alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-89701, 333-66913, 333-44877, 333-43905,
333-36527, 333-26869, 333-24753, 333-2600, 333-89701, 333-51642, 333-60676) of
Verity, Inc. of our report dated June 15, 2001 relating to the financial
statements and financial statement schedules, which appears in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
August 2, 2001
#### ALASKA SMOKED FISH CO. v. FAIRMONT CREAMERY CO. et al.

No. 8177.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 15, 1940.

Fred B. Collier, of Detroit, Mich. (Fred B. Collier and Ken Corbitt, both of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellant.

Irwin I. Cohn, of Detroit, Mich. (Abe A. Schmier and Irwin I. Cohn, both of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellees.

Before HICKS, ALLEN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

An involuntary petition in bankruptcy was filed against appellant on April 15, 1938, and on the same day a subpoena issued commanding appellant to appear and answer on April 25, 1938. The subpoena was served on April 22, 1938. The petition was not answered and it appears that an order of adjudication, signed by the Judge, was entered on the minutes on May 2, *1938.*

The briefs and oral argument presented the case as if it involved two appeals,— (1) from the order of adjudication, on May 2; and (2) from an order entered May 23, *9601938, denying appellant’s motion to vacate the order of adjudication.

The record discloses that the appeal was from the order of adjudication only. This appeal was properly allowed by the District Judge. There is no merit in the contention that it should have been allowed by this court.

Appellant insists that the adjudication was invalid because the subpoena contained no underwfritlSen memorandum as specified in Equity Rule 12, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723. The obstacle to this contention is that on April 18, 1938, there was a general appearance of attorneys for appellant; and on the same date appellant, through its attorneys, waived the filing of petitioning creditors’ bond and upon the withdrawal of these attorneys on May 6, there was a general appearance of substituted attorneys for appellant. It is elementary that the general appearance of a defendant by attorneys cures all defects in process.

A further contention is that the order of adjudication on May 2 was not actually made and signed by the Judge, as it purports to be, but by the Clerk of the court acting under a standing order of the court. We need not consider whether this contention has merit, because, even so, there is an entire lack of evidence to support it.

The matter relied upon is a certified copy of what upon its face purports to be the testimony of one Smith, Deputy Clerk of the District Court, in a criminal case styled No. 24,943, United States v. Albert E. Miller et al. It was not introduced as evidence in the present case but appellant seeks to bring it to our attention by printing it as an Exhibit to its brief. It, of course, may not be considered.

The order appealed from is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                         302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Robert J. Holtz, CEO, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  annual  report on Form 10-KSB of  Zeros & Ones, Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  report  does not  contain  any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made,  not  misleading  with  respect to the period  covered by this annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  report,  fairly  present in all  material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this annual report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the  disclosure  controls and  procedures  based on our  evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     a) all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and


<PAGE>

     b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls  subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  April 14, 2004



/s/Robert J. Holtz
-----------------------
Robert J. Holtz, CEO
#### Terry Joe WILKERSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 68181.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 8, 1987.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defend*665er, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Royall P. Terry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court following its decision on certiorari review of our earlier judgment.* In *Wilkerson v. State,*494 So.2d 210 (Fla.1986), this Court followed *State v. Jackson,*478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985), and held that Wilkerson should be sentenced pursuant to the guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing as opposed to the guidelines in effect at the time the crime was committed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of *Miller v. Florida,*— U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987), which held that utilizing the guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing violated the ex post facto clause of article I of the United States Constitution. Therefore, we vacate Wilkerson’s sentence and remand the ease to the circuit court with directions to resentence Wilkerson pursuant to the sentencing guidelines which were in effect at the time the offense was committed. We also recede from *State v. Jackson*to the extent that it conflicts with *Miller v. Florida.*

It is so ordered.

McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

*

— U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3206, 96 L.Ed.2d 693 (1987).
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Susan J. Allread, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Greenville FederalFinancial Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issueras of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the smallbusiness issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date: May 11, 2007 /s/ Susan J. Allread   Susan J. Allread   Chief Financial Officer
#### AVIATION MAINTENANCE PUBLISHERS, INC., a Wyoming corporation, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. CAPITAL CORPORATION, a Wyoming corporation, Appellee (Defendant).

No. 87-100.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Aug. 14, 1987.

*941James F. Kost, Basin, for appellant (plaintiff).

Mark W. Gifford and J. Kenneth Barbe of Brown & Drew, Casper, for appellee (defendant).

Before BROWN, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ.

MACY, Justice.

James F. Kost, purported shareholder and president of Aviation Maintenance Publishers, Inc., has prosecuted and briefed this appeal on behalf of the corporation. It is well established that a person who is not an attorney is not entitled to appear in court for a corporation regardless of his interest in or association with it. *Starrett v. Shepard,*Wyo., 606 P.2d 1247 (1980); *Linde v. Bentley,*Wyo., 482 P.2d 121 (1971). Generally, only members of the Wyoming State Bar may practice law in Wyoming. Exceptions are made for pro hac vice appearances by members of the bars of other states, for eligible law students, and for persons appearing pro se in actions in which they are parties. Rule 18, Amended Rules Adopted by the Supreme Court of Wyoming Providing for the Organization and Government of the Bar Association of the Attorneys at Law of the State of Wyoming. See also Rule 101(b), Uniform Rules for the District Courts of the State of Wyoming, and Rule 1.04, Uniform Rules for the County Courts of Wyoming. Mr. Kost is neither an attorney nor an eligible law student, and he is not a party to this appeal; therefore, he cannot represent the corporation in this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion.

THOMAS, Justice,

concurring.

I am in complete agreement with the dismissal of this appeal for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Court. I would go further as a matter of enforcing our rules relating to the practice of law. I would also order that the brief filed on behalf of Aviation Maintenance Publishers, Inc. be stricken. *Starrett v. Shepard,*Wyo., 606 P.2d 1247 (1980).
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 on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by
Brooklyn Cheesecake & Desserts Company, Inc. (the "Company") on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Anthony J. Merante, President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial 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

      (i)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: April 17, 2007
                                          /s/ Anthony J.  Merante
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Anthony J. Merante
                                          President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6296]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


Outer Continental Shelf Scientific Committee; Notice of Renewal

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Renewal.

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

SUMMARY: Following consultation with the General Services 
Administration, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of the 
Interior is revising and renewing the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 
Scientific Committee (Committee).
    The Committee provides advice on the feasibility, appropriateness, 
and scientific value of the OCS Environmental Studies Program to the 
Secretary of the Interior through the Director of BOEM. The Committee 
reviews the relevance of the research and data being produced to meet 
BOEM's scientific information needs for decision-making and may 
recommend changes in scope, direction, and emphasis.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Phyllis Clark, Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management, Office of Environmental Program, Environmental 
Sciences Division, Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817, telephone, (703) 787-
1716.

Certification

    I hereby certify that the renewal of the OCS Scientific Committee 
is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties 
imposed on the Department of the Interior by 43 U.S.C. 1331 et. seq.

    Dated: March 9, 2012.
Ken Salazar,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 2012-6296 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-VH-P
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Subsidiaries ofInvestors Financial Services Corp.as of December 31, 2006**

IBT Trust Company (Canada)IBT Trust Company (Cayman), Ltd.IBT Vermont Insurance Co.Investors Bank & Trust CompanyInvestors Boston Securities Corp.Investors California, LLCInvestors Capital Services, LLCInvestors Capital Trust IInvestors Copley Securities Corp.Investors Exeter Securities Corp.Investors Financial Services (Ireland) LimitedInvestors Fund Services (Ireland) LimitedInvestors Holding Corp.Investors Securities Corp.Investors Securities Services, LLCInvestors Trust & Custodial Services (Ireland) LimitedInvestors Trust HoldingsInvestors Trust Holdings LimitedInvestors Trust LimitedInvestors Trust Nominees LimitedInvestors Trust S.à.r.lInvestors International Corp.

----
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 Majestic Oil & Gas, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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




/s/
                Patrick MontalbanName:
            Patrick
                MontalbanTitle:
            President,
                Chief Executive Officer, andTreasurer








August
      13, 2008





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Majestic Oil & Gas, Inc. and will be retained by Majestic Oil & Gas,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
#### STATE ex rel. Rickey Dean LEE v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 86-KH-2536.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Lee, Rickey Dean; applying for writs of certiorari, habeas corpus, and review; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “H”, No. 108953.

Denied. Relator failed to include a copy of the colloquoy at the sentencing hearing in order to satisfy his burden of proof under La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-00-00151-CR

Leslie Blaylark, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0996458, HONORABLE CHARLES F. CAMPBELL, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

Leslie Blaylark appeals from judgments of conviction for aggravated sexual assault

and burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.021, 30.02 (West Supp. 2001).

The jury assessed punishment for the aggravated sexual assault at imprisonment for life, and for

the burglary at imprisonment for fifty years.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App.

1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d

137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant
2

was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief

has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the

appeal.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

 

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Yeakel and Patterson

Affirmed

Filed: April 12, 2001

Do Not Publish
Document

Exhibit 10.6

  Two Folsom Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105



November 20, 2020




Nancy Green    




Dear Nancy:


This letter is to confirm the extension of the existing severance provisions, which are outlined in the “Termination/Severance” section of your offer letter dated October 5, 2020 (“Offer Letter”).  The Compensation and Management Development Committee of the Board of Directors (“the Committee”) has approved the extension of such severance provisions to June 30, 2024 with no other changes to such provisions.


After June 30, 2024, you will be eligible for severance, if any, as approved by the Committee under the same terms as similarly situated executive officers.


Other than as set forth above, the terms of your Offer Letter remain in effect.


Yours sincerely,




/s/ Sonia Syngal                                      
Sonia Syngal
President & Chief Executive Officer, Gap Inc.










/s/ Nancy Green                                        
Nancy Green          






Date: November 20, 2020