alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
                                                                                

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report on Security Capital Group Incorporated dated March 10, 1999 and
our reports on ProLogis Trust dated March 5, 1999 into Security Capital Group
Incorporated's previously filed Registration Statements File Nos. 333-38521, 
333-38523, 333-38525, 333-38527, 333-38531, 333-38533, 333-38537, 333-38539, 
333-48167, 333-61395, 333-61401 and 333-64979.



                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Chicago, Illinois
March 25, 1999
#### HERNANDO STATE BANK, a Florida banking Corporation, Appellant, v. Elvin N. LEE, Appellee.

No. 71-514.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 14, 1972.

William F. Brewton, of Brewton & Brewton, P. A., Dade City, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Donald T. Senterfitt, Robert L. Manly, and David J. Fuller, of Akerman, Senterfitt, Eidson & Wharton, Orlando, for Fla. Bankers Assn., amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Gables Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Raton, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 90.

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7800
MICHAEL F. DEHONEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT, Commissioner; WILLIAM D. CATOE, Deputy Commissioner, individually and/or in their official capacities, Defendants - Appellees, and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr, District Judge. (CA-94-1903-4-21BE) Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 13, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael F. Dehoney, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Crouch Coleman, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court order denying his motions to amend his complaint and his demand for a jury trial. We dismissthe appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### CONFEDERATION LIFE ASSOCIATION, a Canadian corporation, Appellant, v. Hector de LARA et al., Appellees.

No. 70-258.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 24, 1972.

Shutts & Bowen, Thomas H. Anderson, and Phillip G. Newcomm, Miami, for appellant.

Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appel-lees.

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

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on January 26, 1971 (244 So.2d 539) reversing the final decree of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed December 1, 1971 (257 So.2d 42) and mandate dated February 15, 1972 now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment and remanded the cause with instructions to reinstate the order of the trial court.

Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court issued in this cause on March 12, 1971 is withdrawn, the judgment of this court filed January 26, 1971 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and the final decree of the circuit' court appealed from herein is reinstated and affirmed. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16(b) Florida Appellate Rules), 32 F.S.A.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3291 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3291

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
      coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel PELICAN.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 14, 1993

  Ms. Byrne introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
      coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel PELICAN.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel 
PELICAN (United States official number 234959).

                                 <all>
```
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3549

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that certain transportation expenses of employers incurred for the participation in the

former Soviet Union of their employees in professional or technical programs are allowable as a business deduction.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 19, 1993

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that certain transportation expenses of employers incurred for the participation in the former Soviet Union

of their employees in professional or technical programs

are allowable as a business deduction.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSPORTATION

4 EXPENSES.

5 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Section 162 of the Internal

6 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to trade or business ex7 penses) is amended by redesignating subsection (m) as
2

•HR 3549 IH

1 subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection (l) the fol2 lowing new subsection:

3 ‘‘(m) TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES INCURRED IN

4 CONNECTION WITH INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE PRO5 GRAMS.—

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The deduction allowed

7 under subsection (a) shall include any amount paid

8 or incurred by the taxpayer for the transportation of

9 a qualified employee of the taxpayer if—

10 ‘‘(A) such transportation is from the em11 ployee’s residence in the United States to a lo12 cation in an independent state of the former

13 Soviet Union (or is incident to such employee’s

14 return to his residence in the United States

15 from such location), and

16 ‘‘(B) such transportation is in connection

17 with such employee’s participation in a profes18 sional or technical program in such independent

19 state.

20 Unless the Secretary otherwise permits, not more

21 than 1 employee of the taxpayer may be taken into

22 account under this paragraph for the taxable year.

23 ‘‘(2) QUALIFIED EMPLOYEE.—For purposes of

24 paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified employee’ means

25 any employee of the taxpayer if—
3

•HR 3549 IH

1 ‘‘(A) substantially all of the services per2 formed by such employee for the taxpayer are

3 in a trade or business of the taxpayer, and

4 ‘‘(B) the principal place of employment of

5 such employee by the taxpayer is in the United

6 States.’’

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

8 subsection (a) shall apply to amounts paid or incurred

9 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### Stanton HALPERT and Alan Ellison, Appellants, v. RYDER LEASING, INC., Appellee.

No. 68-853.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 25, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit
10.35.3
 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE
 $
    
    New York, New YorkAs of January ___, 2007
 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, [BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., a national banking association, having an address at Hearst Tower, 214 North Tryon Street,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255] [JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a national banking association
chartered under the laws of United States of America, its successors and assigns at the office of
Lender or its agent, designee, or assignee at 270 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017, Attention:
Loan Servicing]
  [Lender] [Bank of America, N.A. (B of A)] [Lender] [B of A]
 [Lender] [JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., (JPMC)] [Lender] [B of A] [JPMC] [Lender]
 [Lender] [B of A] [Lender] [B of A]
 [Lender] [JPMC] [Lender] [B of A] [JPMC][Lender]




---



##### 



[B of A] [JPMC]
 [A-1] [A-2] [B-1] [B-2]
 [A-1] [A-2] [B-1] [B-2]
 [(i) Amended and Restated Promissory Note A-1 dated the date
hereof given by Borrower to [Lender][B of A] in the principal amount of $96,200,000, (ii) Amended
and Restated Promissory Note A-2 dated the date hereof given by Borrower to [Lender][JPMC] in the
principal amount of $33,800,000, (iii) Amended and Restated Promissory Note B-1 dated the date
hereof given by Borrower to [Lender][B of A] in the principal amount of $88,800,000 and (iv)
Amended and Restated Promissory Note B-2 dated the date hereof given by Borrower to [Lender][JPMC]
in the principal amount of $31,200,000]
 ARTICLE 1  PAYMENT TERMS
  ARTICLE 2  DEFAULT AND ACCELERATION
  - 2 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE 3  LOAN DOCUMENTS
  ARTICLE 4  SAVINGS CLAUSE
  ARTICLE 5  NO ORAL CHANGE
  ARTICLE 6  WAIVERS
  - 3 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE 7  TRANSFER
  ARTICLE 8  EXCULPATION
  ARTICLE 9  GOVERNING LAW
  ARTICLE 10  NOTICES
  - 4 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE 11  CONFLICT
  [NO FURTHER TEXT ON THIS PAGE]
 - 5 -




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 FELCOR/JPM HOTELS, L.L.C., a Delaware 
limited liability companyBy:Name:
    Joel M. EastmanTitle:
    Vice PresidentDJONT/JPM LEASING, L.L.C., a Delaware
limited liability companyBy:Name:
    Joel M. EastmanTitle:
    Vice President




---



##### 



[A-1] [B-1] [A-2] [B-2]
 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national
banking associationBy:Name:Title:JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a national
banking associationBy:Name:Title: - 7 -
#### DOME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1258.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 19, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Information Requested from the Mayo Steam Station

1. P l ease provide the type and source (i.e., mine name and location) of coal used at the plant each day from January 2012 through December 2013. In addition, please provide the sulfur and chlorine

content of the coal used at the p l ant for each day of this period, if available

. For days where coal blending occurred, please note the percentage of each type of coa l used.

Response: Only monthly average sulfur content (% As_Recei ved) and SO2 (lbm/Mbtu) is recorded. This information is provided in the “Mayo EPA Data 3_14_14” spreadsheet on tab “SEO4643A4-Mayo”.

2. Please provide the following information for each day, beginning with the earliest date of sampling data you have provided through the end of 2013 (i.e., September 2009 through December 2013, if

available:

a) Chloride concentration

, pH, and average daily oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) values within

each FGD scrubber system;

Response: Average daily chloride concentration, pH and ORP values within each FGD scrubber system are provided in the “Mayo EPA Data Final 3_14_14” spreadsheet under tab “FGD System Information”. These measurements are taken off the absorber. Mayo consists of one unit and one

absorber.

b) Chloride concentration

, pH

, and average daily ORP values for the influent to the FGD wastewater treatment system; and

Response: The FGD wastewater treatment system consists of a settling basin followed by a bioreactor. Chloride concentration is not measured in the influe nt to the settling basin. There are no reliable measurements of ORP or pH on the influent to the settling basins.

Chloride concentration is not measured in the infl uent to the bioreactor. pH and average daily ORP

values are measured in the influent to the bioreactor. This info rmation is provided in the “Mayo EPA Data Final 3_14_14” spreadsheet under tab “Bioreactor Influent”.

c) E l ectric generation output (MW -hr) for each generating unit serviced by a FGD system

.

Response: The electric generation output (MW-hr) for each generation unit serviced by a FGD system is provided in the “Mayo EPA Data Final 3_14_14” spreadsheet under tab “Electricity Generation”.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3493

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to increase, for the purpose

of giving priority in bankruptcy, the dollar amount of unsecured claims

of consumers who made deposits with the debtor.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 10, 1993

Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to increase,

for the purpose of giving priority in bankruptcy, the

dollar amount of unsecured claims of consumers who

made deposits with the debtor.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 506(a)(6) of title 11, United States Code,

4 is amended by striking ‘‘$900’’ and inserting ‘‘$2,000’’.

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual
Report of Dominion Resources
Black Warrior Trust (the
Trust) on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, not in its
individual capacity but solely
as the trustee of the Trust,
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to its knowledge:



| | (1) |  | The 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 the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Trust.

|               |  |                                        |  |                                          
|-------------- |  | -------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|               |  | BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR    
|               |  | DOMINION RESOURCES BLACK WARRIOR TRUST
|               |  |                                        |  |                                          
|March 11, 2004 |  | By:                                    |  | /s/ Ron E. Hooper                        
|               |  |                                        |  |                                          
|               |  |                                        |  | Ron E. Hooper,                           
|               |  |                                        |  | Senior Vice President, Royalty Management
|               |  |                                        |  | Bank of America, N.A.                    

A signed original of this
written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to
Dominion Resources Black Warrior
Trust and will be retained by
Dominion Resources Black Warrior
Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon
request.
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 Annual Report of The Singing Machine Company, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary Atkinson, Chief Executive Officer 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) 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.





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





/S/ Gary AtkinsonGary AtkinsonChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Date: June 29, 2011
# C_2013245EN.01000101.xml

| 24.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/1

---

2013/C 245/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 233, 10.8.2013

OJ C 233, 10.8.2013

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 226, 3.8.2013

OJ C 215, 27.7.2013

OJ C 207, 20.7.2013

OJ C 189, 29.6.2013

OJ C 178, 22.6.2013

OJ C 171, 15.6.2013

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Shelby TAYLOR.

No. 59513.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 1977.

L. Howard McCurdy, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The record discloses that the defendant was sentenced only two days following his conviction, rather than the three days required by article 873 of the Code of Crim-*1246mal Procedure, and does not indicate that the defendant waived his right to the mandatory delay period. Even though defendant did not object to this error at the time of sentencing or urge it on appeal, the error is considered by this Court since it is discoverable by mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence. La.C.Cr.P. art. 920(2); *State v. Young,*337 So.2d 1196 (La.1976).

Defendant’s conviction is affirmed, but the sentence imposed is vacated and set aside, and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to the trial judge to sentence defendant in accordance with law.
#### Walter G. MOORE, Appellant, v. John McDADE, Appellee.

No. 72-544.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 26, 1973.

Rehearing Denied March 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | August __, 2011 |   | By:    | /s/ Gilad David               |   |
|--------|-----------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   |            |   |   | Gilad David                   |   |
|   |            |   |   | Chief Executive Officer       |   |
|   |            |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |   |

----
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23
-0410

_________________
IN THE MATTER OF: P.P. A Youth in Need of Care. O R D E R

_________________ Hertha L. Lund, counsel for Appellant Mother, has moved the Court to withdraw as counsel and for appointment of counsel from the Appellate Defender Division. Counsel states that Appellate Mother has been sentenced to twenty years in prison and is indigent. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel is GRANTED. The Appellate Defender Division shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order within which to file either a Notice of Appearance or a motion to rescind this Order appointing counsel. In the event Appellant qualifies for appointed counsel, the Appellate Defender Division shall immediately order any additionaltranscripts iftheyhave not been already ordered. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record, to the Appellate Defender Division, and to Appellate Mother personally.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 31 2023

07/31/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0410