alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**[LETTERHEAD
      OF BDO DUNWOODY LLP]**






**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**






The
      Board
      of Directors






SmarTire
      Systems Inc.






We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
      333-122098, 333-107904, 333-107903, 333-93021, 333-80923, 333-67751, 333-55810,
      333-135713 and, 333-139887) on Form S-8 of SmarTire Systems Inc. (“the Company”)
      of our report dated October 17, 2007 (except as to notes 9 and 11, which are
      as
      of November 7, 2007) relating to the consolidated financial statements of the
      Company appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10- KSB. Our report
      contains additional comments that states that the financial statements are
      affected by conditions and events that cast substantial doubt on the Company's
      ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include
      any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that
      uncertainty.






*/s/
      BDO DUNWOODY LLP*




Chartered
      Accountants




Vancouver,
      Canada


November
      8, 2007
# C_2012399EN.01001202.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2012 — Pro Med Logistik GmbH v Finanzamt Dresden-Süd

(Case C-454/12)

2012/C 399/21

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pro Med Logistik GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Dresden-Süd

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Having regard to the principle of neutrality, do the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) in conjunction with Annex H, Category 5, of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes and Article 98(1) in conjunction with Annex III, Category 5, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (2) on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1) preclude national rules which provide for a reduced rate of turnover tax for local passenger transport by taxi, whereas local passenger transport by minicab is subject to the standard rate of tax? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Having regard to the principle of neutrality, do the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) in conjunction with Annex H, Category 5, of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes and Article 98(1) in conjunction with Annex III, Category 5, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (2) on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1) preclude national rules which provide for a reduced rate of turnover tax for local passenger transport by taxi, whereas local passenger transport by minicab is subject to the standard rate of tax?

1

2

| 2. | For the answer to the first question, is it relevant whether operators of hackney cabs and taxis and operators of minicabs perform journeys on the basis of special agreements with major customers under almost identical conditions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the answer to the first question, is it relevant whether operators of hackney cabs and taxis and operators of minicabs perform journeys on the basis of special agreements with major customers under almost identical conditions?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment; OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; OJ L 347, p. 1.

2

---
Exhibit 31.1

I, E.J. Holm, the principal executive officer of Iroquois Gas Transmission
System, L.P., certify that:

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Iroquois Gas
Transmission System, L.P.;

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;

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;

The registrant's other certifying officers 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) 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

c) Disclosed in this report any changes 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

The registrant's other certifying officers 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 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: MAY 23, 2005

/S/ E.J. HOLM
--------------------
E.J. HOLM
PRESIDENT
Before the Third Division,

April 9, 1942

No. 47071.

#### Protest 49309-K of Sanzone Palmisano Co. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The exhibit in this case showed that the importer abandoned the decayed portion of the shipment and also that the examiner reported approximately 20 percent of the shipment was found decayed and worthless. *490The United States Department of Agriculture reported “Stock showing decay-ranges from 4% by count, in some samples to 36% in others and averages approximately 20%. Decay is chiefly Bacterial Soft Rot in various stages, mostly advanced stage.” It also appears that the percentages were estimated from an examination of the tomatoes in the freight car in which the goods arrived. From the record it was found that the weight of evidence indicates that 20 percent of the shipment of tomatoes were decayed and entirely worthless at the time of examination by the appraiser. Following *Huber*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 59, C. D. 370) it was held that no duty should have been assessed on the worthless portion amounting to 20 percent of the shipment. The protest was sustained to that extent.
No. 96-7103.

#### Monroe, aka Gray v. United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
      FINANCIAL 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 accompanying quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Futomic
      Industries, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, I certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





|(1) | the
              quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Futomic Industries, Inc. for the
              quarter ended June 30, 2006 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 quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
              quarter ended June 30, 2006, fairly presents in all material respects,
              the
              financial condition and results of operations of Futomic Industries,
              Inc..
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




By:
            /s/
                Francisco SchipperheijnName:
            Francisco
                SchipperheijnTitle:
            Principal
                Executive Officer,
              Principal
                Financial Officer and DirectorDate:
            August
                14, 2006
#### T. P. Tucker v. Charles E. Gibson.

No. 15,955.

Title and *Ownership*— Quitclaim *Deed*— Unrecorded *Warranty Deed.*The rights of a purchaser by quitclaim deed held superior to those of the holder of a prior warranty deed which was not recorded. .

Error from Greeley district court; Charles E. Lob-dell, judge.

Opinion filed April 10, 1909.

Affirmed.

*W. M. Glenn,*for the plaintiff in error.

*W. H. Russell,*and *Frank V. Russell,*for the defendant in error.

*Per Curiam:*

The plaintiff, Gibson, holds the land, in question under a quitclaim deed made after, but recorded before, a warranty deed to the defendant, Tucker, made by the same grantor. The plaintiff purchased in good faith, after exercising all reasonable diligence in making inquiries and im the examination of the records. ’ It is conceded that the plaintiff had no notice of the outstanding unrecorded deed' held by the defendant, unless it should be held that one Rhodes, who had such knowledge, was his agent in the purchase of the land.

The question, then, is whether Rhodes was in- fact the plaintiff’s agent. Upon an examination of the evidence it clearly appears that the plaintiff dealt with Rhodes as the owner of the land and made the purchase ■directly from him, although the naked legal title was in another, who executed the deed. In these circumstances Rhodes was not the agent of the plaintiff, but should be considered the vendor, in accordance with the understanding of the parties to the transaction.

The defendant, who failed to have his deed recorded or otherwise to give notice of his interest until after the plaintiff had completed his purchase, has no cause to complain of the judgment. *(Eger v. Brown,*77 Kan. 510.)

The judgment is affirmed.
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 Quarterly Report of Secured Data, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for
      the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof, I, Jingan Wang, Chief Executive Officer 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
      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.




Date:
      November 11, 2005




/S/
      Jingan Wang


Jingan
      Wang


Chief
      Executive Officer







-23-
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Doreatha Walker v. Safari Kids Learning Center

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 00613

- CV

Trial court case number: 2015

- 57309

Trial court: 269th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, Doreatha Walker, proceeding pro se, has filed a “Motion Requesting a Refund of Filing Fees” in this Court because she claims that the contest to her affidavit of indigence was overruled in the above

- referenced trial court case. Appellant attached an

uncertified c opy of the trial court’s order overruling the district clerk’s contest to her affidavit of indigence. O n September 8, 2016, the Clerk of this Court requested the indigent clerk’s record from the district clerk for the indigent clerk’s record.

Accordingly, the Court grant s th e appellant’s “Motion Requesting a Refund of Filing Fees” because the district clerk filed an indigent clerk’s record in this Court on September 9, 2016

, containing a certified copy of the trial court’s order overruling the

district clerk’s contest to her affidavit of indigence , whic h was signed on August 24,

2016

. Appellant should respond within 30 days of the date of this order with the mailing

address and tax ID number for the refund.

The Cl erk of this Court is ORDERED to refund the $205.00 filin g fee to the appellant within 45 days of the date of this order and to mark the appellant indigent for

purpos es of the appellate filing fee and the clerk’s and reporter’s record fees

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley



Date: September 1 3 , 2016
#### Sandra L. BELOTE, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. James K. RILEY, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 73460.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

July 28, 1998.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 15, 1998.

Application for Transfer Denied Nov. 24, 1998.

Blair Drazic, Creve Coeur, for appellant.

William S. Thomas, St.Louis, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, C.J., RICHARD B. TEITELMAN J., and CRIST, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Sandra Belote appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of James Riley on the ground that her claims for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty were barred by the five year statute of limitations set forth in sections 516.100 and 516.120(4) RSMo 1994. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would be of no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a brief memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 31.2**CertificationsI, Suki Mudan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, of Caneum, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small businessissuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the smallbusiness issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in thesmall business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting;5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant rolein the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:November 20, 2006
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


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

        Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of Windsor Woodmont Black Hawk Resort Corp., a
Colorado corporation (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

        The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2002 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



Dated: November 14, 2002           /s/  Jerry Dauderman
                                   ----------------------------------
                                   Jerry Dauderman
                                   Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                     Executive Officer


Dated: November 14, 2002           /s/ Michael L. Armstrong
                                   ----------------------------------
                                   Michael L. Armstrong
                                   Executive Vice President and
                                     Chief Financial Officer
# C_2015065EN.01000601.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — LVP NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-306/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - System of importation - Applicable tariff rates))

(2015/C 065/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LVP NV

Applicant:

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994, as set out in Annex 1 A of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), signed in Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994), are not such as to create rights which individuals might rely on directly before a national court in order to oppose the application of the customs tariff rate of EUR 176 per tonne, laid down in Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005 on the tariff rates for bananas.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

1

---
1

Participant List 

US EPA Listening Session on Greenhouse Gas Standards for Utilities and Petroleum Refineries 

Session with States, Local Governments and Tribes 

February 17, 2011 

Tad Aburn Director Maryland Department of the Environment 

Karen Bassett Chief Deputy Director 

Arkansas Department of Environmental 

Quality 

Jim Blizzard Senior Counsel Environmental Counsel of States 

Stuart Clark Program Manager Washington Department of Ecology 

Larry Greene 

Air Pollution Control 

Officer 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Mangement District 

Susana Hildebrand Chief Engineer Texas Council on Environmental Quality 

Charlie Lippert Air Quality Technician 

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Department 

of Natural Resources and Environment 

John Lyons Director 

Kentucky Department for Environmental 

Protection 

Paul Miller 

Special Assistant to the 

Secretary 

Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality 

Bill O'Sullivan 

Director, Air Quality 

Division 

New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection 

John Paul Supervisor 

Dayton, Ohio Regional Air Pollution 

Control Agency 

Amy 

RoydenBloom Senior Staff Associate National Association of Clean Air 

Agencies 

Doug Scott Director Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Dave Shaw 

Director, Air Resources 

Division 

New York Department of Environmental 

Conservation 

Brian Turner 

Deputy Director, 

Washington, DC Office of 

Jerry Brown and Assistant 

Executive Officer for 

Federal Climate Policy California Air Resources Board 

Mary Uhl Chief New Mexico Environment Department 

Joy Wiecks Air Quality Technician 

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Environmental Department
##### 



EXHIBIT 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)


Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Nortel Networks Limited, a Canadian corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

This Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2003 ( Amendment No. 1) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in Amendment No. 1 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  December 23, 2003
    
    FRANK A. DUNNFrank A. Dunn
President and Chief Executive OfficerDated:  December 23, 2003
    
    DOUGLAS C. BEATTYDouglas C. Beatty
Chief Financial Officer


98