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

---

Exhibit 14.1

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have issued our reports dated
January 9, 2004, with respect to the 2003 statements of operations, shareholders
deficit and cash flows of Cimatron Technologies, Inc. and Cimatron Technologies, Inc. (a
Michigan corporation) referred to in the amended Annual Report of Cimatron Ltd. on Form
20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2005.  We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Cimatron Ltd. on Forms S-8
(File No. 333-12458, and File No. 333-140809).

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Southfield, MichiganJuly 1, 2008



---

---

Exhibit 14.1

Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have issued our reports dated February 6, 2004,
with respect to the 2003 statements of operations, shareholders deficit and
cash flows of Cimatron GmbH referred to in the amended Annual Report of Cimatron Ltd. on Form 20-F/A for the year
ended December 31, 2005. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Cimatron Ltd. on Forms
S-8 (File No. 333-12458, and File No. 333-140809).

|                                                                      |            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------
|(SIGNATURE)                                                           | (SIGNATURE)
|Wiesbaden, Germany 
  June 18, 2008                                   |            
|                                                                      |            
|Grant Thornton GmbH, Germany                                         
|Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft
  
  (Certified Public
  Accountants)



---

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

KURTAVIUS JERMON SMITH,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 111 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
Exhibit No. 10(D)

                      2005 BOARD OF DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                          2004          2005
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS (EXCLUDING CHAIRMAN - SEE BELOW)
-------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                 <C>           <C>
Retainer (per year)                                                    $10,000       $10,000

Board Meetings                                                          $3,000        $3,200
Board Telephone Meeting                                                 $1,500        $1,500
Management Interaction Day                                              $2,000        $2,000
Special Meetings                                                        $1,000        $1,000

COMMITTEE MEETINGS
------------------
AUDIT COMMITTEE
Meetings -- Committee Member                                            $2,000        $2,100
Meetings -- Committee Chair                                             $4,000        $4,200
Regularly Scheduled Audit Telephone Meetings -- Committee Member        $1,000        $1,000
Regularly Scheduled Audit Telephone Meetings -- Committee Chair         $1,500        $1,500

ALL OTHER COMMITTEES
Meetings -- Committee Member                                            $2,000        $2,100
Meetings -- Committee Chair                                             $2,500        $2,600
Telephone Meetings (as needed)                                            $500          $500

RESTRICTED STOCK AWARDS
-----------------------
Value of Annual Restricted Stock Awards (excluding Chairman)          $100,000      $100,000
Chairman of the Board
     Value of Annual Restricted Stock Award in lieu
     of Retainer and Meeting Fees                                     $200,000      $200,000
</TABLE>
# C_2019044EN.01005201.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/52

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — SiNN v Commission

(Case T-621/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SiNN GmbH, formerly SinnLeffers GmbH (Hagen, Germany) (represented by: initially, C. Rupp and H. Wunderlich, then, H. Wunderlich and T. Engelmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by SiNN GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by SiNN GmbH;

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.

---
Docket No. FAA-2016-4228 Dir ID 2015-NM-107-AD

. Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 7/17/15

Regional Airline Association 7/17/15

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association David Oord 7/17/15

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 7/17/15
**EXHIBIT 99.5****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**To the Board of Directors of Cameco CorporationWe consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of:**•** our auditors’ report dated February 28, 2008 on the consolidated balance sheets of CamecoCorporation as at December 31, 2007 and 2006 and the consolidated statements of earnings,shareholders’ equity, comprehensive income and cash flows for the years then ended, **•** our Comments by Auditors for US Readers on Canada-US Reporting Differences, dated February 27, 2008, **•** our auditors’ report on reconciliation to United States GAAP dated February 27, 2008, and **•** our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 27, 2008 on theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007,each of which is contained in this annual report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2007.We also consent to the incorporation by reference of such reports in the registration statements(Nos. 333-11736, 333-6180 and 333-139165) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Stock Option Plan,and registration statement (No. 333-139324) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Employee ShareOwnership Plan./s/ KPMG LLPChartered AccountantsSaskatoon, Canada
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
  (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/ Stephen L. Day

Stephen L. Day
    
    
    
    /s/ David R. Pearce

David R. PearcePresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director
    
    
    
    Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
    
    
    
    (Principal Financial Officer)Date: August 12, 2011
    
    
    
    Date: August 12, 2011
#### ARTHUR C. FOSTER, RESPONDENT, v. HENRY J. BEHRE, APPELLANT.

Decided July 5, 1929.

Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodine.

For the appellant, 17. *Warner Dor emus.*

For the respondent, *Oliver K. Day.*

Pee Ouetam.

The plaintiff had owned an Irish setter dog, “Red Bounce” by name. He brought replevin and the defendant claimed property.

It is apparent from the record in the case that the plaintiff was the owner of the dog, and that if a sale occurred it occurred on a Sunday. The balance due had uot been paid by the defendant, nor had the parties been in such relation one with the other that a new promise could be found. *Rosenblum*v. *Schachner,*84 *N. J. L.*535.

In the case of *Reeves*v. Butcher, 31 *N. J. L.*224 (at *p.*228), Chief Justice Beasley said: “The law leaves the parties *624to an illegal transaction where it finds them; it will not actively help either, and therefore such law cannot be invoked to imply a promise in favor of a *particeps criminis*to pay money due on an agreement, which such law denounced as invalid. Nor do I think there is any hardship in such a case; for he who knowingly infringes a positive provision of the penal code has no just ground of complaint, if the law, which he has contemned, shall refuse to help him avoid the consequences of his own misconduct.”

Vice-Chancellor Learning said, in *County Engineering Co.*v. West, 88 *N. J. Eq.*109, 111: “The effect of our statute on contracts made on Sunday has been before the courts of this state so frequently that little doubt touching the law of this state in that respect can be said to exist.” And after citing a number of cases concluded: “In these several decisions the view is consistently maintained that where the contract is concluded on Sunday our courts will not enforce it.”

Counsel for the appellee, however, argues that his client was entitled to judgment because of the rule laid down in *Wooden*v. *Shotwell,*24 *N. J. L.*789. In that case, an ejectment suit, the party in possession claimed under a deed given as a result of a lottery. The statute provided that every grant of land made in pursuance of any lottery should be absolutely void. Hence, to give effect to the statute the court gave judgment for the lessee, who took from the party who had made the grant pursuant to the terms of the lottery. Such is not our case. Sunday transactions are merely forbidden by the statute.

The judgment below must be reversed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FRANCIS THOMAS, 

Plaintiff, 

 -vs- Case No. 5:15-CV-10783 

Hon. John Corbett O'Meara 

Magistrate Judge: Anthony P. Patti 

ANDY AUTO SALES, INC., et al.

Defendants. 

STIPULATED ORDER TO EXTEND THE TIME 

TO FILE THE RULE 26(f) PLAN

Having been advised by the parties that they have reached an agreement to 

settle the above-captioned matter and that they are finalizing the paperwork 

necessary to effectuate the settlement agreement, and upon the stipulation of the 

parties; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall have until July 13, 2015 to 

file their joint Rule 26(f) plan. 

Date: July 1, 2015 s/John Corbett O’Meara 

 United States District Judge 

Stipulated To By: 

5:15-cv-10783-JCO-APP Doc # 21 Filed 07/01/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 113
/s/ Carl Schwartz 

Carl Schwartz (P-70335) 

Attorney for Francis Thomas 

24500 Northwestern Highway, Ste. 206

Southfield, MI 48075 

(248) 208-8864 

Carl@MichiganConsumerLaw.Com 

 

/s/ Dalia R. Kejbou 

Dalia R. Kejbou (P-63428) 

Attorney for Defendants 

74 West Long Lake Rd., Ste. 203 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

(248) 646-1711 

kejboulaw@gmail.com 

 

Dated: June 29, 2015 

 

5:15-cv-10783-JCO-APP Doc # 21 Filed 07/01/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 114
Certificate of Service

 I, Carl Schwartz, hereby certify that this document, filed through the 

“Utilities” tab of the CM/ECF system, will be e-mailed to the following counsel of 

record: 

Dalia R. Kejbou, Esq. 

74 West Long Lake Rd., Ste. 203 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

(248) 646-1711 

kejboulaw@gmail.com 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

 LYNGKLIP & ASSOCIATES 

CONSUMER LAW CENTER, PLC 

 By: /s/ Carl Schwartz 

 Carl Schwartz (P-70335) 

 Attorney for Francis Thomas 

 24500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 206 

 Southfield, Michigan 48075 

 (248) 208-8864 

 Carl@MichiganConsumerLaw.Com 

Dated: June 3, 2015 

5:15-cv-10783-JCO-APP Doc # 21 Filed 07/01/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 115
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,350
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,802
<PP&E>                                         987,992
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,000,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,760
<BONDS>                                        423,474
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,900
<OTHER-SE>                                     613,394
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,000,794
<SALES>                                         21,006
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,006
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                80,700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,570
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (161,599)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (161,599)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (161,599)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
§ 174.260 Freeboard. ( a ) Each liftboat not required to obtain and maintain a loadline in compliance with subchapter E of this chapter must place markings on each side of the vessel amidships. These markings must each consist of a horizontal line 460 millimeters (18 inches) in length and 25 millimeters (1 inch) in height. The upper edges of the markings must be at a distance equal to the authorized freeboard measured vertically below the intersection of the continuation outwards of the upper surface of the weather deck and the outer surface of the shell. This distance must be at least 610 millimeters (24 inches).
( b ) The markings required by paragraph (a) of this section may not be submerged in any condition of loading or operation.
#### JERSEY PUBLISHING COMPANY, RELATOR, v. JOHN McCUTCHEON, STATE COMPTROLLER, RESPONDENT.

Argued October 24, 1929

Decided October 25, 1929.

Before Justices Pabkeb, Black and Bodtne.

Eor the relator, *John G. Flanigan.*

For the respondent, *William A. Stevens,*attorney-general.

Pee Cttbiam.

An alternative writ of *mandamus*having issued, and return having been made thereto, motion is made to strike out the return on four (4) stated grounds, three of which amount to saying that the defenses set up in the return, or some of them, are sham; and the fourth, that the second and third defenses are “not sufficient answer to respondent’s refusal to permit the inspection of the documents and records set out in the writ * * * which amounts to saying that the defenses are legally inadequate.

It is settled in this court that in *mandamus*proceedings, objections to the legal sufficiency of the return may be taken only by demurrer. *McAllister*v. *Atlantic City,*90 *N. J. L.*93; *Van Duyne*v. *Senior, 5 N. J. Mis. R.*158. It becomes unnecessary therefore to consider at this time the legal merit of the second and third defenses.

With respect to the claim that the defenses are sham, *i. e.,*not made in good faith, it goes to all of the defenses and the *920motion is to strike out the entire return. Hence, if the motion fails as to any of the defenses, it fails altogether. We are clear that fet least some of the four defenses are meritorious, and are by no means clear that they are not advanced in good faith, to say the least.

These views lead to a denial of the motion.
Exhibit 10.1




CONSULTING AGREEMENT




This Consulting Agreement dated January 4, 2005 (“Agreement”) is by and between, ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION HOLDING CORPORATION d/b/a CHROME ENERGY CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation (“Company”) and FRANK CASCIO, an individual (“Consultant”).




W I T N E S S E T H:




WHEREAS, Consultant desires to provide certain consulting services to the Company; and




WHEREAS, the Company and Consultant desire to set forth in writing the terms and conditions of their agreement;




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants, agreements, and considerations herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:




1. Engagement. Subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement, the Company hereby affirms the engagement of Consultant, as an independent contractor, to provide general legal services.




2. Compensation. For legal services performed by Consultant for the Company, the Company will issue to Consultant 175,000 shares of common stock of the Company pursuant to a S-8 Registration Statement, which shares are valued at $82,250 based on the average of the high and low prices of the Company common stock on January 3,
2005, or $0.47, as reported on the OTC Bulletin Board.

 

3. Status Reports. At the Company’s written request, Consultant shall prepare and submit to the Company a written status report describing the status of any sales of the Company Common Stock sold hereby.




4. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date herein and shall continue in full force and effect for a period of six months.




5. Miscellaneous.




(a) Assignment. All of the terms, provisions and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred by either party, nor shall any interest herein be assigned, transferred, pledged or hypothecated by either party
without the prior written consent of the other party.






	 
	 	 	 
	





	 




(b) Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Texas.




(c) Entire Agreement, Amendments and Waivers. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties hereto and expressly supersedes all prior and contemporaneous understandings and commitments, whether written or oral, with respect to the subject matter hereof. No variations, modifications, changes or extensions of this Agreement or any other terms hereof shall be binding upon any party
hereto unless set forth in a document duly executed by such party or an authorized agent or such party. 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above.




ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION HOLDING 

CORPORATION




By: /s/ Ali Memon                

      Ali Memon, President







FRANK CASCIO







By: /s/ Frank Cascio            

       Frank Cascio
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6470

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ARMANDO JIMENEZ TAGLE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,

District Judge. (3:12-cr-00295-MOC-DCK-1)

Submitted: August 18, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Armando Jimenez Tagle, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Armando Jimenez Tagle appeals the district court’s order 

denying without prejudice his motion to dismiss his criminal 

indictment, conviction, and sentence for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Tagle, No. 

3:12-cr-00295-MOC-DCK-1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2015). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this Court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-06123, 333-32329,333-31410, 333-61560, 333-73880, 333-116368 and 333-138737 on Form S-8 of our report dated March30, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Sipex Corporation (which reportexpresses an unqualified opinion on the consolidated financial statements and includes anexplanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.123 (revised 2004), “*Share-Based Payment*,” effective January 1, 2006), appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) of Sipex Corporation for the year ended December30, 2006./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPSan Jose, California