alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.2

LONQUIST & CO. LLC

February 9, 2011

Contango Oil & Gas Company

3700
Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960

Houston, Texas 77098

Re: Contango Oil & Gas Company, Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

Gentlemen:

The firm of Lonquist & Co. LLC consents to the use of its name and to the use of its projections for Contango Oil & Gas
Companys Proved Reserves and Future Net Revenue in Contangos Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

Lonquist & Co. LLC has no interests in Contango Oil & Gas Company or in any affiliated companies or subsidiaries and is not to receive any such interest as payment for such reports and
has no director, officer, or employee otherwise connected with Contango Oil & Gas Company. Contango Oil & Gas Company does not employ us on a contingent basis.

Yours very truly,

LONQUIST & CO. LLC



|                         
|-------------------------
|                         
|/s/ Richard R. Lonquist  
|RICHARD R. LONQUIST, P.E.
**Exhibit 23.0****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos.333-79703) of UCBH Holdings, Inc. of our report dated March 15, 2006, except with respect to ouropinion on the consolidated financial statements insofar as it relates to the section entitled“Restatement of the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows” included in Note 1, as to which the dateis November 16, 2006, relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
§ 125.365 Alternate airport for departure. ( a ) If the weather conditions at the airport of takeoff are below the landing minimums in the certificate holder's operations specifications for that airport, no person may release an airplane from that airport unless the flight release specifies an alternate airport located within the following distances from the airport of takeoff: ( 1 ) *Airplanes having two engines.* Not more than 1 hour from the departure airport at normal cruising speed in still air with one engine inoperative.
( 2 ) *Airplanes having three or more engines.* Not more than 2 hours from the departure airport at normal cruising speed in still air with one engine inoperative.
( b ) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the alternate airport weather conditions must meet the requirements of the certificate holder's operations specifications.
( c ) No person may release an airplane from an airport unless that person lists each required alternate airport in the flight release.
#### § 372.10 Exemption.

Charter operators are hereby relieved from the provisions of section 41102 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII only if and so long as they comply with the provisions of this part and the conditions imposed herein, and to the extent necessary to permit them to organize and arrange overseas military personnel charters.

[SPR-176, 46 FR 43960, Sept. 2, 1981, as amended at 60 FR 43529, Aug. 22, 1995; Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15938, Apr. 16, 2019]
Exhibit 23 to 2008 10-K

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



| |  |  | Form S-8 No. 333-66992 pertaining to the Geneva Technology Limited Unapproved Share Option Scheme 1998,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Form S-8 No. 333-69633 pertaining to the Convergys Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Form S-8 No. 333-86137 pertaining to the Convergys Corporation Canadian Employee Share Purchase Plan,
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Form S-8 No. 333-96727 pertaining to the Convergys Corporation 1998 Long Term Incentive Plan,
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Form S-8 No. 333-96729 pertaining to the Convergys Corporation Deferred Compensation and LTIP Award Deferral Plan for Non-Employee Directors,
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Form S-8 No. 333-96733 pertaining to the Convergys Corporation Retirement and Savings Plan,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Form S-3 No. 333-101899 pertaining to Convergys Corporations registration of $250 million of debt securities and related prospectus for the registration
of debt securities, common shares, preferred shares and warrants to purchase (i) debt securities, (ii) common shares, or (iii) preferred shares; and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Form S-3 No. 333-150856 pertaining to Convergys Corporations shelf registration statement for the possible registration of debt securities.
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated February 26, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Convergys Corporation
and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Convergys Corporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008.



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ Ernst & Young, LLP
|Cincinnati, Ohio      
|February 26, 2009
#### § 25.171 General.

The airplane must be longitudinally, directionally, and laterally stable in accordance with the provisions of §§ 25.173 through 25.177. In addition, suitable stability and control feel (static stability) is required in any condition normally encountered in service, if flight tests show it is necessary for safe operation.

[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-7, 30 FR 13117, Oct. 15, 1965]
Editorial Note on Part 183
Editorial Note: For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this part 183, see Amdt. 183-1, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

§ 183.51 ODA Unit personnel. Each ODA Holder must have within its ODA Unit— ( a ) At least one qualified ODA administrator; and either
( b ) A staff consisting of the engineering, flight test, inspection, or maintenance personnel needed to perform the functions authorized. Staff members must have the experience and expertise to find compliance, determine conformity, determine airworthiness, issue certificates or issue approvals; or
( c ) A staff consisting of operations personnel who have the experience and expertise to find compliance with the regulations governing the issuance of pilot, crew member, or operating certificates, authorizations, or endorsements as needed to perform the functions authorized.
§ 305.7 Issuance of investigation subpenas. ( a ) The General Counsel, the DOT decisionmaker, the chief administrative law judge or the administrative law judge designated to preside at the reception of evidence, may issue a subpena directing the person named therein to appear before a designated administrative law judge at a designated time and place to testify or to produce documentary evidence relating to any matter under investigation, or both. Each such subpena shall briefly advise the person required to testify or submit documentary evidence of the purpose and scope of the investigation, and a copy of the order initiating the investigation shall be attached to the subpena.
( b ) Witnesses subpoenaed to appear shall be paid the fees and mileage prescribed in § 302.27(c) of the Rules of Practice (14 CFR 302.27(c)). Service of such subpoenas shall be made in accordance with the provisions of § 302.7 of the Rules of Practice (14 CFR 302.7).
[Doc. No. 82, 50 FR 2421, Jan. 16, 1985, as amended at 65 FR 6456, Feb. 9, 2000; Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15937, Apr. 16, 2019]
Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Playboy Enterprises,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Christie Hefner, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Linda G. Havard,
as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of her 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/ Christie Hefner
------------------------------
Name:  Christie Hefner
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  November 8, 2004


/s/ Linda G. Havard
------------------------------
Name:  Linda G. Havard
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  November 8, 2004

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by ss. 906 has been
provided to Playboy Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Playboy
Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### § 38.21 Approval before compliance testing.

All procedures, weights, configurations, and other information or data that are used to establish a fuel efficiency level required by this part or in any appendix to this part (including any equivalent procedures) must be approved by the FAA prior to use in certification tests intended to demonstrate compliance with this part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSE SANTANA GODOY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-30195

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00374-RSM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Jose Santana Godoy appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month

sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

FILED

JUL 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-30195

738 (1967), Godoy’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for

relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided

the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se

supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We

dismiss the appeal of the sentence in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United

States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

The conviction is AFFIRMED, and the appeal of the sentence is

DISMISSED.
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 of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David J. Moore, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



March 1,
2004

| |  | /s/DAVID J. MOORE Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
#### BEIDLEMAN et al. v. STATE ex rel. BOATMAN, Co. Atty.

No. 19761.

Opinion filed Dec. 9, 1930.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 20, 1931.

Geo. C. Beidleman and H. S. Samples, for plaintiffs in error.

A. N. Boatman and C. M. Gordon, for defendant in error.

LESTER, V. C. J.

This appeal involves the judgment of the district court based upon an action against certain sureties on a bail bond executed to the state of Oklahoma. Willie Osborn was the principal and the plaintiffs in error were the sureties.

The condition of said instrument in part being as follows:

> “That, whereas, the above named principal stands charged by Grant Gillespie duly presented in the county court of Okmulgee county, Okla., with the crime of manufacturing intoxicating liquors,

> “Now, if the said Bill Osburn shall well and truly make his personal appearance before said court at its next term to be begun and liolden at the courthouse of said county of Okmulgee, in the city of Okmulgee, on the first day of next term of court and there remain from day to day and term to term of said court until discharged by due course of law, then and there to answer said accusation against him, the obligation shall become void. Otherwise to remain in full force and effect.”

Suit was brought to collect the forfeiture on said bond. Trial was had to district court and judgment was rendered against the sureties.

Tire principal contention of the plaintiffs in error on appeal is that two terms of court were held without bringing Willie Osborn, the principal named in the bail bon-1, to trial; therefore, the criminal action against the principal should have been dismissed.

Evidence was introduced in the court below in the- instant case which shows that no demand was made by the defendant for trial, nor did he make any objection to the continuance of said cause.

In the case of Griffith v. State, 36 Okla. Cr. 322, 254 Pac. 112, it is held:

> “Defendant contends that the trial court should have dismissed the prosecution for failure to bring defendant to trial at the next term of court after which the case was triable under the provisions of section 2913, Comp. St. 1921. This court holds that, in the absence of the proper record affirmatively showing the contrary, the presumption is that the ease was properly continued for a lawful cause, and where a motion to dismiss is filed, the burden is on the defendant to show that the fault in failing to try a defendant was on the state. Where a defendant is on bail, he must demand a trial or resist a continuance; otherwise he is not entitled to a discharge for the failure to prosecute. Francis v. State, 26 Okla. Cr. 82, 221 Pac. 785. In the case before us, the record shows a docket entry dated December 16, 1924, ‘Stricken from the trial docket by agreement.’ He not only failed to demand a trial as required by the law, but agreed to a continuance. The motion to dismiss was properly overruled.”

The appeal herein is without merit, and *137the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

MASON, O. J., and HUNT, CLARK, RILEY, HEFNER, CULLISON, SWINDALL, and ANDREWS, J.T., concur.
§ 29.337 Limit maneuvering load factor. The rotorcraft must be designed for— ( a ) A limit maneuvering load factor ranging from a positive limit of 3.5 to a negative limit of −1.0; or
( b ) Any positive limit maneuvering load factor not less than 2.0 and any negative limit maneuvering load factor of not less than −0.5 for which— ( 1 ) The probability of being exceeded is shown by analysis and flight tests to be extremely remote; and
( 2 ) The selected values are appropriate to each weight condition between the design maximum and design minimum weights.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-26, 55 FR 8002, Mar. 6, 1990]
#### In the Matter of Elizabeth A. Dempsey, Appellant, against Harris H. Murdock et al., Constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City, of New York, Respondents.

(Submitted July 8, 1936;

decided September 29, 1936.)

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*of counsel), for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion, unless appellant serves and files undertaking on appeal and pays ten dollars costs within ten days, in which event the motion is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001072293
<NAME> AUDIOGENESIS SYSTEMS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          15,929
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,811
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     68,715
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               151,755
<PP&E>                                          29,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,798
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 157,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          222,268
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,192,858
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,257,483)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   157,643
<SALES>                                        611,971
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               611,971
<CGS>                                          131,118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  347,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (98,945)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,175
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                222,642
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            222,642
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   222,642
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02


</TABLE>
#### § 323.8 Exemptions.

Carriers are exempted from paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(5) of § 323.3 to the extent that those provisions require them to file a notice when terminating or suspending the domestic leg of an international flight (fill-up service).

[Doc. No. OST-96-1269, 61 FR 19166, May 1, 1996]
§ 171.321 DME and marker beacon performance requirements. ( a ) The DME equipment must meet the performance requirements prescribed in subpart G of the part. This subpart imposes requirements that performance features must comply with International Standards and Recommended Practices, Aeronautical Telecommunications, Vol. I of Annex 10 to ICAO. It is available from ICAO, Aviation Building, 1080 University Street, Montreal 101, Quebec, Canada, Attention: Distribution Officer and also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( b ) MLS marker beacon equipment must meet the performance requirements prescribed in subpart H of this part. This subpart imposes requirements that performance features must comply with International Standards and Recommended Practices, Aeronautical Telecommuncations, Vol. I of Annex 10 to ICAO.
[Doc. No. 5034, 29 FR 11337, Aug. 6, 1964, as amended at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30104-30105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11633]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-7-003]


Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

May 4, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 28, 2000, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1 and Original Volume No. 2, the 
tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing, with a proposed 
effective date of November 29, 1999.
    Texas Eastern states that the filing is submitted pursuant to the 
Commission's Order on Rehearing and Clarification issued on April 14, 
2000 (April 14 Order) in Docket Nos. RP00-7-001 and RP00-7-002, 
reflecting the removal from the Oakford storage rate base of $2,017,296 
in cost of transportation of the working gas volumes to storage.
    Texas Eastern states that the revised tariff sheets result in 
decreasing the Oakford storage cost-of-service reduction to the storage 
cost credit mechanism to $525,146 monthly. In addition, Texas Eastern 
states that upon approval of the revised tariff sheets filed herein 
Texas Eastern would propose to effect refunds with interest as required 
by the April 14 Order by crediting the calculated refund amount 
including interest to the next regular bill transmitted to each 
customer.
    Texas Eastern states that copies of the filing were mailed to all 
affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. 
This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm 

[[Page 30105]]

(call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11633 Filed 5-09-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 151.113 Advance planning proposals: Sponsor eligibility. The sponsor of an advance planning and engineering proposal must be a public agency, as defined in § 151.37(a), and must be legally, financially, and otherwise able to— ( a ) Make the certifications, representations, and warranties required in the advance planning proposal, FAA Form 3731;
( b ) Enter into and perform the advance planning agreement;
( c ) Provide enough funds to pay all estimated proposal costs not borne by the United States; and
( d ) Meet any other applicable requirements of the Federal Airport Act and this subpart.