alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit No. 23


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of Journal Communications, Inc. (the Company) of our report dated January
25, 2002, included in the 2001 Annual Report to Shareholders of Journal
Communications, Inc.

     Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Journal
Communications, Inc. listed in item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility
of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based
on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to
above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a
whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein.

     We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 2-79770 and 333-45408) pertaining to Journal
Communications, Inc. Employees' Individual Retirement Agreement and the Journal
Employees' Stock Trust of our report dated January 25, 2002, except for note 4
as to which the date is February 7, 2002, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements incorporated herein by reference, and our report included
in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Journal Communications, Inc.


ERNST & YOUNG LLP


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 25, 2002


                                       64
DELTA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 

ADMINISTRATION OFFICE 

310 LUDfNGTON STREET 

ESCANABA, MICHIGAN 49829 

PHONE: 906-789-5100 

FAX: 906-789-5197 

October 26,2011 S ' ' 

Dennis J. DeVany '" rn^ri S 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division > 5=;^"-^ 

Office of Aviation Analysis zz o^^ O 

1200 New Jersey Ave.. S.E. l^ f^'^" 

Washington. DC 20590 i^ 

RE:DOT-OST-2003-15128 

Dciir Mr. DeVany: 

The Deitti County Airport Board and Delta County Board of Commissioners have 

considered the bid offers for Essential Air Service. We are convinced that Delta Airlines, 

preferably the #1 option, presents our community with the best air service opportunity 

and will support economic and airport growth. Delta's bid is vital to facilitate consistent 

access to a national hub and the #1 option of two flights a day is essential to maintain a 

minimum frequency. Many of our travelers use Sundays, in particular, as a travel day. 

The Detroit hub has proved to be an invaluable connection for our community, it 

provides access to our state capital, business centers and global exposure. 

The jet service to Detroit, along with Delta's experience and connections, provides this 

community with real growth opportunity. Delta County Airport's increased enplanements 

in past months are a strong indicator of this potential. The Delta County Aiiport Board 

and County Board of Commissioners sees this option as our best chance to generate more 

airport revenue and work towards eliminating HAS dependency. Two years ago we were 

convinced that the key step towards a return of our lost boardings was consistent service 

to the Detroit hub. Working with Delta Airlines, we have seen our passenger boardings 

increase every month. 

Thank you for providing us the oppormnity to comment on this matter and we appreciate 

you consideration. 

Sincerely. 

Thomas Elegeert " Connie Ness 

Deha County Board of Commissioners, Chairman Delta County Airport 

Delta County is an equal opportunity provider and employer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00246

- CV

Winston & Strawn LLP , Appellant

v. Orient Petroleum (Central Asia) Ltd. , Appellee

FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D

- 1

- GN

- 20

- 007552 , THE HONORABLE JAN SOIFER , J U DGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM The parties have filed a joint motion to abate the appeal until J an uary 1 7 , 202 3 , to
allow them to continue with settlement negot iations

. We grant the moti on and abate this appeal

. The par t ies shall submit either a joint status report concerning the status of settlement negotiations or a motion to reinstate on or before J anuary 1 7 , 2023

. The appeal will remain
abated until further order of this Court.

Before Justices Go odwin, Baker, and K e lly
Abated
Filed: November 1, 2022
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD E. BENSON, MARYLAN J. BENSON,

DONALD E. BENSON FAMILY LCC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CREST ENERGY, INC., et al,

Defendants.

CIV S-04-1249 FCD PAN (JFM)

ORDER 

Defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to produce further initial disclosures

and for sanctions, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and 37(a), came on regularly for hearing

on March 30, 2006. Larry Rothman appeared on behalf of plaintiffs; Gregory Brod appeared for

defendants. Upon review of the motion and the documents in support and opposition, upon

hearing the arguments of counsel and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS

FOLLOWS:

Plaintiffs timely made initial disclosures naming one witness, plaintiff

Marylan Benson; providing all “accountings, correspondence and agreements” within their

possession; and stating that their damages are “Unknown, but in excess of $350,000.00 plus

punitive damages. These include initial investments, and all funds owed plaintiffs that have not

been accounted for as well as punitive damages.” Plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly stated at the

Case 2:04-cv-01249-FCD-EFB Document 44 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

hearing that, absent an accounting by defendants, which he is seeking, the only documents

plaintiffs possess or have access to regarding their damages in this action are plaintiffs’

investment check(s) in defendant companies. 

Rule 26(a)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires parties to

disclose “a computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party, making

available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary

material, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such computation is based,

including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered.” (Id.) Further

disclosure is required, but plaintiffs’ counsel has represented that plaintiffs have very little

additional material to provide.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to compel

discovery and for sanctions, filed January 27, 2006, is granted in part. Plaintiffs shall produce to

defendants, within ten days from the date of service of this order, copies of all check(s) in their

possession, or which they can obtain with diligent effort, demonstrating plaintiffs’ investment in

defendant companies. Other than those documents, if produced, plaintiffs should be barred from

offering at trial, for the purpose of computing plaintiffs’ damages, any other documents currently

in the possession of plaintiffs, their attorneys, or accountants, or obtainable with diligent effort. 

All other motions for expenses and/or sanctions are denied. 

DATED: March 31, 2006. 

006:bens1249.ord

Case 2:04-cv-01249-FCD-EFB Document 44 Filed 04/03/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD BARRON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1197 GEB GGH P

vs.

DR. USHA PAI, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By an order filed March 29, 2005, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and

return to the court, within thirty days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on

defendants Leramo and Pendleton. That thirty day period has since passed, and plaintiff has not

responded in any way to the court’s order.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants Leramo and Pendleton be

dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

Case 2:04-cv-01197-GEB-GGH Document 37 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 6/30/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

barr1197.fusm

Case 2:04-cv-01197-GEB-GGH Document 37 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit
      32.1**






**Section
      1350 Certification of Principal Executive Officer**







The
      undersigned, the Chairman, President and Treasurer of Jaco Electronics, Inc.
      (the "Company"), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
      knowledge, that: (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
      year
      ended June 30, 2007 (the “Annual Report”) accompanying this certification 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
      Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
      presented as required by such report. The foregoing certification is based
      upon,
      among other things, my responsibilities as principal executive officer of the
      Company, my own due diligence and representations made by certain other members
      of the Company’s senior management.





Date:  September
      27, 2007





/s/
      Joel H.
      Girsky


Joel
      H.
      Girsky


Chairman,
      President and Treasurer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON DONNELL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0050 DFL JFM P

vs.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON,

Facility “C” Administration of

Department of Corrections, ET AL.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 15, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

Case 2:04-cv-00050-DFL -JFM Document 46 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 15, 2006 are adopted in full;

and 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Local

Rule 11-110.

DATED: 10/10/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00050-DFL -JFM Document 46 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sherwood Brands, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Christopher J. Willi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated: December 12, 2004

 

 
|   | /s/ Christopher J. Willi              |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Christopher  J. Willi                 |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |

 

----
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

The Boeing Company 

Under Contract No. N00383-06-D-001J 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 58974 

Kara M. Sacilotto, Esq. 

Scott M. McCaleb, Esq. 

John R. Prairie, Esq. 

Jon W. Burd, Esq. 

Craig M. Smith, Esq. 

Wiley Rein LLP 

Washington, DC 

Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

Anthony K. Hicks, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 4 January 2016 

~~EN· Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58974, Appeal of The Boeing 

Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1 Jill L. Brown is substituted for her predecessors pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1). 

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. COX, No. CIV S-04-0065 MCE DAD DP

Petitioner,

v. NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE

JILL L. BROWN, Warden of

California State Prison DEATH PENALTY CASE

at San Quentin,1

Respondent.

 /

The undersigned will hold a case management and status

conference on Monday, October 24, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom

No. 27. The parties shall file status conference statements seven

days prior to the conference and be prepared to discuss the

scheduling of the case as well as any other matters deemed necessary. 

In this regard, counsel shall be prepared to discuss whether it is

anticipated that respondent will file an answer to the petition filed

Case 2:04-cv-00065-MCE-CKD Document 33 Filed 10/03/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-2-

June 28, 2005, and if so, when that answer will be filed. In

addition, counsel shall be prepared to address petitioner’s remaining

objections, if any, to respondent’s lodging of the state court

record. At the status conference counsel also shall bring any other

matters to the attention of the court that will aid in resolution of

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 30, 2005.

DAD:lg

ddad1\orders.capital\cox.setstatus

Case 2:04-cv-00065-MCE-CKD Document 33 Filed 10/03/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 8170)

#### Import-Export Service of N. J. Weston Electrical Instrument Corporation et al. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. N-522 and N-523.

(Decided October 24, 1952)

*Sharretts, Hillis & Paley*for the plaintiffs.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to selenium electric-photo cells, the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule *“A,”*attached to and made part of the decision herein, are the same in all material respects as the issues and merchandise in *United States*v. *Weston Electrical Instrument Corporation,*28 Cust. Ct. 574, Reap. Dec. 8096, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

The parties have also agreed that the appraised value of the selenium electric-photo cells covered by said appeals for reappraisement, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that there was no export value for such merchandise.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for determining the value of said merchandise and that such value is the appraised value of the selenium electric-photo cells, *488in each of the appeals enumerated in said schedule *“A,”*less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances *by the*appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case 2:05-cv-05368-ER Document 611 Filed 04/15/2009 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-05368-ER Document 611 Filed 04/15/2009 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-05368-ER Document 611 Filed 04/15/2009 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-05368-ER Document 611 Filed 04/15/2009 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-05368-ER Document 611 Filed 04/15/2009 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-05368-ER Document 611 Filed 04/15/2009 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-05368-ER Document 611 Filed 04/15/2009 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-05368-ER Document 611 Filed 04/15/2009 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-05368-ER Document 611 Filed 04/15/2009 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:05-cv-05368-ER Document 611 Filed 04/15/2009 Page 10 of 10
### f 1 

### 3*UlJ!*ujdLjAJLj^^ C-y Sicctf- ai C £/0_o5^oj_(L

### 12&U&&—J&&L. •S3SJ2&& Rica*Jo C*<s&Z05> */3S$?tfC 

### fiECHVEDiir COURTOFCRmwALAPPei^ MAY 152015 

### -^b©mcostarcii«r
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS WAYNE PERRY, a

California Resident d.b.a.

Click 1003,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL and SUZIE ZUPAN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

CIV. S-04-0868-DFL-PAN-PS

ORDER

This matter was referred to the Honorable Peter A.

Nowinski, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 636, et seq., and Local Rule 72-302. On November 10, 2005,

Judge Nowinski recommended that defendants’ motions for summary

judgment be denied. No objections to the findings and

recommendation have been filed.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

Case 2:04-cv-00868-JAM-EFB Document 25 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed November 10,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Defendants Suzie Zupan’s and Paul Zupan’s motions

for summary judgment are denied. 

DATED: 3/16/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00868-JAM-EFB Document 25 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Interstate Power and Light Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

William D. Harvey

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Chief Financial Officer

 

March 1, 2007
<PAGE>




                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Extendicare Health Services, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report"),
I, Mel Rhinelander, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify solely for purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
that based on my knowledge:

    (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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/ Mel Rhinelander
-------------------
Mel Rhinelander
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2003


A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Extendicare Health Services, Inc. and will be retained by
Extendicare Health Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.






































                                       27
Before the First Division,

February 2, 1945

No. 49988.

#### Protests 69568-K, etc., of T. D. Downing Co. et al. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited-in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201700096

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

JUQUAN D. AUSTIN

Culinary Specialist Seaman Apprentice (E-2), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: CAPT Ann K. Minami, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, USS Nimitz (CVN 68).

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Commander 

James M. Kennedy, JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Derek C. Hampton, JAGC, 

USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 31 May 2017

_________________________

Before CAMPBELL, FULTON, and MILLER, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court