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


                                 AJ ROBBINS, PC
                          Certified Public Accountants
                              216 Sixteenth Street
                                    Suite 600
                             Denver, Colorado 80202





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To The Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Manhattan Scientifics, Inc.
New York, New York

We  consent to the  inclusion  and use in the  Annual  Report on form  10-KSB of
Manhattan Scientifics,  Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005 of our report
dated March 1, 2006 appearing in that Annual Report.

We further consent to the reference by  incorporation of the aforesaid report in
Manhattan  Scientifics,  Inc.  registration  statements on form S-8 (333-125627,
333-120797 and 333-102589).

/s/ AJ. Robbins PC.

AJ. Robbins PC
Certified Public Accountants

Denver Colorado
April 4, 2006
Exhibit 32(a)



TXU ENERGY COMPANY LLC

Certificate Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CEO



The undersigned, M. S. Greene, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive of TXU Energy Company LLC (the Company), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed
this 12th day of August, 2005.



/s/ M. S. GreeneName:

M. S. GreeneTitle:

Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
Executive




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TXU Energy Company LLC and will be retained by TXU Energy Company LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 23.1    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM   To the Board of Directors Big Clix, Corp. (A development stage company) Fairfax, California   We hereby consent to the inclusion in this form 10-K, Annual Report pursuant
to section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of our report dated September 15, 2011 relating to the financial
statements of Big Clix, Corp. as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011.   /s/ ZS Consulting Group LLP ZS Consulting Group LLP Melville, New York September 21, 2011   115 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 350     Melville, New York 11747 Tel: (516) 394-3344     Fax:  (516) 908-7867 www.zmscpas.com
No. 64257.

protest 59/22077 (Los Angeles).

#### Albert P. Wiener *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his or her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q
filed by New Century Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the
information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                        |  |     |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 10, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ John Q. Shaw, Jr.                
|                        |  |     |  | John Q. Shaw, Jr.                    
|                        |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6192

TREMAINE L. KITCHEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JAMES PEGUESE, Warden; SHAVELLA WATKINS,

Sergeant; FRANK SIZER, Commissioner; CAROL

JACKSON, ARC Coordinator; KENNY TOWNES;

CAPTAIN GRANT; LIEUTENANT SPENCE; OFFICER

JOHNSON; GHIRLCHILICH, Hearing Officer;

OFFICER GREENE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(8:05-cv-00466-DKC)

Submitted: April 19, 2006 Decided: May 17, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tremaine L. Kitchen, Appellant Pro Se. J. Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Tremaine L. Kitchen appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Kitchen v. Peguese, No. 8:05-cv-00466-DKC (D. Md. Nov. 23, 2005).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Platina Energy Group Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
certifies, 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:
      July 17, 2008
                By:
                /s/ 
      Blair J. MerriamName:
      Blair J. MerriamTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer
Case: 2:10-cv-01050-EAS-NMK Doc #: 11 Filed: 03/18/11 Page: 1 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01050-EAS-NMK Doc #: 11 Filed: 03/18/11 Page: 2 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01050-EAS-NMK Doc #: 11 Filed: 03/18/11 Page: 3 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01050-EAS-NMK Doc #: 11 Filed: 03/18/11 Page: 4 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01050-EAS-NMK Doc #: 11 Filed: 03/18/11 Page: 5 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01050-EAS-NMK Doc #: 11 Filed: 03/18/11 Page: 6 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01050-EAS-NMK Doc #: 11 Filed: 03/18/11 Page: 7 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01050-EAS-NMK Doc #: 11 Filed: 03/18/11 Page: 8 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01050-EAS-NMK Doc #: 11 Filed: 03/18/11 Page: 9 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01050-EAS-NMK Doc #: 11 Filed: 03/18/11 Page: 10 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01050-EAS-NMK Doc #: 11 Filed: 03/18/11 Page: 11 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01050-EAS-NMK Doc #: 11 Filed: 03/18/11 Page: 12 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01050-EAS-NMK Doc #: 11 Filed: 03/18/11 Page: 13 of 13  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-12T12:19:21-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Court of Appeals.

Filed February 25, 1890.

#### Theresa Lynch, Resp’t, v. The First Nat. Bk. of Jersey City, App’lt.

*Abram Kling,*for resp’t; *Hamilton Wallis,*for app’lt.

Judgment affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered on the stipulation, with costs.

All concur, except Finch and Gray. JJ., dissenting, and Earl, J., absent.

Affirming 25 N. Y. State Rep., 127.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 Quarterly Report of Great Wall Acquisition Corporation
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Kin Shing Li, Chairman of the Board,
      Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of Great Wall Acquisition Corporation,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 Great Wall Acquisition
      Corporation as of and for the period covered by the Report.




Pursuant
      to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
      certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.




September 7, 2006
            /s/
                Kin Shing Li
              
              Kin
                Shing Li
              Chairman
                of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary
              (Principal
                Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting
                Officer)
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00576

- CR

MICHAEL FRED WEHRENB ERG APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 43RD DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

----------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

----------

Appellant Michael Fred Wehrenberg attempts to appeal from his conviction

for possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, of one gram or

more but less than four grams. The trial court’s certification states that this “is a

plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and that “the

defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). On

January 3, 2012, we notified Wehrenberg that this appeal may be dismissed

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

unless he or any party desiring to continue the a ppeal filed a response showing

grounds for continuing the appeal. Wehrenberg’s appellate counsel filed a

response agreeing that “there is no right to appeal in this cause” ; thus, no

grounds were shown for continuing the appeal. In accordance with the tri al

court’s certification, we therefore dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(d), 43.2(f).

SUE WALKER

JUSTICE

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )

DELIVERED: February 2, 2012
#### Granowitz, Appellant, *v.*Erie Redevelopment Authority.

*244Argued October 8, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*John M. Wolford,*with him *T. P. Dunn,*and *Dunn, Wolford & Sesler,*for appellant.

*John M. Quinn,*with him *Quinn, Piute, Gent, Busech & Leemhuis,*for appellee.

November 12, 1968:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Eagen,

Jacob Granowitz, the appellant, was the owner of improved real estate, which was totally condemned on *245August 19, 1966, by the Redevelopment Authority of Erie, the city where the real estate was located. The Board of Viewers awarded damages in the sum of $120,000. Granowitz appealed to the Common Pleas Court and, after trial, a jury awarded damages in the amount of $132,000. Following denial of a motion for a new trial and entry of judgment on the verdict, he appealed to this Court.

The only asserted assignment of error is that the court below erred in refusing to admit evidence at trial of the amount of an offer made to purchase the premises “in 1962, 1963 or 1964.” Granowitz does not here, nor did he in his motion for a new trial below, maintain that the jury’s award was inadequate. Under such circumstances, *Rankin v. McCurry,*402 Pa. 494, 166 A. 2d 536 (1961) is controlling.

In *Rankin,*supra, at 494, 495, we said: “The appellants alleged significant errors in the charge concerning the issue of damages, but they did not demonstrate or even attempt to demonstrate that their recovery was adversely affected by the alleged errors____

“It is well-settled that error in the abstract is not sufficient to warrant a retrial. Siegfried v. Lehigh Valley Transit Co., 334 Pa. 346, 349, 6 A. 2d 97 (1939). A verdict winner complaining of trial errors to secure a new trial must convince the trial court that the verdict in his favor did not cure the errors and that the errors produced an unjust result.”

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Roberts concurs in the result.

Mr. Justice Mtjsmanno did not participate in the decision of this case.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I, David Gladstone, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Gladstone Land Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying
officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Omitted.

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in
the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The
registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



|                                  
|----------------------------------
|Date: March 27, 2013              
|                                  
|/s/ David Gladstone               
|David Gladstone                   
|Chief Executive Officer and       
|Chairman of the Board of Directors
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50116

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GABRIEL MENDOZA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:11-CR-157-1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gabriel Mendoza appeals the 24-month and 60-month prison terms 

imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that 

the above-guidelines sentences are procedurally unreasonable.

This argument was not raised in the district court, and we will review it 

only for plain error. See United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 497 (5th Cir. 

2012). To prevail on plain error review, Mendoza must show a forfeited error 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50116 Document: 00515301395 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2020
No. 19-50116

2

that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If Mendoza makes such a showing, this 

court has the discretion to correct the error, but only if it “seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 135 

(internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).

Mendoza’s contention that the district court procedurally erred by failing 

to adequately explain its sentences is contradicted by the record. Mendoza 

asked for within-guidelines sentences, and the Government emphasized 

Mendoza’s substantial history of noncompliance with the conditions of 

supervised release. Just before imposing Mendoza’s sentences, the district 

court stated that it was taking that substantial history into account. Although 

the district court did not expressly discuss the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors, the record indicates that it considered them, and in any event, “implicit 

consideration of the § 3553 factors is generally sufficient,” Kippers, 685 F.3d at 

498 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). Thus, Mendoza

has failed to show clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Further, 

he has not shown that any deficiency in the explanation affected his 

substantial rights, as he has not shown that a more detailed explanation would 

have resulted in lower sentences. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 

264-65 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-50116 Document: 00515301395 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2020
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-21081

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL J. DOUGLASS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-95-CR-284-4

- - - - - - - - - -

August 15, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Michael J. Douglass appeals his guilty-plea conviction for

selling false obligations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 473. 

Douglass argues that the Government breached the plea agreement

because it had no intention to stand by or support its U.S.S.G.

§ 5K1.1 motion, that the district court erred in allowing the

testimony of a victim, and that the district court erred in its

computation of losses.

Pursuant to his plea agreement with the Government, Douglass
No. 96-21081

-2-

waived his right to appeal his sentence except as to a sentence

imposed outside applicable range. The sentence he received fell

within that range. We have reviewed the record and conclude that

the waiver was informed and voluntary and is therefore binding on

Douglass. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567-68

(5th Cir. 1992). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
No. 44118.

#### Protests 797032-G, etc., of Frazar & Co. et al. (Galveston).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protests were dismissed.
EXHIBIT 10.9

               CHEFS INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE BONUS PLAN

         The Executive  Incentive Bonus Plan ("EIBP") is a cash-based  incentive
program. The purpose of the EIBP is to motivate and reward eligible employees of
Chefs  International,  Inc. (the  "Company")  for good  performance  by making a
portion of their cash compensation dependent upon the achievement by the Company
and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis of annual levels of earnings before
deducting interest, income taxes,  depreciation and amortization;  and excluding
extraordinary  items  ("EBITDA").  "Extraordinary  Items," which are excluded in
computing  EBITDA,  shall mean all items considered  extraordinary for Generally
Accepted  Accounting  Principle  ("GAAP")  purposes  as well as gains or  losses
attributable to transactions  involving  Mister Cookie Face and gains and losses
realized from sales and disposals not in the ordinary course of business.

         At the  conclusion of each Company fiscal year  commencing  with fiscal
2001,  the Company's  auditors  shall compute the bonus pool ("Bonus Pool") from
which the cash incentives shall be distributed.  The Bonus Pool for a year shall
be equal to 10% of the amount by which EBITDA (computed without deduction of the
Bonus Pool for such year) exceeds $1,000,000. The entire Bonus Pool for a fiscal
year shall be distributed.

         The  Bonus  Pool  shall be  allocated  among and  distributed  to those
persons performing executive type functions for the Company and its subsidiaries
and in such amounts as a Committee  consisting  of the Chairman of the Company's
Board  of  Directors  and  the  Company's   President  (the  "Committee")  shall
determine.  The type of employees to whom it is anticipated  that the Bonus Pool
will be allocated and distributed  include the President,  the  Controller,  the
area  supervisors and persons  performing  similar  functions (if any).  Nothing
herein  shall  entitle  any of  the  foregoing  employees  to an  allocation  or
distribution  of any portion of the Bonus Pool. No employee shall be entitled to
a  distribution  from the Bonus Pool with  respect to a fiscal year unless he is
employed by the Company or a  subsidiary  on the date of the  distribution.  Any
such allocations and distributions  shall be made in the absolute  discretion of
the  Committee.  If the  Committee is unable to  unanimously  agree on whether a
particular employee shall be included in the allocation and distribution, or the
amount of same,  the matter shall be referred to and voted upon by the Company's
Board of Directors.

         Distributions  of the Bonus Pool with respect to a fiscal year shall be
made no later  than  five  business  days  after  publication  of the  Company's
year-end audited financial statements for that year.

         This EIBP may be  terminated  with respect to any fiscal year after the
Company's fiscal year 2005 by the Board of Directors.
#### The People *ex rel.*Casey *v.*James Jourdan, *Commissioner.*

— Motion to dismiss writ of *certiorari*denied, with ten dollars costs. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.
No. 51090.

#### Protests 120831-K, etc., of Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.