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

                                                                      Exhibit 21


                              UTILICORP UNITED INC.

                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                         2000 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

SUBSIDIARY                                        JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
<S>                                              <C>

Aquila, Inc.                                      Delaware
Aquila Canada Corporation                         Province of Alberta
Aquila Energy Marketing Corporation               Delaware
Aquila Risk Management Corporation                Delaware
UtiliCorp Asia Pacific, Inc.                      Delaware
UtiliCorp Asia Pacific Pty Ltd.                   Australia
UtiliCorp Australia, Inc.                         Delaware
UtiliCorp South Pacific, Inc.                     Delaware
UtiliCorp Networks Canada Ltd.                    Province of Alberta
UtiliCorp Networks Canada (Alberta) Ltd.          Province of Alberta
</TABLE>
To whom it may concern:

I think that there is still a perception that a general cybersecurity specialist exists that can 

adequately take care of an organization's total data security concerns. This usually falls in the 

lap of an organization's network administrator.

We might be better served in bridging the workforce gap, especially in larger organizations, if 

we started to think of the cybersecurity workforce in the same way that we have come to see 

the healthcare workforce. Rather than having one staffer with a master's degree in computer 

science, or a network administrator with an umbrella cybersecurity certification, perhaps the 

cyber workforce should be broken down into specialties (penetration testing, ethical hacking, 

intrusion detection, etc.) where people are trained in time periods of 12-24 months to perform 

specific complementary cybersecurity functions.

Most of all, the training of all computer users in the recognition of phishing, and general 

malware avoidance needs to be addressed outside of the domain of IT education. Social 

engineering and bad decision making by unaware users is key to the success of any 

cybersecurity strategy. Training needs to begin in k-12 schools, and continue on through college 

and be integrated into ongoing practice in enterprises of all types.

John Hamerlinck

Rural Information Technology Alliance, Grant Manager

Central Lakes College

501 W College Drive

Brainerd, MN 56401

jhamerlinck@clcmn.edu
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-64821, 333-109867, 333-115355 and 333-128492 on Form S-3 and Nos. 333-133596, 333-40560 and 333-101390 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 11, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules
of The Midland Company and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph related to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in
Income Taxes  an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109 on January 1, 2007 and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, Employers Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension Plan and Other Postretirement
Benefit Plans  an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R), on December 31, 2006), and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Midland
Company and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
|Cincinnati, Ohio         

March 11, 2008
10422.

#### Wood *et al. v.*City of Rome.

Bboyles, P. J.

1. When the affidavit of illegality is construed as a whole, and most strongly (as it must be) against the pleader, the facts therein stated- show by clear implication that some amount must be due from the affiants to the City of Rome for the paving of the street uptfn which their property abutted; and, it not being alleged therein that^uch amount had "been paid or tendered, the affidavit of illegality was properly dismissed on the general demurrer interposed. See Ga. L. 1909, p. 1255, sec. 71 (ejf This is true although it is alleged in the affidavit that “no part of the sum for which said fi. fa. was issued is due,” and it is “expressly denied” that deponents are “legally chargeable with any por*116tion of the cost of said pavement.” These allegations, in the light of the affidavit as a whole and the facts therein stated, are mere conclusions of the affiants and are without any basis of fact to rest upon. See, in this connection, *Hardwick*v. Dalton, 140 *Ga.*633 (79 S. E. 553); *Burns*v. *Atlanta,*22 *Ga. App.*381 (96 S. E. 11) ; s. c. (affirmed), 148 *Ga.*549 (97 S. E. 536).

Decided July 22, 1919.

Affidavit of illegality; from Floyd superior court—Judge Wright. February 4, 1919.

*M. B. Eubanks,*for plaintiff in error.

*Max Meyerhardt,*contra.

(a) The conclusion of the affiants that no amount is due can not be supported by the fact, stated in the affidavit, that their property has been damaged in an amount larger than the amount of the fl. fa. against them, by a change of grade in the street. This is merely an attempt to set up an unliquidated demand against a judgment demand, and this could not be done in the affidavit of illegality in this case. *Hawkins*v. *County of*Sumter, 57 *Ga.*166; *Leavel*v. *Frey,*133 *Ga.*723 (66 S. E. 916).

2. No ground of the affidavit of illegality was meritorious.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In re: The Estate of Margaret Eugenia 

Tatum, Deceased

No. 06-15-00010-CV

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 

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

2009-0009-P). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Burgess 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 pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MARCH 17, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHAWN YAEGER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

FELIPE MARTINEZ, Jr., Warden,

individual capacity; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 22

- 55175

D.C. No.

2:19

- cv

- 07059

- SVW

- DFM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15 , 2024 * *

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Shawn Yaeger , a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in Yaeger’s action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

, alleging that

prison defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 15 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

violation of the Eighth Amendment

. Because the facts are known to the parties,

we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision. We affirm.

I.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Yaeger failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies against defendant Dr. Watson and Yaeger

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative

remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81,

90 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies

. . . ‘means using all

steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses

the issues on the merits

. )’” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted));

McKinney v. Carey , 311 F.3d 1198, 1199

- 1200 (9th Cir. 2002) (requiring inmates

to exhaust administrative p rocedures prior to filing suit in federal court); see also

Porter v. Nussle , 534 U.S. 516, 524

- 25 (2002) (holding that revised 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a) applies to Bivens actions).

II.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Yaeger’s request

for appointment of counsel because Yaeger failed to demonstrate exceptional

circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) ( setting

forth “exceptional circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel) ; see

also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)

.3

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit
        23.2**
 
 
 
 
 
 
 **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-11717
        on Form
        S-3
        of our report dated March 16, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial
        statements of Middlesex Water Company, appearing in this Annual Report on
        Form
        10-K of Middlesex Water Company for the year ended December 31,
        2006.
 
 
 
 
 
 /s/
        DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 
 Parsippany,
        New Jersey
 March
        13,
        2007
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the
three month period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate General Partner of the
Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of his knowledge and belief:



| | (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 result of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ LEO F. WELLS, III                                
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive Officer May 9, 2003
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 442

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the Hope Scholarship 

Credit to cover fees, books, supplies, and equipment and to exempt 

Federal Pell Grants and Federal supplemental educational opportunity 

grants from reducing expenses taken into account for the Hope Scholarship Credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2003

Mr. CAMP (for himself, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. 

RAMSTAD, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. ENGLISH, Mrs. JONES of 

Ohio, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. 

EVANS, Mr. PETRI, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. STUPAK, Mrs. 

MILLER of Michigan, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr. 

WAXMAN, and Mr. WELLER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the 

Hope Scholarship Credit to cover fees, books, supplies, 

and equipment and to exempt Federal Pell Grants and 

Federal supplemental educational opportunity grants 

from reducing expenses taken into account for the Hope 

Scholarship Credit.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 442 IH 

1 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES AL2 LOWED AS PART OF HOPE SCHOLARSHIP 

3 CREDIT. 

4 (a) QUALIFIED TUITION AND RELATED EXPENSES

5 EXPANDED TO INCLUDE BOOKS, SUPPLIES, AND EQUIP6 MENT.—Paragraph (1) of section 25A(f) of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified tuition and re8 lated expenses) is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing new subparagraph: 

10 ‘‘(D) ADDITIONAL EXPENSES ALLOWED

11 FOR HOPE SCHOLARSHIP CREDIT.—For pur12 poses of the Hope Scholarship Credit, such 

13 term shall include fees, books, supplies, and 

14 equipment required for courses of instruction at 

15 the eligible educational institution.’’. 

16 (b) HOPE SCHOLARSHIP CREDIT NOT REDUCED BY

17 FEDERAL PELL GRANTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL EDU18 CATIONAL OPPORTUNITY GRANTS.—Subsection (g) of sec19 tion 25A of such Code (relating to special rules) is amend20 ed by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

21 ‘‘(8) PELL AND SEOG GRANTS.—For purposes 

22 of the Hope Scholarship Credit, paragraph (2) shall 

23 not apply to amounts paid for an individual as a 

24 Federal Pell Grant or a Federal supplemental edu25 cational opportunity grant under subparts 1 and 3, 

26 respectively, of part A of title IV of the Higher Edu-
3

•HR 442 IH 

1 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a and 1070b et 

2 seq., respectively).’’. 

3 (c) EXPANDED HOPE EXPENSES NOT SUBJECT TO

4 INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—Subsection 

5 (e) of section 6050S of such Code (relating to definitions) 

6 is amended by striking ‘‘subsection (g)(2)’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘subsections (f)(1)(D) and (g)(2)’’. 

8 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall apply to expenses paid after December 

10 31, 2002 (in tax years ending after such date), for edu11 cation furnished in academic periods beginning after such 

12 date.

Æ
CERTIFICATIONS

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

I, Gregory F. Kowal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mera Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The Company's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

      a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
            material information relating to the Company, including its
            consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
            those entities, particularly during the period in which this
            quarterly report is being prepared;

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

      c)    presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
            effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
            evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

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

      a)    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
            controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability to
            record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
            identified for the Company'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 Company's
            internal controls; and

6. The Company's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether 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: June 19, 2006


/s/ Gregory F. Kowal
-----------------------
Gregory F. Kowal
Chief Executive Officer
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4429

To amend subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 

to provide for wage parity for prevailing rate employees in Guam. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2004

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

Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To amend subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 5, United 

States Code, to provide for wage parity for prevailing 

rate employees in Guam.

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

3 SECTION 1. PARITY OF WAGE SCHEDULES AND RATES FOR 

4 PREVAILING RATE EMPLOYEES IN GUAM 

5 WITH WAGE SCHEDULES AND RATES FOR 

6 PREVAILING RATE EMPLOYEES IN HAWAII. 

7 Section 5343(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 

8 amended—
2

•HR 4429 IH 

1 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘subject to 

2 paragraph (5)’’ and inserting ‘‘subject to paragraphs 

3 (5) and (6)’’; 

4 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘; and’’ and 

5 inserting a semicolon; 

6 (3) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and 

7 inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

8 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(6) the Office of Personnel Management shall 

10 establish wage schedules and rates for prevailing 

11 rate employees who are United States citizens em12 ployed in Guam that are the same as the wage 

13 schedules and rates for prevailing rate employees in 

14 Hawaii.’’. 

15 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

16 This Act shall be effective with respect to pay periods 

17 commencing in any fiscal year that commences at least 

18 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. (the Registrant) for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ LEO F. WELLS, III  
| |  | Leo F. Wells, III      
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| |  | May 13, 2009           



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
| |  | Douglas P. Williams    
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
| |  | May 13, 2009
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

**           **I, Timothy A. Dawson, Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of Mississippi Chemical Corporation (the"Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying annual report on Form 10‐K/Afor the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004, filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of that section.

            I further certify that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                                                    /s/Timothy A. Dawson                                                                                                                              TimothyA. Dawson                                                                                    SeniorVice President and ChiefFinancial Officer

October 6, 2004
<PAGE>   1
   
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.12
    


                      [GARNER & LAWRENCE, LLP LETTERHEAD]









                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   
         We consent to the use of our reports, dated May 22, 1998, and January
5, 1998, with respect to the financial statements of Summit Technologies, Inc.
included in two Registration Statements (Amendment No. 3 to Form SB-2 and
Amendment No. 3 to Form S-4) and related Prospectus of Summit Environmental
Corporation, Inc. for the registration of 500,000 common shares (Form SB-2) and
5,810,840 common shares (Form S-4).
    


                                          /s/ Garner & Lawrence, LLP
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Garner & Lawrence, LLP

   
September 3, 1998
    




   
                                                                   Exhibit 23.12
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page