alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Board of Directors andShareholders 

K-V Pharmaceutical Company 

Bridgeton, Missouri 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements (Nos. 33-44927, 333-00199, 333-48252 and 333-85516) on Form S-8 and the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-87402 and 333-106294) on Form S-3 of K-V Pharmaceutical Company (the Company) of our report dated June 10,2011 (except for the 2011 and 2010 condensed consolidating financial information as presented in Note 26, which is as of July 8, 2011, and except for the effects of the restatement described in Note 1 which is as of December 8, 2011) relatingto the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule and of our report dated June 10, 2011, except as to the effect of the restatement, which is dated December 8, 2011, related to the effectiveness of the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting which appears in the Company’s Amendment No. 1 to its Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended March 31, 2011. 

Our report on the consolidated financial statements contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. 

Our report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2011. 

/s/ BDO USA, LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

December 8, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-K and is qualified in it entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,325
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     69,605
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,813
<PP&E>                                          71,462
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 188,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,333
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            90
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,528
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   188,693
<SALES>                                        432,017
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               432,017
<CGS>                                          294,895
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               127,081
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,514
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,473)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       115
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,588)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (560)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,148)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.57)
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.102 Administration of the Act.

As provided by section 4 of the Act and under provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act (49 Stat. 2036, 41 U.S.C. 38, 39), which are made expressly applicable for the purpose, the Secretary of Labor is authorized and directed to administer and enforce the provisions of the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act, to make rules and regulations, issue orders, make decisions, and take other appropriate action under the Act. The Secretary is also authorized to make reasonable limitations and to make rules and regulations allowing reasonable variations, tolerances, and exemptions to and from provisions of the Act (except section 10), but only in special circumstances where it is determined that such action is necessary and proper in the public interest or to avoid serious impairment of the conduct of Government business and is in accord with the remedial purposes of the Act to protect prevailing labor standards. The authority and enforcement powers of the Secretary under the Act are coextensive with the authority and powers under the Walsh-Healey Act. *Curtiss Wright Corp.* v. *McLucas* 364 F. Supp. 750, 769 (D NJ 1973).
#### Donald Perry et al., Plaintiffs, v West 104th Street Associates, L.P., et al., Appellants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Skyline Steel Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (And a Fourth-Party Action.)

[698 NYS2d 463]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered June 17, 1998, which, in an action for personal injuries by a laborer against defendants-appellants owner and general contractor of a construction site, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of third-party defendant, a subcontractor and plaintiffs employer, for summary judgment dismissing so *70much of the owner and general contractor’s third-party complaint as seeks common-law contribution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when a ramp providing access to the building in which he was to install a steel partition gave way, causing him to fall into a three-foot deep trench that had been dug around the entire building. He sued the owner and general contractor alleging, among other things, that they failed to provide him with a safe place to work; the latter, in turn, impleaded plaintiffs employer alleging, among other things, that it failed to provide plaintiff with a safe place to work. This latter allegation and the associated claim for contribution, were properly rejected for lack of merit, there being no evidence that the employer was responsible for either the trench or the ramp, or otherwise had authority to supervise or control its employees’ means of access to the building *(see, Serpe v Eyris Prods.,*243 AD2d 375, 379-380; *Jehle v Adams Hotel Assocs.,*264 AD2d 354). Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
#### § 2205.151 Program accessibility: new construction and alterations.

Each building or part of a building that is constructed or altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of the agency shall be designed, constructed, or altered so as to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The definitions, requirements, and standards of the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), as established in 41 CFR 102-76.60 to 102-76.95, apply to buildings covered by this section.
### r^ > •.•i S

>



### _ o C 5 fS i • • . - - - ! - • - , ; ry^^ > 

## cr^ m 

# 2^ 5 

# S m c/: > L A W OFFICE S 

### A N N THOMA S e S a HCALDSBUR C AVENU E HCALDSBURG
. CALIFORNI A9544 6 TELEPHON E <707 ) 433-426 8 F A X (707 ) 433-S96 0 EMAIL : ATOSONIC.NC T A N N THOMA S MAILIN G ADORCSS : ATTORNE YA T LA W P O S T O F F 1 C C B O X I 7 • 5 HCALOSBURO , C A 0644S-I7O S Augus t 28,201 0 Th e Honorabl e Ra y LaHoo d Secretary o f

Transportatio n U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenu e S E Washingto n D C 20590-000 1 Re : Docke t OST-20 1 0-012 4 Dear Secretar y L aHood ; r strongl y suppor t

the . Charle s M . Schulz-Sonom aCount y Airpor t aiq>licatio n fo r "a . graht'uiider.th e Smal l Commmut y Ai r ^eryiQ e Developmen t

PtOgram^ Thi s gran t

alon g \OTf hloca l field s wil l provid e for xnarketin g and.advertisin g whic h\viU'resul t ii l attitMn g ihoit e inbound^passenjger s t o Sonoiii aCount y oi l Horizo n Air. . . ' I a ma n attorne y i n Sonom aCounty , Californi aan dwor k wit hinan y senior s i n matter s relate dt o Elde r

Law . I hav e hear dman y positiv e comment s fro mm y client s regardin g th e Horizo n Ai r servic e tha t

bega n i n 200 7 a t

tb e Charle s M . Schulz-Sonom aCount y Airpor t A t firs t the y wer e thrille dwhe n the y hear dtha t w e woul db e gettin g servic e an dknowin g tha t thei r long , inconvenient , an dexpensiv e bu s trip s t o th e Oaklan dan dSa n Francisc o airport s woul dno t

b e necessary . Man y hav e continuall y take n advantag e o f th e nonsto p flight s t o Lo s Angeles , La s Vegas , Portland , an diSeattle . Th e respons e fipmou r senio r communit y ha s bee n excellent . Som e o f

thei r trip s hav e bee n t o visi t

grandchildren ; som e t o tr y thei r luc k o n a weeken dtri p t o La s Vegas ; som e t o visi t famil y member s i n Portlan dan dSeattle . I understand , however , tha t th e inboun dpassenge r

number s hav e no t

bee n a s larg e a s expecte dani

di t is^lttha t

the-iSonpni aCount y Airpor t need s t o ge t

th e wor dbttt

tha t ' wi e hav e air'service . .'Certainly , Sonom aCount y i s wel l know n a s Win e Countr y an d" ^ - giettihg th e wor dou t

woul dencouxage . peopl e i n othe r area s o f Californi at o tak e ' advantag e o f

ou r convenien t

nonsto p ai r

servic e t o Sonom aCounty . No t onl y woul d

### S I 0- 1 00 9 10-03 9

L A W OFFICE S 

### A N N THOMA S

The Honorabl e Ra

y LaHoo d Augus t 28,201 0 Pag e 2 incoming visitor s enjo y thei r visit s t o th e Wine Countr

y bu t our loca l businesses , th e touris mcommunity , th e airline , variou s vendors , andth e travelin g publi c woul dal l fee l th e positiv e impac t

becaus e i t

woul dhelp suppor

t ou r overal l economy . The awar do f th e requeste dgrant

wil l giv e th e airpor

t andit s partner s th e funding tha t i t need s t o d o a

n effectiv e jo b o f

promotin g SonomaCounty . Highe r loadfactor s fo

r Horizon Air

ca n als o mea

n more flight s t o no t

only existin g market s bu t

t o ne w markets . You r suppor t o f our reques t i s mos t appreciated . Sincerely , AN N THOMA S AT : cc m
Exhibit  99.4


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Starberrys Corporation on Form 10-QSB
for  the  period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission  on  the  date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mary Hethey, Chief Financial
Officer  and  Secretary Treasurer 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  and  belief:

     (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.



                                        "Mary  Hethey"
                                        --------------
                                         Mary  Hethey
                               Chief  Financial  Officer  and
                                    Secretary  Treasurer

Date:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              54
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,980
<ALLOWANCES>                                        86
<INVENTORY>                                      1,579
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,088
<PP&E>                                           1,109
<DEPRECIATION>                                     551
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,752
<BONDS>                                              1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,296
<OTHER-SE>                                          25
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,120
<SALES>                                         11,884
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,036
<CGS>                                            8,403
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 235
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    769
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (30)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                799
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     94
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       893
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
<FN>
<F1>Bad debt expense of (149) is included in the 3,242 reported as Selling and
Administrative expenses.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michelle Daymon, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 209]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in summarily denying her request for assignment of new counsel. Defendant indicated during the plea colloquy that she had discussed the matter fully with assigned counsel and that she was “satisfied with his advice and counsel”. The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.
#### McMILLEN v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 83-252 AC (County Court Case No. 82284, 5KM)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

February 27, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

John H. Lipinski for appellant.

Jim Smith, Attorney General, and G. Bart Billbrought, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before HENDERSON, RIVKIND, SALMON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was tried before Judge Mapp, who found him not *147guilty of one charge and guilty of another. He moved for a new trial; that motion was heard by Judge Cook, who granted it (he announced his ruling, but did not enter a written order.) The state then brought the matter back to Judge Mapp, who reversed Judge Cook and reinstated the original conviction.

Judge Mapp’s ruling was based upon his conclusion that Judge Cook should not have ruled upon the motion for a new trial—a position with which we essential concur—however, the propriety of Judge Cook’s action was not raised to Judge Cook, nor was it argued in this court.

Basically, what occurred was that Judge Cook granted a motion for new trial that Judge Mapp would have denied.1 Once Judge Cook ruled, the state’s Remedy was appeal to this court.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to grant a new trial.

1

 The state argues that trial courts have an inherent right to reconsider prior rulings, especially in light of the fact that Judge Cook’s order was not reduced to writing, and the state could not yet appeal. Without reaching the merit of that contention, we note that it was not Judge Cook who reconsidered his ruling.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of The Boyds Collection, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph E. Macharsky, ChiefFinancial 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 fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2)             The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Joseph E. Macharsky |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Joseph E. Macharsky     |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| November 12, 2002       |   |

 

----
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL
              FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
iVillage Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, the undersigned, Douglas
W. McCormick, Chief Executive Officer of iVillage Inc., and Scott Levine, Chief
Financial Officer of iVillage Inc., each hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to their respective knowledge:

      (1)   such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
            30, 2003 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
            the quarter ended September 30, 2003 fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of iVillage Inc.


November 14, 2003                         /s/ Douglas W. McCormick
-----------------                         ------------------------
Date                                      Douglas W. McCormick
                                          Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2003                         /s/ Scott Levine
-----------------                         ------------------------
Date                                      Scott Levine
                                          Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to iVillage Inc. and will be retained by iVillage Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The information in this Exhibit 32 is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission and shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the
liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.


                                       58
|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



Each
of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer
of 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. (the Company), that the Annual Report of the
Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 14, 2008
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | By:/s/
Alfred R. Kahn     
Alfred R. Kahn      Chairman of the Board and      Chief Executive
Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: March 14, 2008
|--------------------

| | By:/s/
Bruce R. Foster     
Bruce R. Foster      Executive Vice President and      Chief Financial
Officer
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. and will
be retained by 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### § 502.2 Coordination of intake between DOL agencies.

Complaints received by ETA or any State Workforce Agency (SWA) regarding contractual H-2A labor standards between the employer and the employee will be immediately forwarded to the appropriate WHD office for appropriate action under these regulations.