alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

DESCRIPTION: CONSENTS OF EXPERTS AND COUNSEL

Kurt D. Saliger
Certified Public Accountant
5000 West Oakey
Suite A-4
Las Vegas, Nevada 89146

February 22, 2000

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

RE: COMBINED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., FORM 10Q-SB

Dear Sir or Madam:

        As a Certified Public Accountant, I hereby consent to the inclusion of
my report dated July 12, 1999, in the Form 10Q-SB filed by Combined Professional
Services, Inc., including all references to my reports to the extend they are
concurrent therewith and contained in the Form 10Q-SB.

By: /s/ KURT D. SALIGER
    ----------------------------------
    Kurt D. Saliger, C.P.A.
§ 530.104 Bonding or security payments. ( a ) Where in the Administrator's judgment there is not sufficient reason to believe that the Act will be complied with or that money will be available if violations of the Act occur, the Administrator may condition issuance or renewal of a certificate to an employer upon the furnishing of a bond with a surety or sureties satisfactory to the Administrator.
( b ) The Administrator shall condition issuance or reinstatement of a certificate to any employer whose application for a certificate had previously been denied, or whose certificate had been revoked, upon the furnishing of a bond.
( c ) Any bond required by the Administrator under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section shall be in an amount determined by the Administrator, up to $2500 for each homeworker to be employed by such employer under the certificate. In lieu of a bond, the employer may furnish a cash payment of equal amount, to be held in a special deposit account by the Administrator for the period during which the certificate is in effect. Such bond, or cash payment, shall be subject to payment or forfeiture, in whole or in part, upon a final determination that the employer has failed to pay minimum wages or overtime compensation to homeworkers in accordance with the Act. Any sums thus paid or forfeited to the Administrator shall be disbursed to affected homeworkers in accordance with section 16(c) of the Act.
( d ) At the Administrator's discretion, the obligation of a bond may be relieved, and any cash payment held as security in lieu thereof may be refunded (together with any interest accrued thereon), upon a subsequent determination that the employer is in compliance with the Act and that sufficient funds will be available to meet back wage payment obligations in the event of violations of the Act.
EXHIBIT 32





Section 1350 Certification



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lescarden Inc. (the Company) for the year ended May 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William E. Luther, Chief Executive Officer and principal financial and accounting officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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, as amended, and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.





|                   |  |                                                                                                  | 
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|                   |  | /s/ William E. Luther                                                                            | 
|September 14, 2010 |  | William E. Luther                                                                                | 
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer, principal financial and accounting officer | 
|                   |  |                                                                                                  | 





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
#### § 780.1003 What determines the application of the exemption.

The application of this exemption depends on the nature of the employee's work and not on the character of the employer's business. To determine whether an employee is exempt an examination should be made of the activities which that employee performs and the conditions under which he performs them. Some employees of the employer may be exempt and others may not.
EXHIBIT 10.5
                               SEVERANCE AGREEMENT
The  following individuals have signed a severance agreement, a copy of which is
included  herewith  as  exhibit  10.5:
Gregory  M. Bolingbroke, Richard Boehner, John L. Cordani, Stephen Largan, Peter
Kukanskis,  Michael  Siegmund
C/o  MacDermid,  Incorporated
245  Freight  Street
Waterbury,  CT  06702
RE:  Severance  Agreement
Dear                      ,
    ----------------------
I  write  to  confirm  our  agreement regarding severance in the case where your
employment  with MacDermid is involuntarily terminated without cause (as defined
herein)  or  within two (2) years after a change of control (as defined herein).
If your employment with MacDermid is involuntarily terminated without cause then
MacDermid  will  pay  you a severance equal to one (1) year's base salary, based
upon  the  then most recent year period.  In the alternative, if your employment
is  involuntarily terminated within two (2) years after a change of control then
you will be paid a severance equal to two (2) year's base salary and cash bonus,
based  upon  the  then  most recent two year period.  In order to receive either
foregoing  severance  payment,  you  will  be  required  to  execute MacDermid's
standard  termination agreement (form attached) containing a full, final general
release  in  favor  of  MacDermid.
As  used  in  this  agreement,  cause  and  change  of  control  shall  mean:
1.     cause  -
(i)  you are convicted of, or plead guilty or nolo contendere to, any crime
     constituting a felony or involving dishonesty or moral turpitude;
(ii) you engage in any activity that amounts to negligence and that
     significantly affects the business affairs or reputation of the company;
(iii) you willfully fail to perform your duties, or perform your duties in a
     grossly negligent manner, which failure or performance continues for twenty
     (20) days after written notice from the company; or
(iv) you violate the company's standard policies, or the law, and such violation
     creates a substantial liability (actual or potential) for the company.
2.     change  of  control
(i)  acquisition by any person or group, except for an employee benefit plan
     sponsored by the company, of beneficial ownership of 50% or more of the
     company's voting securities in any combination;
(ii)     the  sale  of  all  or substantially all of the assets of MacDermid, or
(iii) individuals, who as of January 1, 2002 are members of MacDermid's Board of
     Directors (the "incumbents"), and any additional individuals ("additional
     directors") who are recommended to become directors by a majority of the
     incumbents and/or any then previously so recommended and elected additional
     directors, cease for any reason to constitute a majority of the Board of
     Directors of MacDermid.
Please  indicate  your  acceptance and agreement by countersigning and returning
this  letter  to  my  attention.
Sincerely,  Daniel  H.  Leever
§ 525.16 Records to be kept by employers. Every employer, or where appropriate (in the case of records verifying the workers' disabilities) the referring agency or facility, of workers employed under special minimum wage certificates shall maintain and have available for inspection records indicating: ( a ) Verification of the workers' disabilities;
( b ) Evidence of the productivity of each worker with a disability gathered on a continuing basis or at periodic intervals (not to exceed six months in the case of employees paid hourly wage rates);
( c ) The prevailing wages paid workers not disabled for the job performed who are employed in industry in the vicinity for essentially the same type of work using similar methods and equipment as that used by each worker with disabilities employed under a special minimum wage certificate (see also § 525.10(b) and (d));
( d ) The production standards and supporting documentation for nondisabled workers for each job being performed by workers with disabilities employed under special certificates; and
( e ) The records required under all of the applicable provisions of part 516 of this title, except that any provision pertaining to homeworker handbooks shall not be applicable to workers with disabilities who are employed by a recognized nonprofit rehabilitation facility and working in or about a home, apartment, tenement, or room in a residential establishment. (See § 525.15) Records required by this section shall be maintained and preserved for the periods specified in part 516 of this title.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1235-0001) [54 FR 32928, Aug. 10, 1989, as amended at 82 FR 2228, Jan. 9, 2017]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13363]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-289-000]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

May 23, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 18, 2000, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 
(Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, the 
following tariff sheets with an effective date of June 1, 2000:

Fifth Revised Volume No. 1

Twenty Fourth Revised Sheet No. 26B
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 180
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 181
First Revised Sheet No. 220A

Original Volume No. 2

Forty First Revised Sheet No. 5
First Revised Sheet No. 2028

    Tennessee states this filing is to update Rate Schedules NET, NET 
284 and T-180 to reflect the conversions of various shippers from Part 
157 service to Part 284 service.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with 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. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. 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 (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13363 Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4340

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus DEON CHRISTOPHER NOWELL, a/k/a Sandra D. Crawley, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-04-680) Submitted: January 4, 2006 Decided: January 24, 2006 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melisa W. Gay, GAY & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, Acting United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Brent Alan Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Defendant Deon Nowell pleaded guilty on October 13, 2004 to multiple drug and gun offenses. These offenses included, inter alia, possession of fifty or more grams of “crack” cocaine with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime,
see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(I) (2000). Because Nowell has prior drug convictions, the former carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) (2000 & Supp. II 2002). The latter carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months, to be served consecutively to the sentence for the underlying drug crime. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(I). The district court consequently imposed a 300-month sentence. Nowell filed a motion for a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 5K2.0 and 5H1.4, which the district court denied. Nowell appeals. We affirm. United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), “did nothing to alter the rule that judges cannot depart below a statutorily provided minimum sentence.” United States v. Robinson , 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005). Departure below a statutory mandatory minimum is authorized only on a motion by the government based upon a defendant’s substantial assistance. See id. ; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (Supp. II 2002). The government made no such3 motion here, and the district court correctly recognized that it therefore had no authority to reduce Nowell’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22

- 0112

_________________ WATER FOR FLATHEAD'S FUTURE, INC., AMY WALLER, STEVEN MOORE, and CYNTHIA EDSTROM,

Plaintiffs and Appellees,

v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,

Defendant and Appellant, and MONTANA ARTESIAN WATER COMPANY,

Intervenor
- Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five

- justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable Amy Eddy , District Judge

. For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 26 2022

10/26/2022
(80 South. 133)

#### PREISS v. STATE.

(3 Div. 318.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 26, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; A. B. Poster, Judge.

George Preiss appeals from an adverse ruling in a prosecution against him.

Reversed and remanded.

Goodwyn & McIntyre, of Montgomery, for appellant.

P. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMPORD, J.

The ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Kreutner v. State, 80 South. 125, necessitates a reversal of the judgment in this case.

Reversed and remanded.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer of

HORIZON BANCORPORATION, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1. Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (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 Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.'

/S/ Charles S. Conoley
Charles S. Conoley, 
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 15, 2005
#### Ketchum *et al., Appellants,*v. Stearns.

Will: suit to set aside : evidenoe. In. a suit to set aside a will executed in 1866, on the ground of undue influence exerted on the testator by his wife, evidence was offered tending to show that prior to their marriage in 1855 she had such influence, but there was no offer to show that it continued down to 1866; *Held,*that it was too remote and was properly rejected.

*Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.*

Affirmed.

*Marshall & Barclay*for appellants.

*Cline, Jamison & Lay*for respondent.

Norton, J.

This cause is in this court on the appeal of plaintiffs from the judgment of the St. Louis court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, rendered in a proceeding instituted by *397plaintiffs, contesting the validity of the will of Solomon P. Ketchum, on the ground that he had not sufficiéntmental capacity to make a will, and the further ground, that said will was procured to be made by the undue influence of his wife, S. Maria Ketchum.

After a careful examination of the record, we have-reached the same conclusion announced by the St. Louis-court of appeals in its opinion reported in 8 Mo. App. 66.. We find no evidence tending to establish that the will in controversy was procured to be executed by the undue-influence of the wife, or that she at any time had such influence over him, and the court did not err in so instructing the jury. The evidence as to the mental incapacity of the testator to dispose of his property, was all one way,, and that question was fairly submitted to the jury in the. instruction given by the court.

The evidence showed that testator married said Maria-in 1855, executed the will in 'dispute in 1866, and died in-1877. The evidence offered as to the relations existing-between said testator and said Maria before the marriage in 1855, was too remote to show that she exercised an undue influence over him in 1866, especially as there was no-offer to show that the influence she may have then had, if any, was continued down to the time of the execution of the will, and the evidence was for this, if for no other reason, properly rejected.

All the questions to which our attention has been-called touching the action of the trial court in giving and. refusing instructions, and in admitting and rejecting evidence, are disposed of in the opinion of the court of appeals hereinbefore referred to in a satisfactory manner, and. we, therefore, affirm the judgment,

in which all concur.
#### § 70.23 Action on appeals.

The Solicitor of Labor, or designee, will review the appellant's appeal and make a determination de novo whether the action of the component was proper and in accordance with the applicable law.
<PAGE>
                       THE LUBRIZOL CORPORATION                       Exhibit 32

     Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
           The Lubrizol Corporation Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350




I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of The Lubrizol Corporation for the period ending December 31, 2003:

    (1) 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
        Lubrizol Corporation.



       /s/ William G. Bares
---------------------------
William G. Bares
Chief Executive Officer
February 18, 2004






I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of The Lubrizol Corporation for the period ending December 31, 2003:

    (1) 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
        Lubrizol Corporation.




      /s/ Charles P. Cooley
---------------------------
Charles P. Cooley
Chief Financial Officer
February 18, 2004
#### James Callahan et al., Plaintiffs, v P.J. Carlin Construction Company et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs. S & A Concrete Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant; Hannibal Construction Co., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Submitted April 8, 1996;

decided June 6, 1996

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed that part of Supreme Court’s order denying the motion to vacate, dismissed upon the ground that that portion of the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

**C O U R T O F A P P E A L S**

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 8, 2018

v No. 338726 Ingham Circuit Court

VALENTINO LAHRON LEE STEWART, JR., LC No. 14

- 000463

- FC

Defendant

- Appellant.

Before: S HAPIRO

, P .J., and M. J. K ELLY and O’B RIEN , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

Defendant , Valentino Stewart, Jr, appeals by right the trial court’s order denying his request for resentencing after a Crosby 1 remand hearing. We affirm.

In June 2013, Stewart orchestrated a shooting that resulted in the death of Ant h ony Kye.

In Stewart’s previous appeal, this Court af firmed Stewart’s convictions, but determined that

because judicially found facts resulted in an increased minimum sentencing range the case had to

be remanded for a Crosby hearing under People v Lockridge , 498 Mich 358; 870 NW2d 502 (2015)

. People v Stewart , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued February 18, 2016 (Docket No. 323969). On remand, the trial court determined that it would have imposed the same sentence had it known that the sentencing guidelines were advisory, so it denied Stewart’s request for resentencing . The court also rejected Stewart’s lawyer’s argument that, under Miller v Alabama , 567 US 460; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012) , the court

should reduce Stewart’s sentence because he had been a juvenile w hen he committed the murder.

On appeal, Stewart argues (1) that he is entitled to be resentenced because his sentence violates the principle of proportionality and (2) that the trial court erred by failing to consider

Miller when determining his sentence. However, i n cases “where an appellate court remands for some limited purpose following an appeal as of right in a criminal case, a second appeal as of right, limited to the scope of remand, lies from the decision on remand.” People v Kincade (On Remand) , 206 Mich App 477, 481; 522 NW2d 880 (1994) . Thus, “the scope of the second

1 United States v Crosby , 397 F3d 103 (CA 2, 2005)

.- 2

- appeal is limited by the scope of the remand.” People v Jones , 394 Mich 434, 435

- 436; 231 NW2d 649 (1975)

.

Here, the remand was for the trial court to determine whether it would have imposed a materially different sentence in light of Lockridge and the now

- advisory guidelines. See Stewart

, unpub op at 8. This Court did not “leave open any [other] issue . . . for fu rther resolution on

remand.” Kincade (On Remand) , 206 Mich App at 481

- 482 . Accordingly, Stewart’s challenge to the proportionality of his sentence and the trial court’s failure to consider Miller are issues outside the scope of the remand order, and we d ecline to address them.

Affirmed.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro /s/ Michael J. Kelly

/s/ Colleen A. O'Brien