alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23(a)

                         Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors
Trans Financial, Inc.:


   We consent to incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statement No.
33-53960  on  Form  S-8 of our  report  dated  June  9,  1997,  relating  to the
statements  of net assets  available for benefits of the Trans  Financial,  Inc.
Savings  Investment  Plan as of  December  31,  1996 and  1995  and the  related
statements  of changes in net assets  available  for benefits for the years then
ended,  which report appears in the December 31, 1996 Annual Report on Form 11-K
of the Trans Financial, Inc. Savings Investment Plan.



                                                     /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                                     

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Louisville, Kentucky
June 25, 1997
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Lawrence Joseph SMITH v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 55178.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 20, 1974.

In re: Lawrence Joseph Smith applying for Writ of Habeas Corpus and other Remedial Writs.

Writ denied. The matters here were dealt with on appeal and will not be reconsidered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          79,630
<SECURITIES>                                   316,990
<RECEIVABLES>                                  189,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,500
<INVENTORY>                                    785,597
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,480,646
<PP&E>                                       1,560,616
<DEPRECIATION>                                 963,076
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,208,546
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          241,629
<BONDS>                                        106,356
<COMMON>                                        59,768
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,800,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,208,546
<SALES>                                      1,448,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,466,686
<CGS>                                          500,032
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,109,408
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,737
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (138,491)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (130,491)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (130,491)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
#### Oddie M. SKIPPER v. FORTENBERRY DRILLING COMPANY.

No. 51985.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 13, 1980.

Cothren, Pittman & Ferrell, James P. Co-thren, Jackson, W. E. “Billy” Andrews, III, Purvis, for appellant.

Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell & Dukes, Frank C. Horton, Robert S. Addison, Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lamar County; R. I. Prichard, III, Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
40848.

#### THOMPSON v. CITY OF SANDERSVILLE.

Russell, Judge.

The defendant was charged with a violation of a municipal ordinance of the City of Sandersville reading as follows: “It shall be unlawful for any person, persons, firm or corporation, to run, operate or maintain or knowingly permit the running, operating or maintaining in the City of *301Sandersville, Georgia, either by himself, herself, or through others, a common ill-governed and disorderly house to the encouragement of idleness, gambling, drinking of intoxicants or other misbehavior, to the disturbance of the neighborhood or orderly citizens.” Demurrers were filed on the ground that the defendant was not charged with any offense under this ordinance and that the ordinance in question is “meaningless and void.” These demurrers are sufficient to raise the general question of whether the defendant was charged and convicted under a valid city ordinance.

Decided September 22, 1964.

*Casey Thigpen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas A. Hutcheson, Solicitor,*contra.

*Code*§ 26-6103 provides misdemeanor punishment for any person “who shall keep and maintain, either by himself or others, a common, ill-governed, and disorderly house, to the encouragement of idleness, gaming, drinking, or other misbehavior, or to the common disturbance of the neighborhood or orderly citizens.” It is obvious that the city ordinance and the State statute operate upon identical subject matter, which has thus been pre-empted by the latter. “Where a municipal penal ordinance and a public criminal statute operate upon the same set of physical acts, the municipal ordinance is invalid unless the offense created by it contains some characterizing ingredient not contained in the offense under the State law.” *Cotton v. City of Atlanta,*10 Ga. App. 397 (1) (73 SE 683). See also *Hannah v. State,*97 Ga. App. 188 (102 SE2d 624); *Trowbridge v. Dominy,*92 Ga. App. 177 (88 SE2d 161); *Smith v. State,*88 Ga. App. 749 (77 SE2d *764); Sloan v. City of Moultrie,*61 Ga. App. 885 (7 SE2d 760); *Alexander v. City of Atlanta,*13 Ga. App. 354 (79 SE 177); *Dannie v. City of Atlanta,*10 Ga. App. 471 (73 SE 684). The ordinance under which the defendant was convicted was accordingly void.

The Judge of the Superior Court of Washington County erred in overruling defendant’s certiorari complaining of her conviction in the Recorder’s Court of the City of Sandersville.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
EXHIBIT 24:  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                 -----------------------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-8, Numbers 33-39459
and 33-61266, and on Form S-3, Number 33-66472 of PPT VISION, Inc. of our report
dated November 22, 1995 appearing 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 29 of this Form 10-K.


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
------------------------
PRICE WATERHOUSE, LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
January 26, 1996


Page 31
§ 576.309 Licenses; general and specific. ( a ) Except as otherwise specified, the term *license* means any license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part.
( b ) The term *general license* means any license or authorization the terms of which are set forth in subpart E of this part.
( c ) The term *specific license* means any license or authorization not set forth in subpart E of this part but issued pursuant to this part.
Note to § 576.309 :
*See* § 501.801 of this chapter for licensing procedures.
#### § 136.305 Additional conditions.

The Secretary may, with respect to any grant award under this subpart, impose additional conditions prior to or at the time of any award when in his judgment such conditions are necessary to assure or protect advancement of the approved project, the interests of the public health, or the conservation of grant funds.

Note:

*Nondiscrimination.* Grants and contracts under this subpart are exempted from the requirements of section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ([42 U.S.C. 2000d](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/42/2000d)), prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, by regulation at [45 CFR 80.3(d)](/on/2024-09-17/title-45/section-80.3#p-80.3(d)) which provides, with respect to Indian Health Services, that “An individual shall not be deemed subjected to discrimination by reason of his exclusion from the benefits of a program limited by Federal law to individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin different from his.”

[[42 FR 59646](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/42-FR-59646), Nov. 18, 1977, as amended at [50 FR 1855](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/50-FR-1855), Jan. 14, 1985]
##### 



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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of United Bancorporation of
Alabama, Inc. for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert
R. Jones, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:  (1). The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 Corporation. Date: March 26, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Robert R. Jones, IIIRobert R. Jones, IIIChief Executive Officer
#### Lorraine VASSALLO, etc., et al., Appellants, v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 79-676.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 24, 1980.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Samuel M. Spatzer, Miami, for appellants.

Daniels & Hicks and Sam Daniels, Wright & Silverio, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and NES-BITT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment under review is affirmed upon a holding that the trial court properly directed a verdict for the defendant Florida Power and Light Company and excluded certain evidence at trial because: (a) the plaintiff Lorraine Vassallo and the plaintiff’s decedent Nicholas Vassallo were as a matter of law trespassers or at least uninvited licensees at the time of the subject accident, and (b) the defendant Florida Power and Light Company as landowner did not, as a matter of law, breach its duty to the said plaintiff and plaintiff’s decedent as trespassers or uninvited licensees in this cause. *Wood v. Camp,*284 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1973); *Hix v. Billen,*284 So.2d 209, 210 (Fla.1973); *Bovino v. Metropolitan Dade County,*378 So.2d 50 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); *Libby v. West Coast Rock Co.,*308 So.2d 602 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); cert. den. 325 So.2d 6 (Fla.1975).
Exhibit 99a

---

10172 Linn Station Road
Louisville, KY  40223
(502) 426-4800

March 29, 2002

United States
Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

Dear Sirs:

We have received representation from Arthur Andersen LLP that their audit of the NTS Properties
III financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2001, was subject to
the quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to
provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance
with professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur
Andersen personnel working on the audit and availability of national office
consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen
is not relevant to this audit.

|NTS-PROPERTIES III
|------------------
|                  
|                  
|By:               
|                  
|                  
|                  
|                  
|                  
|                  
|                  

|/s/ Gregory A. Wells      
|--------------------------
|                          
|Gregory A. Wells          
|Senior Vice President and 
|Chief Financial Officer of
|NTS Capital Corporation   
|                          
|
**Exhibit 32.1**

**HARLEYSVILLE NATIONAL CORPORATIONCERTIFICATIONPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection withthe Harleysville National Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Gregg J. Wagner, President, ChiefExecutive Officer and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as added Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Tomy knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany as of and for the period covered by the Report.

| By:      | /s/ Gregg J.  Wagner                |   |
|----------|------------------------------------------|--------|
| * * | *President, Chief Executive Officer and* |   |
| * * | *Director*                               |   |
|     | Harleysville National Corporation        |   |
|     | Date: March 2, 2006            |   |

 

----
# C_2006022EN.01002701.xml

| 28.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/27

---

(2006/C 22/54)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 10, 14.1.2006

OJ C 10, 14.1.2006

Past publications

OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

OJ C 315, 10.12.2005

OJ C 296, 26.11.2005

OJ C 281, 12.11.2005

OJ C 271, 29.10.2005

OJ C 257, 15.10.2005

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

| | CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex |
| --- | --- |

CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex

---
# C_2005229EN.01002701.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/27

---

Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-Avancini against the European Parliament

(Case T-256/05)

(2005/C 229/58)

Language of the case: French

An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-Avancini, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Chiara Ronzi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the Parliament's decision rejecting the claim for restitution of the financial and/or other value of 207 hours 30 minutes which were deducted from her annual leave and then from her salary/pension; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the Parliament's decision rejecting the claim for restitution of the financial and/or other value of 207 hours 30 minutes which were deducted from her annual leave and then from her salary/pension;

| 2. | award default interest; |
| --- | --- |

2.

award default interest;

| 3. | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

At the time the relevant facts arose, the applicant was an official at the European Parliament. The European Parliament sent a letter on 21 July 2004 informing her that 207 hours and 30 minutes would be deducted from her annual leave on account of her absence on medical grounds from 28 May to 11 July 2004. The Parliament's decision was made as a result of the findings of an examination of the applicant by an independent doctor, in accordance with Article 59 of the Staff Regulations, which indicated that the applicant was fit to return to her duties. A subsequent claim by the applicant seeking the restitution of the financial and/or other value of the hours deducted was also rejected by the Parliament.

In support of her application, the applicant claims the infringement of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations and the internal rules of the Parliament on the ground that she was subjected to an examination by an independent doctor without a prior medical examination by the institution's medical officer. She also claims the infringement of the duty to give a statement of reasons, the rights of the defence and the principle ‘patere quam ipse legem fecisti’.

patere quam ipse legem fecisti

---
EXHIBIT 99.1


                              MAMMATECH CORPORATION
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Mammatech Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended August 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Henry
S. Pennypacker, President and Chief Executive Officer and Mary Bailey Sellers,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 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.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.



By: /s/ Henry S. Pennypacker                        Dated: November 30, 2002
----------------------------
Henry S. Pennypacker
Title: President, Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Mary Bailey Sellers
-----------------------
Mary Bailey Sellers
Title: Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer


     This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
#### Earl E. MUNDEY and Marie G. Mundey, Appellants, v. PINELLAS CENTRAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Largo, as Executor of the Estate of Lillian B. Canedy, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 73-582.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 13, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      19,272,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,965,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (546,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    159,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               218,000
<PP&E>                                      17,633,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (13,217,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,993,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,292,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       511,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,503,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,993,000
<SALES>                                      2,201,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,022,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,687,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            18,039,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             146,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (14,168,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (14,168,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (14,168,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Corporation.
 Date: March 30, 2010
    By:
    /s/Allen O. Jones, Jr.Allen O. Jones, Jr.Senior Vice President and CFO
(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 10.29








ANNUAL BONUS PLAN FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


ADOPTED JULY 12, 2011








Annual bonuses to be awarded to the chief executive officer (“CEO”), chief financial officer (“CFO”) and other executive officers of Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Company”) shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Company’s Annual Bonus Plan for Executive Officers (“Plan”).  The Plan is not the exclusive vehicle for awarding bonuses to executive officers.  The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (“Committee”) may also make discretionary bonuses outside of the framework of the Plan.  The Plan is not contained in a formal written document; however, a summary of the material terms of the Plan is set forth below.





Each participant’s annual bonus under the Plan will be determined by multiplying the participant’s annual base salary by (a) a target bonus percentage for such participant, (b) a corporate factor ranging from 0 to 1.5, based on the Company’s achievement of corporate goals, individual goals, share price performance, and other factors as determined by the Committee, including but not limited to performance of day-to-day responsibilities and participation in the achievement of the corporate goals and achievement of individual goals determined by the Committee.  The Plan will apply to bonuses that are earned in fiscal year 2012, and for each year thereafter.





The Company’s corporate goals will be set at or around the beginning of each fiscal year by the Committee, based on recommendations by the Company’s management.  At the end of each fiscal year, the Committee will determine the corporate factor based on a quantitative and qualitative review of performance, in addition to the Company’s share price performance.  Each participant’s individual goals will be set at the beginning of each year.  A fiscal year-end evaluation of each participant may weight individual goals, and the applicable individual factor will be determined based on a quantitative and qualitative review of performance.  The Committee’s chair will recommend the CEO’s individual goals and individual factor to the Committee and the CEO will recommend the CFO and other executive officers individual goals and individual factor to the Committee.  All individual goals and individual factors will be set by the Committee.