alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 24

                              POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

     WHEREAS, U S WEST Communications, Inc., a Colorado corporation
(hereinafter referred to as the "Company"), proposes to file with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, under the provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 1995; and

     WHEREAS, each of the undersigned is an officer or Director, or both, of
the Company, and holds the office or offices indicated below his or her name;

     NOW THEREFORE, each of the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints
JOHN W. PUTNAM and STEPHEN E. BRILZ, and each of them, as attorneys for him or
her and in his or her name, place, and stead, and in each of his or her
offices and capacities in the Company, to execute and file such annual report,
and thereafter to execute and file any amendment or amendments thereto on Form
10-K/A, hereby giving and granting to said attorneys full power and authority
to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully, to all intents and
purposes, as he or she might or could do if personally present at the doing
thereof, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys may or shall
lawfully do, or cause to be done, by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto executed this Power of
Attorney this 22nd day of March, 1996.


     /S/ JAMES T. ANDERSON
     ______________________________________
     James T. Anderson
     Director

     /S/ BARBARA M. JAPHA
     ______________________________________
     Barbara M. Japha
     Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
     Treasurer and Director

     /S/ SOLOMON D. TRUJILLO
     _______________________________________
     Solomon D. Trujillo
     President and Chief Executive Officer and
     Director
11382.

#### Drew *v.*Drew, administratrix.

Decided May 12, 1920.

Rehearing denied May 12, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of Waynesboro — Judge Davis. January 28, 1920.

*E. V. Heath,*for plaintiff in error.

*BHnson & Hatcher,*contra.

Smith, J.

1. “A debt of a testator or intestate is not a proper set-off .against a debt contracted with the representative of tlie estate. But it is otherwise if both were contracted during the lifetime of the decedent.” Civil Code (1910), § 4345.

*(a)*Applying the provisions of this code-section to the facts in this case, the court did not err in striking the answer of the defendant and the amendment thereto. An inspection of the pleadings in the case will show that no peculiar equity intervened in favor of the defendant which would take the case out of these provisions.

2. In view of the admission of indebtedness made in the answer, the court did not err in entering up judgment without further proof in favor of the plaintiff; but, it appearing to this court that by inadvertence the judgment was entered for more than the amount admitted by the defendant to be due the plaintiff, the judgment of the court below is affirmed with direction that the amount of $34.56 be written off from the judgment. It is further ordered that the cost of bringing the case to this court be taxed against the plaintiff in error.

3. Under the above rulings an oral contract between the attorney at law for the administrator and a creditor of the estate, that the amount of any purchase of property of the estate made by the creditor could be offset by the indebtedness due him, would not be binding upon the estate, especially where the plea of set-off alleged that the estate was amply solvent.

*Judgment affirmed, with direction.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Annual Report of MOCON, Inc. on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Darrell B. Lee,
Chief Financial Officer of MOCON, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:  (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 MOCON, Inc.   Date: March 30,
2010  /s/ Darrell B. LeeDarrell B. LeeChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I, Thomas Glover, Chief Executive Officer of Vasomedical,  Inc. (the "Company"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

          (1)  the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the  Company for the three
               months ended November 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with
               the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
               Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:  April 16, 2007
                                  /s/ Thomas Glover
                                  -----------------------------
                                  Thomas Glover
                                  Chief Executive Officer




I,  Tricia  Efstathiou,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of  Vasomedical,  Inc.  (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

          (1)  the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the  Company for the three
               months ended November 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with
               the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
               Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:  April 16, 2007
                                  /s/ Tricia Efstathiou
                                  -----------------------------
                                  Tricia Efstathiou
                                  Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                   EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                SUBSIDIARY                         STATE OF INCORPORATION
-------------------------------------------        ----------------------
<S>                                                <C>
Morgan's Creative Restaurant Concepts, Inc.                 Ohio
Morgan's Restaurants of Ohio, Inc.                          Ohio
Morgan's Restaurants of Pennsylvania, Inc.              Pennsylvania
Morgan's Restaurants of West Virginia, Inc.             West Virginia
        (fka Morgan's Weirton Foods, Inc.)
Morgan's Restaurants of New Jersey, Inc.                 New Jersey
Morgan's Foods of Missouri, Inc.                          Missouri
Morgan's Restaurants of New York, Inc.                    New York
Morgan's Tacos of Pennsylvania, Inc.                    Pennsylvania
</TABLE>
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0046

_________________ MIKE BORSETH AND GERI L. BORSETH,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ABSAROKEE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellee. O R D E R

_________________ On March 25, 2022, the mediator for this appeal filed a report stating that the case has settled. Nothing further has been filed. Therefore, and pursuant to M. R. App. P. 7(7)(b), IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 4 2022

05/04/2022
Case Number: DA 22-0046
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Mines Management, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date:
March 16, 2009

/s/ JAMES H. MOORE James H. Moore Chief Financial Officer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mines Management, Inc. and will be retained by Mines Management, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         300,520
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  863,851
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,502,612
<PP&E>                                       4,810,579
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,669,887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,476,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,429,464
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       241,945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,518,694
<OTHER-SE>                                  (5,063,002)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,476,575
<SALES>                                      1,586,056
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,586,056
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  623,689
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               531,611
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             100,925
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                334,727
<INCOME-TAX>                                   113,807 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            220,920
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   220,920
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00 
        

</TABLE>
11450.

#### DAVIDSON *v.*THE STATE.

Decided June 16, 1920.

1. The evidence authorized the instructions upon the law of manslaughter.

2. Under the facts of the case, it does not appear that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling tho'se grounds of the motion for a new trial which were based upon the alleged incompetence and misconduct of one of the jurors.

3. The'verdict was authorized by the evidence.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Wilkinson superior court — Judge Park. March 9, 1920.

*George H. Carswell, J. F. Bloodworth, Victor Davidson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

The second headnote alone requires elaboration. After his conviction of voluntary manslaughter, the defendant *417made a motion for a new trial, and alleged in an amendment thereto that one of the jurors was incompetent to serve as a juror in the case, for stated reasons, and that he was also guilty of certain stated misconduct which required a new trial. It was alleged in general terms, in the amendment to the motion for a new trial, that neither the defendant nor any of his counsel knew of the incompetency or the misconduct of the juror until after the return of the verdict, but it was not therein alleged that they could not have discovered the same by reasonable diligence. In support of these special grounds of the motion for a new trial the defendant presented his affidavit, in which he specifically alleged that *he*did not know of the incompetency or the misconduct of the juror until after the verdict, but he did not therein state that he *could not have discovered the same by reasonable diligence.*The only affidavit of counsel for the defendant presented was one signed by all of them, which merely stated that “to the best of their knowledge and belief” the statement of facts in the amendment to the motion for a new trial was true and correct.

Under the uniform rulings of our courts, we do not think these affidavits, especially the one from the defendant’s counsel, measured up to the rule. The affidavit of counsel should have specifically and unequivocally stated that none of them knew of the incompetency or the misconduct of the juror in question until after the verdict, and that they could not have discovered the same by the exercise of ordinary or reasonable diligence. In his order overruling the motion for a new trial the judge said: “ As to the ground No. *2,*in the amended motion for new trial, complaining of the misconduct of the juror, W. E. Spears, from the facts stated in said ground and also in the grounds numbered 3, 4, and 5, the movant was in possession of such facts that by the exercise of proper diligence he could have ascertained said facts before the verdict was rendered in said case, and under the decision and authorities cited in the case of *Josey*v. *State,*148 *Ga.*468 (96 S. E. 1041), the alleged misconduct of said juror does not require a new trial.”

Under these circumstances we can not say, as a matter of law, that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., not presiding.*
Order entered January 27, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00055-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.B. & S.B., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JC-12-1096-X

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 15, 2020 motion to extend time for filing her 

notice of appeal. We GRANT the motion and deem the notice of appeal filed January 9, 2020 

timely for jurisdictional purposes.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
11209.

#### Robinson *v.*The State.

Decided April 13, 1920.'

Indictment for burglary; from Bibb superior court-—-Judge Graham presiding. December 11, 1919.

*John R. Cooper, W. O. Cooper Jr., J. A. Murray,*for plaintiff in error.

*Charles H. Garrett, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. The excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of in the special grounds of the motion for a new trial, when considered in connection with the entire charge, contain no material error.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, -and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
### Honorable Denver County Attorney Conz~les county GonzEiloe, T6xa5 Dear Sir1 THEATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS
AUSTIN

u5 .that whenct before suit is 1040, YOU SdViS.8 GollnQuent taxes r ffiakee00 charge at8 of exmption, $ho follo?iing
under suoh oiror such certlfloate of has been filed and the at a tax 8a1e1*z 331, Revised Civil Staiutes, reads in oulating and preparing reaenption and rocelpts, re?ortlng and orcdltons, pooting Cozmtrollor~s 

### reatq-

. tion m&em on the deliur,uent tax record or annual dolinouofit list, nailing certlfioates of reaeqtion to taxpapero after approvul by the Comgtroller, and for iosulnlr, reoelpts or cartlficatoo of rcdezptlon for property show on the annual delln~ueut list, the tax collector shall be en-

## .‘.G78

EIonorable .Deove; E. Perkins, Page 2

titled to a fee of one dollar ($1.00) for eaoh oorrcot assosa.-,ent OSlana to be sold, said fee to bo taxed OScosts uCainst the delinquent. 5 Correct asseseaent 8s herein used Deans the 1s; ventory of all. propertl’es owned by au individual
ror my One year. Provided, that in no ~335 shall the state or oounty be Iloble for said fee.” It r&l bo noticed t,hat the $1.00 fee 15 intf3Ga8a to be a compensation for the several services mentioned in
. the first sentenoe of tho statute. It 1s Got merely a foe ror lsaulng a.redemption oertlfioate,

For instanoe, thore is iooludad the service of wissuinC reoolnts or certificates OSredonptlon for oroperty

-.- ahown on the enuual dclimucot list.” Artiole 7m-i?evlsed m Statutes, provides that *any dalinauent tosoarer whoso Lands have been i?eturuea delinquetit or reported sold to the State for taxes due thereon, or any one havicg an interest therein, my redees the sa3e nt any tlne before hln bIGa are sold under the provisions of t!lis oheater, by paying the taxes due thereon since famnry 1, 1885, wi%hint&~~t at the rate of six percent per anriw nGa all oosts and the penalty of ten peroent +” It ‘1s quite apparent that the term “before his lands ara sold” is used in Article 7339 nlt!lout rsferenoe to the question ol’ vihethor suit has been fllod. There is no requireront in Article 7331, or elne%horo, that the filing of suit should be prction. requisite to the mturity Of the fee in quesIn via:: of this, and of the further fact that many of the services for vM.oh the fee la to furnish oozpensatlon are not dependent up% the filing of suit, weare of the -opinion that tho use ‘of tho riords *to bo sold” in the clause *the tax collector shall be entitled to a foe of $1.00 -for ‘each correct asccssneA of land to be sold” was not intended to mean that the fen should be due only ln those cases whom suit has been filed. afflr;iatlvc. i’leacoordi.cCly ausvier your question in the

This COGStFUOtiOG is in acOo;& with that placed on the statute by the CoEptrolIer’s OfSico and the opinion of form3 Assistant Attorney Goneral homer 

### 0.De?:olfo, 

### aatea

.

## 679

honorable

DenverE.Perkins,Page3

November26,1935,reCOrdeC 

### inVol. 

### 541,page219,AttorneyCensral~s

LetterOpinionReport6,

.I Yours very tru.l& ATTORNEY 

### GXERAL OF !FEXAS

GlennR.Levfls AssIstant



### GF&:BBB
seminar-reading-outline-20200709.docx) Page 1 of 1

Seminar Reading Outline

Procedure:______________________________

Key Points:

1.

2.

3. 

Observation Highlights (e.g., Prerequisites, Things to Remember, Steps):

1.

2.

3. 

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Questions to Bring Up to Mentor/Trainer or Instructor:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C
  SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report ofBio-Lok International Inc.(the Registrant) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended October 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2004, hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 5 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|Bio-Lok International Inc.
|--------------------------
|                          
|(s) Ingo K Kozak          
|                          
|                          
|Chief Financial Officer   
|June 14, 2004             

---
#### Nick A. HOWIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derrick WADSWORTH, Superintendent, Hyde Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-6201.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 17, 2001.

Decided May 11, 2001.

*100Nick A. Howie, pro se.

Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Nick A. Howie appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). Howie’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Howie 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, Howie failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. *See Wright v.*Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Howie has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly 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 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
11476.

#### Jones *v.*The State.

Bloodworth, J.

“In tlie absence of a timely written request the failure to charge upon the credibility of witnesses, the mode of impeachment, or the weight that should be given to the testimony of witnesses successfully impeached, will not be reversible error.” *Smith*v. *State,*7 *Ga. App.*710 (2) (67 S. E. 1048).

“When an exception is taken to alleged improper remarks of the solicitor-general in the argument of the case, and the court qualifies it by the statement that he did not hear the remarks, and, therefore, cannot say whether the ground is true or not, this leaves the ground unapproved and prevents its consideration by this court.” *Lewis*v. *State,*7 *Ga. App.*56 (65 S. E. 1072).

“ Improper remarks by the solicitor-general, unrebuked by the judge, will not work a reversal of the judgment in this case, as no objection was made and no ruling of the court invoked.” *Herndon*v. *State,*111 *Ga.*178 (3), 181 (3) (36 S. E. 634, 635), and cit. *404The principles announced above are applicable to the second special ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

Decided June 15, 1920.

Accusation of sale of intoxicating liquor; from city court of Oglethorpe — Judge Greer. March 3, 1920.

*Gilbert C. Robinson,*for plaintiff in error.

*John B. Guerry, solicitor,*contra.

The evidence supports the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
Exhibit
      32 .1





Certification
      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 on Form 10-Q of Imagenetix, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William P. Spencer,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that, to the best of my knowledge:





1)
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:
                August 13, 2008
            s/WILLIAM
                P. SPENCERWilliam
                P. SpencerChief
                Executive Officer and President