the Report, I, Po-Wen Yen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 21, 2015
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/ Po-Wen Yen
|                     |  | Name:          |  | Po-Wen Yen             
|                     |  | Title:         |  | Chief Executive Officer



|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### H. P. Walker v. Simkins & Simkins.

(No. 1540.)

Appeal from Navarro County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 69. *Trespasser; cannot claim occupancy of land in good faith.*Walker sued appellees to recover the value ■of certain sugar cane which he alleged belonged to him and had been wrongfully converted by them. Walker took possession of certain premises with the knowledge •at the time that the title to said premises was then in litigation, and that the claim under which he entered upon the land was then in dispute in the courts. He was a party to the suit in which the title was involved. Pending this suit he planted the sugar cane in controversy upon the premises. The suit resulted adversely to the title under which he claimed the premises, and thereupon he abandoned the premises, leaving the sugar cane thereon. Appellees, who were the legal owners of the land, took possession of it, and also of the sugar cane. *Held,*that Walker had no cause of action. He was a trespasser when he entered upon the land, and could not claim entry and occupancy in good faith, because he knew of the adverse title and was fully apprised of the litigation about it. He took the chances of the title under which he entered and occupied the premises, and he exercised acts of ownership and occupancy at his own peril. He has no more right to claim that he acted in good faith than a mere trespasser. [Henderson v. Ownby, 56 Tex. 647.] In order to make a person guilty of a wrongful con*59version of property there must be an illegal assumption of ownership. Appellees were the legal owners of the land, and also of the sugar "cane, which had been planted thereon against their wishes by a trespasser.

December 8, 1883.

§ 70. *Allegata et probata; rule as to.*It is an elementary rule of practice that the *allegata*and *probata*must correspond, and that facts not alleged, though proved, cannot form the basis of a decree or judgment. No evidence not supported by the allegations can sustain a verdict. [Jones v. Jackson, 3 Tex. 305; Denison v. League, 16 Tex. 400.] In this case appellees pleaded in reconvention for use and occupation of the premises from December 1, 1879. They were permitted to prove and recover for use and occupation from January 1, 1879,—• a period of eleven months longer than claimed by them in their plea.

§ 71. *jRemittitur; effect of, tvhen made in appellate court.*Appellees filed a *remittitur*in the court of appeals of the amouht recovered by them for use and occupation of the premises. *Held,*the *remittitur*had the effect to dispense with the necessity of a reversal of the judgment and a remanding of the cause. The judgment was reformed and rendered so as to relieve appellant from the amount adjudged against him for use and occupation, and the costs of the appeal were adjudged against appellees.

Reformed and rendered.
<PAGE>
                                     EXHIBIT 11.1

                           VISTA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                      STATEMENT RE-COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE DATA
                    (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         FISCAL YEARS ENDING DECEMBER 31         
                                     -------------------------------------
                                         1995         1996        1997
                                     -----------  -----------   -----------
<S>                                  <C>          <C>           <C>
Net income (loss)                    $   (3,274)  $   (7,439)   $  (16,877)
                                     ----------   ----------    ----------
                                     ----------   ----------    ----------
Average common shares outstanding            37          201         6,731
                                     ----------   ----------    ----------
Shares used in Basic per share 
  computations                               37          201         6,731
                                     ----------   ----------    ----------
                                     ----------   ----------    ----------
Net income (loss) per share - Basic  $   (88.49)  $   (37.01)   $    (2.51) 
                                     ----------   ----------    ----------
                                     ----------   ----------    ----------

Net effect of dilutive common share 
  equivalents based on the treasury 
  stock method                               --           --          --
Shares used in Diluted per share 
  computations                               37          201         6,731
                                     ----------   ----------    ----------
                                     ----------   ----------    ----------
Net income (loss) per 
  share - Diluted                    $   (88.49)  $   (37.01)   $    (2.51)
                                     ----------   ----------    ----------
                                     ----------   ----------    ----------
</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Sept. 20Published Sept. 20, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- On this look around the Air Force, Staff Sgt. Traci Keller takes us to the Air Force Association’s Air, Cyber and Space Conference where the name of the Air Force’s latest stealth bomber, the B-21, was announced. 
For previous episodes, click here for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- The B-21 has a name: Raiderdoolittle raiders 



AFA 



WWII 



heritage 



SecAF 



Raider 



B-21 



ATAF
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
   I, Eugene B. Shepherd, Jr., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Brigham ExplorationCompany; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15-d-14) for the registrant andwe have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsand about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting,which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. Date: March 26, 2004 /s/ EUGENE B. SHEPHERD, JR.Eugene B. Shepherd, Jr.Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1572 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate the discriminatory treatment of the District of Columbia under the provisions of law commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘Hatch Act’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 19, 2007 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate the discriminatory treatment of the District of Columbia under 

the provisions of law commonly referred to as the ‘‘Hatch 

Act’’. 

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 ‘‘District of Columbia 

5 Hatch Act Reform Act of 2007’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1572 IH

1 SEC. 2. EMPLOYEES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO BE 

2 SUBJECT TO THE SAME RESTRICTIONS ON 

3 POLITICAL ACTIVITY AS APPLY TO STATE 

4 AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES. 

5 (a) APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO

6 STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES.—Section 1501(1) of title 

7 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘a State 

8 or territory’’ and inserting ‘‘a State, the District of Co9 lumbia, or a territory’’. 

10 (b) PROVISIONS RELATING TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

11 MADE INAPPLICABLE.—Section 7322(1) of such title is 

12 amended— 

13 (1) by inserting ‘‘or’’ at the end of subpara14 graph (A); 

15 (2) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph 

16 (B); 

17 (3) by striking subparagraph (C); and 

18 (4) by striking ‘‘services;’’ and inserting ‘‘serv19 ices or an individual employed or holding office in 

20 the government of the District of Columbia;’’. 

21 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

22 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 

23 on the effective date of a law enacted by the District of 

24 Columbia after the date of the enactment of this Act which 

25 places restrictions on political activities of employees of 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1572 IH

1 the District of Columbia government, and shall apply with 

2 respect to actions occurring on or after that date. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joshua THOMAS.

No. 2010-KO-2752.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Thomas, Joshua; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 08-2008; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KA-220.

Denied.
#### Kevin L. CHOICE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles Condon, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 00-7299.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 2001.

Decided Jan. 17, 2001.

*254Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kevin L. Choice seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Choice v. South Carolina,*No. CA-00-2249-0-18BD (D.S.C. Sept. 1, 2000).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 Although the district court’s order is marked as "filed” on August 31, 2000, the district court's records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on September 1, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. *Wilson v. Murray,*806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.1986).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                               ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

      As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report dated January 16, 2002 included in this Form 10-K, into the
Company's previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement File Numbers
333-52130, 333-75352 and 333-75354.

                                                       /s/   ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Lancaster, Pa.,
March 27, 2002













Note: This represents a copy of the letter of consent by Arthur Andersen LLP
that was included as Exhibit 22.1 to Waypoint Financial Corp.'s annual report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 and does not represent a
reissuance of the letter of consent. After reasonable efforts, Waypoint
Financial Corp. has not been able to obtain a reissued letter of consent from
Arthur Andersen LLP.



                                       92
1 

NO. 12-23-00179-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JOHNNY D. BUFORD, 

APPELLANT

V.

VERNON MILLING COMPANY, INC. 

AND JOHN DOE, TRUCK DRIVER, 

APPELLEES 

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. 

Johnny D. Buford filed a pro se notice of appeal on July 11, 2023. Pursuant to Rule 32.1, 

the docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time appeal was perfected. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 32.1. That same day, the Clerk of this Court requested that Appellant file a docketing 

statement within ten days if he had not already done so. Appellant did not file a docketing 

statement as requested. 

 On August 2, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice advising Appellant that the 

docketing statement was past due. The notice provided that unless the docketing statement was 

filed on or before August 14, the appeal would be presented for dismissal in accordance with 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3. Appellant did not file the required docketing statement 

or otherwise respond to this Court’s notice.

Accordingly, because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 32.1, the appeal 

is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (after giving ten days’ notice, appellate court may 

dismiss appeal because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a 
2 

court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified 

time). 

Opinion delivered on August 31, 2023. 

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT 

AUGUST 31, 2023 

NO. 12-23-00179-CV

JOHNNY D. BUFORD, 

Appellant 

V.

VERNON MILLING COMPANY, INC. AND JOHN DOE, TRUCK DRIVER, 

Appellees 

Appeal from the County Court at Law No 3 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 72827-B) 

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed. 

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance. 

By per curiam opinion. 

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.