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





|CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
    PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM |  | Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP
      Suite 2000
      National Bank Tower
      600 De La Gauchetière Street West 
      Montréal, Québec     H3B 4L8
        Telephone: 514-878-2691 
          Fax: 514-878-2127 
          www.rcgt.com
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have issued our report dated October 9, 2009 (except for Note 18, which is as of November 12, 2009) and our comments by independent registered chartered accountants for U.S. readers on Canada-U.S. reporting differences dated October 9, 2009 (except for Note 18, which is as of November 12, 2009), with respect to the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of Sand Technology lnc. on Form 20-F for the year ended July 31, 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporated by reference of said report and comments in the Registration Statements of Sand Technology Inc. on Forms 5-8 (File No. 333- 08538, effective March 27, 1998 and File No. 333-07462, effective August 20, 1997) and Form F-3 (File No. 333-51014, effective August 18, 2000).



Montreal, December 4, 2009

_______________________

1 Chartered accountant auditor permit no. 20154





Chartered Accountants
  Member of Grant Thorton International Ltd.

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 33219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15197]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric 
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1985-000.
    Applicants: Invenergy Solar Development North America LLC.
    Description: Request for Limited Waiver, et al. of Invenergy Solar 
Development North America LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180709-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1991-000.
    Applicants: Pennsylvania Electric Company, Jersey Central Power & 
Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Penelec et al submit revised 
WASPs, Service Agreement Nos. 4221, 4222, and 4223 to be effective 9/8/
2018.
    Filed Date: 7/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180710-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1992-000.
    Applicants: Forward Energy LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Market-
Based Rate Tariff to be effective 9/10/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/11/18.
    Accession Number: 20180711-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1993-000
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA SA No. 5126; 
Queue No. AB1-169 to be effective 6/11/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/11/18.
    Accession Number: 20180711-5026.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1994-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent 
System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: NYISO & National Grid--
amended/restated SGIA (SA2219) with Monroe County to be effective 6/26/
2018.
    Filed Date: 7/11/18.
    Accession Number: 20180711-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 11, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15197 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Brooktrout, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric R. Giler, President of the Company, 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), 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.

|Dated: March 27, 2003 |  | By: | /s/ERIC R. GILEREric R. Giler President
(Principal Executive Officer)
|--------------------- |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
#### Maretha WILLIAMS and Harry Williams, her husband, Appellants, v. Jon V. STILLWELL and Garry Platts d/b/a Platts Used Cars, Appellees.

No. 71-325.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 15, 1972.

Leslie D. Franklin, and Chambers & Blews, St. Petersburg, for appellants.

Joseph W. Gaynor, and Glenn M. Wood-worth, of Ulmer, Woodworth & Jacobs, St. Petersburg, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Lingefelt v. Hanner (Fla.App.1960), 125 So.2d 325. See, also, the recent case of Clements v. Barber (Fla. App.3d) 258 So.2d 465, opinion filed December 14, 1971, reaffirming the holding of *Lingefelt.*

LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas A. Camillo, Appellant.

[663 NYS2d 1019]

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Supreme Court for resentencing in accordance with the same Memorandum as in *People v Nicholson*(237 AD2d 973 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Tills, J.—Violation of Probation.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (Chief Financial Officer)




In connection with the annual report of HealthWarehouse.com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Patrick E. Delaney, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, 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 results of operations of the Company.




April 15, 2011
/s/ Patrick E. DelaneyPatrick E. DelaneyChief Financial Officer and Treasurer





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




This certification is being furnished to the SEC with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
# C_2022128EN.01002202.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (WILD)

(Case T-116/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark WILD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 128/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Maternus GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Zoebisch and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Manea and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 (Case R 932/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Maternus.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Maternus GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Maternus GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20301

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VIDAL BANUELOS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-H-94-0242-04

- - - - - - - - - -

July 16, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Vidal Banuelos pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute cocaine. Banuelos agreed in the plea

agreement to waive his right to appeal.

Our review of the record shows that Banuelos knowingly and

voluntarily waived the right to appeal his claims that the

district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines in imposing

his sentence. United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th

Cir. 1992); United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 293 (5th 
No. 95-20301

-2-

Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 244 (1994). It is not clear

whether Banuelos has waived his claims of ineffective assistance

of counsel. See United States v. Henderson, 72 F.3d 463, 465

(5th Cir. 1995). However, the record is not sufficiently

developed to address the ineffective-assistance claims on direct

appeal. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th

Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1075 (1988). The appeal is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Banuelos's right to raise the

ineffective-assistance-of-counsel issue in an appropriate

proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Casel,

995 F.2d 1299, 1307 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1368

(1994). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00697

- CR

Leslie COLLINS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR8675

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE PULLIA M

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED January 21, 2015.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice
EXHIBIT (23)-1-

                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration
statement (Post-effective amendment No. 2 on Form S-3 to Form S-14
(No. 2-93037)) of Unimar Company of our report dated February 12,
1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Unimar Company
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and the related
consolidated statement of earnings, cash flows and changes in
partners' capital for the year ended December 31, 1995 and all
related schedules, which report appears in the December 31, 1995
annual report on Form 10-K of Unimar Company.


                                                    KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


                    





Houston, Texas
March 19, 1996
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10105

Conference Calendar

 

JACK H. CLAY, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; IRVING, TX,

CITY OF; CITY OF IRVING POLICE DEPARTMENT;

GARY BOOTH, Director, Internal Revenue Service;

BRYAN BAYLESS, Agent; VICTOR VASQUEZ;

HUTCHINSON, Officer, Police Department;

BURGDORF, Officer, Irving Police Department;

BAILEY, Officer, Irving Police Department;

JOBE, Supervisor, Irving Police Department;

JOHN DOES, 1-15; JANE DOES, 1-15,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CV-629-D

- - - - - - - - - -

August 21, 1996

Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jack Hammond Clay, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argued in the district

court that the defendants violated his constitutional rights
No. 96-10105

- 2 -

because they seized, pursuant to an administrative levy, Clay’s

1987 BMW from his carport in an attempt to collect outstanding

federal income taxes. The district court dismissed Clay’s

complaint on summary judgment. On appeal, Clay does not address

the merits of the district court's opinion. His appeal is

frivolous and is dismissed accordingly. See Brinkmann v. Dallas

County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987);

5th Cir. R. 42.2.

We caution Clay that any additional frivolous appeals filed

by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Clay is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
No. 10755.

#### The Prudential (Life) Insurance Co. *v.*Fuller.

Decided December 15, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Portage county.

*Messrs. Musser, Kimber & Huffman,*for plaintiff in error..

*Mr. W. J. Beckley,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 31.2
                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Thomas J. McDonald, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of SkillSoft Public
      Limited Company; and

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report.

Dated: September 22, 2003                   /s/ Thomas J. McDonald
                                            ----------------------
                                            Thomas J. McDonald
                                            Chief Financial Officer


                                       1
Exhibit 31.1
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 
 I, Latif M. Nathani, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Preferred Voice, Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report.
 
 4. 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
 
 c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 
 5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
 
 6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
  /s/ Latif M. Nathani
  Latif M. Nathani
 Chairman and CEO
 (Principal Executive Officer)
 February 14, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                    Independent Auditors' Report on Schedule
                    ----------------------------------------

The Board of Directors
California Steel Industries, Inc.:

Under date of January 21, 2002, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets
of California Steel Industries, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2001 and
2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2001, as contained in the 2001 annual report to stockholders. These
consolidated financial statements and our report thereon are included in the
annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001. In connection
with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also
audited the related financial statement schedule as listed in the accompanying
index. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial
statement schedule based on our audits.

In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation
to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly,
in all material respects, the information set forth therein.





Orange County, California
January 21, 2002
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10196

 

BENJAMIN W. MCKEE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

WILLIAM PERRY, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CV 0327-T)

 

December 4, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

McKee challenges the district court’s order granting summary

judgment to the defendant rejecting McKee’s action for loss of

employment opportunity because of age discrimination.

For essentially the reasons stated by the district court in

its thorough order of December 26, 1995, we affirm the district

court’s judgment. Although the plaintiff, who was 54 years of age,

established a prima facie case, the defendant produced evidence the

plaintiff was not as qualified as applicants who were accepted in
2

the program McKee sought to join. This was a non-discriminatory

reason for the challenged action. McKee then failed to produce

sufficient evidence to show that the employer’s stated reason for

refusing to select McKee into the program was untrue or pretextual.

McKee’s retaliation claim must fail for the same reason. Because

McKee failed to show that the proffered reason for the employer’s

action (superior qualifications of other candidates) was a

pretextual reason for not selecting McKee, no inference arises that

the employer failed to select McKee for the program because he

filed an EEOC complaint.

AFFIRMED.
|     |                                                                                                                            |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (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. |

|                                       |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |  |
| /s/  PETER M. MCCORMICK          |   |
| Peter M. McCormick                    |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |

|                                            |
|--------------------------------------------|
|                                            |  |
| /s/  MARTY J. SCHWENNER               |   |
| Marty J. Schwenner                         |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
#### Edward L. LUSTGARTEN, Petitioner, v. Alfred P. HOCHMANN and Allstate Insurance Company, Respondents.

No. 41738.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 8, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 252 So.2d 852.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.