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

 

##### **CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (SEC FileNos. 333-53448 and 333-112958) of Fargo Electronics, Inc. of our reports datedFebruary 12, 2004, relating to the financial statements and financial statementschedule, which appear in the Form 10-K.

 

 
| /s/  PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |
|                            |
| Minneapolis,  Minnesota         |
| March 15,  2004                 |

 

----
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

eAcceleration Corp.

Poulsbo, Washington

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statement on Forms S-8(No. 333-85444), of our report dated February 24, 2006, relating to theconsolidated financial statements of eAcceleration Corp. appearing in theCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005.

 

 
| /s/ Peterson  Sullivan PLLC |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
|                        |
|                        |
| February 24, 2006           |
| Seattle, Washington         |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Voitell Geten, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 474]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered October 14, 1993, convicting him of sodomy in the second degree (three counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts), and sexual abuse in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evi*363dence is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), or without merit. Balletta. J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.
# C_2007280EN.01000401.xml

| 23.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/4

---

ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION

ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION

(2007/C 280/05)

Additional communication to the communication of the Commission (2007/C 275/05) (1) on the quantity of certain products in the milk and milk products sector available for the first half of 2008 under certain quotas opened by the Community for imports originating in Iceland (Annex I.I, Commission Regulation (EC) 2535/2001 (2)).

1

2

---

(1)  OJ C 275, 16.11.2007, p. 6.

1

(2)  OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 29. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 487/2007 (OJ L 114, 1.5.2007, p. 8).

2

---

ANNEX I.I

| Products originating in Iceland |
| --- |
| Quota number | Quantity (kilograms) |
| 09.4205 | 175 001 |
| 09.4206 | 460 000 |

Products originating in Iceland

Quota number

Quantity (kilograms)

09.4205

175 001

09.4206

460 000

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), I, Christopher T. Lail, Controller, acting Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report 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.

Date: May 15, 2007



By:

/s/    CHRISTOPHER T. LAILChristopher T. Lail Controller and Acting Chief Accounting Officer


This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to DayStar Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by DayStar Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re Kim Wayne Burden

No. 06-20-00111-CR

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the relief 

sought. Therefore, we deny the petition.

RENDERED OCTOBER 29, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 10.13(i)

                                 MADISON & WALL
                                    WORLDWIDE

March 29, 2001

Mr. Carol Kolozs
Aarica Holdings, Inc
1000 Winderley Place, Suite 124
Maitland, FL 32751

Dear Carol:

Pursuant to our  discussions,  please  consider this the formal  acknowledgement
that Madison & Wall Worldwide, Inc. (M&W) hereby agrees to extend until June 30,
2001 our firm's  right to reduce the  exercise  price on the 250,000  options of
Aarica  Holdings,  Inc.  (Aarica)  common  stock to $.05 per share.  Pursuant to
Clause 7 of that  certain  Conversion  of Note  agreement  dated  June 29,  2000
between  Aarica and  Continental  Capital  and Equity  Corporation  (CCEC),  the
parties agreed that in the event Aarica had not  consummated  its initial public
offering  (IPO) by February 28, 2001,  then the 250,000  options priced at $2.00
per share would reduce to $.05 pr share.  This  Amendment  shall serve to modify
Clause 7 in that  regard.  As you are aware,  CCEC  changed its name o Madison &
Wall Worldwide,  Inc.  effective  January 2001 in conjunction  with a management
buyout.

Please note that all other  conditions of the Conversion of Note Agreement,  and
any amendments to said agreement shall remain unchanged,


Best regards,


/s/Jim Schnorf
Jim Schnorf
General Manager and Chief Financial Officer
---

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

I, Frederick Vandenberg, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
  that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Destiny Media Technologies, Inc. for
  the year ended August 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section
  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
  the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents,
  in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
  of Destiny Media Technologies, Inc. (the Company)

By:
      /s/Fred VandenbergName:
      Frederick VandenbergTitle:
      Chief Financial OfficerDate:
      November 29, 2007


This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
  and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on
  Form 10-KSB. A signed original of this 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.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
  10-KSB pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
  except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
  purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 10934, as amended (the
  Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated
  by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
  the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates
  it by reference.

---
**Exhibit
32.1**
 
 Certification
Pursuant to
 **18
U.S.C. Section 1350**
  **As
Adopted Pursuant to**
  **Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
  
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Diamond Powersports, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Pierre Elliott,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:
 
 (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.
 
 
 April 15,
2005
 
 
 
 By:  /s/
Pierre Elliott
 Pierre
Elliott, Chief Executive Officer
No. 64215.

protests 59/19450, etc. (New York).

#### Walter Hatches, Inc., and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N.Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Mottahedeh Creations, Ltd., et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 9, C.D. 2095), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained..
# C_2008162EN.01008601.xml

| 25.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 162/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/86

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network (Codified version)

COM(2007) 667 final — 2007/0235 (COD)

(2008/C 162/19)

On 22 November 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network (Codified version)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network (Codified version)

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, the Committee decided, at its 442nd plenary session, held on 13 and 14 February 2008 (meeting of 13 February), by 132 votes to two with two abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 13 February 2008.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
#### J. L. Hopps, J. L. Hopps, as Trustee for the Grand Lodge Independent Order of Archery, and Grand Lodge Independent Order of Archery v. City of Live Oak.

177 So. 742.

Division B.

Opinion Filed December 17, 1937.

*J. M. Hearn,*for Appellants;

*Alfred T. Airth,*for Appellee.

Chapman, J.

This cause is before the court on appeal from an order striking from the answer of the defendant certain pertinent and material allegations submitted as a defense as more fully appear in paragraphs eight and nine thereof and the Court finds that the suit is ruled by the case of Grand Lodge Independent Order of Archery of the State of Florida v. City of Live Oak, reported in 130 Fla. 386, 177 So. 738. The order appealed from is hereby reversed with directions for further proceedings not inconsistent with the authority, *supra.*

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Buford, J.,

dissents for reasons stated as to companion case of Grand Lodge Independent Order of Archery of the State of Florida v. City of Live Oak.
#### Charles P. Lehner, Appellant, v Dormitory Authority of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 911]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memo*959randum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against defendant D.A. Elia Construction Corp. *(see, Lehner v Dormitory Auth.,*201 AD2d 948). The court erred, however, in granting summary judgment to defendants dismissing the Labor Law § 200 causes of action. Plaintiff submitted proof that defendants affirmatively created the dangerous condition that caused his accident by directing the placement of steel beams at a location that did not permit the safe passage of large pieces of construction equipment *(see, Samiani v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp.,*199 AD2d 796, 797). Thus, plaintiff "may be able to show that defendant^] * * * exercised the requisite degree of supervision and control over the portion of the work that led to his injury” *(Ross v Curtis-Palmer HydroElec. Co.,*81 NY2d 494, 506).

The court also erred in granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) causes of action. Plaintiff alleges that his injuries are the result of defendants’ violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-2.1 (a) (1), which requires that building materials be "so located that they do not obstruct any passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare.” We conclude that that regulation is specific enough to support the Labor Law § 241 (6) causes of action *(see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra,*at 502-504; *Adams v Glass Fab,*212 AD2d 972). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Labor Law.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
No. 46801.

#### Protests 61363-K, etc., of H. P. Lambert Co., Inc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that Wai Shan Pin is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) the merchandise was held dutiable as drugs advanced in value at 10 percent under paragraph 34 as claimed.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0 722 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 1 8 8 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
OMB Control No. 2060-0336

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL OPERATING PERMIT, 40 CFR PART 71

FORM EMISS - EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

 INSTRUCTIONS: Use this form to calculate potential to emit (PTE) for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each 

emissions unit, control device, or alternative operating scenario identified in section I of form GIS. If form FEE does not need to be 

submitted with the application, do not calculate actual emissions.

A. Emissions Unit ID 

Drum Crusher

B. Identification and Quantification of Emissions

 Instructions: First, list each air pollutant that is either regulated at the unit or present in major amounts. Second, list any other regulated pollutant (for fee 

calculation) emitted at the unit that have not already been listed. Each HAP added to the list in this step may be simply listed as "HAP". 

Next, calculate PTE for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each listed air pollutant. Do not calculate PTE for air 

pollutants listed solely for fee purposes. Include all fugitives, including those that do not count towards applicability, when calculating actual 

emissions. At a minimum, round to the nearest tenth of a ton for yearly values or tenth of a pound for hourly values. Attach examples of 

calculations that illustrates the methodology used. 

 

 Air Pollutants (including regulated air pollutants and

pollutants for which the source is major)

Emission Rates CAS No.

Actual

Annual

Emissions

(tons/yr)

Potential to Emit

Hourly

(lb/hr)

Annual

(tons/yr)

VOM 0.8833 3.87

Benzene 0.000157 0.00006 71-43-2

Methanol 0.0929 0.4069 67-56-1

Organic Compounds 0.1207 0.5287
Case No. 7,939.

#### KROUSE v. ROSS.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 368.] 1

Circuit Court District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1806.

Landlord and Tenant — Fixtures—Removal.

A tenant, who has erected a wooden shed upon posts inserted two feet into the earth, has a right to remove it during the term.

Special action on the case by a landlord against his tenant for removing a wooden shed during the term, which the defendant had erected during the term upon posts inserted into the ground to the depth of two feet, and leaning against the wall of a house situated on an adjoining lot not belonging to the plaintiff.

Mr. Jones, for defendant,

contended that it was a general rule that, between landlord and tenant, things annexed by the tenant to the freeholder building, and which can be removed without prejudice to the freehold or building, may be lawfully removed by the tenantduring his term, and cited the testamentary law of Maryland (1798) c. 101, sube. 7; 6 Bac. Abr. 482; Bull. N. P. 34; Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 14; Fitzberbert v. Shaw, 1 H. Bl. 258; Renton v. Robart. 2 East, 88; Dean v. Al-lalley, 3 Esp. 11; Ex parte Quincy, 1 Atk. 477.

F. S. Key, contra,

contended that the rule was relaxed only in three cases: 1. Where the thing fixed was once a chattel and must be used as such. 2. Where it is for the benefit of trade. 3. Where it is the manifest intention of the parties that it should not be considered as annexed to the freehold. Thus trees may be removed by a gardener or nursery-man for the benefit of trade. The eases cited are exceptions to the general rule of law.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(DUCKETT, Circuit Judge, absent)

instructed the jury that if the defendant, during his term, brought the old wooden stable, and fixed it on the lot by posts inserted in the ground and leaning against the wall of a house on an adjoining lot, not belonging to the plaintiff, and before the expiration of the term removed the stable, without injury or damage to the soil or to the other buildings of the plaintiff, either by the erecting or continuance or the removal of the stable, it was lawful for him so to do. The plaintiff became nonsuit.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 62 (Monday, April 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5946]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 26, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Richard Walker, Community 
Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 55882, Boston, Massachusetts 02106-2204:
    1. Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts; 
to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Charter Financial 
Corporation, Bellevue, Washington, and thereby indirectly acquire 
voting shares of Charter Bank, Bellevue, Washington.
    In connection with this Application, Applicant also has applied to 
engage in management consulting activities through Banc Support, Inc., 
Kent, Washington, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(9)(i)(A) of Regulation 
Y.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Opportunity Bancshares, Inc., Richardson, Texas; to become a 
bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Opportunity Bank, National Association, Richardson, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 27, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-5946 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S