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





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (Nos. 333-162319, 333-158089, 333-158091, 333-158095, 333-150431,
333-153744, 333-147992, 333-131876, 333-121004, 333-122433, 333-109511,
333-122693 and 333-141877) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
333-113889 and 333-162558) of our reports relating to (1) the financial
statements of Apollo Gold Corporation (which report expresses an unqualified
opinion on the financial statements and includes a separate report titled
Comments by Independent Registered Chartered Accountants on Canada-United States
of America Reporting Differences referring to changes in accounting principles
and substantial doubt on Apollo Gold Corporation’s ability to continue as a
going concern) and (2) the effectiveness of Apollo Gold Corporation’s internal
control over financial reporting dated March 16, 2010, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Apollo Gold Corporation for the year ended December 31,
2009.





/s/
      Deloitte
      & Touche LLP


Independent
Registered Chartered Accountants


Vancouver,
Canada


March 16,
2010
No. 10792.

#### The New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. *v.*Ireton et al.

Decided March 2, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Paulding county.

*Mr. C. A. Seiders*and *Mr. A. M. Waters,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Saltzgaber, Hoke & Osborn,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew; C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 59 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 59

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      February 4, 1993.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2) to establish national voter registration procedures for Federal 
elections, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI are waived. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
Administration. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. The amendments recommended by the Committee on House 
Administration now printed in the bill and the amendment printed in part 1 of 
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill 
as so amended shall be considered as read. No further amendment shall be in 
order except an amendment printed in part 2 of the report of the Committee on 
Rules accompanying this resolution. Such amendment may be offered only by the 
named proponent or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
and shall not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendment as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### EL-MASRI *v.*STATE

[No. 209,

September Term, 1961.]

*115
      *Decided March 16, 1962.*

The cause was submitted to Henderson, Prescott, Horney, Marbury and SybErt, JJ.

Submitted on brief by *Clarence B■ Pusey, Jr.,*for appellant.

Submitted on brief by *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Joseph S. Kaufman, Deputy Attorney General, Saul A. Harris*and *Russell J. White, State’s Attorney*and *Assistant State’s Attorney,*respectively, of Baltimore City, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The State has moved to dismiss the appeal for the alleged failure of appellant to comply with Maryland Rule 828 b 1. Although the record extract is rather thin, the facts of the case are quite simple, and there is little dispute concerning them; hence the motion to dismiss is overruled. Cf. *Klein v. Dougherty,*200 Md. 22, 87 A. 2d 821.

Appellant first complains that he was held in jail for four months pending trial, which resulted in a denial of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. He is a citizen of the United Arab Republic, and the record discloses that he was not tried sooner due to certain correspondence between the trial judge and the Embassy of the United Arab Republic and authorities in Egypt, in an attempt to obtain aid and assistance for the appellant. There was no denial of constitutional rights here. On the contrary, there was a serious effort made to help an accused, in a foreign land, charged with crime.

Appellant next contends that he should not have been convicted of forgery, because he signed fictitious names on the *116checks, rather than those of real persons. The contention is without merit. *Lyman v.*State, 136 Md. 40, 109 A. 548. He also claims the monies received by him were loans, and the checks were accepted as security for the loans. If we assume that such facts would constitute defenses to charges of forgery, his statements to that effect were denied, and the trial court did not believe the appellant—a finding which we definitely cannot say is clearly erroneous. Maryland Rule 886 a.

Finally, appellant makes the novel and unusual claim that the witness, Kouimanis, was improperly permitted to testify, since she was not a party to the case. There is no requirement in our jurisprudence that a witness be a party to the cause, in order to render her competent to testify.

*Motion to dismiss overruled; judgments affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and statement of earnings of Gerber Scientific, Inc.
as of and for the the nine-month period ended January 31, 1997 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,766
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     59,418
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,030
<PP&E>                                         116,999
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,651
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 314,635
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,746
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,294
<OTHER-SE>                                     221,961
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   314,635
<SALES>                                        275,350
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               275,350
<CGS>                                          153,846
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  110,178
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,017)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 261
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,082
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,882
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,882
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of Borders Group, Inc.


SUBSIDIARY                            STATE OF INCORPORATION
----------                            ----------------------

Borders, Inc.                                 Colorado
Borders Fulfillment, Inc.                     Delaware
Borders Management, LLC                       Michigan
Borders Online, LLC                           Delaware
Borders Online, Inc.                          Colorado
Borders Outlet, Inc.                          Colorado
Borders Properties, Inc.                      Delaware
Walden Book Company, Inc.                     Colorado
Walden Online, Inc.                           Colorado
Waldenbooks Properties, Inc.                  Delaware
Borders (UK) Limited
  formerly Books etc. Limited                 U.K.
Borders New Zealand Limited                   New Zealand
Borders PTE. Limited                          Singapore
Borders Australia PTY, Limited                Australia
BGI (UK) Limited                              U.K.
BGP (UK) Limited                              U.K.
Evermatch Limited                             U.K.
Books Etc Properties Limited                  U.K.
Meridian Books Limited                        U.K.
Borders Superstores (UK) Limited              U.K.
Charing Cross Properties Limited              U.K.
Borders Development, Inc.                     Michigan
Borders Bookstore (M) SDN.BHD                 Malaysia
Borders International Services, Inc.          Michigan
Paperchase Products Limited                   U.K.
Paperchase Limited                            U.K.
Paperchase Design Limited                     U.K.
256 La. 864

#### Alvin Edwin LONG, and His Wife, Mrs. Alvin E. Long v. The UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Hanover Insurance Company and Calvin D. Johnson.

No. 50785.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: Alvin Edwin Long and His Wife, Mrs. Alvin E. Long applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 236 So.2d 521.

Writ refused. There is no error of law in the judgment complained of.

SANDERS, BARHAM, and TATE, JJ., are of the opinion that a writ should be granted.
For references related to EPA’s Water Quality Standards for the State of

Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters , see Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 at www.regulations.gov
# Congressional testimony

2024 (current year)20232022202120202019201820172016201520142013201220112010

## Sign up for GSA updates and alerts

This is archived information. It may contain outdated contact names, telephone numbers, Web links,          or other information. For up-to-date information visit GSA.gov pages by topic or contact our Office of          Public Affairs at press@gsa.gov. For a list of public affairs officers by beat,          visit the GSA Newsroom.

Print PageEmail Page

Top
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31435-31436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14357]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-349, OMB Control No. 3235-0395]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 15g-6

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the

[[Page 31436]]

Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of 
extension of the previously approved collection of information provided 
for in Rule 15g-6--Account Statements for Penny Stock Customers--(17 
CFR 240.15g-6) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a 
et seq.).
    Rule 15g-6 requires brokers and dealers that sell penny stocks to 
provide their customers monthly account statements containing 
information with regard to the penny stocks held in customer accounts. 
The purpose of the rule is to increase the level of disclosure to 
investors concerning penny stocks generally and specific penny stock 
transactions.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 195 broker-dealers will 
spend an average of 78 hours annually to comply with this rule. Thus, 
the total compliance burden is approximately 15,210 burden-hours per 
year.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information 
collection at the following website: http://www.reginfo.gov. Comments 
should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an email to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b38030a0c1e0d1f0a342a03060e0f2b040609450e041b450c041d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="64370c0503110210053b250c090100240b09064a010b144a030b12">[email protected]</span></a>; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief 
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace 
Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or by sending an email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#257577647a68444c49474a5d655640460b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a4a485b45577b73767875625a697f79347d756c">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments must be submitted within 30 days of this 
notice.

    Dated: June 28, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14357 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

Exhibit 4.4  William Stemple's consulting agreement

Marketing Consultant's, Inc.
240 Mustang Trail Suite 6
Virginia Beach, Va 23452
757-498-9162 Fax  757-498-4288

Agreement

This agreement is between Marketing Consultants, Inc. And CFI Mortgage, Inc.. It
is agreed that Marketing Consultants, Inc. will provide the following services:

Marketing Consultants, Inc. will assist CFI Mortgage, Inc. in the prospects of
entering into a working relationship with Smartseal Cybercapital Limited, and in
addition, assist in the creation and implementation of a telemarketing program
utilizing "Onloan Software" which processes and generates mortgage loan
applications, and any other work as they may be directed to perform on behalf of
CFI Mortgage, Inc. Personnel as needed, will be hired and managed by Marketing
Consultants, Inc. as per the needs of the projects.

In consideration for this agreement, CFI Mortgage, Inc. will issue to Marketing
Consultants, Inc. 545,750 shares of CFI Mortgage, Inc. Common stock to be issued
in the next S-8 registration.

The term of this agreement is from May 1, 2001 - December 31, 2001. The term of
this agreement may be extended for additional periods at the option of Marketing
Consultants, Inc..

Acceptance:
Marketing Consultants, Inc.                CFI Mortgage, Inc.
By:  /s/ William Stemple                   By:  /s/ Stephen E. Williams
Title:  C.E.O.                             Title:  President
                                           Date:  7/2/2001
#### Morrice JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-836.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 15, 1973.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Elliott C. Metcalfe, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

MANN, Chief Judge.

Jones was one of three men in a parking lot in Ybor City early one evening. He is *399said to be the one who had his hands in the pockets of a second man lying on the ground. A third man was standing near Jones. Two detectives rounded the block and pulled into the parking lot. The man who had been lying down was gone. The third man was never apprehended, or pursued, either, for that matter. Jones was apprehended, say the detectives, and raised his shirt to reveal a pistol, which the detective nearest him knocked to the ground. The detectives admit that Jones continually protested that it wasn’t his gun, and the crucial question at the trial was whether the gun was in Jones’ hand or on the ground at the time they approached him. Defense counsel sought to impeach the testimony of the detective by referring to a report filed in connection with the case. The trial judge refused to allow the testimony, and told the defendant’s lawyer that he could introduce the report after the State had rested its case.

This was error. The lawyer adequately, if not perfectly, followed the statute which prescribes the predicate for impeachment testimony.1 The decisions of our Supreme Court plainly allow introduction, after this predicate, of inconsistent statements by way of impeachment.2 The record is not as complete as we would like, because of the prosecutor’s objections before the nature of the allegedly inconsistent statement was established. Nevertheless, the crucial nature of the question whether the gun was left on the ground by another or was in Jones’ hand requires a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

1

. Fla.Stat. 90.10, F.S.A. (1971) : If a witness, upon cross examination as to a former statement made by him relative to the subject matter of the cause and inconsistent with his present testimony, does not distinctly admit that he has made such *statement,*proof *may be given that*he did in fact make it; but before such proof can be given, the circumstances of the supposed statement, sufficient to designate the particular occasion, must be mentioned to witness and he must be asked whether or not he made such statements.

2

. Smith v. State, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 525; Lindberg v. State, 1938, 134 Fla. 786, 184 So. 662; Kilgore v. State, 1915, 69 Fla. 397, 68 So. 378; Brown v. State, 1903, 46 Fla. 159, 35 So. 82; Bright v. State, Fla.App.3d 1972, 250 So.2d 10; Urga v. State, Fla.App.2d 1958, 104 So.2d 43.
EX-10.30





 Exhibit 10.30 

AMENDMENT NO. 3 
 TO THE

 APRIA HEALTHCARE GROUP INC. 

DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 

The Apria Healthcare Group Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan (“the Plan”) is, by way of 

clarification of the administration of the Plan, hereby amended in the following respects, 

effective as of January 1, 2020: 

1.    Section 12.1 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

12.1 Committee Duties. The plan administrator of the Plan for purposes of ERISA (the “Plan Administrator”) is
the Company. The administrative powers and duties of the Company as Plan Administrator are delegated to, and shall to the extent not otherwise exercised by the Company be carried out by, the Committee acting for the Plan Administrator. Such
delegated powers and duties shall include, without limitation, those Committee powers and duties described in this Article 12 and/or elsewhere in the Plan, as it may be amended. The Committee shall consist, from time to time, of the Board, or such
committee(s) as the Board or its delegates shall appoint. Members of the Committee may be Participants under this Plan. The Committee shall act at meetings by affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee. Any action permitted to be
taken at a meeting may be taken without a meeting if, prior to such action, a unanimous written consent to the action is signed by all members of the Committee and such written consent is filed with the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee. A
member of the Committee shall not vote or act upon any matter which relates solely to himself or herself as a Participant. The Chairman or any other member or members of the Committee designated by the Chairman may execute any certificate or other
written direction on behalf of the Committee. When making a determination or calculation, the Committee shall be entitled to rely on information furnished by a Participant or the Company. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Amendment, to be effective as provided above, has been executed on behalf of Apria Healthcare Group Inc. by
the officer signing below. 
  

	
	APRIA HEALTHCARE GROUP INC.
	
	
	 /s/ Celina M. Scally

	Celina M. Scally
	 SVP, Chief Human Resources Officer
 Date:
March 10, 2020
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 Golden  Enterprises,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the third quarter ended  February 27, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Mark W. McCutcheon, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: April 16, 2009



/s/ Mark W. McCutcheon
----------------------
Mark W. McCutcheon
President and Chief Executive Officer

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


                                       22
256 La. 875

#### In the Matter *of*Robert GLASS.

No. 50903.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 2, 1970.

In re: Robert Glass applying for writs of certiorari and prohibition of mandamus.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction. Attorney-client relationship alone will not excuse mere appearance of attorney before a grand jury, nor does it bar the disclosure of the name of the client and the date and nature of the attorney’s employment.