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





PS&Co.


Padgett Stratemann & Co., LLP


Certified Public Accountants and Business Advisors





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No. 333-163184) on Form S-3 of Royale Energy, Inc. ”) of the reference to Padgett, Stratemann & Co., L.L.P., and the inclusion of our report dated March 16, 2010 in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, of the Company, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





We also consent to the reference to our firm under the captions "Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of the Registration Statement.








/s/ Padgett, Stratemann & Co., L.L.P.





Certified Public Accountants


San Antonio, Texas


March 17, 2010
Office of the Director

Bureau of Competition

x

August 3, 2021

By Electronic Mail

Jane Doe

Law Firm XYZ

Washington, DC 20001

Re: Company A Side/Company B Side Transaction, FTC File No. XXX-XXXX

Dear Ms. Doe:

As you know, the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition has been 

conducting a nonpublic investigation to determine whether the above-referenced transaction may 

violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, or Section 5 of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. Although the waiting period will expire imminently, the 

Commission’s investigation remains open and ongoing.

Please be advised that if the parties consummate this transaction before the Commission 

has completed its investigation, they would do so at their own risk. Any inaction by the 

Commission before the expiration of the waiting period should not be construed as a 

determination regarding the lawfulness of the transaction. Indeed, no such determination could 

be made unless and until the Commission completes its investigation. The parties cannot stop the 

investigation or avoid an enforcement action by consummating. To the contrary, and in keeping 

with its commitment to aggressive enforcement, the Commission may challenge transactions—

before or after their consummation—that threaten to reduce competition and harm consumers, 

workers, and honest businesses.

Accordingly, even if the parties consummate the above-referenced transaction, the 

Commission may still take further action as the public interest may require, which may include 

any and all available legal actions and seeking any and all appropriate remedies.

Sincerely,

Holly Vedova

Acting Director

Bureau of Competition

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              THIS   SCHEDULE    CONTAINS   SUMMARY    FINANCIAL
                              INFORMATION    EXTRACTED    FROM   THE   FINANCIAL
                              STATEMENTS AS OF March 31,1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
                              ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK>                                                863557
<NAME>                        SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                          1,000
<CURRENCY>                                       US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                                1,266
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        63,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                           3,582
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     81,046
<PP&E>                                              344,956
<DEPRECIATION>                                       89,226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      346,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                74,231
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                 39
<OTHER-SE>                                          137,395
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        346,311
<SALES>                                             124,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    124,524
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       118,808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       (231)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    1,486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       4,461
<INCOME-TAX>                                          1,890
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   2,571
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          2,571
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .07
        
<FN>
EPS-PRIMARY  and  EPS-DILUTED  are  restated to include the impact of  Financial
Accounting  Standards  Board Statement No. 128 and the effect of a 3-for-2 stock
split payable on March 12, 1998.
</FN>

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


(SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)




In
connection with the quarterly report of Del Global Technologies Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John J.
Quicke, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 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 Section
      15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and




2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




/s/
      John J. QuickeName: 
      John J. QuickeTitle:   President
      and Chief Executive OfficerDate:   December
      14, 2009






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




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Cascade Microtech, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Burger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Michael D. Burger  
|Michael D. Burger      
|Chief Executive Officer
|Cascade Microtech, Inc.
|March 1, 2011          

This certification is made solely for the
purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cascade Microtech, Inc. and will be retained by Cascade Microtech, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 25, 2016

p051 8 

# Order

Clerk May 25, 2016

152319

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152319

COA: 320197

Oakland CC: 2013

- 009924

- AR

ALI ZAID, 52

- 4 District Ct: 12

- 004518

- FY

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 26, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is co nsidered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment

discussing the weight and effect of the evidence presented at the preliminary examination

and directing arraignment in the Oakland Circuit Court on a felony Information. The

Court of Appeals erred in making factual findings and binding over this case to the circuit

court for trial. We REMAND this case to the 52

- 4 District Court for further proceedings

not inconsistent with t he remainder of the Court of Appeals judgment. In all other

respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question

presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32(b)

                          Section 906 Certification
                                    of
                             Mark E. Maddocks

     I certify that the Quarterly Report of Dataram Corporation with which
this Certification is furnished fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
the information contained in the periodic report fully presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
Dataram Corporation.



September 8, 2003                  MARK E. MADDOCKS
                                   ______________________________

                                   Mark E. Maddocks
                                   Vice President, Finance and
                                   Chief Financial Officer
t". ~ r. Ó?"'¡ ni\ ~ ,~i\ e
 ~ r' ¡~..¡¡ .' ~ .M r'\ ~ '1'W t~ ~, ~i ti~) ~ r¡ ,~ ;; t~ i tl ßc,j.~ ~. 

~~lf n ¡; ~ ~,Q g & ~~l¡ufl~ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION 

OFFICE OF ADMISTRATIV LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

) 

) 

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9327 

) 

ORDER EXTENDING THE ONE YEAR 

DEADLINE FOR FILING THE INITIAL DECISION 

Commission Rule 3.51(a) requires that initial decisions be filed within one year 

following the issuance of the complaint, but allows the Administrative Law Judge to 

extend the one year deadline by an additional period of up to sixty days, upon a finding of 

extraordinary circumstances. 16 c.F.R. § 3.51(a). The Complaint in this matter was 

issued on September 9,2008. One year from the issuance of the Complaint was 

September 9,2009. By Order dated September 8, 2009, extraordinary circumstances 

were found to support an extension of the one year deadline by an additional period of 

sixty days, to November 9,2009. 

On October 15, 2009, Respondent's Second Motion to Reopen the Hearing was 

granted. The record wil be reopened for the limited purose of receiving the proffered 

evidence, as set fort in the October 15, 2009 Order. A hearing to receive the proffered 

evidence is scheduled for November 12,2009. The October 15, 2009 Order, as modified 

by Order dated October 23,2009, sets post-hearing supplemental briefs and proposed 

findings and replies thereto to be filed on November 24,2009 and December 4,2009. 

In order to conduct the hearing on the proffered evidence and to evaluate the 

supplemental evidence, the deadline for filing the Initial Decision must be extended. 

Accordingly, good cause exists to issue an additional sixty day extension, extending the 

time to file the Initial Decision to January 8, 2010. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: November 9,2009
State Region

Alabama SE

Alaska Pacific NW

Arizona Desert SW

Arkansas SW

California California

Colorado Mountain

Connecticut Eastern

Delaware Eastern

District of Columbia Eastern

Florida SE

Georgia SE

Hawaii California

Idaho Pacific NW

Illinois Central

Indiana Central

Iowa Midwest

Kansas Midwest

Kentucky Central

Louisiana SW

Maine New England

Maryland Eastern

Massachusetts New England

Michigan Central

Minnesota Midwest

Mississippi SE

Missouri Central

Montana Mountain

Nebraska Midwest

Nevada Desert SW

New Hampshire New England

New Jersey Eastern

New Mexico Mountain

New York Eastern

North Carolina SE

North Dakota Midwest

Ohio Central

Oklahoma SW

Oregon Pacific NW

Pennsylvania Eastern

Rhode Island New England

South Carolina SE

South Dakota Midwest

Tennessee SE

Texas SW

Utah Pacific NW

Vermont New England

Virginia Eastern

Washington Pacific NW

West Virginia Eastern

Wisconsin Central

Wyoming Mountain

Puerto Rico Eastern

Attachment 1B: NADA Region List
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

November 10, 2014

Mills

State of Washington

Re: In the Matter of Made in the USA Brand, LLC

File No. 142 3121, Docket No. C-4497

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed consent agreement in 

the above-referenced proceeding. The Commission has considered your comment and placed it on the 

public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. §

4.9(b)(6)(ii).

In your comment, you request that the Commission “stop these people from lying to us,” and 

require marketers to substantiate their U.S.-origin and other claims. You do not propose any revisions to 

the draft complaint or the consent agreement.

Section 5 of the FTC Act requires companies to possess substantiation for their marketing 

claims, and the Commission’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S.-Origin Claims provides specific 

guidance to marketers on how to substantiate those claims.1

 In particular, the Policy Statement provides 

that when a marketer makes an unqualified “Made in USA” claim, the marketer should – at the time the 

representation is made – possess and rely upon a reasonable basis establishing that the product is “all or 

virtually all” made in the United States. In this case, Section II of the consent agreement specifically 

requires Made in the USA Brand, LLC either to possess competent and reliable evidence substantiating 

its representations that products are made in the USA, or to disclose that it relies on self-certification to 

substantiate its clients’ claims.

Therefore, after considering your comment, the Commission has determined that the relief set 

forth in the consent agreement is appropriate and sufficient to remedy the violations alleged in the 

complaint. At this time, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served by 

issuing the Decision and Order in final form without modification. The final Decision and Order and 

other relevant materials are available on the Commission’s website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the 

Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work, and we thank you again for your 

comment.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

 

1 See 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) and Federal Trade Commission, Issuance of Enforcement Policy Statement on 

“Made in USA” and Other U.S. Origin Claims, 62 Fed. Reg. 63756, 63766 (December 2, 1997), 

available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/1997/december/ 971202madeinusa.pdf.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 68292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34079]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

The Office of the Secretary


Information Collection Activity Under Emergency Review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Title: Correction Notice for Survey of Biomedical Equipment 
Manufacturers for Year 2000 Compliance

Correction

    On December 22, 1997 the Department of Health and Human Services 
published a document in the Federal Register concerning the survey of 
biomedical equipment manufacturers for Year 2000 compliance. It is 
located on page 62 FR 66869. The fourth sentence of the first full 
paragraph of the second column is incorrect. It reads ``Also, section 
518 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act requires notification of users 
or purchasers when a device presents a reasonable risk of substantial 
harm to public health.'' The sentence should read ``Also, section 518 
of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act requires notification of users and 
purchasers when a device presents an unreasonable risk of substantial 
harm to public health.''

    Dated: December 23, 1997.
Tom Joyce,
Reports Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-34079 Filed 12-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3607]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-32,881]


National Food Products Limited Reading, Pennsylvania; Notice of 
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By letter of January 7, 1997, a company official requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance, petition under TA-W-32,881, for workers of the 
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on December 16, 1996, and 
published in the Federal Register on December 31, 1996 (61 FR 69110).
    The petitioner presents new evidence that the Department's survey 
of the subject firm's customers was incomplete.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 4th day of February 1997.
Russell T. Kile,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-3607 Filed 2-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-03-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-04-1996
<CASH>                                           4,221
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                       705
<INVENTORY>                                     67,631
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               113,720
<PP&E>                                          63,445
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,332
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 159,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,201
<BONDS>                                          1,663
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,024
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,653
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   159,385
<SALES>                                         51,510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,510
<CGS>                                           37,713
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,502
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,365
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (844)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       145
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (989)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (989)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
IN IT I AL REVI E W E NG I NEE R I NG R EPORT P MN : 15

- 0 4 35

Focus R eady Draf t 5 / 1 4 /20 1 5

MSDS : Yes Labe l : No
Gen Eqpt : P r ov i de adeq u ate genera l and l oca l ex h aust vent i lat i o n

. C h em i ca l r es i stant g l oves , sa f ety g l asses wi t h side

- s h i e l ds, p r otec ti ve clothi n g ( l o n g

- sleeved , l o n g

- l egged)

. R esp ir ator : E ngi n eer i ng or adm i nistra t ive controls s h ou l d be imp l emented t o r educe expos u re

. No pe r sonal respirato r y pro t ec t ive equ i pment no r mally req u i red

. H

ea l t h E f f ec t s : May ca u se eye a n d sk in i r r i ta ti on

. May cause a ll erg i c r esp ir atory react i o n

. May cause gastrointes ti nal ir r i tation , na u sea , vom i ti n g , a n d diarrhea

. TLV/ PE L : None estab l ished

Consumer U se : No SA T (concer n s) (0 5 /08/20 1 5) : R e l ated A

n a l ogs :Migration to groundwater : Neg l i gib l e PBT rat i ng : P2B lT2 H

ea l th : 2 D r in k i n g Water , I n hala ti on E co : 2 Wate r (All re l ease s t o water wi t h a CC

OCC U PAT I ONAL EXPOSURE RAT I NG : 0

- 1

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPT I ONS :

POL LU TION PRE VENT I ON CONS I D E RAT I ONS : No ne. E XPOSURE -B AS E D RE V I EW : No 200 ppb)IN IT I AL REVI E W E NG I NEER I NG REPORTIN I T I AL REVI E W E NG I NEER I NG REPORT PMN : 1 5

- 0435IN IT I AL REVI E W E NG I NEER I NG REPORT
#### Vincent RUNOWICH, Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-448.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 13, 1973.

John W. Boult of Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey, Kinney & Boggs, Tampa, and Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Miami, for appellant.

B. Edwin Johnson, Asst. City Atty., St. Petersburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Musetto v. City of Miami Beach, 82 So.2d 595 (Fla.1955), and City of Miami Beach v. Quinn, 149 Fla. 326, 5 So.2d 593 (1942).

LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
#### CAPITAL MUSIC CO. v. STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA.

No. 37631.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1969.

Certiorari discharged without opinion.