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

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Hugoton
Royalty Trust
Dallas, Texas:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-81849 on Form S-8 of XTO Energy Inc. of our reports dated
March 14, 2005, with respect to the statements of assets, liabilities and trust corpus of Hugoton Royalty Trust as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related statements of
distributable income and changes in trust corpus for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, the trustee's assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reports appear in the
December 31, 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hugoton Royalty Trust.

KPMG
LLP

Dallas,
Texas
March 14, 2005

---



QuickLinks
Agenda

Financial Literacy and Education Commission Public Meeting 

February 12, 2014 

9:00 am – 11:30 am

U.S. Department of the Treasury – Cash Room

Opening Remarks

Cyrus Amir-Mokri, Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions, U.S. Department of the Treasury

Richard Cordray, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Vice Chair of the Commission 

Role of State Government in Advancing Financial Empowerment

Keynote Remarks 

Governor Jack Markell, State of Delaware 

Panel Discussion: State and Local Innovation in Financial Capability and

Opportunities for Partnerships

Moderator: Melissa Koide, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consumer Policy, 

 U.S. Department of the Treasury

 José Cisneros, Treasurer, City and County of San Francisco

 Eileen I. Klein, President, Arizona Board of Regents 

 Kate Marshall, Treasurer, State of Nevada

 Nan Morrison, President and CEO, Council on Economic Education 

Building a Healthy Balance Sheet Early in Life

Ray Boshara, Director, Center for Household Financial Stability, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Report on the Activities and Plans of the Commission

Melissa Koide, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consumer Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury

Adjourn
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to the use of our report dated October 28, 2010, with respect to the financial statements of Thermon Canada Inc., which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011.

 

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-174039) of Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. pertaining to the Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. Restricted Stock and Stock Option Plan and Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. 2011 Long-Term Incentive Plan of the above report.

 

/s/ MNP LLP (formerly known as Meyers Norris Penny LLP)

Chartered Accountants

 

 

Calgary Alberta

June 15, 2011

 

----
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 07-0320 /321/322/323/324

Number of Sites/ Location:

Days/yr:

Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes:

Basis:

Dermal:

Number of workers (all sites) with dermal exposure:

Basis:Inhalation:

Dermal:

Number of workers (all sites) with dermal exposure:

Basis:MEMORANDUM of TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

CALL BY: Aaron Osborne

Organization: ERG for EPA/OPPT/CEB

CALL TO:

Organization:

Date: 04/04/2007

Time: 945am

Phone:

Concerning what TSCA ?

PMN: 07-0320 /321/322/323/324
#### Samuel MINKUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2043.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 7, 1978.

P. D. Aiken, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

*834Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.

DAUKSCH, J., dissents, with opinion.

DAUKSCH, Judge,

dissenting.

I must respectfully dissent. My reading of the affidavit in support of the order authorizing interception of oral (sic) communications (telephone wiretap) leads me to find it is insufficient to permit the tap. The last hard information concerning the telephone to be tapped was 31 days before the tap was authorized to commence. In my opinion it was stale information. *Rodriguez v. State,*297 So.2d 15 (Fla.1974). The fact the affiant attempted to freshen his information by having some “reliable” confidential informant tell him that illegal activity was still being conducted through the subject telephone some 3 days before the application and order for wiretap is not sufficient because the confidential informant is not shown to be reliable. *Spinelli v. U. S.,*393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); *Aquilar v. Texas,*378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). Additionally, I do not feel the affidavit sufficiently complies with Section 934.09(l)(c), Florida Statutes. The pertinent portion of the affidavit which attempts to comply with this requirement is:

> “(7) Pursuant to Section 934.09(l)(c), Florida Statutes, a full and complete statement of why other investigative procedures reasonably appear unlikely to succeed are listed in the following:

> (a)Because the physical surveillance of the organization, without the assistance of court authorized wire or oral interception, produces information which is repetitious and incomplete, the continued use of said technique unassisted by interception, places the investigation in jeopardy of discovery by the persons being surv-eilled, with little or no chance of successful conclusion.

> (b) This operation is conducted primarily on a telephone located inside a private residence which provides no vantage point for the physical observation of the suspected illegal activities.

> (c) Because of the high level placement of the above operation, in the stratum of illegal wagering operations, there is no possibility of identifying the other unidentified conspirators without the authorizations for interception of wire or oral communications.”

These statements are characterized by appellant as boilerplate recitations. I should say they are suspicions or conclusions not supported by facts. *U. S. v. Kerrigan,*514 F.2d 35 (9th Cir. 1975); *U. S. v. Cacaee,*529 F.2d 1167 (5th Cir. 1976). I should reverse the order denying the motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of that wiretap.
#### ENCORE, INC., etc., et al., Petitioners, v. OLIVETTI CORPORATION OF AMERICA, etc., Respondent.

No. 42544.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 28, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### Claude Lee SIMMONS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-971.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 9, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 16, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65095-65096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32304]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33,727]


CMS NOMECO Oil and Gas Company, Jackson, Michigan; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    On August 29, 1997, the Department issued a Negative Determination 
Regarding Eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, 
applicable to workers and former workers of CMS NOMECO Oil and Gas 
Company of Jackson, Michigan. The notice was published in the Federal 
Register on September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51152).
    By letter of September 24, 1997, the petitioners requested 
administrative reconsideration regarding the Department's denial. New 
information provided by CMS NOMECO Oil and Gas

[[Page 65096]]

Company shows that company sales declined during the time period 
relevant to the investigation.
    Workers at the subject firm are engaged in employment related to 
the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas. The 
workers are not separately identifiable by product line.
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under 
the following circumstances:
    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered 
that the determination complained of was erroneous;
    (2) if it appears that the determination complained of was based on 
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
    (3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The request for reconsideration claims that U.S. sales decreased as 
a result of imports during the relevant time period and, thus the 
company made a strategic business decision to relocate to Houston, 
Texas in order to pursue foreign production of oil and gas which 
resulted in workers being dislocated in Jackson, Michigan.
    In order for the Department to issue a worker group certification, 
all of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Trade 
Act must be met. Review of the investigation findings show that 
criterion (3) was not met.
    Revised data from the subject firm does indicate a minor decline in 
domestic sales. However, notwithstanding these minor declines in 
domestic sales, the separations resulted from a corporate decision to 
transfer corporate headquarters within the U.S.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 2nd day of December 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-32304 Filed 12-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lincoln K. LEWIS.

No. 60883.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 1977.

In re: Lincoln K. Lewis applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of St. Martin.

Writ denied.
# October 2008 - November 2009
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Earl Jackson CARROLL, Appellee.

No. 69-784.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 20, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Joseph Durant, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant.

Manners & Amoon, Richard M. Gale, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

*416PER CURIAM.

The State appeals an order dismissing the information against the appellee. A single information was filed against Earl Jackson Carroll, the appellee here, and a co-defendant, Sy Chadroff. The trial court held that co-defendant Sy Chadroff was immune from prosecution and dismissed the information as to Chadroff. It thereupon dismissed the information as to ap-pellee Earl Jackson Carroll upon the ground that to allow the state to proceed to trial on an information charging both Carroll and Chadroff with conspiracy to solicit a bribe and soliciting a bribe after the dismissal of the information as to Chadroff would deprive defendant Carroll of due process of law under the federal and state constitutions.

Without passing upon the validity of the ground given by the trial court for the dismissal, we reverse the order appealed because the basis of the order is no longer factually applicable since this court has reversed the dismissal of the information as to defendant Sy Chadroff. See State v. Chadroff, Fla.App. 1970, 234 So.2d 412 (opinion filed this day).

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 32.2 

 

**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 on Form 10-Q of Sara Lee Corporation(the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended October 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, L.M. (Theo) de Kool, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial andAdministrative 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: 

 

(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 materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: November 10, 2005 

 

/s/ L.M. (Theo) de Kool, 

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial and Administrative Officer
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

[X] **QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended December 31, 2010

[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

For the transition period from to 

Commission File Number 000-00643

CORNING NATURAL GAS CORPORATION

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

**New York **16-0397420
(State of incorporation)
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
**330 West William Street, Corning, New York 14830

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
**(607) 936-3755**
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [ ]

	

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [ ] No [ ]

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of "large accelerated filer", "accelerated filer", "non-accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large Accelerated Filer [ ] Accelerated Filer [ ] Non-accelerated Filer [ ] Smaller Reporting Company [X]

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes [ ]No [X]

Indicate the number of Shares outstanding of the issuer's common stock as of the latest practicable date.

Common Stock, $5.00 par value
1,157,628
Class
Shares outstanding as of February 9, 2011

　

Page 2>
　********
**Exhibit 31.3**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Joseph Kwok, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of SeaCube Container Leasing Ltd.; and 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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. 

Date: April 23, 2013 

/s/ Joseph Kwok 

Joseph Kwok 

Chief Executive Officer 

(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Sean E. WOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-1255.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 31, 2002.

Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The Secretary of the Army moves to dismiss or transfer this appeal. Sean E. Wood moves to correct a “misstatement” in an order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Florida. We consider whether this appeal must be dismissed as untimely.

As noted in this court’s May 2, 2002 order that directed Wood to show cause why his appeal shouldn’t be dismissed as untimely filed, the notice of appeal from the district court’s November 19, 2001 decision was filed on January 22, 2002. Any appeal from the November 19, 2001 decision was due on January 18, 2002. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (when the United States or an agency is a party, a notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60 days). Because Wood’s appeal was untimely filed, it must be dismissed. *Sofarel-li Associates, Inc. v. United States,*716 F.2d 1395 (Fed.Cir.1983) (appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if notice of appeal is untimely).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Wood’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

(2) All pending motions are moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50074

 Summary Calendar 

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES RAY WATERS, SR.,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 94-CR-342-1

- - - - - - - - - -

(March 31, 1995)

Before DUHÉ, WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Charles Ray Waters, Sr., filed an appeal from an order of

the district court revoking bond pending sentencing. On remand,

the district court issued an order reinstating the bond and

releasing Waters from custody. In view of the disposition, the

appeal is moot; therefore, it is DISMISSED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned officer ofCourier Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’squarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2003to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| *  February 9, 2004* |   | By:                                                 | *  s/Robert P. Story, Jr.* |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------|
| Date                           |   | Robert P.  Story, Jr.                               |
|                           |   | Senior Vice  President and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

This certification shall not be deemed“filed” for any purpose, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing, under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934.

 

----
Exhibit 32.2





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 Venture Lending & Leasing VI, Inc. (the "Fund") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin D. Eng, Chief Financial Officer of the Fund, 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 result of operations of the Fund.





/S/ Martin D. Eng





Martin D. Eng


Chief Financial Officer


March 15, 2013
**Exhibit 32**

 

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 theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifies that, tohis knowledge:

 

(1)          This Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q, for the period ended September 27, 2003 (theReport), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Continental Materials Corporation.

 
| Date:  November 5, 2003 |                                                |   |   |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                    |                                                |   |   |   |   |
| By:                     | /s/     James  G. Gidwitz  |   |   | By: | /s/     Joseph  J. Sum |   |
|                    | James G.  Gidwitz                                   |   |   | Joseph J.  Sum |
|                    | Chairman of  the Board and  Chief Executive Officer |   |   | Vice  President and  Chief Financial Officer |
|                         |                                                     |        |        |  |  |  |  |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Continental Materials Corporation and will be retained byContinental Materials Corporation and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### DeSOTO, INC. v. ELLIOTT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and S. & S. Enterprises, Inc.

No. 49925.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 15, 1978.

Rehearing Denied May 10, 1978.

Watkins & Eager, James A. Becker, Jr., George R. Fair, Jackson, for appellant.

*923Harmon W. Broom, Robert D. Ray, Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens & Cannada, Lawrence J. Franck, Jackson, for appellees.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and WALKER and BOWLING, JJ.

Affirmed on direct and cross-appeals.

INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, SUGG and LEE, JJ., concur.

BROOM, J., took no part.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Artesyn Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 26, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard J. Thompson, Chief Financial 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, to 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Richard J. Thompson
|Richard J. Thompson    
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 5, 2004