alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21.1


                              List of Subsidiaries
                                       of
                       SMART CHOICE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.



 
               Subsidiary                      State of Incorporation

     American Insurance Group, Inc.                      Florida
     Dealer Development Services, Inc.                   Florida
     Dealers Insurance Services, Inc.                    Florida
     Easy Pay Insurance, Inc.                            Florida
     Eckler Corvette Sales, Inc.                         Florida
     Eckler Industries, Inc.                             Florida
     First Choice Auto Finance, Inc.                     Florida
     First Choice Cocoa 1, Inc.                          Florida
     First Choice Melbourne 1, Inc.                      Florida
     First Choice Stuart 1, Inc.                         Florida
     First Choice Stuart 2, Inc.                         Florida
     Florida Finance Group, Inc.                         Florida
     Liberty Finance Company                             Florida
     Premium Bonding & Ins. Services, Inc.               Florida
     Smart Cars, Inc.                                    Florida
     Smart Choice Holdings, Inc.                         Delaware
     Smart Choice Receivables Holding, Inc.              Delaware
     Team Automobile Sales & Finance, Inc.               Florida
     Wholesale Acquisitions, Inc.                        Florida
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I, Edward B. Meyercord, III, Chief Executive Officer and President of Talk America Holdings, Inc., have reviewed Talk America Holdings, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 and, based on the inquiries I have made or caused to be made in the fulfillment of my responsibilities as the Chief Executive Officer of Talk America Holdings, Inc., I hereby certify that:
 
 (i) the Talk America Holdings, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Talk America Holdings, Inc.
 
 This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Executive Officer of Talk America Holdings, Inc. with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be used for any other purposes. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Talk America Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Talk America Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 /s/ Edward B. Meyercord, III
 Edward B. Meyercord, III
 Chief Executive Officer and President
 May 7, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

       We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-36756, No. 333-17545, No. 333-98130, No.
333-68425) of Euphonix Inc. of our report dated March 26, 2001 except as to Note
1 and Note 16, as to which the date is November 20, 2001, relating to the
financial statements which appears in this Form 10-K/A.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
November 26, 2001
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

BVB Construction, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W912PL-12-C-0030 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60910 

Mr. Benjamin Valenzuela, Sr. 

President 

Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

John F. Bazan, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorney 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE THRASHER 

The parties have resolved their dispute and request that the Board enter judgment in 

favor of appellant. It is the Board's decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b), and 

the parties' request, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a consent judgment, the 

Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of$41,000. This amount is 

inclusive of interest. No further interest shall be paid. 

Dated: 15 June 2017 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

dministrative Judge 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

DA YID D' ALESSANDRIS 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60910, Appeal of BVB Construction, 

Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
EXHIBIT 32.1

                         SPECTRE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gary Haukeland, the Chief Financial Officer of Raven Gold Corporation; (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2006 (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.

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





Date: September 19, 2006                               By: /s/ Gary Haukeland
                                                       --------------------
                                                       Gary Haukeland
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

We have issued our report dated July 15,2005, accompanying the consolidated financial statements included in the AnnualReport of First Investors Financial Services Group, Inc. on Form 10-Kfor the year ended April 30, 2005.  We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statement ofFirst Investors Financial Services Group, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-107762,effective August 8, 2003).

 

 

Houston, Texas

July 15, 2005

 

----
| 1.     | The forgoing quarterly report on Form 10-Q 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 foregoing quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund. |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                               |

|   |   /s/ Deborah Terry                 |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Deborah Terry, Chief Financial Officer        |   |
|   | Aspen Partners, Ltd.                          |   |
|   | Managing Member of Aspen Diversified Fund LLC |   |

----
EXHIBIT 32.1


AULTRA GOLD, INC.





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 Aultra Gold, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert Vivian, President and Chief Executive Officer and Interim Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ Robert VivianName:  Robert VivianTitle:       President and Chief Executive Officer and Interim Financial Officer(Principal Executive, Accounting and Financial Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter John Ciena, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.), rendered March 14, 1990, convicting defendant after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 4% to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

At trial, cabdriver Juan Castro testified that defendant robbed him of cash and his cab at gunpoint. Several hours later, acting on a tip relayed through the cab company dispatcher, Castro and some friends recovered the cab and captured defendant. Police on the scene discovered a broken toy pistol in the cab.

Defendant, on the other hand, testified that he was a prior acquaintance of Castro, and that he had not taken the money by force, but that Castro had given him the money. Further, Castro "politely” left his cab when asked to do so. Defendant admitted that he had armed himself with the toy gun, but claimed that Castro knew it was a toy. During cross-examination defendant acknowledged that he had heard the witnesses testify against him at the trial and that he had had the opportunity to review the police documents before Castro testified. On redirect the prosecutor’s successful objection prevented defendant from testifying that he had described the events in the same way prior to trial.

Defendant argues that he was improperly barred from establishing his prior consistent statements. However, the prosecutor’s examination of defendant was directed at establishing his overall lack of credibility, and never assailed defendant’s testimony as a recent fabrication, which would have warranted admission of defendant’s prior consistent statements *(People v Forest,*50 AD2d 260, 262-623).

The court charged the jury that "[t]he defense contends there was no forceful taking of property, but it is not a defense under our law that someone owed one money.” In light of the facts as testified to by defendant, the instruction *409was appropriate (CPL 300.10 [2]), even if it did not take into account counsel’s argument that if the proof established robbery in the third degree and the jury was asked to consider only robbery in the second degree, it must acquit. We note that during precharge proceedings, counsel voiced no objection when advised that the court would balance the charge that a claim of right was no defense with an instruction that defendant claimed that no forcible theft had occurred. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
      10.2

    


    


    Description
      of Compensation Arrangements for Certain Executive Officers

    


    A
      description of the compensation arrangements for certain of the executive
      officers of Constellation Brands, Inc. is set forth at Exhibit 10.46 of the
      Company's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2006. In addition
      to
      the compensation arrangements and employee benefits described therein, the
      current executive officers, including those who are Named Executive Officers
      (as
      defined in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K), are eligible to receive an
      executive vehicle/auto allowance perquisite having an annual value of up to
      $9,600. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no executive officer who receives a
      vehicle/auto allowance benefit pursuant to an employment agreement is eligible
      to receive this executive vehicle/auto allowance perquisite.
EXHIBIT 21.1
 COMSYS IT Partners, Inc.
 List of Significant Subsidiaries
 Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction
    
    Trade NamesCOMSYS Services, LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    COMSYSCOMSYS Information Technology Services, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    COMSYSEconometrix, LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    EconometrixPlum Rhino Consulting, LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    plumRHINOPure Solutions, Inc.
    
    California
    
    Pure SolutionsTAPFIN, LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    TAPFINASET International Services, LLC
    
    Virginia
    
    ASET
TS-FC12NT 

Continuation pages 

PMN Pages 8 Section II.A.1.a 

- 1 - 

PMN Page 8 Section II.A.1.a Other Manufacturing Sites 

 

 

 

 

 

PMN Page 8 Section II.A.1.a Other Processing Sites 

 

 

 

 

 

{

{

}

}

 ** COMPANY SANITIZED **
CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms
      S-8
      (Nos. 333-04479,
      333-05923, 333-42111, 333-71025, 333-88451, 333-52162,
      333-52166 and 333-74820) and Forms
      S-3 (Nos. 333-14549, 333-23193, 333-39787, 333-49825, 333-65397, 333-66287,
      333-69737, 333-72357 and 333-84017) of
      Talk
      America Holdings, Inc. and its Subsidiaries of
      our
      report **** dated
      March 27, 2006 relating to the financial statements and financial statements
      schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
      financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
      reporting, which appears in the Form 10-K Annual Report.









PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP


Philadelphia,
      Pennsylvania


March
      27,
      2006
1The Honorable GEORGE HOWARD, JR., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2000

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Rodney Tyrone Robinson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 7, 2000

 Filed: February 15, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Robinson pleaded guilty to intimidating an informant, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) (1994). The District Court1 sentenced him to forty-one months

imprisonment and three years supervised release, and he appeals.

Robinson first argues that the District Court erred in calculating his base offense

level under the obstruction-of-justice guideline, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
-2-

§ 2J1.2 (1998), rather than the aggravated assault guideline, U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 2A2.2. We disagree. In determining the most applicable

guideline, the Court "elects the guideline solely by 'conduct charged in the count of the

indictment or information of which the defendant was convicted.'" United States v.

Street, 66 F.3d 969, 979 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 1B1.2(a)). Here, the information to which Robinson pleaded guilty charged that he

"used intimidation and physical force to persuade another person with intent to hinder,

delay, and prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer of information

relating to the commission or possible commission of a federal offense, to wit,

distribution of cocaine base by [Robinson] and others." App. at 8. The District Court

correctly determined the most applicable guideline to be § 2J1.2.

The District Court applied the cross-reference found in § 2J1.2(c)(1), and applied

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2X3.1 to determine Robinson’s base offense

level based on the underlying offense of distribution of 28.35 grams of cocaine base.

Robinson argues that there was insufficient evidence of drug distribution, and that he

merely robbed and shot at the informant. Having carefully reviewed the undisputed

factual portions of the presentence report, as well as the evidence presented at

sentencing, we conclude that the Court did not clearly err in determining that

Robinson’s meeting with the informant was an attempted drug distribution. See Street,

66 F.3d at 979-80 (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00170-CV

JJT, Inc., Appellant

v.

John T. Stokes, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. 273,960, HONORABLE ORLINDA L. NARANJO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant JJT, Inc. and appellee John T. Stokes have filed a joint motion asking this

Court to reverse and remand the cause for further proceedings. We grant the motion, reverse the trial

court’s judgment, and remand the cause for further proceedings.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Reversed and Remanded on Joint Motion

Filed: April 15, 2004
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-1701

_____________________________

MICHAEL O. WALLACE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Francis J. Allman, Jr., Judge.

June 6, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

B.L. THOMAS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Justin F. Karpf, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Henry C. Whitaker, Solicitor 

General, Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Chief Deputy Solicitor General,

and Allen L. Huang, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee.
Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT NO. 1


TO THE


CANO PETROLEUM, INC.


2005 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


CANO PETROLEUM, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
pursuant to the authority granted in Article 9 of the Cano Petroleum, Inc. 2005
Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), hereby amends the Plan, effective as of
December 28, 2006 and subject to the approval of the requisite vote of the
stockholders of the Company, to increase (i) the number of shares of Common
Stock that are subject to the Plan and (ii) the number of shares of Common
Stock relating to “Awards” (as defined in the Plan) that may be granted to an “Executive
Officer” (as defined in the Plan) during any calendar year.


1.                                       Effective as of
December 28, 2006, the first two sentences of Section 5.1 are hereby amended by
deleting said sentences in their entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the
following:


Subject to adjustment as
provided in Articles 11 and 12 of the Plan, the maximum number of
shares of Common Stock that may be delivered pursuant to Awards, other than
Incentive Stock Options, granted under the Plan is 3,500,000 shares, and the
maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be delivered pursuant to
Incentive Stock Options is 3,500,000 shares. 
Subject to adjustment pursuant to Articles 11 and 12, no
Executive Officer may receive in any calendar year (i) Stock Options or SARs
relating to more than 300,000 shares of Common Stock, or (ii) Restricted Stock,
Restricted Stock Units, Performance Awards or Other Awards that are subject to
the attainment of Performance Goals relating to more than 300,000 shares of
Common Stock; provided, however, that all such Awards to any Executive Officer
during any calendar year shall not exceed an aggregate of more than 300,000
shares of Common Stock.


2.                                       Except as
amended hereby, the Plan, as previously amended, shall remain in full effect.









 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plan is amended effective as
of the dates set forth above.


	
  

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  CANO PETROLEUM, INC.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ S. Jeffrey Johnson

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  S. Jeffrey Johnson

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Chairman and CEO
#### Paul W. INGRAM, Petitioner, v. STATE of Alaska, Respondent.

No. S-1098.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

May 30, 1986.

Rehearing Denied June 12,1986.

John M. Murtagh, Anchorage, for petitioner.

Cynthia M. Hora, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anchorage, and Harold M. Brown, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for respondent.

OPINION

Before RABINOWITZ, C.J., and BURKE, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We granted review in this case limited to the question of whether a tenant’s consent to the search of his apartment authorized the police, without a warrant, to search the petitioner’s wallet, jacket and gun holster found on the living room floor. The court of appeals answered this question in the affirmative. We agree for the reasons stated by the court of appeals in *Ingram v. State,*703 P.2d 415 (Alaska App.1985).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) (the
Act) and Rule 13a-14(b) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), each of the undersigned, Randall D. Stilley, President and Chief Executive Officer of Hercules Offshore, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the Company), and Lisa W. Rodriguez, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that, to his and her knowledge:

(1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                        |  |                                                         
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: October 30, 2007 |  | /s/ Randall D. Stilley                                  
|                        |  | Randall D. Stilley President and Chief Executive Officer
|                        | 
|                        |  | /s/ Lisa W. Rodriguez                                   
|                        |  | Lisa W. Rodriguez                                       
|                        |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer       

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Act and Rule 13a-14(b)
promulgated under the Exchange Act and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.