alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
The DII Group, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in registration statements Nos.
33-73556, 33-90572, 33-79940, 333-10999, 333-11001, 333-11005 and 333-11007 on
Form S-8 and No. 33-80175 on Form S-3 of The DII Group, Inc. of our reports 
dated January 28, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of The DII
Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 29, 1996 and December 31, 1995, and
the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash
flows, for the 52 weeks ended December 29, 1996, and each of the years in the
two-year period ended December 31, 1995, and related schedule, which reports
appear in the December 29, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of The DII Group, 
Inc.



                                            /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                                KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 14, 1997
Exhibit 32(a)


              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                 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 IGENE Biotechnology, Inc. (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,  2006,
as  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
I,  Stephen F. Hiu, President 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, 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 Company.


Date: May 19, 2006                 By:  /S/ STEPHEN F. HIU
      ____________                      _____________________________
                                            STEPHEN F. HIU
                                            President


A  signed original of this written statement required by Section  906
has  been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and  furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 906 OF THE      SARBANES-**
**OXLEY      ACT**

|  | (1) | The                Form 10-KSB report for the year ended June 30, 2007, filed with the                Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2007, fully complies                with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities                and                Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|
|   | (2) | The information contained in                the Form                10-KSB report for the year ended June 30, 2007 fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                Sharps Compliance Corp. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:              September              12, 2007 |                                                                                                                               |                               |
|----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                          |                                                                                                                          |                          |
|                                                    | By:                                                                                                                      | /s/                BURTON J. KUNIK |
|                                               | Burton              J. KunikChairman                of the Board of Directors,Chief                Executive Officer and President |

----
§ 211.27 Disclosure of supervisory information to foreign supervisors. ( a ) *Disclosure by Board.* The Board may disclose information obtained in the course of exercising its supervisory or examination authority to a foreign bank regulatory or supervisory authority, if the Board determines that disclosure is appropriate for bank supervisory or regulatory purposes and will not prejudice the interests of the United States.
( b ) *Confidentiality.* Before making any disclosure of information pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the Board shall obtain, to the extent necessary, the agreement of the foreign bank regulatory or supervisory authority to maintain the confidentiality of such information to the extent possible under applicable law.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

s0615 

# Order

June 23, 2009

137659

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137659 COA: 286627 Livingston CC: 93-007670-FC JERMELL DARNELL JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 26, 2008 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

K ELLY



### , C.J., not participating because she se rved on the Court of Appeals panel
that affirmed the defendant’s conviction on direct appeal.
# C_2007232EN.01001301.xml

| 4.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/13

---

Order of the EFTA Court of 24 April 2007

(Case E-9/04)

(2007/C 232/06)

In Case E-9/04 COSTS,

The Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland, supported by The European Banking Federation, against the EFTA Surveillance Authority, supported by the Republic of Iceland

(Taxation of costs)

In Case E-9/04 COSTS The Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland, represented by Dr Hans-Jörg Niemeyer, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, Belgium and Dr Ralf Sauer, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, Germany, supported by the European Banking Federation, represented by Marc Pittie, Avocat, Brussels, Belgium, against EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger, Director, and Bjørnar Alterskjær, Officer, Department of Legal and Executive Affairs, acting as Agents, Brussels, Belgium, supported by the Republic of Iceland, represented by Finnur Þór Birgisson, First Secretary and Legal Officer, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, and Peter Christian Dyrberg, acting as Counsel — application for taxation of the costs to be recovered from the EFTA Surveillance Authority by the European Banking Federation pursuant to the judgment of the EFTA Court of 7 April 2006 in Case E-9/04 The Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2006 EFTA Court Report 45] — the EFTA Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges; Skúli Magnússon, Registrar, has made an Order of 24 April 2007, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland

EFTA Surveillance Authority

The total amount of the costs to be paid by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to the European Banking Federation is fixed at EUR 33 365,30.

---
§ 19.242 Definitions. As used in this subpart, the following terms have the meaning given below unless the context requires otherwise: ( a ) *Accounting firm* means a corporation, proprietorship, partnership, or other business firm providing audit services.
( b ) *Audit services* means any service required to be performed by an independent public accountant by section 36 of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1831m) and 12 CFR part 363, including attestation services.
( c ) *Independent public accountant (accountant)* means any individual who performs or participates in providing audit services.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 12646-001—Oklahoma]

On November 17, 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued notice of a proposed restricted service list for the preparation of a programmatic agreement for managing properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places at the Pine Creek Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 126468. Rule 2010(d)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 2010(d)(1) (2005), provides for the establishment of such a list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency. Under Rule 2010(d)(4), persons on the official service list are to be given notice of any proposal to establish a restricted service list and an opportunity to show why they should also be included on the restricted service list or why a restricted service list should not be established.

On January 23, 2009, Willard B. Smith, consulting engineer for the applicant, responded to the notice, requesting to be included in the restricted service list. Under Rule 2010(d)(2), any restricted service list will contain the names of each person on the official service list, or the person's representative, who, in the judgment of the decisional authority establishing the list, is an active participant with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is established. Mr. Smith, as the applicant's consultant, has an identifiable interest in issues as they relate to the management of historic properties at the Pine Creek Lake Dam Project. Therefore, he will be added to the restrictive service list.

Accordingly, the restricted service list issued on November 17, 2008, for the Pine Creek Lake Dam Project No. 126468 is revised to add the following person: Willard B. Smith, P.E., CFM, HISINC, L.L.C., 28508 W. 41st Street South, Mannford, OK 74044.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-2289 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# L_2011078EN.01005801.xml

| 24.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 78/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 78/58

---

DECISION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES

No 6/2010/SC

of 9 December 2010

extending the tasks of the Office for the EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism

THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement,

Having regard to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 1/2004/SC of 5 February 2004 establishing an Office for the EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism,

Having regard to the Agreement between the European Union, Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway on an EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014,

Having regard to Protocol 38b on the EEA Financial Mechanism, inserted into the EEA Agreement by the aforementioned Agreement between the European Union, Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway on an EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014,

Having regard to the Agreement between the Kingdom of Norway and the European Union on a Norwegian Financial Mechanism for the period 2009-2014,

Recalling that Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 1/2004/SC only gives the Office for the EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism a mandate to administer the 2004-2009 Financial Mechanisms,

Considering the need for a Secretariat to administer the EEA and Norwegian Financial Mechanisms 2009-2014,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

1.   The Office for the EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism, established by Standing Committee Decision No 1/2004/SC, is hereby additionally entrusted with the task of serving as a secretariat assisting in the management of the EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014 and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009-2014.

2.   Regarding the EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014, the Office shall report to the EEA Financial Mechanism Committee.

3.   Regarding the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009-2014, the Office shall report to the Norwegian Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of entering into force or on the day of provisional application of the legal act establishing the EEA Financial Mechanism for the period 2009-2014.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 9 December 2010.

For the Standing Committee

The Chairman

Stefán Haukur JÓHANNESSON

The Secretary-General

Kåre BRYN

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

‘%X46

### ~cw8ti0nt hn the chid88i0a 

### rduse t0 

### l CODt iOr filing .u.h ~p~loati0.8 for permit. until 8uoh rite. or 

### temlnl hersbeendoi**lnltely** loo.t.4 or **e.tablluh.4? ”** 

In 

### the**oa8e** of Southwe8tem Onyhouid Lln.8 Ino.,
v. Rdlro.4 Oad..loa 8t il. 147 S. W. (Bd) 51.8,b*oh84
on rmombor 5l,~lf+, motion iar rd.- aupI.4 on Julu.,ry 89, 1941, th. Au8tIa Oourt o? OlrIl +..l. h.l4 that the Motor Bur,Ad, boIag Art1010 filla,**Voxnonle**Annoktod 01~11 statute., 

### limit.**thi?** 

### juri.dIotlon Of tJaR.Ilmia aOSmi..l.Il In&xmntb@ 0rigIn.lu8rtIfloato8 to hlghq. aobudly ooa- .tru.teU 

### andopento pub110 tr.ftIo at the 

## tin. tb oortlfloak8 

### amagranted. Both tha R.llm.4 txmmi8810n an4 tin Ei.bln.-Xooh.8Std.., ho., 

### rim4 ar?pli08ti0- ior tfda 0r OxrOr in .a:& 0.~80 and .uoh 

### 8&'lioatioM az'..till p..diDg botor. the &ip~wno Oourt of T.x.8, 110aotlon thtu far h.+w bwn t&on on -oh .~ptI..tlen. by the Sqm.t. 

### Court.If .n 

### l DplibatiOtliOr a p@nait Of a.Ft:tiO.tb 1. ather.1.o 8u?ffolent w. do not kllovo the RIllraa4 Cemls.Ion rh.ul4 r.- 

### rum to l oeept th. 8.m. for fllw 00,the gmun4 that .uthoritJ i..ought to Opwatu QVRT highway. wh1.h have b... proj.ot.6 **but** whloh ham not br.n **oonetruota4** an4 are n.t opa to pub118 tr.?flc. We ttibk It a4rfrablu fox .uah qpllo.- tloru **to k**  **maopted and** file4 m&Q v&lam too loag a **tlmo** 

### pm.08 beion the (hru~heun4 o...Is dial404 **br the**  **Supreme** 

### Courtthamm. .bul4 b. 

### permittedto rrrt 

### on the 4o.kot un4lspo804 of until the **fhiprew Court**  **t&m** aoblon **ln** that **06.0.** &motor, ii ruoh an appXla.tlon aha8 011it8 taor that the rout0 o9.r whlah it fo uoought to opoxato 1. not ofen l de8l~nrto4 publla ~6.4 or hi&&nay It 18 **our opinion**  that th. Ocmml88loawoul4 **bo aotfag**  wlthln It. authority In rMu8ine to Noaopt rush applioation for 

### tiling.

Wo will abw oommra our8.1~0. with tho roaold 

### part OS your opinion wqu.st. If the **epplloatlon** 8how on lta raoi th.t the loostlon of tb treinlng oaarpha. **not** b.ur fixed, ouah that It I. lmpoarlbl. for the Ccadselon to a.- oertaln fxom th. applloatl~n just what road or hi&way th. opsr&Ion would be 

### over It Is our opinion that the Dwml8- elan mul4 be aotlag within it8 authority In **rejeoting** tho applioetloa. We are not willing to go i'urtherthan tho above 

### l **rgre88io~ in**  **attaaptlng** ta 

### anewer8. general a quo8tIon. Eaah in4Irl4ull applioation will ham to be m-4 bp It@Railma Oonmlurion of Tara*, P-0 J



### ownoontentsand It Is 

### lmporrslble to4 40~ a gen8r.l rule by;F4oh the l

uoh indirid\ralopplioatloae cod4 be properly

.
HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5859 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5860 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5861 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5862 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5863 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5864 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5865 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5866 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5867 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5868 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5869 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5870 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5871 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5872 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5873 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5874 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5875 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5876 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5877 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5878 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5879 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5880 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5881 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5882 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5883 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5884 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5885 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5886 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5887 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5888 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5889 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5890 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5891 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5892 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5893 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5894 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5895 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5896 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5897 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5898 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5899 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5900 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5901 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5902 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5903 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5904 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5905 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5906 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5907 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5908 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5909 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5910 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5911 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5912 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5913 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5914 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5915 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5916 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5917 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5918 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5919 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5920 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5921 1988HeinOnline -- 53 Fed. Reg. 5922 1988
42067.

#### DOUGLAS COUNTY v. BROWN & RILEY ENTERPRISES, LTD. et al.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

1. Compliance with *Code*§ 23-1602 is essential to a right of action arising out of a claim against a county. “Where it does not appear in the petition, in a suit against a county, that the claim sued on was presented to the county within 12 months after it accrued or became payable, or where it does not appear that the petition was filed and service thereon perfected upon the county within this period, the petition fails to set out a cause of action, and is subject to dismissal on general demurrer.” *Griffin Realty*&c. *Co. v. Chatham County,*47 Ga. App. 545 (2) (171 SE 237); *Commrs. of Roads &c. of Houston County v. Howard,*59 Ga. App. 451 (2) (1 SE2d 222).

2. In order to suffice as presentation of a claim against a county, written notice to the county should show “who makes the demand, for what reason the demand is made, and the amount thereof.” *Troup County v. Boddie,*14 Ga. App. 434, 437 (81 SE 376). The demand should apprise the county authorities of “the nature and extent of the claim, how it arose, who makes it, and what damages, if any, are claimed.” *Coffee County v. Denton,*64 Ga. App. 368, 371 (13 SE2d 209). A letter written within the 12-months period by one of the plaintiffs in this case to the chairman of the defendant’s board of county commissioners, was not sufficient to amount to the presentation of a claim against a county required by *Code*§ 23-1602.

3. Where the petition is both filed and served within 12 months after the claim accrues, bringing of a suit against a county may constitute the required presentation of the claim. *Godfrey v. County of Jefferson,*21 Ga. App. 384, 386 (94 SE 604). But service of the suit must be *perfected*upon the county within the prescribed period. *Pearson v. Newton County,*119 Ga. 863 (47 SE 180). Where as in this case the petition has been served within the 12-months period on only one member of a 3-member board of commissioners, service has not been perfected upon the county by service upon a majority of the commissioners as required by *Code*§ 23-1503. Hence there has been'no presentation of the claim sufficient to meet the requirement of *Code*§ 23-1602. *Clayton County v. Sarno,*112 Ga. App. 379 (145 SE2d 283).

*411Argued June 9, 1966

Decided September 23, 1966

Rehearing denied October 6, 1966

*Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Richard L. Chambers, E. J. Summerour, Assistant Attorneys General, Brown & Dollar, Eugene Brown,*for appellant.

*Noland & Coney, John L. Coney,*for appellees.

The trial court erred in overruling defendant’s general demurrers to plaintiffs’ petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*