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

                         Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement Form
S-8 No.  333-07377  pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plans,  in  Registration
Statement Form S-8 No. 333-53400  pertaining to the Special Purpose Stock Option
Plan, in Registration  Statement Form S-8 No.  333-73000  pertaining to the 2001
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in Registration  Statement Form S-8 No.  333-73002
pertaining to the 2000 Stock Option Plan and in Registration  Statement Form S-8
No.  333-72998  pertaining to the 2001  Consultant  Stock  Purchase Plan of SPAR
Group,  Inc.  of our  report  dated  February  13,  2004,  with  respect  to the
consolidated  financial  statements of SPAR Group,  Inc.  included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K), for the year ended December 31, 2003.






                                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 29, 2004
# STATEOFLOUISIANA COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

CAMSOFT DATA SYSTEMS, INC. VERSUS NO. 2022CW 1210

SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS SUPPLY, INC. ANDACTIVE SOLUTIONS, LLC 

### JANUARY 18, 2024

InRe:

BEFORE: Camsoft Data Systems, Inc., applying writs, 19th Judicial District Court, BatonRouge, No. 582741.
McCLENDON, HOLDRIDGE, AND GREENE, JJ. for supervisory Parish of East

REFERRAL TOAPPEAL RECALLED; WRIT DENIED. The criteria set forth in Berlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So.2d 878 (La. 1981) (per curiam), are not met. PMc GH Greene, J., dissents and would grant the writ. I would reverse the trial court's October 7, 2022 judgment granting the motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendants, MMR Group, Inc., MMR Offshore Services, Inc. and MMR Constructors, Inc. d/b/a MMR Communications, seeking to dismiss the lost business value damages claimof plaintiff, Camsoft Data Systems, Inc., and deny the motion. Only documents actually filed in support of or in opposition to the motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court on a motion for summary judgment. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(0)(2) & Comments 2015, comment (k); Alvin Fairburn & Associates, LLC v. Harris, 2020- 129 0 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/18/21), 2 021 WL 4 8 4 3 5 8 4 , 

### *3-4 (unpublished). Thus, we may not rely upon the arguments and exhibits that defendants, MMR Group, Inc., MMR Offshore Services, Inc. and MMR Constructors, Inc. d/b/a MMR Communications, attempted to adopt by reference from the motion for partial summary judgment and supporting memorandum filed by defendants, Dell, Inc. and Dell Marketing, L.P. Defendants, MMR Group, Inc., MMR Offshore Services, Inc. and MMR Constructors, Inc. d/b/a MMR Communications, made no arguments and did not attach any exhibits to their motion for partial summary judgment. Thus, they have failed to point out to the court the absence of factual support for one ormore elements essential to Camsoft Data System, Inc.'s claim for lost business value damages.

COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRSTCIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERKOFCOURT FORTHE COURT
2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-23-2002

Williams v. Comm Social Security

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 01-2241

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Williams v. Comm Social Security" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 295.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/295
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ___________ 

 No. 01-2241 

 ___________ 

 THOMAS WILLIAMS, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 

 _______________________________________________ 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the District of New Jersey 

 D.C. Civil Action No. 99-cv-02253 

 (Honorable John C. Lifland) 

 ___________________ 

 Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 January 17, 2002 

Before: SCIRICA and ROSENN, Circuit Judges, and KANE, District Judge* 

 (Filed May 23, 2002) 

 

 *The Honorable Yvette Kane, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Penns

 __________________ 

 OPINION OF THE COURT 

 __________________ 

SCIRICA, Circuit Judge. 

 This is an appeal from a denial of disability benefits under the Social Security Act. App

 We will affirm. 

 I. 

 Thomas Williams has been trying unsuccessfully to receive social security disability bene

 In 1992, we affirmed the Social Security Appeals Council’s denial of disability for the p

 II. 

 We review decisions to deny disability on a substantial evidence basis. 42 U.S.C. 405(

 Williams also claims error under 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(e) (1985). Substantial evidence in 

 Williams claims the Appeals Council erred by applying res judicata to the question of dis

 Finally, Williams claims the District Court improperly denied his motion to compel the Co

 Williams initially filed for disability benefits on October 20, 1987, two years after the 

 III. 

 For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

TO THE CLERK: 

 Please file the foregoing opinion. 

 /s/ Anthony J. Scirica 

 Circuit Judge 

DATED: May 23, 200
§ 17.6 Responsibility for painting and lighting compliance. ( a ) The antenna structure owner is responsible for maintaining the painting and lighting in accordance with this part. However, if a licensee or permittee authorized on an antenna structure is aware that the structure is not being maintained in accordance with the specifications set forth on the Antenna Structure Registration (FCC Form 854R) or the requirements of this part, or otherwise has reason to question whether the antenna structure owner is carrying out its responsibility under this part, the licensee or permittee must take immediate steps to ensure that the antenna structure is brought into compliance and remains in compliance. The licensee must: ( 1 ) Immediately notify the structure owner;
( 2 ) Immediately notify the site management company (if applicable);
( 3 ) Immediately notify the Commission; and,
( 4 ) Make a diligent effort to immediately bring the structure into compliance.
( b ) In the event of non-compliance by the antenna structure owner, the Commission may require each licensee and permittee authorized on an antenna structure to maintain the structure, for an indefinite period, in accordance with the Antenna Structure Registration (FCC Form 854R) and the requirements of this part.
( c ) If the owner of the antenna structure cannot file FCC Form 854 because it is subject to a denial of Federal benefits under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, 21 U.S.C. 862, the first tenant licensee authorized to locate on the structure (excluding tenants that no longer occupy the structure) must electronically register the structure using FCC Form 854, and provide a copy of the Antenna Structure Registration (FCC Form 854R) to the owner. The owner remains responsible for providing to all tenant licensees and permittees notification that the structure has been registered, consistent with § 17.4(f), and for posting the registration number as required by § 17.4(g).
[61 FR 4363, Feb. 6, 1996, as amended at 79 FR 56985, Sept. 24, 2014; 85 FR 85532, Dec. 29, 2020]
S90A0057.

#### WILLIAMS v. WILLIAMS.

(387 SE2d 334)

Decided January 24, 1990.

*David R. Wininger,*for appellant.

Frank Williams, Jr., *pro se.*

Smith, Presiding Justice.

The Superior Court of Clayton County dismissed a petition for uncontested divorce filed by the appellant, Rhonda L. Williams, and her husband, Frank Williams, Jr. The appellant raises the issue of whether the husband’s affidavit, which provides that he waives any challenge to venue in Clayton County, constitutes an effective waiver of venue in a divorce case. We find that the waiver was proper, and we accordingly reverse.

The appellant-wife is a resident of Clayton County. The appelleehusband is a resident of Chatham County. The husband and wife agreed to obtain the divorce in Clayton County to save money. The Superior Court denied the divorce on the ground that the State Constitution provides that divorce cases shall be tried in the county of residence of a Georgia-resident defendant.

Under Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. I of the Constitution of Georgia of 1983, venue in divorce cases involving a Georgia defendant is in the county where the defendant resides. However, the provisions of the State Constitution relating to venue in divorce cases are neither mandatory nor exhaustive. *Ledford v. Bowers,*248 Ga. 804 (286 SE2d 293) (1982). In *Ledford,*this Court held that, “under certain circumstances both jurisdiction of the person and venue [in a divorce case] can be conferred by consent.” Id. at p. 807. The purpose of the State Constitution’s venue requirement is to protect defendants in divorce actions from having to respond in a foreign, and perhaps hostile court. Here, it is clear that the divorce was uncontested, and that the appellee had voluntarily, by affidavit, waived any objection to venue. This is one of the circumstances where venue can be conferred by consent.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.42 Applications, reports, complaints; cross-reference. ( a ) Rules governing applications and reports are contained in subparts D, E, and F of this part.
( b ) Special rules governing complaints against common carriers arising under the Communications Act are set forth in subpart E of this part.
( c ) Rules governing the FCC Registration Number (FRN) are contained in subpart W of this part.
[28 FR 12415, Nov. 22, 1963, as amended at 66 FR 47895, Sept. 14, 2001]
#### §§ 24.840-24.844 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Greater Atlantic Financial
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Carroll E. Amos, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

A.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

B.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.





                                          By: /s/ Carroll E. Amos
                                          -----------------------
                                          Carroll E. Amos
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer


                                          Date: August 12, 2004
#### §§ 24.801-24.803 [Reserved]
#### § 18.311 Methods of measurement.

The measurement techniques used to determine compliance with the technical requirements of this part are set out in FCC MP-5, “FCC Methods of Measurements of Radio Noise Emissions from Industrial, Scientific, and Medical equipment,” or compliance measurements made in accordance with the specific procedures otherwise authorized by the Commission.

[82 FR 50835, Nov. 2, 2017]
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on July 6, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Institute of Electrical                           ( print page 45580)                        and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, two new standards have been initiated and two existing standards are being revised. More detail regarding these changes can be found at                     *http://standards.ieee.org/​standardswire/​sba/​05-25-06.html.*

                    On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 24, 2006. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 69b) of the Act on May 22, 2006 (71 FR 29354).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 06-6775 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### § 20.18 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION 
               EXTRACTED FROM THE ARMCO INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
               SHEETS AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND 
               ACCUMULATED DEFICIT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
               REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
<CIK>          0000007383
<NAME>         ARMCO INC.
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
<CURRENCY>     U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1
<CASH>                            111,100
<SECURITIES>                       12,600
<RECEIVABLES>                     226,400
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                       264,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  626,900
<PP&E>                          1,323,700
<DEPRECIATION>                    700,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,830,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             302,100
<BONDS>                           304,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                       185,900
<COMMON>                            1,100
<OTHER-SE>                        (29,800)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,830,300
<SALES>                         1,313,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,313,200
<CGS>                           1,161,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,161,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 21,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    87,500
<INCOME-TAX>                        5,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                82,100
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                         237,500
<NET-INCOME>                      319,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        2.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                        2.49
        

</TABLE>
S90A0087.

#### BODDIE v. THE STATE.

(386 SE2d 362)

Decided December 5, 1989

Reconsideration denied December 20, 1989.

Dan Boddie, *pro se.*

*Douglas C. Pullen, District Attorney,*for appellee.

Gregory, Justice.

Appellant Dan Boddie, pro se, appeals from the denial of his action for a writ of mandamus to compel the State to provide him with a copy of the record of his original conviction. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the writ because there is no absolute constitutional or statutory right to a transcript for use in a collateral attack on a conviction. *United States v. MacCollom,*426 U. S. 317 (96 SC 2086, 48 LE2d 666) (1976); *Judge v. State,*255 Ga. 174 (338 SE2d 282) (1985).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Community Bank Corporation of America (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report), I, Kenneth P. Cherven, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |     |  |                                  
|------------------ |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Kenneth P. Cherven           
|                   |  |     |  | Kenneth P. Cherven, President and
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
139P16

#### State v. Maurice Shepherd

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court, Northampton County

1. Dismissed

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

2. Allowed

3. Defs *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

3. Dismissed as moot
#### § 302-9.9 What type of POV may I be authorized to transport, and if necessary, store under emergency or temporary circumstances?

Only a passenger automobile, station wagon, light truck, or other similar vehicle that will be used primarily for personal transportation may be authorized to transport, and if necessary store under emergency or temporary circumstances. You may not transport or store a trailer, airplane, or any vehicle intended for commercial use.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001. Redesignated and amended by FTR Amdt. 2011-06, 76 FR 71889, 71890, Nov. 21, 2011]
No. 11-5523.

#### Zambrano *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4530

To provide authority for the extension of nondiscriminatory (most-favorednation) trade treatment to Cambodia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 26, 1994

Mr. ROHRABACHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide authority for the extension of nondiscriminatory

(most-favored-nation) trade treatment to Cambodia.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, non4 discriminatory (most-favored-nation) trade treatment may

5 be extended to the products of Cambodia.

Æ
§ 32.6540 Access expense. ( a ) This account shall include amounts paid by interexchange carriers or other exchange carriers to another exchange carrier for the provision of carrier's carrier access.
( b ) Subsidiary record categories shall be maintained in order that the entity may separately report interstate and intrastate carrier's carrier expense. Such subsidiary record categories shall be reported as required by part 43 of this Commission's Rules and Regulations.
[52 FR 43917, Nov. 17, 1987]
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Joe Mark Sessums, Jr. aka Joe Mark Sessums

No. 06

- 14

- 00014

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court 2 of Tarrant County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 1287075D ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the a ppellant, Joe Mark Sessums, Jr., aka Joe Mark Sessums, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 29, 2014 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk