alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-79255) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Option Plan, 1998 Stock
Option Plan and 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of StarMedia Network, Inc. of
our reports dated January 28, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of StarMedia Network, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                                           /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York
March 27, 2000
exv10w37



 





Exhibit 10.37



AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



     This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of
November 20, 2007, by and between Mesa Air Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and
Michael J. Lotz (“Executive”).



RECITALS



     The Company and Executive are parties to an employment agreement dated as of March 31, 2004
(the “Original Employment Agreement”). The parties have agreed to enter into this Amendment to the
Original Employment Agreement.



AGREEMENT



          1.     Section 1.3 of the Original Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting March 30,
2009 and inserting in its place March 30, 2012.



          2.     Section 4.5(f) of the Original Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting March 30,
2009 and inserting it is place March 30, 2012.



          3.     Except as otherwise provided herein, all other terms of the Original Employment Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	COMPANY:

 

MESA AIR GROUP, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Title: 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE:

 	 
	 	/s/ Michael J. Lotz
 	 
	 	Michael J. Lotz
No. 56723.

protest 148971-K (New York).

#### Frederick Miller *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the involved merchandise consist of woven silk fabrics the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Walter Strassburger & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 210, C. D. 1326). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

p0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

138859

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138859 COA: 280284 Livingston CC: 06-015579-FH LUIS FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 17, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Gregory CAMPBELL, Petitioner, v. Michael W. MOORE, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 98-3457.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 7, 1999.

Gregory Campbell, pro se, petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Bart Schneider, Assistant Attorney General, and Edward C. Hill, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(j), we grant the petition seeking belated appeal of the judgment and sentence entered on July 19, 1996, in Escambia County Circuit Court case number 90-2530. The trial court shall treat this court’s mandate as the notice of appeal. Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(j)(5)(D). If petitioner qualifies for appointed counsel,' *605the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent petitioner on appeal.

JOANOS, KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 18, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 18, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0157. LEROY INGRAM v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: Y16793
---

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

The undersigned, MICHAEL E. SCHULTZ, the Chief Executive
Officer of CANAL CAPITAL CORPORATION (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY
that:

|1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
      quarter ended April 30, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      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 executed this
statement this 30th day of October 2012.

/S/ Michael E.
SchultzMichael E. Schultz Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Canal Capital Corporation and will be retained by Canal
Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
Exhibit 99.3


                            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 Samaritan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Doug Bessert, Vice President of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Doug Bessert
Doug Bessert
Vice President
April 15, 2003
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION









<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.2

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 Infinity  Capital Group,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Theodore
A. Greenberg,  Principal  Accounting  Officer,  Chief Financial  Officer,  Chief
Investment  Officer and  Secretary of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC
section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.


Dated: May 17, 2010


/s/Theodore A. Greenberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Position: Principal Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer,
Chief Investment Officer and Secretary


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0348 ROBERT STINCHFIELD,

Plaint iff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SIDNEY,

Defendant and Cross Appellant. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT
This appeal be ing subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parti es having failed to j oint ly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **William J. Speare,** whose name appears next on the list of attorneys desiring appo int me nt a s med iators for Mon ey J udgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appo int ed to co nduct th e mediat io n process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th at th e time peri ods set fo rth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from th e date of this order of appoint me nt . A true copy

of this order is being mailed to counsel of record f or the parti es, or to th e parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED thi s August 11, 2021.

Bowen Greenwood , Cle rk of the Supreme Court c: Afton Eva Ball, Gerry P. Fagan, William A. D'Alt on, William J. Speare 08/11/2021
Case Number: DA 21-0348
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DALIA ISRAEL

, Appellant,

v.

EBHC, LLC as trustee of THE EBHC, LLC LAND TRUST

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 2

- 1096

[ November 17, 2022 ]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth J udicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Sara Alijewicz , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502020 CC 00 2479 XX XXW B

.

Bart T. Heffernan, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No appearance for Appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, M AY and F ORST

, JJ

. , concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT-23.1

                               AUDITOR'S CONSENT













                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



Board of Directors
Clover Community Bankshares, Inc.

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in Clover  Community
Bankshares, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-71777),  relating
to the  registration  of up to 50,000  shares of its common  stock for  issuance
pursuant to the Clover Community Bankshares, Inc. Dividend Reinvestment Plan, of
our report  dated  January  24,  2002,  which is  included  in Clover  Community
Bankshares,  Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
2001.





                        s/Donald G. Jones and Company, P.A.


Columbia, South Carolina
March 26, 2002
# C_2013026EN.01003701.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/37

---

Action brought on 23 November 2012 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-532/12)

2013/C 26/70

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, O. Beynet, A. Tokár, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by not having adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC (1) or, in any event, by not having notified those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 72(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by not having adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC (1) or, in any event, by not having notified those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 72(1) of that directive;

1

| — | impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 8 320 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in this case; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 8 320 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in this case;

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2009/81/EC expired on 21 August 2011.

---

(1)  OJ L 216, 20.8.2009, p. 76.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BIRDELL BROCKINGTON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 177 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of September, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. sec. 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of IWT Tesoro Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, DavidW. Whitwell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

Theforegoing certification shall not be deemed to be filed for the purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject toliability under this section.  Thiscertification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to theextent that this Exhibit 32.2 is expressly incorporated by reference in anysuch filing.
| Dated: November  15, 2007 | /s/ David W. Whitwell    |   |
|---------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                      | David W.  Whitwell       |
|                      | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

----
# C_2012273EN.01000501.xml

| 8.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen (Germany) lodged on 12 June 2012 — Michael Schwarz v Stadt Bochum

(Case C-291/12)

2012/C 273/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michael Schwarz

Applicant:

Defendant: Stadt Bochum

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (1) of 13 December 2004, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, valid?

1

2

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1).

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1; corrected version: OJ 2009 L 188, p. 127).

2

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40345 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
DANIEL JAMES COMPTON , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:18

- CR

- 1118

- 1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Daniel James Compton was convicted following a jury trial of one count of transportation of an undocumented alien. He was sentenced to a prison term of 37 months. He appeals his conviction. Compton argues that the evidence produced at trial was insuffi cient to support his transportation conviction. Ins ufficiency of the evidence claims are reviewed de novo , and this court gives substantial deference to the jury verdict

.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 19, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40345 Document: 00515350908 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2020No. 19

- 40345

2 United States v. Chon , 713 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2013). Viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the Government, this court asks only whether a rational jury could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Id

. Compton argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he had knowledg e of the undocumented alien’s presence in his vehicle’s trunk, or he recklessly disregarded her presence. However, circumstantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, supports a rational inference that Compton knew that he was t ransporting an undocumented alien. See United States v. Nolasco

- Rosas , 286 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 2002)

. Compton had sole control over the vehicle in which the alien was found, he displayed evasive and nervous behavior at the checkpoint, he volunteered suspicious information without being asked, and he gave implausible explanations. See United States v. Richardson , 848 F.2d 509, 512

- 14 (5th Cir. 1988); see also United States v. Gutierrez

- Farias , 294 F.3d 657, 660 (5th Cir. 2002). Additionally, the alien paid thousands of dollars to be smuggled into the United States , a portion of which was due upon successful arrival, and it is not unreasonable to infer that her transport would not be entrusted to an unknowing party. See Del Aguila

- Reyes , 722 F.2d 155, 157 (5th Cir. 1983)

. Thus, from this evidence, a rational jury could have found the knowledge element of the transpor tation offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See Nolasco

- Rosas , 286 F.3d at 765. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-40345 Document: 00515350908 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2020
No. 96-6006.

#### Smith *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of United Hebrew Geriatric Center, Petitioner, v Barbara A. DeBuono, et al., Respondents.

[700 NYS2d 728]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, dated December 4, 1997, made after a hearing, which declined to review the denial of an application for medical assistance benefits dated March 11, 1994, on the ground that the request for a hearing to review the denial was not made within 60 dáys.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Initially, we note that inasmuch as the petition did not raise a question of substantial evidence, the matter was improperly transferred here *(see,*CPLR 7804 [g]). However, in the interest of judicial economy, we elect to retain jurisdiction and determine the issue raised on the merits *(see, e.g., Matter of 125 Bar Corp. v State Liq. Auth.,*24 NY2d 174; *Matter of Dabulis v New York City Tr. Auth.,*222 AD2d 433).

The record supports the determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health which declined to review the merits of a denial of medical assistance benefits on the ground that the request for a fair hearing to review the denial was not made within 60 days. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the notice of denial complied with all of the requirements set forth in Social Services Law § 22 and the regulations set forth in 18 NYCRR 358-2.2. Accordingly, the 60-day period was not tolled by a defective notice *(cf., Matter of Zellweger v New York State Dept. of Social Servs.,*74 NY2d 404; *Bryant v Perales,*161 AD2d 1186). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.