alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 22

                                  Subsidiaries.

(1)   Western Power & Equipment Corp.
      (a Delaware Corporation)

(2)   ConnectSoft Holding Corp.
      (a Washington Corporation)

(3)   Interglobe Networks,Inc.
      (a Washington Corporation)

(4)   eXodus Technologies, Inc.
      (a Washington Corporation)

(5)   Seattle OnLine Acquisition Corp.
      (a Washington Corporation)

(6)   IDF International, Inc.
      (a Delaware corporation)
      (as of August 1, 1997)

(7)   Connectsoft Communications Corporation
      (a Delaware corporation)

<PAGE>

                      REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON
                          FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE


To the Board of Directors
of American United Global, Inc.

      Our audit of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our
report dated November 10, 1997 appearing on page F-2 of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K also included audits of the information included in the Financial
Statement Schedule listed in Item 14(a) of this Form 10-K for the three years
ended July 31, 1997. In our opinion, the Financial Statement Schedule presents
fairly, in all material respects, the information for the three years ended July
31, 1997 set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related
consolidated financial statements.



PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Seattle, Washington
November 10, 1997


                                      F-58
<PAGE>

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-1 (No. 333-21891) of American United Global, Inc. of our
report dated November 10, 1997 appearing on page F-2 of the Annual Report on
Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report on
the Financial Statement Schedule, which appears on page S-1 of this Form 10-K.



PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Seattle, Washington
November 10, 1997


                                      F-59
NOTE MODIFICATION AGREEMENT


 


This Note Modification
Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on _____ September, 2017 by and between Precision Opinion, Inc. (“Precision”)
and Guthrie Rebel (“France”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHERAS, Precision executed and delivered to
France a promissory note dated October 20, 2016 in the principal amount of $200,000.00, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit
“A” and incorporated herein by reference (“Promissory Note”); and,


 


WHEREAS, the Promissory Note provided for a
maturity date of October 19, 2017.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual
covenants and agreements herein contained, Precision and France agree as follows:


 


	 	1.	The principal amount as of the date of this Agreement owed on the Promissory Note is $200,000.00.
	 	2.	The maturity date of the Promissory Note is modified to provide that the entire principal amount outstanding shall be due and payable in full on December 31, 2019.
	 	3.	In all other respects, the Promissory Note remains in full force and effect as originally signed.


 


	Precision Opinion, Inc.	 	Guthrie Rebel
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	James T. Medick	 	Guthrie Rebel
	President
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 08, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 08, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20I0051. AMERICAN RELIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CHARLIE OTIS LANCASTER et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2017V0284
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3098 

To repeal the renewable fuel program of the Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 5, 2011 

Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. ROSS of Florida, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. GRAVES of Georgia, Mr. DENHAM, and Mr. NUNES) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

A BILL 

To repeal the renewable fuel program of the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

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 ‘‘Renewable Fuel Stand5 ard Elimination Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RENEWABLE FUEL PROGRAM. 

7 Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

8 7545(o)) is repealed. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### 341

**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

76A) in s.ont cmlren or 

### or T~)x~s,

rho **xaa, are**  **r*-** **SLOW** 

### 0r **th0** qwatlon will be

-stmtion 6. (e). **Eo** psraon **shall wqgage**  **in** the **buslnrsr,** or manufaaturlrg, Yapairing or nnavrting anr beMing unlce8 he ahall h&*:6obtained a pemif irm 

### the Cepartmnt



### .

### 342

### *a. morga iv. 00x - Page 4

nBa4dl.ng

undoubtedly

### la dilatedto the publio health and oomfort, and my reaeonabls regulationo? the manufaature, renovatingancl aelllng of bedding for sanitary purpoaaawould be a mane having 8 subatantfal relation to the **rnd** eought to be aoeomplfahe4, namely, tha proteotionof the pub110 health. *The nquixement or a penkIt or 

### lloabaat 

### engage Sn a baalnoaa or oooupatlon La ctneof the old4 t &nd mo6t univeaallp noegnired rotamor valid pollee regulation. w* * * 

### *sla ilnd that Artlolo 4476e Ia a regulatory enaatmant within the aonat~tutlonallimlkU%na of tha atatmVa polio@ p%wor, derrignnsd to 

### pxomotethe health, eon&fort, and welfare Of the **publi0.** The pzPvlelona of tha Aat lra not unreaaonablo,axbifraxy, or ea ti%ioual **but** hare 

### a aubatantial ralatlon to tha 

### f objeat ve of aa?eguardln# 

### the ptlblia health. on the 

### otherh&Ad.,the r*atrlationa and regulation80r 

### theA%t axawlthh proper limita and in M nay impair any rundamental right8 of ovary 

### peraonto 

### ,pursue a Lawful bualnaes or oaoupation and to we nn4 anjoy him pxlvate pxoarty by any naaonable anb~prropes method. The 

### boddlngbua 

### Awe

P la rubjeot 

### to rogulatlonunbr thm p%l;%s 

### poww, **and** thb Texas **Bedding** Law deem not mount W 

### an axeralaeor the polloe power 

### inao6manauPate with the duty and obligationof the Legialatore to pF%viae ?%r tb poop10 

### la thair health, Barsty, aomfort, or 

### la not looonaiat%ntwith private property tighta.*
Ws are unable to rind any pxtmiaion in Art1010 4476 exempt

### iqgioreigAnmnufemturen rx0m the OQWa%$oA 

### 0r thlr A%t. OA the eontrary,the Legialatura ham lhoun a aontnry intent by 

### erpxeualy 

### l tatlngthat no poreon (a8 dOffAed by Sootion 1 (0)) ahall be 

### engaged in the 6iiafneaa of nmnuraoturiag, repairing or renovatingany bedding unleae he ahall have obtained a pelmit.

Therarorcr,

it 10 the opinion of this dapartmont that **ror-** @if&nmanufaotursm who intend to sell **beddfng** in 

### this Stat0 muat oomplywith the permit provialona of Artialr am well a8 donwtio aanuraoturers. To held otherwisenm.Ld to a degree, btader*atfAg the very pwposa 

### or its enaetmsnt, to wit, regulating the maAt&aature and gale or bedding to the objbet 09 earaguardlng th% health
----

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      L. Paul Latham                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| L.      Paul Latham                                          |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer                   |
| of      Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                       |
| Managing      General Partner of                             |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-A, L.P. |
|                                                         |
| March      27, 2009                                          |
|                                                         |
|                                                         |
| /s/      Mel G. Riggs                                        |
| Mel      G. Riggs                                            |
| Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer of           |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc., the                          |
| Managing      General Partner of                             |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-A, L.P. |
|                                                         |
| March      27, 2009                                          |
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                          CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO
           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 Dynamex, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "COMPANY"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"),
Richard K. McClelland, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Ray E.
Schmitz, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his 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. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ RICHARD K. McCLELLAND
-------------------------
Richard K. McClelland
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 17, 2003




/s/ RAY E. SCHMITZ
------------------
Ray E. Schmitz
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
March 17, 2003


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Optimal Robotics Corp. (the "Company"),
does hereby certify that to the best of the undersigned's knowledge:

      1)    the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
            June 30, 2003 (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.


Dated: August 13, 2003                        /s/ Gary S. Wechsler
                                              --------------------
                                                  Gary S. Wechsler
                                                  Treasurer and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer


                                      -32-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

AVON ROAD PARTNERS, LP, a § 

Delaware limited partnership, § 

ROBERT BERMAN and DENNIS § 

VACCO, § 

 § 

Defendants-Below, § 

 Appellants, § 

 § 

v. § 

 § No. 164, 2014 

CASTLEPOINT INSURANCE § 

COMPANY, a New York § Court Below: Court of 

insurance company, TOW SUR, § Chancery of the State of 

LLC, a Connecticut limited liability § Delaware 

company, REL-REM HOLDINGS, § 

INC., a Delaware corporation, § C.A. No. 9021-VCG

TROMBONE, LLC, a Connecticut § 

limited liability company, JOEL § 

ASEN and JAMES ROBERTS, § 

 § 

 Plaintiffs-Below, § 

 Appellees § 

 § 

and § 

 § 

CINIUM FINANCIAL SERVICES § 

CORPORATION, a Delaware § 

Corporation, § 

 § 

 Nominal Defendant-Below. § 

Submitted: October 29, 2014 

Decided: October 30, 2014 

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
O R D E R

This 30th day of October 2014, the Court, after hearing oral argument 

and upon consideration of the record in this case, has concluded that this 

appeal should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the 

Court of Chancery in its decision of March 3, 2014; 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision 

of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 

 Chief Justice
**EXHIBIT32**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANTTO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)**

**OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Gardenburger, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, ScottC. Wallace, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, andI, Robert T. Trebing, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Scott C. Wallace                               |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Scott C. Wallace                                   |
| Chairman, President and Chief Executive  Officer   |
| Gardenburger, Inc.                                 |
| February 18, 2005                             |
|                                               |
| /s/ Robert T. Trebing, Jr.                         |   |
| Robert T. Trebing, Jr.                             |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |
| Gardenburger, Inc.                                 |
| February 18, 2005                             |
|                                                    |        |  |

 

This certification is made solely for the purpose of18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose.  A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Gardenburger, Inc. and willbe retained by Gardenburger, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001017358
<NAME>                        Sprint Spectrum Finance Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,497
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       100
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,597)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
(iii) 

FOREWORD 

Every four years, just after the Presidential election, the ‘‘United States 

Government Policy and Supporting Positions,’’ commonly known as the 

Plum Book, is published, alternately, by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

This publication contains data (as of September 1, 2008) on over 7,000 

Federal civil service leadership and support positions in the legislative 

and executive branches of the Federal Government that may be subject 

to noncompetitive appointment (e.g., positions such as agency heads and 

their immediate subordinates, policy executives and advisors, and aides 

who report to these officials). The duties of many such positions may involve 

advocacy of Administration policies and programs and the incumbents usually have a close and confidential working relationship with the agency 

head or other key officials. 

Following are the major categories of positions listed: 

• Executive Schedule and salary-equivalent positions paid at the rates 

established for levels I through V of the Executive Schedule; 

• Senior Executive Service (SES) ‘‘General’’ positions; 

• Senior Foreign Service positions; 

• Schedule C positions excepted from the competitive service by the President, or by the Director, Office of Personnel Management, because 

of the confidential or policy-determining nature of the position duties; 

and 

• Other positions at the GS–14 and above level excepted from the competitive civil service by law because of the confidential or policy-determining nature of the position duties. 

See Appendix 2 for more details on SES appointments and Appendix 

3 for more details on Schedule C appointments. Additional information 

on the positions listed and the Federal salary schedules under which they 

are paid is provided in the appendices. The Legend on the following page 

shows the codes and acronyms used in this publication. 

DISCLAIMER 

The information for this committee print was provided by the 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management [OPM]. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20011

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN NEST, a.k.a.

Francisco Perez

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-94-285-2

 

October 23, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Nest, Texas prisoner # 66527-079, appeals the district

court’s order denying his “Motion for Order to Remission [sic] of

Fine.” This court finds that it can not construe Nest’s motion in

any way that allows review or relief.

This court will not review this as a post-judgment criminal

motion. Nest does not argue that his motion should be interpreted

this way. Furthermore, we will not interpret it as such because
2

the motion itself does not seek a judgment of acquittal, Rule

29(c), request a new trial, Rule 33, challenge the indictment or

jurisdiction, Rule 34, or ask for correction of a clerical mistake,

Rule 36. Even if we were to interpret it as a post-judgment

criminal motion, Nest filed his motion more than ten days after the

district court entered judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(b). As Nest has

not argued for an extension of time due to excusable neglect in

filing, id., the motion is not timely.

This court can not review Nest’s motion as a § 2241 habeas

corpus petition. Nest is incarcerated in Fairtown, New Jersey.

However, Nest filed his motion in the Southern District of Texas.

A § 2241 motion must be brought in the district in which a prisoner

is incarcerated; if not, the court lacks jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241; Bell v. United States, 48 F.3d 1042, 1043-44 (5th Cir.

1995).

We also can not consider Nest’s motion as a prisoner’s civil

rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It is possible that Nest

might be able to articulate a valid § 1983 claim if he could state

facts showing that the prison was forcing him to do without certain

basic human necessities, so as to “threaten [his] health and safety

and deprive [him] of basic hygiene and medical treatment . . . .”

See Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206, 1215 (5th Cir. 1977).

However, because Nest has never filed any pleading against the
3

prison warden or any other prison staff, no § 1983 claim is

currently before this court.

Finally, reviewing Nest’s motion as a motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, we are

unable to offer Nest relief. Nest’s motion does not challenge his

confinement, but only the amount of his fine. Such a motion is not

within the ambit of § 2255. United States v. Segler, 37 F.3d 1131,

1137 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that Congress “meant to limit the

types of claims cognizable under § 2255 to claims relating to

unlawful custody”); United States v. Gaudet, 81 F.3d 585, 592 (5th

Cir. 1996). The district court thus correctly dismissed this

motion.

AFFIRMED.