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

EXHIBIT 24.2

                          POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That each person whose signature appears below, as a Director or Officer
of Monsanto Company (the "Company"), a Delaware corporation with its
general offices in the County of St. Louis, Missouri, does hereby make,
constitute and appoint R. WILLIAM IDE III, BARBARA L. BLACKFORD, SONYA M.
DAVIS or JANET L. HORGAN, or any one of them acting alone, his or her
true and lawful attorneys, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, in his or her name, place and stead in any and all
capacities, to execute and sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K and any
and all Amendments thereto, and documents in connection therewith, all to
be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, giving and granting unto said attorneys
full power and authority to do and perform such actions as fully as they
might have done or could do if personally present and executing any of
said documents.

Dated and effective as of the 1st day of November, 1999.



     /s/ Richard U. De Schutter            /s/ Hendrik A. Verfaillie
------------------------------------    --------------------------------
  Richard U. De Schutter, Director           Hendrik A. Verfaillie
IB 

Union Calendar No. 106 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1548 

[Report No. 118–135, Part I] 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to specify that actions 

of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation are not a collection 

of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2023 

Mrs. KIM of California (for herself and Mr. GOTTHEIMER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, 

and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

JULY 11, 2023 

Reported from the Committee on Financial Services with an amendment 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

JULY 11, 2023 

Committee on Oversight and Accountability discharged; committed to the 

Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered 

to be printed 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on March 10, 2023] 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1548 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to specify 

that actions of the Advocate for Small Business Capital 

Formation are not a collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1548 RH

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 ‘‘Improving Access to 

5 Small Business Information Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION 

7 ACT. 

8 Section 4(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

9 U.S.C. 78d(j)) is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(10) EXCLUSION FROM THE PAPERWORK RE12 DUCTION ACT.—Actions taken by the Advocate for 

13 Small Business Capital Formation under this sub14 section shall not be a ‘collection of information’ for 

15 purposes of subchapter I of chapter 35 of title 44, 

16 United States Code (commonly known as the ‘Paper17 work Reduction Act’).’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 106 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1548 

[Report No. 118–135, Part I] 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to 

Act. of information under the Paperwork Reduction Business Capital Formation are not a collection specify that actions of the Advocate for Small 

JULY 11, 2023 

Reported from the Committee on Financial Services with 

J

an amendment 

ULY 11, 2023 

Committee on Oversight and Accountability discharged; 

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1662 

To direct the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to establish 

and maintain a permanent emergency lending program to provide member banks and other depository institutions with short-term liquidity 

against long-term assets. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2023 

Mr. TORRES of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System to establish and maintain a permanent emergency lending program to provide member banks and 

other depository institutions with short-term liquidity 

against long-term assets. 

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 ‘‘Emergency Liquidity 

5 Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1662 IH

1 SEC. 2. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM PERMANENT EMER2 GENCY LENDING PROGRAM. 

3 The Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 221 et seq.) is 

4 amended by inserting after section 10B the following: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 10C. PERMANENT EMERGENCY LENDING PROGRAM. 

6 ‘‘The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Sys7 tem shall establish and maintain a permanent emergency 

8 lending program under which a Federal reserve bank may 

9 provide short-term liquidity to member banks or other de10 pository institutions pledging any collateral eligible for 

11 purchase by the Federal reserve banks in open market op12 erations.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

                      STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          UNDER 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         With reference to the Quarterly Report of Redwood Empire Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 (the "Report"),
I, Patrick W. Kilkenny, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United
States Code that, to 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 the
Company.

                                        /s/ Patrick W. Kilkenny
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Patrick W. Kilkenny
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer

                                        November 12, 2003



<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                      STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                          UNDER 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         With reference to the Quarterly Report of Redwood Empire Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 (the "Report"),
I Kim C. McClaran, Vice President and Interim Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of
the United States Code that, to 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 the
Company.
                                        /s/ Kim C. McClaran
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Kim C. McClaran
                                        Vice President and Interim Chief
                                        Financial Officer

                                        November 12, 2003
|   | 1. | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May 13, 2010 | /s/ Lee W. Hendrickson                                                                                         Lee W. HendricksonChief Financial Officer |
|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel CAMARILLO-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10293.

D.C. No. CR-99-00422-JBR/LRL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.1

Decided May 30, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

MEMORANDUM2

Miguel Camarillo-Vasquez appeals the judgment of conviction and 51-month sentence following his guilty plea to a single count of being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Camarillo-Vasquez contends that in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court improperly imposed a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) because the government neither pled in the indictment nor established through the guilty plea that Camirillo-Vasquez had sustained a prior aggravated felony conviction. He also contends that *Apprendi*renders inapplicable *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense). These arguments are foreclosed by *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), *as amended,*(Feb. 8, 2001), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 121 S.Ct. 1503, —L.Ed.2d — (2001). Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

We remand for the limited purpose of directing the district court to amend the judgment to reflect a conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) only. *See United States v. Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715 (9th Cir.2000) (sua sponte remanding to the district court with directions to correct the judgment of conviction to exclude a reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)).

AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 1, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135185 & (11) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

In re Board of Trustees of Michigan State Maura D. Corrigan 

University Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MICHIGAN STATE 

UNIVERSITY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 135185 

 COA: 280103 

Ct of Claims: 07-000026-MZ 

COURT OF CLAIMS JUDGE, 

Defendant-Appellee,

and 

JOSEPH HINZ, Personal Representative, 

 Intervening Party-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the September 21, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals 

is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

DIRECT the Court of Claims to rule on the defendant Board’s motion for summary 

disposition, filed in Docket No. 07-000026-MZ, within 21 days of the date of this order. 

In ruling on the motion, the Court of Claims shall not enter another order merely stating 

that the motion is neither granted nor denied. Instead, the Court of Claims shall enter an 

order that decides the motion itself. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

CAVANAGH, J., would deny leave to appeal. 

WEAVER, J., dissents and states as follows: 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

I dissent from the order directing the Court of Claims to rule on the defendant’s 

motion for summary disposition. 

I would deny leave to appeal because the Court of Appeals properly denied the 

complaint for superintending control because the plaintiff had an adequate legal remedy 

in the underlying suit. See MCR 7.203(B)(1) and (4) and MCR 2.116(J)(2)(a). 

Writs for superintending control are governed by MCR 3.301, 3.302, 7.206 (Court 

of Appeals), and 7.304 (Supreme Court). “If another adequate remedy is available to the 

party seeking the order, a complaint for superintending control may not be filed.” MCR 

3.302(B). “When an appeal in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the circuit court, 

or the recorder’s court is available, that method of review must be used. If 

superintending control is sought and an appeal is available, the complaint for 

superintending control must be dismissed.” MCR 3.302(D)(2). Superintending control is 

an extraordinary remedy generally limited to determining whether a lower court exceeded 

its jurisdiction, acted in a manner inconsistent with its jurisdiction, or failed to proceed 

according to law. Dep’t of Public Health v Rivergate Manor, 452 Mich 495 (1996). 

KELLY, J., joins the statement of WEAVER, J. 

t0129 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 1, 2008 

Clerk
<page>	EXHIBIT 32.01


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 of Dean Witter Diversified
Futures Fund II L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Walter
Davis, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, 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 the Partnership.









By:	  /s/	Walter Davis

Name:		Walter Davis
Title:	President

Date:		May 15, 2006
Database-driven Traceability of 

Reagents and Stock Solutions

By Aaron Tian

Mentored by Dr. Peter Beaucage
Chemical Mixing Robot

● Developed by MML and NCNR

● Automatically create complex liquids

○ Personal care, biopharmacy, COVID vaccines

● Analyze structure with SANS / SAXS

○ Phase stability mapping

● Train ML network for scattering data 

processing

2
Sample Preparation ● Current process very manual ○ Target composition ○ Weigh out reagents ○ Write down quantities ○ Type back into robot ● Human Error ○ Typing/clicking ● Lack of traceability 

3
Goals

Web app and Database(s)

● Remove manual input in robot

○ Barcode scanning

● Centralized database view

○ Create, update entries

○ Detailed information

● Integration with already existing codebase

○ Remote entry

○ Chemistry abstractions

4
Database Schema ● Component ● Stock ● Sample ● Measurement

Helper Tables ● Stock Component ● Sample Stock

5
6
7
8
Creating / Editing Entries

9
10
11
Data upload/export 

12
Remote Requests via JSON

● Convert to JSON

○ Individual entry

○ Entire table

● Make post request

○ Python list of dictionaries

13
Barcode Generation / Label Printing

14
Running on NIST hardware

15
Possible Future Steps

● Balance serial port interface

○ Further reduce manual input

● Javascript grids

○ More interactive tables

● CSV optimizations

16
Acknowledgements

● Dr. Peter Beaucage

● Dr. Tyler Martin

● CHRNS / NCNR
Questions?
#### William H. Potts v. Jackson County Supervisors.

*Ho trial fee injustice’s court where there is no trial.*

Under the statute of 1881, which gives to a justice of the peace specific fees for various services in criminal cases, and among others gives a definite sum for the trial of a cause, the justice is not entitled to that fee in a case where the accused pleads guilty.

Mandamus.

Submitted Jan. 24.

Denied Jan. 25.

*Gilson, Parkinson dé Ashley*for relator.

Per Curiam.

The relator is a justice of the peace in Jackson county, and had presented to the board of supervisors a bill for his services in criminal cases. Among the items were charges for the trial of cases in which the defendants pleaded guilty. These charges the supervisors refused to allow on the ground that the statute did not entitle the relator to make them. The relator now applies for a *mandamus.*

In a previous case — not reported — which arose under the Compiled Laws of 18T1, the court held that the statute did not give a trial fee to the justice except in cases where an issue was actually tried. If the defendant pleaded guilty, there was nothing to try, and the justice was only entitled to the fees which were given for other specific services in the case.

The statute of 1881 does not make any change in this regard. Deceiving a confession is not a trial, and there is no trial fee when there is no trial.
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 amendment no. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Huntsman International LLC (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter R. Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Company.

|/s/PETER. R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive
OfficerNovember 23, 2004 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Philip TINSLEY, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-1254.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: May 10, 2001.

*805Before MAYER, Chief Judge, SCHALL and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The United States moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Philip Tinsley moves “for judgment.”

On November 26, 2000, Tinsley received a traffic violation notice for operating a vehicle with expired plates on federal property. After a bench trial before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on February 9, 2001, a magistrate judge found Tinsley guilty of the charged offense. On the same date, Tinsley filed a notice of appeal from the magistrate judge’s decision to a district court judge. On February 28, 2001, before the district court judge acted on Tinsley’s appeal, Tinsley filed a notice of appeal to this court “from the final judgment of ‘guilty’ and the change of a civil case to a criminal case from Magistrate Judge Weldon Curtis Sewell, entered in this action on the 9th day of February, 2001.”

The United States asserts that our limited jurisdiction does not permit review of Tinsley’s conviction. We agree. Our review authority over appeals from the United States district courts is limited primarily to cases arising under the patent laws and certain claims against the federal government for money damages not exceeding $10,000. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1295. A challenge to a criminal conviction by a United States magistrate judge does not fall within our limited jurisdiction. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3402 (conviction by a United States magistrate judge may be appealed to a United States district judge); 28 U.S.C. § 1294 (except as provided in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(c), (d) and 1295, appeals from reviewable decisions of the district court shall be taken to the court of appeals for the circuit embracing the district).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

> (1) The United States’s motion to dismiss is granted.

> (2) Tinsley’s motion “for judgment” is denied.

> (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
#### McMullon, Malona, Etc., *v.*Dora A. Robinson's Admr.

Limitation of Actions — Fraud.

Under § 5, art. 3, ch. 63, R. S'., an action will not be allowed for relief from a fraud committed more than ten years prior to the institution of the suit.

APPEAL FROM CUMBERLAND CIRCUIT COURT.

October 15, 1873.

*T. T. Alexcmder, for appellant.*

-, *for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

It is provided by *Sec.*5, *Art.*3, *Chap.*63, *R. S.:*“In action for relief for *fraud*or mistake, or damage for either, the cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery of the fraud, or mistake; but no such action shall be brought ten years after the time of making the contract, or the perpetration of the fraud.”

The fraud complained of was perpetrated more than ten years before the petition was filed to subject the property to the payment of appellant's debt. The statute of limitations is pleaded and we cannot perceive how the effect of the statute can be avoided. It contains no saving or exception. The perpetration of the fraud, if fraud was perpetrated, was when Robinson and wife conveyed the lot to* which A. D. Robinson held the legal title in Burksville to Bins. That conveyance was made on the 7th of March, 1860, and the proceeding to set aside that deed was not instituted till February, 1871.

We concur in'opinion with the circuit judge that appellants failed to show themselves entitled to the relief sought. Therefore the judgment is *affirmed. '*,
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

November 16, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly 130917(73)(75)(77) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices
RANDALL L. ROSS, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 130917

v COA: 262167 Macomb CC: 2004-001913-CK AUTO CLUB GROUP, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plai ntiff-appellee for extension to October 31, 2007 of the time for filing his brief is GRANTED. Motions by the Coalition Protecting Auto No-F ault and Michigan Health & Hospital Association for leave to file briefs amicus curiae are considered and they are GRANTED.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 16, 2007

Clerk