alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of Enservco Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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: March 25, 2011
By
/s/  Michael D. HermanMichael D. Herman, Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CAPITAL
CITIES/ABC, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM FORM 10-Q FOR THE
PERIOD ENDING  OCTOBER 1, 1995 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                 1,000
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                 OCT-01-1995
<CASH>                         1,038,800
<SECURITIES>                     272,421
<RECEIVABLES>                    998,353
<ALLOWANCES>                      36,494
<INVENTORY>                       32,436
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               2,962,433
<PP&E>                         2,191,205
<DEPRECIATION>                   893,461
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 7,249,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          1,289,675
<BONDS>                          514,098
<COMMON>                          18,394
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                     4,716,630
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   7,249,457
<SALES>                        4,822,032
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               4,822,032
<CGS>                          2,814,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  2,814,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               1,083,999
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  11,205
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                44,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  877,780
<INCOME-TAX>                     384,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              493,680
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                     493,680
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       3.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0
        



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-16325) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Option Plan of ACR Group, Inc. and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-42701) of ACR Group, Inc., of our report dated May 13, 2004(except for Notes 1, 4 and 6 as to which the date is October 11, 2004), with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of ACR Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended February 28, 2006.

ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

Houston, Texas 

May 26, 2006 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

ACR Group, Inc. 

Houston, Texas 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-16325) and Form S-3 (No. 333-42701) of ACRGroup, Inc. of our report dated May 19, 2006 relating to the Consolidated Financial Statements which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

BDO Seidman, LLP 

Houston, Texas 

May 26, 2006
206.001 Applicability. ( b ) As authorized by 10 U.S.C. 1091, contracts awarded to individuals using the procedures at 237.104(b)(ii) are exempt from the competitive requirements of FAR part 6.
[70 FR 2361, Jan. 13, 2005, as amended at 87 FR 10990, Feb. 28, 2022]
#### 215.406-1 Prenegotiation objectives.

Follow the procedures at PGI 215.406-1 for establishing prenegotiation objectives.

[71 FR 69494, Dec. 1, 2006]
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 5 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 5

    Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights 
                               amendment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 17, 2017

Mr. Cardin (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Baldwin, 
   Mr. Brown, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Reed, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Franken, Ms. 
Stabenow, Mr. Markey, Mr. Udall, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Merkley, 
 Mr. Booker, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Van Hollen, and 
Mr. Menendez) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights 
                               amendment.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding any time 
limit contained in House Joint Resolution 208, 92d Congress, as agreed 
to in the Senate on March 22, 1972, the article of amendment proposed 
to the States in that joint resolution shall be valid to all intents 
and purposes as part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the 
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 225.7801 Policy.

For guidance on procurement support of the geographic combatant command's theater security cooperation efforts, see PGI 225.78.

[76 FR 27274, May 11, 2011]
----

----

| $146,321.21 (the “Principal Amount”) |                                  Date: March 1, 2011 |
|--------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|   | PHOTOMEDEX, INC. |                                       |
|--------|------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |             |                                       |   |
|   | By:              | /s/ Christina L. Allgeier             |   |
|   |             | Name:  Christina L. Allgeier          |   |
|   |             | Title:  Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|   |             |                                       |   |

----

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.41


As of January 25, 2000

By Telecopy

Mr. Merritt D. Farren
Senior Vice-President, Corporate Development
The Lightspan Partnership, Inc.
2001 Wilshire Blvd
Suite 301
Santa Monica, CA
60403


RE: AMENDMENT TO THE WARRANT TO PURCHASE SERIES E PREFERRED STOCK SIGNED
    NOVEMBER 1, 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Merritt:

This letter (the "Amendment") will confirm the agreement by and between The
Lightspan Partnership, Inc. ("Lightspan") and CINAR Corporation ("CINAR") with
respect to the amendment of the above-referenced warrant between Lightspan and
CINAR (the "Warrant").

In consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained in the Warrant
and herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledge, we agree as follows:

1.   Prior Agreement:

     a) Reference is made to the Warrant. All capitalized terms not defined
        herein shall be as defined in the Warrant.

     b) Except as expressly provided herein, the terms of the Warrant shall
        remain unaffected by this Amendment, provided that if the terms of this
        Amendment alter or are inconsistent with any terms of the Warrant then
        the terms of this Amendment shall supercede the terms of the Warrant.

2.   All dates referred to in the Warrant will be changed to 90 days hence.
     More specifically:

     a) The Warrant is void after August 1, 2003.

     b) Section 1.(a) Definitions - Exercise Period is hereby deleted and
        replaced with the following:

        "EXERCISE PERIOD" shall mean the period commencing with the date hereof
        and ending August 1, 2003.


<PAGE>   2

If the foregoing accurately represents our mutual agreement, please so indicate
by signing a copy of this Agreement where indicated below and returning it to
us for our signature. When signed by both parties, this Amendment will be
effective as of the date first set forth above.

Very truly yours,


Daniel Tierney


ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

CINAR                                   LIGHTSPAN


By: /s/ DANIEL TIERNEY                  By: /s/ MERRITT FARREN
    ------------------------------          --------------------------------

Its: CEO                                Its: Sr. VP, Corporate Development
     ------------------------------          -------------------------------


                                       2
#### 2115.170 Applicability.

FAR subpart 15.1 has no practical application to the FEGLI Program because prospective contractors (insurance companies) are considered for inclusion in the FEGLI Program in accordance with criteria provided in 5 U.S.C. chapter 87, LIFAR 2109.7001, and LIFAR 2115.370.

[70 FR 41151, July 18, 2005]
r-OURT OF APPEALS DiV j

STATE CF WASHIHGTC:-:

2013 OCT 28 AH 10: 3b

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

In the Matter of the Detention of No. 69809-5-

H.S.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Petitioner.

FILED: OCT 2 8 2013

Per Curiam — H.S. appeals from the trial court order committing him for 14 days

of involuntary treatment. He contends, and the State concedes, that the State failed to

satisfy its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that H.S. was "gravely

disabled" within the meaning of RCW 71.05.020(17)(b). Accordingly, we reverse the

trial court's decision and remand with directions to vacate the January 4, 2013 order

committing H.S. for involuntary treatment and the probable cause findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

Reversed and remanded.

FOR THE COURT:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
                                   QMS, INC.
                          SUBSIDIARIES AND TRADE NAMES

             Unless indicated otherwise, each of the following is a
                      wholly owned subsidiary of QMS, Inc.


                                State or Other
                                Jurisdiction of       Other Names Under Which
   Legal Name of Subsidiary      Incorporation        Subsidiary Does Business
 ----------------------------   ---------------       ------------------------

    QMS Circuits, Inc.           Delaware              QCI

    QMS Foreign Sales, Inc.      U.S. Virgin Islands

    QMS K.K.                     Japan

    QMS Canada, Inc.             Canada


As of November 10, 1998
#### 1371.115 Access to the vessel.

Insert clause 1352.271-84, *Access to the Vessel,* in all solicitations and contracts for ship construction and ship repair.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Branton, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered July 12, 1977, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, indictment dismissed and case remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. There was no competent evidence that the substance sold by defendant was heroin. Although the police chemist gave an expert opinion that the substance he had tested was heroin, his opinion was based upon a chromatographic analysis in which the substance sold by defendant was compared with a substance "known” to be heroin. The chemist testified that these "known” samples are purchased from the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency and *665from drug manufacturers, but there was no proof as to where the "known” samples used in this case were obtained. Nor was any independent analysis of the samples made in this case. Under these circumstances, the expert opinion evidence was improperly accepted by the trial court. Since absent such evidence the case against defendant is legally insufficient, the indictment must be dismissed (see CPL 470.20, subd 2). In *People v Miller*(57 AD2d 668), the court came to the same conclusion because, as here, there was a complete absence of proof of the data relied upon to support the expert opinion evidence. Defendant’s conviction may not be sustained by this court upon the theory that he offered to sell heroin (see Penal Law, § 220.00, subd 1), in light of the fact that the jury was charged that they could convict defendant only if he sold a substance which was in fact heroin (see *People v Weiner,*248 NY 118). O’Connor, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
#### 204.7104 Contract subline items.
#### In the Matter of Herbert Smith, Appellant.

Order of December 20, 1963, unanimously affirmed. Order of December 24, 1963, unanimously reversed on the law and facts and matter remitted to Brie County Family Court for a hearing in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: Respondent-appellant was adjudged a juvenile delinquent and ordered placed in the Hew York State Agricultural and Industrial Training School. He was represented by a Law Guardian at the fact-finding hearing, who urges that the finding of delinquency was not based upon a preponderance of the evidence. We find this contention to be without merit, and affirm the delinquency order of the fact-finding proceeding. The second ground of objection, namely that the dispositional hearing was not in compliance with and pursuant to the provisions of the Family Court Act presents a serious claim which in our judgment requires reversal of this part of the proceedings. Four days after the hearing which resulted in the finding of delinquency the juvenile was brought before the court for a dispositional hearing at which time he stood alone, without the presence of his parents, or of his Law Guardian, who received no notice of the time of the hearing. The order of placement resulting from this purported hearing recites that it was made on “written reports of no current investigation — see social history submitted in 1962”, which was nearly two years before the hearing. This hearing did not accord with the requirements of section 745 of the Family Court Act, which provides that material and relevant evidence may be admitted during a dispositional hearing, nor with section 749 of the act. We made it clear in *Matter of Dennis*(20 A D 2d 86) that a dispositional hearing such as was held here, without any of the safeguards such as the presence of a Law Guardian or parents, is a direct violation of the act and of the constitutional rights of the juvenile. As we said in *Dennis*(p. 89) “ Even though the court may be so familiar with all of the facts that it believes that a dispositional hearing will be of no benefit to the child, the requirements of sections 743 to 749 must be followed and a dispositional hearing held.” This matter should be remitted to the Family Court for the holding of an adequate dispositional hearing in compliance with the act. (Appeal from two orders of Erie *738Family Court finding appellant to be a juvenile delinquent and placing him in school in Industry.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

SAF-T-GARD INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

VANGUARD ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C., 

VANGUARD ENERGY, L.L.C., and 

SEMINOLE ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C. 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:12-cv-03671 

Judge Joan B. Gottschall 

FINAL ACCOUNTING OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Pursuant to the terms of the Court’s January 14, 2014 Final Approval Order (Dkt. #: 65), 

Vanguard Energy Services, L.L.C., Vanguard Energy, L.L.C., and Seminole Energy Services, 

L.L.C. (“Defendants”) submit the following final accounting of Settlement Fund disbursements: 

1. The Common Settlement Fund totaling $59,500 has been distributed as follows: 

(a) A total of $39,865 was distributed to the class members and $30,485 was 

claimed by the class members as of January 26, 2014 (at which time the checks were no 

longer negotiable pursuant to the Court’s order and the parties’ agreement. The Affidavit 

of Daniel Waterloo Attesting to Mailing of Payment to Class Members and Plaintiff’s 

Counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Exhibit B identifies the Class Members, their 

addresses, the amount of the settlement payment to each Class Member, and whether the 

payment cleared. As shown in Exhibit B, 22 Class Members did not cash their checks 

(for an uncleared balance of $9,380). Pursuant to the Final Approval Order, that amount 

reverts to the Defendants. See Final Approval Order at ¶ 6(c). 

Case: 1:12-cv-03671 Document #: 66 Filed: 02/18/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:597
2

(b) Class Counsel was awarded and received a total of $19,635 in attorneys’ 

fees from the Common Settlement Fund. See Final Approval Order at ¶ 6(a); Exhibits A 

and B. 

2. Plaintiff Saf-T-Gard received a $5,000 incentive payment. See Final Approval 

Order at ¶ 7; Exhibits A and B. 

Dated: February 18, 2014 VANGUARD ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C., 

 VANGUARD ENERGY, L.L.C., 

 SEMINOLE ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C. 

By: /s/ Jonathan M. Wier 

 One of Its Attorneys 

David M. Stahl (dstahl@eimerstahl.com) 

Jonathan M. Wier (jwier@eimerstahl.com) 

EIMER STAHL LLP 

224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1100 

Chicago, IL 60604 

Phone: 312-660-7600 

Fax: 312-692-1718 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-03671 Document #: 66 Filed: 02/18/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:598
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 18, 2014, I caused a copy of the foregoing Final 

Accounting of Class Action Settlement to be electronically filed using the Court’s ECF system, 

which will automatically serve this filing on the following counsel of record: 

Keith J. Keogh 

Craig Shapiro 

Timothy Sostrin 

KEOGH LAW, LTD. 

101 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 605 

Chicago, IL 60606 

312.726.1092 

312.726.1093 (fax) 

/s/ Jonathan M. Wier 

Case: 1:12-cv-03671 Document #: 66 Filed: 02/18/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:599
EXHIBIT 10.21

AMENDMENT NUMBER 12 TO THE
TEXAS REGIONAL BANCSHARES, INC.
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN (WITH 401(K) PROVISIONS)

      WHEREAS, as a result of the merger pursuant to which the Bank of Texas
merged with and into Texas State Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of Texas
Regional Bancshares, Inc. (the "Corporation"), Texas State Bank has become the
successor employer to Bank of Texas for purposes of the Bank of Texas Profit
Sharing Plan and related Trust; and

      WHEREAS, the Bank of Texas Profit Sharing Plan was submitted to the
Voluntary Compliance Resolution program offered by the Internal Revenue Service
for the purposes of correcting certain administrative and/or operational
problems; and

      WHEREAS, in Amendment Number 10 to the Texas Regional Bancshares, Inc.
Employee Stock Ownership Plan (with 401(k) provisions)(the "ESOP"), the
Corporation agreed to merge the Bank of Texas Plan into the ESOP and the Trust
created pursuant to the Bank of Texas Plan (the "Bank of Texas Trust") into the
Texas Regional Bancshares, Inc., Employee Stock Ownership Trust (the "ESOT")
upon resolution of the administrative and/or operational problems in the Bank of
Texas Profit Sharing Plan pursuant to the Voluntary Compliance Resolution
("VCR") program; and

      WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Trustees have determined that it is in
the best interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP and the Bank
of Texas Plan to rescind Amendment Number 10;

      NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED THAT the Amendment Number 10 to the
ESOP shall be and is hereby rescinded effective as of July 13, 1999;

      IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT the amendment of the ESOP and the Bank of Texas
Plan, and the related ESOT and the Bank of Texas Trust, as provided in Amendment
Number 10 shall be and is hereby suspended and abated until further written
amendment adopted by the Corporation and the Trustees of the ESOP and the Bank
of Texas Plan.

      EXECUTED on this the 22 day of December, 1999, to be effective as of July
13, 1999.

                                    TEXAS REGIONAL BANCSHARES, INC.



                                    BY: /S/ G.E. RONEY
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Glen E. Roney
                                        Chief Executive Officer & Trustee


                                    BY: /S/ MORRIS ATLAS
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Morris Atlas, Trustee


                                    BY: /S/ FRANK N. BOGGUS
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Frank N. Boggus, Trustee

                                    Page 24