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

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                        -------------------------------

The Board of Directors of Aerovox Incorporated:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (File No.
33-35029, 33-35030, 33-35031, 33-68940, 33-86092, 333-03693 and 333-11615) on
Form S-8 of Aerovox Incorporated of our reports dated February 23, 2001, except
for Notes 2 and 5 which are as of April 6, 2001, relating to the consolidated
balance sheet of Aerovox Incorporated as of December 30, 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
the year ended December 30, 2001, and related schedule, which reportsappear in
the December 30, 2000, annual report on Form 10-K of Aerovox Incorporated.

The audit report on the consolidated financial statements of Aerovox Incorported
referred to above contains and explanatory paragraph that states that the
Company's recurring losses from operations, working capital deficiency and
resulting defaults of specific terms of the Company's debt agreements raises
substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.  The
financial statements and financial statement schedule included in the annual
report on Form 10-K do not include any adjustments that might result from the
outcome of this uncertainty.




KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
April 16, 2001
# C_2009069EN.01003301.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-190/08) (1)

1

(2009/C 69/73)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

1

---
# C_2010288EN.01003401.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Kido v OHIM — Amberes (SCORPIONEXO)

(Case T-152/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SCORPIONEXO - Earlier national figurative mark ESCORPION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2010/C 288/64)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kido Industrial Ltd (Yangcheon-gu, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Mall, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Amberes, SA (Igualada, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2008 (Case R287/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Amberes, SA and Kido Industrial Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Kido Industrial Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Kido Industrial Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.

---
# C_2008092EN.01005101.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/51

---

Action brought on 25 January 2008 — Jörg Mölling v Europol

(Case F-11/08)

(2008/C 92/104)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Jörg Mölling (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Europol

Defendant:

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of Europol's decision of 10 October 2007 refusing the applicant permission to participate in the selection procedure for the position of ‘first officer’ in the drugs unit and the decision of 23 October 2007 rejecting his complaint.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul Europol's decision of 10 October 2007 refusing him permission to participate in the selection procedure for the position of ‘first officer’ in the drugs unit and the decision of 23 October 2007 rejecting his complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Europol's decision of 10 October 2007 refusing him permission to participate in the selection procedure for the position of ‘first officer’ in the drugs unit and the decision of 23 October 2007 rejecting his complaint;

| — | order Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the costs.

---
# C_2021263EN.01003701.xml

| 5.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/37

---

Order of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Chrysses Demetriades & Co. and Provident Fund of the Employees of Chrysses Demetriades & Co. v Council and Others

(Case T-198/18) (1)

(2021/C 263/47)

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.

---
#### Application of Woodrow Wilson CANNON for Writ of Mandamus, Petitioner.

No. A-13017.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 22, 1961.

Woodrow W. Cannon, pro se.

R. L. Pendarvis, County Atty., Norman, for respondent.

NIX, Presiding Judge.

Petitioner filed in this Court a petition asking for a Writ of Mandamus directing *733the District Court of Cleveland County to furnish petitioner with a transcript of proceedings in a case wherein petitioner plead guilty to the charge of burglary, 2nd degree after former conviction of a felony. Upon the plea of guilty, petitioner was sentenced to ten years in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. Petitioner alleges that a request had been made to the District Court of Cleveland County and said request was denied. A Reply and a Motion to Dismiss was filed by the trial judge, Elvin J. Brown. Judge Brown recites the minutes of the court records on said case. The minutes show that petitioner was charged on the 25th day of July, 1958. That petitioner was represented by counsel at the preliminary held on the 8th day of August, 1958; was charged in the District Court on August 15, 1958; was arraigned on that day and a bond set in the amount of $3,000 cash or $6,000 property bond. The record further reflects that petitioner withdrew his plea on the same day, entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to ten years in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. The trial judge asks that the Writ be dismissed and that he denied petitioner’s request for a transcript of the proceedings filed on February 1, 1961, for the reason that the time for appeal had expired. It is easy to observe that the judgment and sentence was rendered on the 15th day of August 1958, and the petitioner’s request for a transcript was made on February 1, 1961, some 29 months after the judgment was rendered.

Our statute, Title 22, § 1054, provides that in misdemeanor cases the defendant has 120 days after judgment and sentence in which to lodge his appeal in this Court. In felony cases defendant has 6 months in which to lodge his appeal.

This Court is cognizant of the fact that there are methods by which defendant may obtain a casemade or a transcript of the proceedings at the expense of the county where a proper showing is made as to the financial condition of defendant. This provision is maintained so that no person will be denied his right to appeal because he is without funds and unable to obtain finance to pay for the record being transcribed. However, in the instant case the time for appeal had long since expired and the trial judge in that event was under no obligation to furnish a transcript and was, in the opinion of the Court, without jurisdiction to make such an order. Consequently, this Court would have no authority to compel him to act in such a manner.

The petition is therefore dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JEREMIAH SUSTAITA,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00142-CR

Appeal from the

34th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20150D00821)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We 

further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Colonial Properties Trust,
hereby certifies that, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

      (a)   The Form 10-K of Colonial Properties Trust for the period ended
            December 31, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
            Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934; and

      (b)   Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
            respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
            Colonial Properties Trust.

Date: March 16, 2005                    By:   /s/ Thomas H. Lowder
                                            -------------------------
                                              Thomas H. Lowder
                                              Chief Executive Officer

       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Colonial Properties Trust
and will be retained by Colonial Properties Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       97
|EXHIBIT 32
|----------

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

In connection with the quarterly report of SIN Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Steve S. SinhuiSteve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer 
and Chief Financial Officer





November 07, 2008























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 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.

---
# C_2008116EN.01003301.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/33

---

Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Gippini Fournier v Commission

(Case F-21/08)

(2008/C 116/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eric Gippini Fournier (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Ruggeri Laderchi)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the Commission's decision to award no priority points to the applicant in the 2003 Promotion procedure, refusing to award ‘DG priority points’ and refusing to award points for work in the interest of the institution pursuant to Article 9 of the General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. Secondly, an order that the defendant compensate the applicant for the economic loss which he has suffered and will suffer throughout his career because of the delays in his promotions arising from the contested decision and pay him the sum of EUR 2 500 as compensation for non-material damage.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision to award no priority points to the applicant in the 2003 Promotion procedure, refusing to award ‘DG priority points’ and refusing to award points for work in the interest of the institution pursuant to Article 9 of the General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision to award no priority points to the applicant in the 2003 Promotion procedure, refusing to award ‘DG priority points’ and refusing to award points for work in the interest of the institution pursuant to Article 9 of the General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the economic loss which he has suffered and will suffer throughout his career because of the delays in his promotions arising from the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the economic loss which he has suffered and will suffer throughout his career because of the delays in his promotions arising from the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 2 500 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 2 500 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
Hardesty 

, J. 

Saitta 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

PETER JASON HELFRICH, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NYE, 

Respondent. 

PETER JASON HELFRICH, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NYE, 

Resoondent. 

No. 67005 

FILED 

MAR 1 7 2016 

TRADE K LINDEMAN 

CLER OF, ''UPREME COURT 

6Y DEPUTY CLERK

No. 68539 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONS 

These are pro se petitions for a writ of mandamus. Petitioner 

seeks an order directing the district court to grant his request to withdraw 

appointed counsel and represent himself in his postconviction proceeding. 

Without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised in the documents 

submitted in this matter, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction. 

See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petitions DENIED. 

, J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

cc: Hon. David R. Gamble, Senior District Judge 

Peter Jason Helfrich 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Nye County Clerk 

(0) 1947k QC> 1 (0 -084q
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM ODEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief 

District Judge. (3:11-cr-00056-GMG-RWT-1)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher William Oden, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia; 

Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Martinsburg, West Virginia; Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher William Oden appeals the district court’s 

orders denying his motions for a sentence reduction and for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Oden, No. 3:11-cr00056-GMG-RWT-1 (N.D.W. Va., Mar. 30, 2015; May 26, 2015). We 

deny Oden’s motion for resentencing. We 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.

AFFIRMED
IB 

Union Calendar No. 436 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4529 

[Report No. 115–576] 

To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise Form S–3 

so as to add listing and registration of a class of common equity securities on a national securities exchange as an additional basis for satisfying 

the requirements of General Instruction I.B.1. of such form and to 

remove such listing and registration as a requirement of General Instruction I.B.6. of such form. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2017 

Mrs. WAGNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

FEBRUARY 23, 2018 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4529 RH

A BILL 

To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise 

Form S–3 so as to add listing and registration of a 

class of common equity securities on a national securities 

exchange as an additional basis for satisfying the requirements of General Instruction I.B.1. of such form 

and to remove such listing and registration as a requirement of General Instruction I.B.6. of such form. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4529 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Accelerating Access 

5 to Capital Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPANDED ELIGIBILITY FOR USE OF FORM S–3. 

7 Not later than 45 days after the date of the enact8 ment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission 

9 shall revise Form S–3— 

10 (1) so as to permit securities to be registered 

11 pursuant to General Instruction I.B.1. of such form 

12 provided that either— 

13 (A) the aggregate market value of the vot14 ing and non-voting common equity held by non15 affiliates of the registrant is $75,000,000 or 

16 more; or 

17 (B) the registrant has at least one class of 

18 common equity securities listed and registered 

19 on a national securities exchange; and 

20 (2) so as to remove the requirement of para21 graph (c) from General Instruction I.B.6. of such 

22 form. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 436 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4529 

[Report No. 115–576] 

A BILL 

To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission 

General Instruction I.B.6. of such form. such listing and registration as a requirement of Instruction I.B.1. of such form and to remove basis for satisfying the requirements of General on a national securities exchange as an additional istration of a class of common equity securities to revise Form S–3 so as to add listing and regFEBRUARY 23, 2018 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 21
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

1.     Western Energy Management, Inc. ("WEM") is a Delaware corporation and is
       a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

2.     Onsite Energy Services, Inc. ("OES") is a Kansas corporation and is a
       wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

3.     Onsite/Midstates, Inc. ("OMS") is a Kansas corporation and is a
       wholly-owned subsidiary of OES, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
       Company.

4.     SYCOM ONSITE Corporation ("SO Corporation") is a Delaware corporation and
       is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

5.     Onsite Energy de Panama, S.A. is a Panamanian corporation and is
       wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

6.     REEP Onsite, Inc. ("REEP") is a Delaware corporation and is a
       wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

7.     ERSI Onsite, Inc. ("ERSI") is a Delaware corporation and is a
       wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

8.     Energy Nexus Group, Inc. ("ENG") is a California corporation and is a
       wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
#### OMAHA TRIBE OF INDIANS et al., Appellants, v. William A. PETERS et al., Appellees.

No. 74-1868.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

July 19, 1976.

Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, and LAY and ROSS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The judgment of this court dated May 9, 1975, 516 F.2d 133, has been vacated by the Supreme Court on June 28, 1976,-U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 3185, 48 L.Ed.2d -, and remanded to this court with instructions to further consider the merits in the light of *Bryan v. Itasca County,*426 U.S.-, 96 S.Ct. 2102, 48 L.Ed.2d 710 (1976).

In keeping with this mandate this case is remanded to the district court with directions to enter summary judgment in favor of the appellants, Omaha Tribe of Indians, et al.
# C_2008171EN.01005003.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/50

---

Action brought on 28 February 2008 — Nanopoulos v Commission

(Case F-30/08)

(2008/C 171/100)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Photius Nanopoulos (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

An order against the Commission to pay to the applicant a sum to compensate him for the damage suffered as a result of breach of his fundamental rights to the detriment of his honour and his reputation.

Form of order sought

| — | Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, by way of compensation for non-material damage suffered, the sum of EUR 850 000, which includes compensation for the detriment to his health; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, by way of compensation for non-material damage suffered, the sum of EUR 850 000, which includes compensation for the detriment to his health;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---