alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AmREIT Monthly Income &
Growth Fund III, Ltd. (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, H. Kerr Taylor, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an officer of the General Partner
of the company, that, to my knowledge:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as
 applicable, 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 14, 2010 | By:   | /s/ H. Kerr
 Taylor                                                                                                                                             
|      |              | Name: | H. Kerr
 Taylor                                                                                                                                                 
|      |              | Title | President
 and Chief Executive Officer of AmREIT Monthly Income & Growth III
 Corporation, the General Partner of AmREIT Monthly Income & Growth Fund
 III, Ltd.

---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.2


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-19541 and No. 333-39361) and Form S-3 (No.
333-31863) of Personnel Group of America, Inc. of our report dated February 3,
1998, except for Note 10, for which the date is March 5, 1998, which appears on
page 30 of the 1997 Annual Report to Shareholders, which is included as Exhibit
13.1 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
------------------------
Price Waterhouse LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
March 28, 1998
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  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), each of the undersigned officers of Probe Manufacturing, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:  The Quarterly Report for the three months ended March 31, 2007 (the "Form 10-QSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Date:  May 14, 2007   /s/  Reza Zarif ---------------------- Reza Zarif Chief  Executive  Officer Director   Date:  May 14, 2007   /s/  John Bennett ------------------------ John Bennett Chief  Financial  Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rosario Quinones, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered November 13, 1989, convicting defendant after bench trial of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 7*A to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Troy Ortiz, who had fallen asleep on the couch in his sister’s one-bedroom apartment, was awakened by noises in the bedroom. He rose and discovered defendant standing in front of the closet; a jewelry box was on the floor, and personal papers had been removed from Ortiz’ sister’s purse. The window gate leading to the fire escape had been opened. A bureau which had previously blocked the window had been pushed forward into the room. Defendant was forcibly removed from the apartment by Ortiz, subdued in a struggle, and arrested by police officers who were summoned by a neighbor.

Defendant’s guilt of burglary was established beyond a reasonable doubt. *(See, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490.) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree when he "knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein” (Penal Law § 140.25). "A person 'enters or remains unlawfully’ in or upon premises when he is not licensed or privileged to do so” (Penal Law § 140.00 [5]), meaning that he had not "obtained the consent of the owner or another whose relationship to the premises gives him authority to issue such consent” *(People v Graves,*76 NY2d 16, 20).

*396Defendant concedes that lack of license or privilege to enter may be established by circumstantial evidence, and that the testimony of one or all of those who could consent to entry is not in all cases indispensable *(People v Wright,*68 AD2d 930).

In this case, unlawful entry was clearly established, despite the absence of testimony by the tenant of record. Clearly, Troy Ortiz, who was sleeping, had not consented to defendant’s entry. Moreover, entry by the fire escape, achieved by pushing aside the window gate and a bureau, may not be explained away, as defendant attempts to do, by labelling it as merely "unconventional.”

Any doubt as to defendant’s lack of privilege or license to enter was dispelled by defendant’s patently unconvincing statements at the time of the commission of the crime, and at trial. Defendant’s on-the-scene remarks that he thought he was in his friend’s house, or that he was looking for someone, were palpably disingenuous. Even more unconvincing was defendant’s totally unsupported tale, contrary to his on-the-scene remarks, that the apartment was a crack, house. It need only be noted that the arresting police officer saw no evidence of criminal activity on the premises aside from the burglary committed by defendant. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, In the Interest of E.A.L. and A.J.L., Children, And Concerning D.J.L. and K.M.L., Respondents-Appellants.

No. 84CA1195.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Nov. 7, 1985.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1985.

Maurice Lyle Dechant, Mesa Co. Atty., Stephen B. Johnson, Asst. Co. Atty., Grand Junction, for petitioner-appellee.

Hugh Wise, Grand Junction, Guardian Ad Litem.

David A. Palmer, Grand Junction, for respondents-appellants.

STERNBERG, Judge.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court entered on a jury verdict finding a nine-year-old boy, E.A.L., and his six-year-old sister, A.J.L., to be dependent and neglected. We reverse.

This dependency and neglect action was filed based upon allegations that sexual contact had occurred between E.A.L. and A.J.L. and between E.A.L. and another six-year-old girl. After a four-day trial, the jury returned a special verdict. In that verdict, in response to six specific questions, the jury concluded that the alleged sexual acts had not occurred and that the mother had not provided an injurious environment and improper parental care. However, in one answer relating to each child, the jury stated that mental health guidance for the children was necessary. Based entirely on these two answers, the trial court found the children to be dependent and neglected.

On appeal the parents argue that the answers on the special verdict form are contradictory and the affirmative answer regarding need for treatment is subject to various interpretations, including that the treatment is needed because of the trauma to which the children had been subjected by prosecution of this case. We agree with the parents’ argument.

We must attempt to reconcile the jury’s verdict in a way that makes the answers to the several interrogatories consistent. *Aurora v. Loveless,*639 P.2d 1061 (Colo.1982); *Lonardo v. Litvak Meat Co.,*676 P.2d 1229 (Colo.App.1983).

In our view, to interpret the special verdict here in a way that would serve as a predicate for a finding of dependency and neglect, would be sheer speculation. It is significant that the trier of fact found neither of the children lacked proper parental care, that neither child’s environment was *509injurious to his or her welfare as a consequence of respondent’s parenting, and, especially, that none of the acts alleged to have been done by E.A.L. occurred. Thus, the recommendation that mental health counseling was necessary should not be presumed to have arisen from the parent-child relationship at issue here. The recommendation is at best ambiguous and, in the context of all the answers given by the jury, more readily yields to the interpretation that it is the trauma caused by prosecution of this action that resulted in the need for counseling.

The judgment is reversed and the action is dismissed.

SMITH and VAN CISE, JJ., concur. ■
EXHIBIT 31.1CERTIFICATIONI, Michael J. Coles, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.May 11, 2007              /s/ Michael J. Coles   Michael J. Coles   Chief Executive Officer
(May 7, 1991)

#### Protocom Devices, Inc., Respondent, v Antonio Fi*178gueroa, Doing Business as Design Expressions, Appellant.

Order and Judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered on December 5, 1989, which granted petitioner’s motion pursuant to CPLR 7503 to permanently stay the arbitration, and the Order of the same Court and same Justice, entered on February 21, 1990, which granted respondent’s motion for reargument, and, upon reargument, adhered to the court’s prior determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record reveals that although, on January 22, 1988, an arbitration award was rendered in favor of the respondent in the amount of $16,646.75 for professional interior decorating services rendered to the petitioner pursuant to a contractual agreement between the parties, respondent admittedly did not confirm that arbitration award within one year as required by CPLR 7510. Nevertheless, on June 6, 1989, respondent sought to commence a second arbitration based on the same claim.

The IAS court properly determined that the prior arbitration award in favor of the respondent, which was not confirmed within one year pursuant to CPLR 7510, nevertheless warranted a stay of the subsequent arbitration proceeding initiated by the respondent, premised upon the same claim.

Contrary to respondent’s assertions, an arbitration award "rendered in compliance with all legal requirements is a complete, final and binding determination of a controversy which may not be disturbed, unless the statutory grounds for doing so exist” *(Matter of Springs Cotton Mills [Buster Boy Suit Co.],*275 App Div 196, 199, *affd*300 NY 586; *see, Hilowitz v Hilowitz,*85 AD2d 621; *see generally, Rembrandt Indus. v Hodges Intl.,*38 NY2d 502). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Ellerin and Smith, JJ. *[See,*144 Misc 2d 738.]
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2013 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on crotonaldehyde. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2009 

Mrs. LINCOLN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 

crotonaldehyde. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CROTONALDEHYDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.10.44 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 crotonaldehyde) is amended by striking the date in the ef7 fective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2013 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1




Independent Auditor's Consent



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(No. 333-109878) on Form S-8 of PSB Holdings, Inc. of our report dated January
22, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of PSB Holdings, Inc. and
Subsidiary as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the three years
in the period ended December 31, 2003, which appears in the December 31, 2003,
Annual Report on Form 10-K of PSB Holdings, Inc.


Wipfli LLP



Wausau, Wisconsin
February 28, 2005
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JAN 27 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JESUS MANUEL ORTEGASANCHEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-2092

(D.C. No. CIV 95-1276-JC/LEG)

(D.N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
1

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) requires a party appealing the denial of a 

§ 2255 motion to obtain a certificate of appealability. This requirement became

effective April 24, 1996, and is not applied retroactively to this § 2255 appeal,

which was filed on April 18, 1996. See United States v. Lopez, 100 F.3d 113,

117 (10th Cir. 1996). 

-2-

Petitioner/Appellant Jesus Manuel Ortega-Sanchez appeals the district

court’s order denying his motion to vacate or correct sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm for

substantially the same reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendation and adopted by the district court. R. Vol. I at tabs 10, 13.

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CORY LEE JACOBS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroeder , Chief District Judge. ( 1:18

- cr - 00245

- TDS

- 2; 1:21

- cv - 00098

- TDS

- JEP )

Submitted : September 15, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2022

Before GREGORY , Chief Judge, and DIAZ and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Cory Lee Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6014 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Cory Lee Jacobs seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

“ without prejudice to [his] promptly filing a corrected motion on the proper § 2255 forms.” We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S . 541, 545

- 46 (1949). “ [ A ] n order that dismisses a complaint with leave to amend is not a final decision because it means that the district court is not finished with the case.” Britt v. DeJoy , 45 F.4th 790 , , No. 20

- 1620, 2022 WL 3590436, at *3 (4th Cir. Aug. 17, 2022) (en banc) (published order) (citing Jung v. K. & D. Min. Co ., 356 U.S. 335, 336

- 37 (1958)). If Jacobs wishes to appeal from this order, he must first “waive [his] right to amend the [motion] by requesting that the district court take further action to finalize its decision,” Britt , 2022 WL 3590436, at *6 (quoting Jung , 356 U.S. at 337), and he “ must obtain an additional , final decision from the district court finalizing its judgment.” Id. Because Jacobs has not done so, t he order Jacobs seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for la ck of jurisdiction , and we deny Jacobs’ pending motions

. W e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6014 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6662

WALTER LEE WRIGHT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BISHOP ROBINSON, Secretary, in his individual

and official capacity; THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden, in his individual and official capacity;

GARY HORNBAKER, Assistant Warden, in his individual and official capacity; JAMES MURPHY,

Chief of Security, in his individual and official capacity; KELVIN FURLOW, Sergeant, in his

individual and official capacity; MICHAEL

THOMPSON, CO II, in his individual and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-96-2417-AW)

Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Walter Lee Wright, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Glenn T. Marrow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wright

v. Robinson, No. CA-96-2417-AW (D. Md. Apr. 1, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO Section 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Myrient, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ended August 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bryan Turbow, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief 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.

         Signature                         Title                   Date
---------------------------------    ---------------------   -------------------

/S/ Bryan L. Turbow                    President/CTO          January 15, 2003
--------------------------------
Bryan L. Turbow