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





                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1



[LETTERHEAD]


August 18, 2000



Securities and Exchange Commission
Attn:  Division of Corporation Finance
450 Fifth Street N.E.
Washington, DC  20549


RE:  REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM S-3


Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are acting as counsel for Troy Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), in connection with the Company's registration of offers and sales by
a stockholder of 50,000 shares of its common stock, $.01 par value, pursuant to
a Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the Securities Exchange
Commission on August 18, 2000. The shares covered by the Registration Statement
consist of shares issuable upon the exercise of outstanding warrants.

In acting as counsel for the Company and arriving at the opinions expressed
below, we have examined and relied upon originals or copies, certified or
otherwise identified to our satisfaction, of such records of the Company,
agreements and other instruments, certificates of officers and representatives
of the Company, certificates of public officials and other documents as we have
deemed necessary or appropriate as a basis for the opinions expressed herein.

In connection with our examination, we have assumed the genuiness of all
signatures, the authenticity of all documents tendered to us as originals, the
legal capacity of all natural persons and the conformity to original documents
of all documents submitted to us as certified or photostatic copies.

Based on the foregoing, it is our opinion that:

         (1)      The Company has the corporate authority to issue the shares
                  covered by the Registration Statement upon the exercise of
                  outstanding warrants.

         (2)      The shares being registered for resale by the selling
                  stockholder under the Registration Statement have been duly
                  authorized and, when issued, delivered and paid for according
                  to the terms of the warrants, will be validly issued, fully
                  paid and nonassessable.

We express no opinion with respect to laws other than those of the State of
Delaware and the federal laws of the United States of America, and we assume no
responsibility as to the applicability thereto, or the effect thereon, of the
laws of any other jurisdiction.

We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as Exhibit 5.1 to the
Registration Statement, to its use as part of the Registration Statement, and to
the use of our name under the caption "Legal Matters" in the prospectus
constituting a part of the Registration Statement.

Very truly yours,

OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY LLP

/s/ Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Churchill Community Development, LP, :

Paradigm Consultants, LLC, Ramesh :

Jain and Vikas Jain :

:

v. : No. 208 C.D. 2019

:

Allegheny County Health Department, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

NOW, February 19, 2020, having considered Appellant’s application 

for reargument and Appellees’ answer in response thereto, the application is denied.

 

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

 President Judge
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies
that to the best of his knowledge (1) this Quarterly Report of Corporate Capital Trust, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(this Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 and its results of operations for the period ended June 30, 2014.



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                                                      
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2014 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Andrew A. Hyltin                                 
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | ANDREW A. HYLTIN                                     
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)
|                      |  |  | 
|Date: August 13, 2014 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Paul S. Saint-Pierre                             
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Paul S. Saint-Pierre                                 
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
Cooperative Bankshares, Inc.:



We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration statements (Nos.
333-92219  and  333-22335) on Form S-8 of  Cooperative  Bankshares,  Inc. of our
report  dated  January 19,  2001,  relating  to the  consolidated  statement  of
financial  condition  of  Cooperative  Bankshares,  Inc.  and  subsidiary  as of
December  31,  2000,  and the related  consolidated  statements  of  operations,
comprehensive  income,  stockholders'  equity  and cash flows for the years then
ended,  which report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K
of Cooperative Bankshares, Inc.



/s/ KPMG LLP


Raleigh, North Carolina
March 28, 2001
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 S.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry H. Keener, 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:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d); and

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



|    |  |                                                     
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/    LARRY H.
KEENER                              
|    |  | Larry H. Keener Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|    | 
|    |  | June 6, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.1
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
  (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.
 Date:  November 15, 2010
    By:

/s/
Benjamin L. DennyBenjamin L. DennyPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate:  November 15, 2010
    By:

/s/
G. Randall AllisonG. Randall AllisonChief Financial Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has
been provided to Century Next Financial Corporation and will be retained by Century Next Financial
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In re Virginia FLURRY v. STATE. Ex parte Virginia Flurry.

SC 685.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 31, 1974.

Harry D. Raymon, Tuskegee, and John F. Dillon, IV, Alexander City, for petitioner.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Frederick T. Enslen, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent, the State.

BLOODWORTH, Justice.

Petition of Virginia Flurry for Certiora-ri to the Court of Criminal Appeals to re*645view and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Flurry v. State, 52 Ala.App. 64, 289 So.2d 632.

Writ denied.

HEFLIN, C. J., and COLEMAN, Mc-CALL and JONES, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 40071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17345]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee 
to the Director, National Institutes of Health.
    The meeting will be held as a teleconference call only and is open 
to the public to dial-in for participation. Individuals who plan to 
dial-in to the meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable 
accommodations in order to do so, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Advisory Committee to the Director, National 
Institutes of Health.
    Date: August 24, 2018.
    Time: 9:15 a.m. to 9:45 a.m.
    Agenda: Updates on ACD Working Groups.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 1, One Center 
Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call), 800-369-1915, 
Access Code: 6496247.
    Contact Person: Gretchen Wood, Staff Assistant, National 
Institutes of Health, Office of the Director, One Center Drive, 
Building 1, Room 126, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-4272, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7f0c8c8c3c0d4e7c8c389c9cecf89c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="481f27272c2f3b08272c66262120662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to scheduling difficulties.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: http://acd.od.nih.gov, where an agenda and any additional 
information for the meeting will be posted when available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, 
Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan 
Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 
93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, 
Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired 
Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, 
Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged 
Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 8, 2018.
David D. Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-17345 Filed 8-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32



                           SHANG HIDE CONSULTANTS, LTD.

                            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 Shang Hide Consultants, Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Marty Weigel the Principal Executive and Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (including subsections (a) (b) and
(c) thereof), 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.


Date: May 10, 2011



                                      /s/ Marty Weigel
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                              Marty Weigel
                                      Principal Executive and Financial Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

KAD/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BERNARDINO GABRIEL-PEREZ;

VENANCIA PEREZ DE GABRIEL;

EDUARDO GABRIEL-PEREZ,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71494

Agency Nos. A076-356-260

 A076-356-337

 A072-402-852

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Bernardino Gabriel-Perez, his wife, Venancia Perez de Gabriel, and adult

son, Eduardo Gabriel-Perez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of

FILED

JAN 20 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
KAD/Research 2 07-71494

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Ordonez v. INS,

345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we review due process claims de novo, Ram

v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen because the motion was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); Alali-Amin v.

Mukasey, 523 F.3d 1039, 1041-42 (9th Cir. 2008), petitioners failed to establish

changed circumstances in Mexico that would warrant reopening, see 8

C.F.R.§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1021-22 (9th Cir.

2004), and petitioners failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief, see

Ordonez, 345 F.3d at 785. It follows that the denial of petitioners’ motion to

reopen did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.

2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). 

Petitioners also contend that the BIA erred by failing to consider Eduardo

Gabriel-Perez’ request to submit a separate asylum application. This contention is

without merit because petitioners did not overcome the presumption that the BIA

fully reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.

2006). 
KAD/Research 3 07-71494

Finally, there is no merit to petitioners’ contention that the BIA erred by

employing an incorrect legal standard.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Beverly Thomas GAAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Timmerman GAAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12033.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

March 6, 1973.

Kermit M. Simmons, Winnfield, for defendant-appellant.

Charles B. Bice, Winnfield, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before AYRES, HEARD and HALL, JJ-

AYRES, Judge.

This is an action for an adjustment of awards of alimony for the wife and of support of a minor child theretofore granted by the trial court in a judgment of separation “a mensa et thoro.” Defendant appealed from a judgment awarding plaintiff, Mrs. Beverly Thomas Gaar, alimony in the sum of $230.00 per month and $100.00 per month, for the support of the minor.

The defendant assigns as error the failure of the trial court in fixing the awards to take into consideration the debts of the community of acquets and gains formerly existing between plaintiff and defendant which, of course, the husband is obligated to pay.

*502The evidence adduced by plaintiff consists of the testimony of defendant as to his monthly income and of her testimony as to her needs. Defendant’s evidence consists of his testimony concerning his income and his expenses. This evidence, not refuted with respect to defendant’s income and expenses, is summarized in a statement which was the subject matter of a written narrative of facts signed by counsel for both litigants and filed in evidence in lieu of a transcript of the testimony taken on trial of the case. This statement discloses that defendant’s gross monthly salary was $1,-076.92, with a net, after deductions of F.I. C.A., federal withholding tax, and state tax, of $864.88. Also listed were obligations of defendant in the sum of $9,479.42 on which monthly payments aggregated $262.-42. Additional indebtedness payable monthly was listed and included expenses for insurance, clothing, telephone, car expense, utilities, et cetera, which required a total monthly expenditure of $335.91.

Plaintiff’s itemization of her expenditures and needs per month aggregated $609.59.

Mrs. Gaar, due to illness, was not working at the time of trial. Medical and hospital expenses shown on her exhibit were incurred for her benefit prior to the separation.

The awards to and for the benefit of the wife and child approximate one-third of the husband’s income. No consideration was given to the community debts in fixing either award, as the court concluded the community debts should be disposed of in a settlement of the community estate.

No necessity exists to justify in this opinion the need for or the validity of the claims based on each of the aforesaid items. It appears self-evident that the family income, a net of $864.88, is insufficient to meet the needs of all parties estimated to be $1,207.92. It is likewise self-evident that the parties must curb their desires, omit the nonessentials from their so-called lists of necessities, and live within their income. The trial court, it appears, did the best it could, with what it had before it, to do justice between the parties. We find no error in its conclusions.

The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed at appellant’s costs.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### United States Mint

# AGENCY:

United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

The United States Mint announces 2018 revisions to include palladium pricing within the Numismatic Gold, Commemorative Gold, Platinum, and Palladium Products Grid.

An excerpt of the grid with a recent price range for palladium appears below: 
      ( print page 44124)    
                    The complete 2018 Pricing of Numismatic Gold, Commemorative Gold, Platinum, and Palladium Products Grid will be available at                     *https://catalog.usmint.gov/​coin-programs/​american-eagle-coins.*

Pricing can vary weekly dependent upon the London Bullion Market Association gold, platinum, and palladium prices weekly average. The pricing for all United States Mint numismatic gold, platinum, and palladium products is evaluated every Wednesday and modified as necessary. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cathy Olson; Numismatic and Bullion Directorate; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.

      ( print page 44125)    Authority:31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112, & 9701, Public Law 111-303.

Dated: August 20, 2018.

David J. Ryder,

Director,  United States Mint.

 BILLING CODE P

[FR Doc. 2018-18233 Filed 8-28-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE C
# C_2014056EN.01000701.xml

| 27.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/7

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

2014/C 56/07

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

EPSO/AST/130/14 — Assistants (AST 3) in the Building Sector.

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in Official Journal C 56 A of 27 February 2014.

Further information can be found on the EPSO website (http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/).

---
#### In re Glenn D. McDUFFIE v. Barbara S. McDUFFIE. Ex parte Barbara S. McDUFFIE.

Civ. 257.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Dec. 26, 1973.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Whereas, on October 3, 1973 a writ of certiorari was issued to this Court by the Supreme Court of Alabama on the petition of James D. Buck, as Judge of the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, to review the judgment of this Court entered on September 5, 1973; and,

Whereas, on December 6, 1973 it was ordered and adjudged by the Supreme Court of Alabama that the judgment of this Court entered on September S, 1973 be reversed and annulled; and the cause was remanded to this Court with instructions to enter an order consonant with the opinion entered on that day by the Supreme Court of Alabama.

Therefore, in accordance with the judgment and opinion of the Supreme Court of Alabama, dated December 6, 1973, it is ordered that the petition of Barbara S. Mc-Duffie for writ of mandamus be and the same is hereby denied.

It is further ordered and adjudged that the petitioner, Barbara S. McDuffie, pay the costs of the proceedings in this cause, for which let execution issue.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 10, 2022

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21

- 2402 Lower Tribunal No. 11

- 27645

- SP

________________ 

### United Automobile Insurance Company , Appellant,

vs. 

### Best American Diagnostic Center, Inc., a/a/o Genoveva Rodriguez , Appellee.

An Appeal from the C ounty Court for Miami

- Dade County, Ayana Harris , Judge.
Michael J. Neimand , for appellant. David B. Pakula, P.A., and David B. Pakula (Pembroke Pines); Marks & Fleischer, P.A., and Gary Marks (Ft. Lauderdale) , for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON, and LOBREE , JJ.
PER CURIAM.2 United Automobile Insurance Company appeals the final judgment entered by the trial court after entry of summary judgment on the reasonableness of a diagnostic test bas ed on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. We reverse and remand consistent with our recent decision in United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 337 So. 3d
834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Millennium's ‘identity’ is not the same in each of
the se cases against United Auto; Millennium draws its identity from its assignor from case to case. The identity element of collateral estoppel, therefore, is not satisfied.”).
Reversed and remanded.