alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1





                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-5604, 33-28593 and 33-55693) of
National Sanitary Supply Company of our report dated February 5, 1996 appearing
on page 10 of the 1995 Annual Report to Stockholders which is incorporated in
this 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-2 of this Form 10-K.



/s/ PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
-----------------------
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
March 28, 1996
Exhibit
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      ss.1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Datascension Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
      "Report")"Report"), I, D. Scott Kincer, Chief Executive Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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) 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/
                D. Scott KincerDAVID
                SCOTT KINCER
              CEO
                and Prin. Executive OfficerDated:
                October 9, 2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv4698-TKW-HTC

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS and RAYME

EDLER,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES

Upon due consideration of the parties’ joint motion to extend deadlines (Doc. 

42), it is ORDERED that

1. The motion is GRANTED, and the discovery deadline is extended by 45 

 days to May 24, 2021. All deadlines in the scheduling order (Doc. 25) tied 

 to the discovery deadline are likewise extended.

2. The expert disclosure deadlines are also extended by 45 days, but the parties 

 may agree to different deadlines pursuant to Local Rule 6.1.

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of December, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 43 Filed 12/30/20 Page 1 of 1
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.27  


 
 

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 2004    
    


        EFFECTIVE DATE: JANUARY 1, 2004  



	NAME:	 	PRESTON ROMM	 	 
	TITLE:	 	CFO	 	 
	BASE SALARY:	 	$225,000	 	 
	ON-PLAN BONUS:	 	50% of Base Salary	 	 
	






BONUS  


        Bonus is calculated based on a percentage of base salary. 


        Bonus
will be paid once annually as soon as practicable after an audit of the Company's fiscal year 2004 results has been completed and after the Dot Hill Board of Directors and/or
Compensation Committee ("BOD") has approved the payment. 


        70%
of bonus potential is tied to Dot Hill's overall 2004 forecast dated 07/26/2004 and presented to the BOD on 08/02/2004. Eligible payout for 2004 is 46.69%. 



	t.
	50%
of bonus is tied to achieving revenue of $244,734,000 for 2004



	u.
	50%
of bonus is tied to achieving net income of $13,390,000 for 2004



	v.
	If
at the end of 2004, the year-end revenue AND the net income is less than 85% of the on-plan targets, no bonus will be paid.



	w.
	If
revenue and net income achieve 85% of plan, you are eligible to earn 50% of the related components bonus.



	x.
	For
each 1% increase between 86% and 90% of revenue and, separately, net income, a bonus equal to 2.00% of on-plan bonus will be paid, with a cap of 100% of plan.



	y.
	For
each 1% increase between 91% and 95% of revenue and, separately, net income, a bonus equal to 3.00% of on-plan bonus will be paid, with a cap of 100% of plan.



	z.
	For
each 1% increase between 96% and 100% of revenue and, separately, net income, a bonus equal to 5.00% of on-plan bonus will be paid, with a cap of 100% of plan. 




        20%
of bonus potential is subjective and may be tied to individual departmental goals and performance. 


        10%
of bonus potential is subjective and will be based on the company's performance with respect to management of its working capital and cash flow. 


TERMS  


	a.
	You
must be an employee in good standing on the date of payout to be eligible for the bonus payout.



	b.
	The
base salary and bonus structure may be revised by the BOD at any time, with no notice.



	c.
	You
are eligible for all benefits afforded Regular Full-time Exempt employees as set forth in the most current version of the Dot Hill Employee Handbook.



	d.
	The
terms, conditions, and benefits of your employment with Dot Hill Systems Corporation are governed by the terms of the Employment Agreement and the standard Company policies and
benefits. No verbal promises, verbal commitments, or implied promises will alter the Employment Agreement or these standard policies and benefits.



	e.
	The
employment relationship between the parties is "at will" and may be terminated by Dot Hill at any time. 






	Jim Lambert, CEO	 	Preston Romm, CFO













QuickLinks


EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 2004
RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

2006-0111.

#### State v. Lamarr.

Logan App. No. 8-04-39, 2005-Ohio-6030. Reported at 109 Ohio St.3d 1419, 2006-Ohio-1978, 846 N.E.2d 530. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
2006-0634.

#### Longanbach v. Jeffreys.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Brian Longanbach. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2345 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2345

   To amend title 5, United States Code, to prohibit the transfer or 
  reprogramming of discretionary appropriations made available to the 
           Internal Revenue Service, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 2013

  Mr. Turner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on 
Oversight and Government Reform and Appropriations, 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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 5, United States Code, to prohibit the transfer or 
  reprogramming of discretionary appropriations made available to the 
           Internal Revenue Service, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``The Stop Internal Resource Slush 
Fund Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT THE TRANSFER OR REPROGRAMMING OF FUNDS 
              MADE AVAILABLE TO THE IRS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 95 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 9511. Prohibition on transfer or reprogramming of funds
    ``(a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
in accordance with subsection (b), none of the funds made available to 
the Internal Revenue Service shall be eligible for transfer or 
reprogramming if such funds are derived from--
            ``(1) fees for services provided by the Internal Revenue 
        Service;
            ``(2) discretionary appropriations for salaries and 
        expenses or other personnel and hiring programs; or
            ``(3) reimbursable programs.
    ``(b) Deficit Reduction.--On the date that is 90 days after the 
last day of the fiscal year in which such funds were collected or made 
available, any unobligated amounts derived from subsection (a)(1), 
(a)(2), or (a)(3) are rescinded and shall be returned to the general 
fund of the Treasury for the sole purpose of deficit reduction.''.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) The table of sections for chapter 95 of title 5, United 
        States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
        section 9510 the following:

``9511. Internal Revenue Service personnel limitations.''.
            (2) The heading for chapter 95 of title 5, United States 
        Code, is amended by inserting ``AND REQUIREMENTS'' after 
        ``FLEXIBILITIES''.
                                 <all>
```
NO. 03-15-00208-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT

AUSTIN, TEXAS

JOE ALTON GREER,

Appellant,

VS.

REBECCA RODRIGUEZ GREER,

Appellee.

Appeal from the 425th Judicial District Court

ofWilliamson County, Texas

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FORTHETHIRD COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT OF TEXAS:

Pursuantto Rule 42 ofthe Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure, Appellant, Joe Alton

Greer, moves to dismiss this appeal on the following grounds:

Greer v. Greer

Motion to Dismiss Appeal

Page 1

ACCEPTED

03-15-00208-CV

5145191

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

5/4/2015 4:38:55 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/4/2015 4:38:55 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
A. Introduction

1. Appellant perfected hisappeal on7April 2015, when he filed aNotice ofAppeal with

the 425th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas. The judgment from which

the appeal was taken was entered on 7 January 2015 in Cause No. 12-1050-F425, styledIn

the Matter ofthe Marriage ofJoe Alton Greer and Rebecca Rodriguez Greer, in the 425th

Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas.

B. Grounds

2. On 22 April 2015, the trial court granted a new trial in this case and signed an Order

on Petitioner's Motionfor New Trial setting aside the judgment entered on 7 January 2015.

C. Conclusion

3. In light ofthe granting ofthe new trial in this case, this appeal is moot and should be

dismissed.

D. Prayer

4. For these reasons, the Appellant ask the Court to grant this motion to dismiss.

Greer v. Greer

Motion to Dismiss Appeal

Page 2
Respectfully Submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF KARL E. HAYS, PLLC

2101 South lH-35, Suite 210

Austin, Texas 78741

512-476-1911

512-476-1904 facsimile

service@havsfamilvlaw.com

By: /s/ Karl E. Havs

Karl E. Hays

State Bar Number 09307050

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Rule 10.1(a)(5) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the

undersigned attorney hereby certifies that he has conferred with Appellee's counsel regarding

the substance of this motion and that Appellee's counsel has indicated that he does not

oppose the granting ofthis motion.

/s/ Karl E. Havs

Karl E. Hays

Greer v. Greer

Motion to Dismiss Appeal

Page 3
Certificate of Service

In compliance with Rule 9.5(a), 9.5(d), and 9.5(e) ofthe Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure, the undersigned attorney certifies that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing

Motion to Dismiss Appeal has been served upon the below-named individual, in the manner

noted below, as prescribed by Rule 9.5(b) ofthe Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure on this

4th day of May 2015.

Via E-File Transmission

Bradley M. Coldwell

Coldwell Bowes, L.L.P.

919 Congress Ave., Suite 1200

Austin, Texas 78701

Efiling.coldwell@coldwellbowes.com

Is! Karl E. Havs

Karl E. Hays

Greer v. Greer

Motion to Dismiss Appeal

Page 4
#### Seymour Schweber, Respondent, v. Sidney Berger et al., Appellants.

— Order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 4, 1966, modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of (a) striking out its provisions which set aside the stipulation of settlement, declared a mistrial and directed that the ease be placed on a stated Trial Calendar; and (b) reinstating the stipulation of settlement. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The findings of fact contained or implicit in the order which are inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion, the stipulation of settlement at bar brought into being a new contract *(Hegeman*v. *Conrad,*1 A D 2d 788; *Bond*v. *Bond,*260 App. Div. 781). As such, the stipulation will not be vacated except for reasons that suffice to invalidate a contract *(Yonkers Fur Dressing Co.*v. *Royal Ins. Co.,*247 N. Y. 435). No such grounds were established in the record before us. Moreover, we find the stipulation to be clear and unambiguous (cf. *Matter of Hecht,*24 A D 2d 1001). However, neither party having requested that the stipulation be vacated, that question was not squarely before Special Term. If plaintiff desires to attack the validity of the stipulation, the proper remedy is to bring a plenary suit in equity to try out the issue of the circumstances under which the stipulation of settlement was made *(Yonkers Fur Dressing Co.*v. *Royal Ins. Co., supra).*Under the circumstances at bar, plaintiff ought to be afforded the opportunity to pursue that remedy if he be so advised. For these reasons, that part of the order which denied defendants’ motion for leave to enter judgment based on the stipulation was properly made. But since we have held that, on the papers before us, the stipulation of settlement was a binding contract, defendant is entitled to have it enforced if none of the grounds for its vacatur, as above discussed, exist. Notwithstanding the provision in the stipulation that the court “ shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing” the agreement, since the learned Special Term Justice has, in the order under review, disqualified himself from further participation in the proceeding, it is our opinion that the enforcement of the stipulation, on these facts, requires a plenary action. Uglietta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. BIEN, Appellant, v. LITTLETON, President, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Proceedings by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of Joseph L. Bien, against Martin W. Littleton, president of the borough of Brooklyn.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

HOOKER, J., dissents, on the ground that the hearing given the relator was not such as is contemplated by the statute.
#### Catherine Wolz, appellee, v. East Side Levee & Sanitary District, appellant.

Opinion filed June 5, 1929.

Rehearing denied July 16, 1929.

Harry Faulkner, for appellant. E. L. Maher and J. B. Harris, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Barry

delivered the opinion of the court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:03cr12-SPM/AK

CARLOS HERMAN SALMERON,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation dated June 27, 2005 (doc. 90). Defendant has been

furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and filed objections (doc.

93), which the Court accepts as timely filed. Pursuant to Title 28, United States

Code, Section 636(b)(1), I find that the report and recommendation is correct and

should be adopted. This Court is bound by the precedents of the United States

Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, which has ruled that Booker is not

retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. See Alcide v. United

States, 2005 WL 1692498 (11th Cir. July 21, 2005).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 90) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (doc.

Case 4:03-cr-00012-SPM-AK Document 94 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 2
 

89) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of August, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00012-SPM-AK Document 94 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


California Metals Recycling, Inc., a California corporation
CIM Trucking, Inc., an Illinois corporation
Firma, Inc., a California corporation
Firma Plastic Co., Inc., a California corporation
Mac Leod Metals Co., a California corporation
Metal Management Aerospace, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Alabama, Inc., a Delaware corporation
MTLM Arizona, Inc., an Arizona corporation
Metal Management Arizona, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company
Metal Management Connecticut, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Gulf Coast, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Indiana, Inc., a Illinois corporation
Metal Management Memphis, L.L.C., a Tennessee limited liability company
Metal Management Midwest, Inc., a Illinois corporation
Metal Management Mississippi, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company
Metal Management Northeast, Inc., a New Jersey corporation
Metal Management Ohio, Inc., a Ohio corporation
Metal Management S&A Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Pittsburgh, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Realty, Inc., an Arizona corporation
Metal Management Stainless & Alloy, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Metal Management West, Inc., a Colorado corporation
Metal Management West Coast Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation
metals.com.Inc., a Delaware corporation
Proler Southwest Inc., a Texas corporation
Reserve Iron & Metal Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership
Trojan Trading Co., a California corporation

Southern Recycling, L.L.C., a Louisiana limited liability company (ownership of
a 28.5% interest)

Roundout Iron & Metal, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (ownership
of 50%)
### 1 

# No. 01 -15- 00 670- CV

I N 

### T HE 

### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS



### F OR 

### T HE 

### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS



# The Estate of Donald H. Williams, Deceased

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Tr. Ct. No. 427,929

SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE REGARDING

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF

TO THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS:

This is to certify that the undersigned has conferred with opposing counsel

regarding the motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. Opposing

counsel has stated that he is not opposed to the motion.

Respectfull y submitted,

/s/Timothy A. Hootman

Timothy A. Hootman

SBN 09965450

2402 Pease St

Houston, TX 77003

713.247.9548 ; 713.583.9523 (f)

Email: thootman2000@yahoo.com

A

TTORNEY FOR A PP ELLANT

, T RACY L.

D AMPIER ACCEPTED

01-15-00670-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

10/22/2015 3:06:42 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

### 2 

# C ERTIFICATE OF 

# S ERVICE

I hereby certify that, in accordance with Rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure, I have served the forgoing document upon the following

attorneys by electronic service :



### Charlie Henke

H ENKE 

### L AW 

### F IRM



### , LLP

3200 Southwest Frwy, 34 th 

### Fl.

Houston, TX 77027

chenke@henkelawfirm.com

Dated: October 22 , 2015.

/s/Timothy A. Hootman

_____ Timothy A. Hootman
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Woodson, Appellant.

— Judgment of conviction, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered November 2, 1977, after trial to a jury, reversed, on the law, and the case remanded for a new trial. Amongst other errors called to our attention was an improper charge concerning defendant’s alibi defense: the court did not charge unqualifiedly that an alibi which raises a reasonable doubt entitles a defendant to acquittal. *(People v Brown,*62 AD2d 715.) Further, improper hearsay testimony concerning a detective’s conversations with defendant’s relatives was admitted. Additionally, without proper foundation therefor, the court permitted the prosecutor to argue that a relative of defendant was a "missing witness” under a party’s control, and gave the usual charge appropriate to such a circumstance. Concur — Birns, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.
EXHIBIT 3

Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 16-3 Filed 07/19/22 Page 1 of 3
1

Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 16-3 Filed 07/19/22 Page 2 of 3
5

Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 16-3 Filed 07/19/22 Page 3 of 3
118 STAT. 1416 PUBLIC LAW 108–356—OCT. 21, 2004

Public Law 108–356

108th Congress

An Act

To extend certain authority of the Supreme Court Police, modify the venue of

prosecutions relating to the Supreme Court building and grounds, and authorize

the acceptance of gifts to the United States Supreme Court.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT POLICE TO PROTECT COURT OFFICIALS OFF THE SUPREME COURT GROUNDS.

Section 6121(b)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is amended

by striking ‘‘2004’’ and inserting ‘‘2008’’.

SEC. 2. VENUE FOR PROSECUTIONS RELATING TO THE UNITED

STATES SUPREME COURT BUILDING AND GROUNDS.

Section 6137 of title 40, United States Code, is amended by

striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:

‘‘(b) VENUE AND PROCEDURE.—Prosecution for a violation

described in subsection (a) shall be in the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia or in the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia, on information by the United States

Attorney or an Assistant United States Attorney.’’.

SEC. 3. GIFTS TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

The Chief Justice or his designee is authorized to accept, hold,

administer, and utilize gifts and bequests of personal property

pertaining to the history of the United States Supreme Court or

28 USC 1 note.

Oct. 21, 2004

[S. 2742]

PUBLIC LAW 108–356—OCT. 21, 2004 118 STAT. 1417

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2742:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Sept. 28, considered and passed Senate.

Oct. 6, considered and passed House.

Æ

its justices, but gifts or bequests of money shall be covered into

the Treasury.

Approved October 21, 2004.