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

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Carolina First BancShares, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 0-17939) on Form S-3 of Carolina First BancShares, Inc. of our report
dated February 7, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Carolina First BancShares, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and
1995, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
shareholders' equity and cash flows for the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1996, annual
report on Form 10-K of Carolina First BancShares, Inc. Our report contains an
explanatory paragraph relating to the changes in methods of accounting for
certain investments in debt and equity securities and income taxes.


                                               /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

                                               KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP




Charlotte, North Carolina
March 28, 1997
50168.

#### LEWIS v. THE STATE.

Clark, Judge.

After his conviction for unlawful sale of narcotics, defendant moved for a new trial. The motion was denied and defendant appeals. He assigns error upon the general grounds and upon the court’s charge to the jury at the conclusion of the sentencing phase of his bifurcated trial.

1. We summarize the evidence adduced below. An undercover narcotics agent, G. M. Murff, testified that he and his partner, Detective Marsha Collins, went to the area of the Flamingo Lounge in Atlanta around 11 p.m. on October 9,1973; that he alone entered the establishment and talked to several persons about buying heroin; that he was advised to contact the defendant who was pointed out to him; that he and defendant discussed such purchase and agreed on an amount and price. Thereupon defendant said it would take a few minutes to get the drug and he (the agent) should return later; that upon his return he resumed contact with the defendant in front of the lounge; that defendant then told him they should meet in front of another establishment; that he then met the defendant there as agreed and consummated the deal. Detective Collins averred she witnessed the transaction while sitting in the agents’ car. Sergeant H. H. Carson testified that he arrested defendant shortly after the product had been proved by a field test to be heroin; and that in the currency found in defendant’s possession was a single bill which matched the serial number of one of those used by Agent Murff in making the purchase. Defendant denied *232selling the drug.

Submitted February 4, 1975

Decided March 10, 1975.

*Jacques O. Partain, III,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, C. E. Wad, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

"The general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit. After a verdict of guilty has been returned, in passing on the defendant’s motion for new trial the trial court and the appellate court are to afford the evidence that view which is most favorable to the state, for every presumption and every inference is in favor of the verdict. [Cit.]” *Williams v. State,*129 Ga. App. 103, 107 (7) (198 SE2d 683).

2. Defendant asserts the court erred in charging the jury: "[Y]ou must establish a felony sentence, that is you must fix a sentence at not less than five nor more than ten years and then if you, as a jury choose to make a recommendation after establishing the felony sentence, you may then go further and recommend treatment as for a misdemeanor. If you make that recommendation, that then gives the judge the choice of imposing either the felony sentence or the misdemeanor punishment, but you must establish a felony sentence. . .”

We find no error here. The charge is not, as defendant suggests, inconsistent and confusing. And it is derived, most logically, from § 26-3101 of the Criminal Code (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1334) which provides for reducible felonies.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pannell, P. J., and Quillan, J., concur.*
11 TH C OURT O F A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Trishe Resources, Inc. ; Trishe * From the 3 85th District Court

Wind Minnesota, LLC ; and Trishe of Midland County,

Wind Colorado, LLC, Trial Court No. CV 50941

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 8

- 0008 6

- CV * September 6 , 2019

Hilliard Energy, Ltd., * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S. C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey , C.J. ;

Wright, S.C.J., sitting by assignment;

and Dauphinot, S.J., sitting by

assignment)

( Willson, J., and Stretcher, J., not

participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error

in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, we

reverse the judgment of the trial court insofar as it provides for the award of

$33,454.98 in attorney’s fees and for the accrual of 1.5% interest on the Ohio s uccess

f ee and the Minnesota s uccess f ee, and we remand those matters to the trial court for

further proceedings. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Trishe Resources, Inc.;

Trishe Wind Minnesota, LLC; and Trishe Wind Colorado, LLC.
#### WAYNE-DALTON CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, Appellant, v. Ronald F. KLINGE and Robert W. Jones, d/b/a H & K Garage Doors, jointly and severally, Appellees.

No. 86-642.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 24, 1987.

*53David A. Luczak, Largo, for appellant.

Edward 0. Savitz of Bush, Ross, Gardner, Warren, and Rudy, Tampa, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of its suit against officers and stockholders of a dissolved and subsequently reinstated corporation for an open account debt allegedly incurred while the corporation was dissolved.

The trial court’s dismissal, which followed the close of plaintiff's case-in-chief, was predicated on *Commercial International Business Brokers Corp. v. Heller,*479 So.2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). From our review of the record, it appears that *Heller*is distinguishable in that the persons whose liability is sought in the present case were officers and stockholders of the dissolved corporation, allegedly assuming to act as a corporation without the authority to do so. Additionally, there is evidence that both officers were active with respect to the account with appellant, as indicated by their acknowledged signatures on the account agreement and their testimony. It appears that *Mobil Oil Corp. v. Thoss,*385 So.2d 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), may be more on point.

Under these circumstances, we do not agree that the issue of liability should have been decided before all the evidence was presented. Accordingly, we reverse the order of dismissal, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and LEHAN and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

10 a.m., Thursday, March 8, 2012.

# PLACE:

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, DC.

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                        The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:                         *Secretary of Labor on behalf of Pendley*                         v.                         *Highland Mining Co.,*                         Docket Nos. WEVA 2006-506-D et al. (Issues include whether the Commission's prior decision upholding the judge's determination that no unlawful discrimination occurred was consistent with Commission precedents.)                    

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Dated: February 29, 2012.

Emogene Johnson,

Administrative Assistant.

[FR Doc. 2012-5334 Filed 3-1-12; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
AP9 R04

- 30

- 92 S: \ FormsLib \ Civil Bureau \ Civil Courts & Post Judg ment \ Post Trial \ Appeal Status Card Revised 01

- 18

- 2013 R DATE 5/17/2018

NOTICE OF APPEALS

ASSIGNMENT OF COURT THE COURT OF APPEALS

TO: 14TH COURT OF APPEALS

From: Deputy Clerk: SHEMEKA LEE

Chris Daniel, District Clerk

Harris County, T E X A S



## CAUSE : 2017

- 31314

VOLUME PAGE OR IMAGE # 78518014

DUE 6/7/2018 ATTORNEY 05836400

NOTICE OF APPEAL HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE 14TH COURT OF APPEALS

DATE JUDGMENT SIGNED: 2/7/2018

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL DATE FILED 3/9/2018

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FILED NONE

REQUEST TRANSCRIPT DATE FILED NONE

NOTICE OF APPEAL DATE FILED 5/16/2018

NUMBER OF DAYS: ( CLERKS RECORD ) 120

FILE ORDERED : YES NO IMAGED FILED: YES NO

CODES FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL: BC, C, OA

COURT REPORTER: Sheri Ullrich

CHRIS DANIEL

Harris County, District Clerk

By: /s / 

# Shemeka Lee

SHEMEKA LEE , Deputy

BC NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED

BG NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED

– GOVERNMENT

C JUDGMENT BEING APPEALED

D ACCELERATED APPEAL

OA NO CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED

O CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED (W/ NOTICE OF APPEAL )

NA AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL**(3) CONNECTION(S) FOUND.**

CASE NUM: **201731314** PJN: TRANS NUM: CURRENT COURT: **157** PUB: Please Select

CASE TYPE: **DEBT/CONTRACT - DEBT/CONTRACT** CASE STATUS: **DISPOSED (FINAL)**

STYLE: **WILDER, JOHN** VS **BLACK PEARL EXPLORATION LLC**

****** INACTIVE PARTIES ******

PJN PER/CONN

NO COC BAR PERSON NAME PTY STAT ASSOC ATTY

00003

- 0001 AGT BLACK PEARL EXPLORATION LLC (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY) MAY BE SERVED

00002

- 0001 DEF 05836400 BLACK PEARL EXPLORATION LLC DICKINSON, THOMAS A.

00001

- 0001 PLT 05022500 WILDER, JOHN CRAWFORD, JAMES CLAIBORNE 

## Page 1 of 1 INT6510

- Harris County (JWEB) Justice Applications

5/ 17/ 2018 http://civil.jweb.harriscountytx.gov/INT/INT6510.aspx
#### Korn *versus*Hohl.

1. A lease covenanting to pay a money rent at stipulated times is a writing for the payment of money within the Affidavit of Defence Law.

2. By an agreement the defendant covenanted to “ be responsible * * * for the performance * * * of the covenants * * * in the lease * * * on the part of (the lessee) * ** **to be paid, done and performed,” &c.: *Held,*not to be a guaranty but a contract of suretyship.

3. The agreement was a writing to pay money within the Affidavit of Defence Law.

4. Dewey *v.*Dupuy, 2 W. & S. 553; Frank *v.*Maguire, 6 Wright 77; Johnston *v.*Cowan, 9 P. F. Smith 275; Reigart *v.*White, 2 Id. 438, followed.

January 13th 1876.

Before Agnew, C. J.,? Sharswood, Merour, Gordon, Paxson and Woodward, JJ.

Error to the District Court of Philadelphia, No. 137, to January Term 1874.

This was an action on the case, &c., brought September 18th 1873, by Henry Korn against Philip Hohl.

As his cause of action the plaintiff filed the copy of a lease from himself to Reinhold Vollmar, for a house and lot No. 217 North Fifth street, Philadelphia, for the term of five years from the 12th of December 1872, the lessee covenanting to pay rent at the rate of $800 per annum in quarterly payments, with other covenants not material to the case.

The defendant, Kohl, by agreement endorsed on the lease bound himself to *“*be responsible * * * for the true and faithful performance of all and singular the agreements, covenants, &c., * * * *334in the lease, * * * which on the part of the within-named Rein-hard Yollmar * * * are to be paid, done or performed.”

The defendant filed an affidavit of defence, one part of which was: — ■

*“*That the writing sued upon he is informed, is not such an instrument within the meaning of the Act of Assembly as permits judgment to be taken as against a surety for rent, inasmuch as the defendant signed an independent paper which contained a condition only rendering deponent liable in the event of a failure of other persons to comply with another agreement.”

Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence and the damages assessed at $481.69.

The defendant took a writ of error and assigned for error the entering the judgment as above stated.

*A. S. Shields,*for plaintiff in error.

*TP. Hazlehwrst,*for defendant in error.

January 24th 1876,

Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court,

Per, Curiam.

The lease in this case contained a covenant to pay a certain money rent at stipulated times. This was a writing for the payment of money. The defendant was not a guarantor merely, but a surety for the performance of the tenant’s contract, and therefore liable for the money rent. His agreement was therefore-a writing to pay money, and the fact that he was surety or that his covenant was for the benefit of another, does not take it out of the Affidavit of Defence Law. These points are fully covered by the cases in Dewey *v.*Dupuy, 2 W. & S. *553;*Frank *v.*Maguire, 6 Wright 77; Reigart *v.*White, 2 P. F. Smith 438; Johnston *v.*Cowan, 9 Id. 275.

Judgment affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO  RULES 13A-15(E) AND 15D-15(E) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of Birmingham Bloomfield Bancshares, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;
 4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange 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 such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    [Reserved];c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting.
 August 11, 2006
 /s/ Richard J. MillerRichard J. MillerChief Financial Officer
#### Charlene Clomes, Wife of/and Louis D. MAUTERER, III v. T.R. HENNING CO., INC. and Timothy R. Henning.

No. 87-C—2141.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re T.R. Henning Co., Inc.; Henning, Timothy R.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-5923; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. *“I”,*No. 82-1763.

Prior report: La.App., 510 So.2d 1262.

Denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                 EXHIBIT (10)(F)

                                                               February 25, 1997
Ley S. Smith
Pharmacia & Upjohn
7000 Portage Road
Kalamazoo, MI 49001
U S A




Dear Ley:

To confirm our understanding in order to induce you to continue your employment
with the Company beyond the date you might otherwise have retired, your
Severance Agreement with the Company dated March 15, 1995 (the "Severance
Agreement"), will be amended to provide that you (or your beneficiary or
estate) will receive the severance pay and other benefits provided in the
Severance Agreement if you terminate employment, or if you die or become
permanently disabled (while employed by the Company or one of its affiliates),
on or prior to the later of the date of November 2, 1997 or the date 90 days
after the Company's new President and Chief Executive Officer assumes office.
In addition, upon termination of your employment, you shall be eligible to
receive benefits equivalent to those provided under the Company's
Pre-Retirement Terminal Leave of Absence Program for U.S. based employees.

If you agree to this amendment to your Severance Agreement, please sign and
date below, upon which such amendment will be effective.

Very truly yours



JAN EKBERG
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




AGREED AND ACCEPTED AS OF THIS ____________ DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1997.

____________________________________
LEY SMITH
Order entered July 31 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 00798

- CV

SUZLON ENERGY LIMITE D, Appellant

V.

TRINITY STRUCTURAL T OWERS, INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 12

- 00094



### O RDER
Before the Court is appellant’s July 23, 2013 opposed motion and amended motion to stay its briefing deadline. The trial court signed findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 10, 2013. Appellant file d a motion for amended findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 19, 2013. Appellant’s brief in this accelerated appeal is currently due on August 14, 2013. Appellant asks the Court to extend the deadline to file its brief to September 30, 2013 bec ause of
the “still

- pending findings and conclusions practice.” We GRANT appellant’s motion as
amended TO THE EXTENT that appellant shall file its brief on or before September 3, 2013

. We caution appellant that no further extension will be granted in this accelerated appeal absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Thomas A. BREAUX v. Annette Leblanc BREAUX.

No. 89-C-1203.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Breaux, Annette Leblanc; — Defendant/s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA88 0776; Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 43416.

Prior report: La.App., 543 So.2d 49.

Denied.
---

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 

I, Gregory Rotelli, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Toro Ventures Inc.
      for the period ended September 30, 2008 (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 Toro Ventures Inc.                                                                     

Dated: December 22, 2008

| | /s/ *Gregory Rotelli*                                          
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | Gregory Rotelli                                                
| | President, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary
      Treasurer  
| | and Director                                                   
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial Officer
| | and Principal Accounting Officer)                              
| | Toro Ventures Inc.                                             

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Toro Ventures
Inc. and will be retained by Toro Ventures Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### HELEN D. LEGNOS *v.*PETER J. LEGNOS

*Peter J.*Legnos, pro se, in support of the petition.

Decided April 8, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 927 (AC 16837), is denied.
_j