alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Research Frontiers Incorporated

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No. 33-
53030, 33-86910 and 333-08623) on Form S-8 of Research Frontiers Incorporated of
our report dated February 26,1997, relating to the balance sheets of Research 
Frontiers Incorporated as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and the related state-
ments of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years 
in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, which report appears in the 
December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of Research Frontiers Incorporated.


                            /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Jericho, New York
March 28, 1997
#### Faulkner *vs.*Bradley.

Tjrespas

taking tWfpltfs tile tune, which ^ property1 he, as constable, levied a *Jifa.*on the horse Sfc.: replication that pltf. was a *bona fide*house keeper *fyc.,*and the. horse his only work beast *not previously levied on by execution:*this re plication is bad; for it shows that the plaintiff had other horses at tho’ they had been levied on.

[Mess. Morehead and Brown for Tlaintiff: Mr. Crittenden far Defendant.]

From the Circuit Court for Trigo County.

*April*29.

Chief Justice Hobektson

delivered the Opipion of the Court.-

To an action of trespass, brought by Faulkr alleged forcible taking and conversion of his defendant, Bradley, pleaded -that he had take the horse (as a constable) in virtue of a *fieri fa>*Faulkner.; to which the latter replied, that, of the levy and sale, “he was a *bona fide*houl-fefegper, with a family, and that the horse (so taken) was only work beast *which tvas not previously levied on by exe*cution.” The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the .replication, and thereupon rendered judgment in bar of the action. And the correctness of that decision is the only matter for consideration, in this case.

The replication would certainly have been good had it not, in averring that the horse sold by the defendant was the plaintiff’s “ only work beast,” added, “ *which was not previously levied on by*execution.” But this .addition implies the admission, that, the plaintiff owned, at the time of the levy and sale, other “ wohk beasts ;” and, admitting, as alleged, that *they*had been *“previously levied on by*execution,” nevertheless that levy may have been discharged without a side, or may otherwise have not been subsisting at the date of the levy and caption by the defendant, and thus those other horses may have *142been the unincumbered property of the defendant at that time ; and, therefore, the replication may be ad-fitted to be perfectly true, and still the necessary eleduction is not that the horse taken by the defendant was, when taken, the plaintiff’s “only work beast.”

• Wherefore, as all the averments-.of the replication may be true, and still not shew that the plaintiff owned' only one “ work beast” when the defendant levied on it, this court cannot reverse the judgment of the court below on the demurrer.

Judgment, therefore, affirmed.
#### § 2018.251 General statement.

In keeping with the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the policy of Rural Development and its component agencies, Rural Housing Service (RHS), Rural Utilities Service (RUS), and Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), governing access to information is one of nearly total availability, limited only by the countervailing policies recognized by the FOIA.
2006-0845.

#### State ex rel. Dunning v. Kimbler.

In Prohibition. On motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions. Motion to dismiss granted.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

Motion for sanctions granted. Respondent shall file a bill and documentation in support of an award for attorney fees, in accordance with the guidelines set forth in DR 2-106, within 20 days. The bill and documentation should detail the expenses and approximate amount of compensation and fringe benefits, if any, that have been or will be paid to counsel in connection with defending respondent in this frivolous prohibition action. Relator may file objections to respondent’s bill and documentation *1492within 10 days of the filing of the bill and documentation, and respondent may file a reply to relator’s objections, if any, within 5 days of the filing of the objections.

O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., would deny the motion for sanctions.
#### § 1787.12 Non-availability or shortages.

By application pursuant to § 1787.10, the Administrator may waive the Buy American requirement upon a showing that there is no domestic product available in the market in sufficient and reasonable quantities and of satisfactory quality, and that such shortage of suitable domestic alternatives jeopardizes the project being completed on budget and/or according to scheduled planning. A lack of responsive and responsible bids to a well-publicized request for bids will be presumed to meet the conditions of a non-availability waiver. With respect to contracts that are not required to be bid, sufficient evidence must be presented to the Administrator in order to make a determination.
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. SOUTHERN SILK MILLS, Inc.

No. 11898.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 5, 1954.

George J. Bott, A. Norman Somers, and Frederick U. Reel, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, Knoxville, Tenn., Harold M. Humphreys, Chattanooga, Tenn., and Robert Kemmer, Spring City, Tenn., for respondent.

Before ALLEN, MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent’s petition for rehearing relies strongly upon N. L. R. B. v; Local Union No. 1229, International *825Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 346 U.S. 464, 74 S.Ct. 172, decided December 7, 1953, which was not cited to the Court at the argument of this case on December 15, 1953. We are of the opinion that it does not control the ruling in this case. In that case the Court held that acts of disloyalty on the part of employees constituted sufficient cause for discharge because of the inherent nature of the act, likening such conduct to physical violence, insubordination, and breach of ■contract, which are recognized grounds for lawful discharge. A peaceful, temporary work stoppage in protest against working conditions is not of the same character. N. L. R. B. v. Kennametal, Inc., 3 Cir., 182 F.2d 817, 19 A.L.R.2d 562.

Respondent’s reliance upon International Union, United Automobile Workers v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 336 U.S. 245, 69 S.Ct. 516, 93 L.Ed. 651, is, in our opinion, answered by the Court’s later analysis of that case in International Union of United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers v. O’Brien, 339 U.S. 454, at page 459, 70 S.Ct. 781, 94 L.Ed. 978, heretofore cited in our order.

The evidence does not sustain respondent’s contention that the discharged employees ceased work to win unstated ends. Management was advised of the reason for the stoppage and gave no satisfactory response.

In our opinion, the evidence sustains the conclusion of the Board that management knew of the union activity prior to the discharges. See testimony of witnesses J. C. Strader, Charlie Knox, Burch Fisher, Luther Price, Gordon Price, Virdie Fairchild, and Roselle Starring. The Board was authorized to make reasonable deductions from this testimony. N. L. R. B. v. Ford, 6 Cir., 170 F.2d 735, at page 739.

There was no obligation on the part of respondent to pay the discharged employees for the time off from work consumed by the work stoppage. Their failure to punch the time clock was merely an incident of the work stoppage with no element of attempting to misrepresent to respondent that they were actually working when everybody knew they were not working. Under the circumstances, we consider it an infraction of the rules which played no material part in the discharge. N. L. R. B. v. Ford, supra, 170 F.2d at pages 738-739.

The petition for rehearing is denied.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Mark Freeman, Appellant, v. Daniel J. McMann, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Clinton County, denying relator’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Relator contends that a prior 10 to 30-year sentence imposed upon him in 1936 was rendered void because the Parole Board delivered him, while he was being detained on a parole violation warrant, to the New York City authorities whereupon he was subsequently tried, convicted and sentenced to a year imprisonment for a crime committed while on parole. We agree with Special Term that *People ex rel. Rainone*v. *Murphy*(1 N Y 2d 367) does not mandate the voiding of an originally valid sentence on the basis of the Parole Board’s action herein. Coneededly, relator has been credited on the instant sentence with the time served under the New York City conviction and, accordingly, the judgment below must *965be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 2027

TIFFANY LAGENIA NOELS, on her own behalf, and as general guardian of minor child, J.B. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLP; SHAPIRO & BROWN LLP; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST; BROCK & SCOTT, LLC, a/k/a Brock & Scott, PLLC , Defendants

- Appellees

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. George Jarrod Hazel , District Judge. ( 8:17

- cv
- 03218

- GJH )

Submitted : January 31, 2019 Decided: February 21, 2019

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Tiffany Lagenia Noels, Appellant Pro Se. Walter John Buzzetta, Thomas Francis Lucchesi, STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP, Washington, D

. C

. ; Thomas John Gartner, SHAPIRO & BROWN, LLP, Manassas, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Tiff any Lagenia Noels appeals the district court’s order granting Defenda nts’ motions to strike her amended complaint and to dismiss her original complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

sta ted by the district court. Noels v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLP , No. 8:17

- cv
- 03218

- GJH (D. Md. filed July 30, 2018 & entered July 31, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials bef ore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

          In connection with the amended quarterly report of Northern Ethanol, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, 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 Rule 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:  May 16, 2008 | s/Gordon Laschinger___________________

Gordon Laschinger, Chief Executive Officer |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>   1
                   [Wipfli Ullrich Bertelson CPAs letterhead]


                                                                      Exhibit 23
                                                                       1995 10-K



                        Independent Accountants' Consent



We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-3 (No. 33-45385), and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-81178,
33-81180, and 33-81182) of F&M Bancorporation, Inc. of our report dated
February 2, 1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of F&M
Bancorporation, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1995, which report is incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1995 annual
report on Form 10-K of F&M Bancorporation, Inc.



                                        /s/ WIPFLI ULLRICH BERTELSON CPAs
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Certified Public Accountants




Appleton, Wisconsin
March 25, 1996
Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-14 Filed 08/09/22 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-14 Filed 08/09/22 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.2

                  CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP


We consent to the use of our report dated January 15, 1996,  with
respect to the  financial statements of  IMC-Agrico Company  (not
presented separately herein),  incorporated by  reference in  the
Registration  Statement  (Form  S-3  No.  33-37441)  and  related 
Prospectus   of   Freeport-McMoRan   Resource  Partners,  Limited 
Partnership  and included  in this Annual Report (Form  10-K) for 
the  year ended December  31, 1995.



                                         /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                         -----------------------
                                         ERNST & YOUNG LLP




Chicago, Illinois
March 27, 1996
#### §§ 1780.20-1780.23 [Reserved]
629 S.E.2d 353

#### In the Matter of Henry H. CABANISS, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 12, 2005.

ORDER

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel has filed a petition asking this Court to place respondent on interina suspension pursuant to Rule 17(c), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, and seeking the appointment of an attorney to protect respondent’s clients’ interests pursuant to Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent’s license to practice law in this state is suspended until further order of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dennis E. O’Neill, Esquire, is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent’s client files, trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office account(s) respondent may maintain. Mr. O’Neill shall take action as required by Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to protect the interests of respondent’s clients. Mr. O’Neill may make disbursements from respondent’s trust account(s), escrow accounts), operating aecount(s), and any other law office accounts) respondent may maintain that are necessary to effectuate this appointment.

This Order, when served on any bank or other financial institution maintaining trust, escrow and/or operating accounts of respondent, shall serve as an injunction to prevent respondent from making withdrawals from the account(s) and shall further serve as notice to the bank or other financial institution that Dennis E. O’Neill, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court.

Finally, this Order, when served on any office of the United States Postal Service, shall serve as notice that Dennis E. O’Neill, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court and has the authority to receive respondent’s mail and the authority to direct that respondent’s mail be delivered to Mr. O’Neill’s office.

*378This appointment shall be for a period of no longer than nine months unless request is made to this Court for an extension.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jean H. Toal, C.J.

FOR THE COURT
#### Siren Realty Corp., Appellant, v. Biltmore Productions Corporation, Respondent.

Order filed. The order of this court entered on December 6, 1966 is vacated. [27 A D 2d 519.] Concur—Breitel, J. P., Stevens, Steuer, Capozzoli and Witmer, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frank R. Koperda, Respondent, v. H. Waterbury *&*Sons Co. et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Gabrielli, J.

Appeal by employer and carrier from a decision and award by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, contested solely on appellants’ denial of accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Claimant was injured while participating in a softball game at an employees’ clambake. At a regular meeting between representatives of employees and management there was some discussion, in addition to other employer-employee matters, of the employees’ annual dinner and the annual clambake for which the employer agreed to donate $1,000. At a subsequent meeting of employees’ stewards, without management’s participation, it was agreed to have both a dinner and clambake and split the employer’s donation between the two events. The clambake was held on a nonworking day at a place away from employer’s premises. The $500 allotted to the clambake by employees’ representatives was insufficient to cover the cost of the clambake and those attending were required to purchase tickets. Not only was there no compulsion to attend the clambake, but it further appears that management exercised no dominance over the affair, had no part in arranging for or participating in the affair and that it neither sought nor gained any business advantage as a result thereof. Mere employer-employee goodwill has not yet been sufficient to sustain an award and, as in *Matter of Wilson*v. *General Motors Corp.*(298 N. Y. 468, 473), the circumstances here presented lead to but one conclusion, viz. that the support given to the affair *“*should be accepted for what it really was, a gratuitous contribution to its employees’ social and recreational life”. (See, also, *Matter of De Carlo*v. *Town of Lowville,*24 A D 2d 678; *Matter of Iacovino*v. *National Biscuit Co.,*18 A D 2d 741.) Decision reversed and claim dismissed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Berlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gabrielli, J.
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 of Beaconsfield I, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Andrew Gertler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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/ Andrew Gertler
                                        ------------------
                                        Andrew Gertler
                                        Principal Executive Officer and
                                        Principal Financial Officer
                                        March 22, 2006
#### § 160.20 More than one grade in a container.

When a sample from the bottom of a barrel or drum shows not more than one grade lower than that of a top sample taken in accordance with § 160.19, the grade of the rosin shall be that of such top sample: *Provided,* That if such “bottom head” sample shows more than one grade lower than the top sample, the grade assigned to the rosin shall be that of the darkest or lowest grade of rosin in the container.
#### § 1927.56 Scheduling loan closing.

The agency, in coordination with the closing agent, will arrange a loan closing and send loan closing instructions, on an agency form to the closing agent when the agency determines that the exceptions shown on the preliminary title opinion or title insurance binder will not adversely affect the suitability, security value, or successful operation of the property and all other agency conditions to closing have been satisfied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Section 906Certification**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), the undersigned officer of GuarantyBancorp (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:April 28, 2010

 

 

 
|   |   | /s/  Daniel M. Quinn       |
|--------|--------|----------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Daniel M. Quinn            |
|   | Title: | *Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnishedsolely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as aseparate disclosure document.

 

----
Summary of Terms of Nonqualified Supplemental Retirement Plan-Mark F. Furlong



  
 Exhibit 10(ss) 
  
 SUMMARY OF TERMS OF 
 NONQUALIFIED SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN FOR MARK F. FURLONG 
  
 On December 16, 2004, the Compensation and Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of Marshall & Ilsley
Corporation (the “Company”) approved the terms of a nonqualified supplemental retirement plan (the “Plan”) that provides Mark F. Furlong, Senior Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, with a supplemental
retirement benefit. The purpose of the Plan is to provide an annual retirement benefit such that the sum of the benefits from the Company’s contributions into its qualified and non-qualified retirement programs, Social Security and the Plan
equals 45% of the sum of Mr. Furlong’s highest average salary and annual short-term incentive compensation for any five of his last ten years of employment. The benefits under the Plan will begin vesting at age 55, and will be fully vested at
age 62. If Mr. Furlong’s employment terminates prior to his attaining age 55 other than by reason of death or disability or in connection with a change of control of the Company, he will receive no benefits under the Plan. The total benefit
under the Plan will be adjusted in the event of death or disability before age 62, and can be paid for life with a 120-month certain payout or on a joint and survivor basis at Mr. Furlong’s option. The payout option elected may also affect the
amount of the annual benefit. In the event of a change of control before Mr. Furlong attains age 55, 40% of the benefits under the Plan will be vested if the change of control occurs within 12 months of adoption of the Plan and an additional 4% of
the benefits will vest for each year following the adoption of the Plan. In the event of a change of control after Mr. Furlong attains age 55, the benefits under the Plan will be fully vested.