alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23 to Buckhead America Corporation
                                                 December 31, 1996 Form 10-KSB


                             ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT
                             --------------------



The Board of Directors
Buckhead America Corporation:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statement  (No.
333-05313) on Form S-3 and in the Registration  Statement (No. 33-97046) on Form
S-8 of Buckhead  America  Corporation  of our report  dated  February  21, 1997,
except  for note  13,  which is dated  as of  March  13,  1997  relating  to the
consolidated  balance sheets of Buckhead America Corporation and subsidiaries as
of  December  31,  1996 and 1995,  and the related  consolidated  statements  of
income,  shareholders'  equity,  and cash flows for the years then ended,  which
report  appears  in the  December  31,  1996  annual  report  on Form 10- KSB of
Buckhead America Corporation.


                                          KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 31, 1997












                                         76
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 GammaCan International Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Patrick Schnegelsberg, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

|                     |                                                  
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: May
  14, 2008 | By:/s/ Patrick Schnegelsberg                     
|                     | Patrick
  Schnegelsberg
  Chief Executive Officer

28

---
Exhibit 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.333-24605, 333-81963, 333-85841, 333-94349, 333-83116, 333-91198, 333-123186, 333-123187 and333-136237 on the respective Forms S-8 and in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-8 toForm S-4 Registration Statement No. 333-67928 of International GameTechnology of our report dated June 25, 2007, relating to thefinancial statements and supplemental schedule appearing in this Annual Report on Form 11-K of IGTProfit Sharing Plan for the year ended December 31, 2006./s/ Grant Thornton LLP
RNK Global Development Acquisition Corp.


Suite 101, No.26 Wen Hua East Road


Huilongguan, Changpin District


Beijing, People’s Republic of China 102208


 


_________, 2012


RNK Capital LLC


[_______]


 


Gentlemen:


 


This letter will confirm our agreement that commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement (the “Registration Statement”) relating to the initial public offering of the securities of RNK Global Development Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until the consummation by the Company of an acquisition transaction or the distribution of the trust account to the Company’s then public shareholders (as described in the Registration Statement), RNK Capital LLC (the “Firm”) shall make available to the Company certain general and administrative services, including the use of office space, utilities and secretarial support, as may be required by the Company from time to time, at Suite 101, No.26 Wen Hua East Road, Huilongguan, Changpin District, Beijing, People’s Republic of China 102208 (or any successor location). In exchange therefor, the Company shall pay the Firm at the rate of $7,500 per month.








	  	
Very truly yours,


	  	  
	  	
RNK GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT ACQUISITION CORP.


	  	  
	  	
By:

	  
	  	
Name:

	  
	  	
Title:

	  





 



	
Agreed to and Accepted as of the date first written above by:

	  
	  	  
	
RNK CAPITAL LLC

	  
	  	  
	
By:

	  	  
	
Name:

	  	  
	
Title:

	  	  










Services Agreement
T HE S TATE EX REL
. T HOMAS , A PPELLANT , V
. M ONEY , W ARDEN , A PPELLEE
. [Cite as State ex rel. Thomas v. Money (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] Habeas corpus not available to challenge either sentencing errors or the validity or sufficiency of an indictment — Habeas corpus not available when petitioner has adequate remedy at law by way of appeal. (No. 97-1463 — Submitted December 3, 1997 — Decided December 31, 1997.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-97-32. In 1989, appellant, Ralph Thomas, wa s convicted of several offenses, including theft, and was sentenced accordi ngly. In 1997, Thomas filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Marion County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his immediate release from prison. Thomas claimed that the sentence for his theft conviction was unlawful and that his indictments were invalid because they did not contain a theft charge. Thomas subsequently moved for leave to amend his petition to add a claim that he was not pres ent when sentenced by the trial court. The court of appeals granted Thomas’s motion but dismissed the petition, as amended. The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.

__________________ Ralph Thomas, pro se

. Betty D. Montgomery , Attorney General, and Donald Gary Keyser , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

__________________ Per Curiam. Thomas asserts in his propositi ons of law that the court of appeals erred by dismissing his habeas cor pus petition. Thomas contends that the2 sentence for his theft conviction is void base d on the claims he raised in the court of appeals. The court of appeals, however, corr ectly dismissed the petition. Habeas corpus is not available to challenge eith er sentencing errors or the validity or sufficiency of an indictment. State ex rel. Massie v. Rogers (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 449, 449-450, 674 N.E.2d 1383; Smith v. Seidner (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 172, 173, 677 N.E.2d 336. These claims can be raised on direct appeal. Massie and Smith

. Similarly, Thomas had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his remaining claim that he was not present at his sentencing. See, e.g., State v. Welch (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 47, 7 O.O.3d 128, 372 N.E.2d 346. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed.
M OYER , C.J., D OUGLAS , R ESNICK , F.E. S WEENEY , P FEIFER , C OOK and
L UNDBERG S TRATTON , JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly reportof Lawson Software, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended February 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harry Debes, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ HARRY DEBES                                      |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Harry  Debes *President and Chief Executive Officer* |
|   |                                                 |
|   | April  7, 2006                                       |

 

1

----
**EXHIBIT 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-70085, 333-88038,333-118559 and 333-134728 on Form S-3 and Registration Statements No. No. 333-68755, 333-69385,333-91347, 333-92437, 333-32448, 333-37918, 333-39184, 333-42498, 333-42728, 333-48224, 333-48262,333-44094, 333-54646, 333-54672, 333-68724, 333-70420, 333-73142, 333-73858, 333-86838, 333-86868,333-97539, 333-111211, 333-113395, 333-113399, 333-113595, 333-115983, 333-121284, 333-121285,333-121286, 333-123356, 333-129676, 333-129679, 333-130209, 333-139546, 33-139547 and 333-139848 onForm S-8 of our reports dated November 20, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statementsand financial statement schedule of Conexant Systems, Inc. (which report on the consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule expresses an unqualified opinion and includesan explanatory paragraph referring to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting StandardsNo. 123(R), “Share-based Payment” in 2006), and management’s report on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ConexantSystems, Inc. for the year ended September 28, 2007./s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPCosta Mesa, California
Map Created: August 2019

Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2017

Relative Per Capita Income Rates in Appalachia, 2017

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)

Per capita income is a measure of the total personal income of 

an area divided by the resident population of the area. The 

percent of the U.S. average is computed by dividing the county 

per capita income by the national average and multiplying by 

100. The map uses critical breaks such as the national average 

to organize the data into groups of common values.

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

42.2% - 49.9%

50.0% - 74.9%

75.0% - 99.9%

100.0% - 120.1%

Percent of the U.S. Average

U.S. average = $51,640

Appalachian average = $41,155

(Critical Breaks Classification)
#### Matter of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Richard B. WATSON, Petitioner.

No. A-12337.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 16, 1956.

*570Richard B. Watson, pro se.

Mac *Q.*Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BRETT, Judge.

This is an original petition for habeas corpus by Richard B. Watson, wherein he alleges he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty by H. C. McLeod, warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. He complains that he was convicted in the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, of the crime of second degree burglary on or about September 20, 1954, on a plea of guilty and was sentenced to five years in the penitentiary ; that upon imposition of sentence, the same was suspended. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner was re-arrested and claims the sentence was revoked and he was summarily committed upon said judgment.

No copy of the judgment and sentence herein complained of, is attached to the petition. It has been repeatedly held by this court that where there is no certified copy of the judgment and sentence of the lower court attached to the petition, the petition is insufficient to question the validity of the commitment by which the person is incarcerated in the penitentiary. In re Richardson, Okl.Cr., 283 P.2d 855.

Furthermore, it appears that the trial court had jurisdiction of the defendant’s person, jurisdiction of the subject matter, 21 O.S.1951 § 1435, and authority under the law to pronounce judgment and sentence. 21 O.S.1951 § 1436. Moreover, the trial court had authority under the law to revoke the suspended sentence in a summary manner. 22 O.S.1951 § 992; Stone v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 1, 188 P.2d 875; State v. Humphrey, 85 Okl.Cr. 153, 186 P.2d 664.

Furthermore, it appears that this is an attempt to reach by habeas corpus what should have been sought by appeal. It has been repeatedly held that habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal. Ex parte Vanderburg, 73 Okl.Cr. 21, 117 P.2d 550.

Writ denied.

POWELL, J., concurs.

JONES, P. J., not participating.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1474 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 391
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1474

To provide new authority for probation and pretrial services officers, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 13, 1995

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                              May 2, 1996

                Reported by Mr. Hatch, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide new authority for probation and pretrial services officers, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. NEW AUTHORITY FOR PROBATION AND PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICERS.

    (a) Probation Officers.--Section 3603 of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8)(B);
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(9) if approved by the district court, be authorized to 
        carry firearms under such rules and regulations as the Director 
        of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts may 
        prescribe; and''.
    (b) Pretrial Services Officers.--Section 3154 of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (13) as paragraph (14); and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(13) As approved by the district court, carry firearms 
        under such rules and regulations as the Director of the 
        Administrative Office of the United States Courts may 
        prescribe.''.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 391

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1474

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To provide new authority for probation and pretrial services officers, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 2, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**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 Reed’s Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB/A
      for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the Report) I, Christopher J. Reed, Chief
      Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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; as amended, and




2.
            The
                information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Reeds,
                Inc.








/s/
      Christopher J. Reed


Christopher
      J. Reed,


Chief
      Executive Officer, President


and
      Chief
      Financial Officer




September
      13, 2006
Exhibit 23





            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
            --------------------------------------------------------






We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
33-91684 of WVS  Financial  Corp. on Form S-8 of our report dated July 28, 2006,
relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements,  which appear in
the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of WVS Financial  Corp.  for the year ended June
30, 2006.


/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.


Wexford, PA
September 26, 2006
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00281

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 442nd District Court Dent o n County, Texas Trial Court No. 19

- 966 8

- 393 Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Gabriel, J. Per Curiam Memorandum O pinion 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### C.V

. , A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pro se App ellant S.D . (Mother) attempts t o appeal from the t rial court ’ s interlocut ory order denying her ple a to the ju risdiction. Appellee A.D. (Stepfather ) moves to dismiss th is appeal for want of jurisdicti on. The case is still pending in the trial court. Because we do not h ave jurisdi ction to entertain this inte rlocutory app eal,

we grant Stepfather ’ s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. In her notice of appeal, Mother states that she is app ealing from the tri al
court ’ s “ order for standing. ” In that order , entitled “ Orde r on Plea to the Jurisdiction , ” the trial court h eld that Stepfather ha d standing to bring the suit and denie d Mother ’ s plea to the jurisdiction. On No vember 5, 2020, Ste pfather filed a motion to di smiss Mother ’ s appeal in thi s court . In the motion, Stepfather contends that because the case is still pending in the trial court and because Mother is not a governmental unit , she cannot now appeal the denia l of her plea to th e j urisdiction

. Mother has no t responded to t he motion. We have appellate jurisdiction o ver appeals from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195, 200 (Tex. 2001). W e also have appellate jurisdi ction over appeals f rom interlocutory orders that the Texas Legislat ure has specified ar e appealable. Id. at 195; se e, e.g. , Tex. Civ . Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51

. 014

. Section 51.014(a)(8) of the T e xas Civil Prac tice and Remedies Code allo ws

a n appeal from an interlocutory o rder that grants or denies a govern ment al unit ’ s plea to the jurisdiction

. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 5 1.014(a)(8)

. Mother is not3 a governmental unit. See id. ; In re I.C.D.N. , No. 05

- 17

- 01426

- CV, 2018 WL 580274, at *1 (Tex. A pp.
— Dallas Jan. 29 , 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); Clifton v. Burrough s , No. 2

- 08

- 404

- CV, 2008 WL 5401489, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth De c . 23, 2008, no pet.) (per cu riam) (mem. op.)

. Because a governmental unit did not file the plea to the jurisdiction, the t rial
court ’ s order denying the plea is not subject to interlocutor y appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) ; I.C. D .N. , 2018 WL 580274, at *1 ; Clifton , 2008 WL 5401489, at *1

. Accordingly, we grant Stepfather ’ s motion to dismiss , and

we dismiss this appea l for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f)

.

Per Curiam Delivered: December 3, 2020
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 7393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02119]

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Florida Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act that a meeting of the Florida Advisory 
Committee (Committee) will convene on Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 
10:30 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 11:30 a.m. The meeting will be 
held at the Leon County Main Public Library, 200 West Park Avenue, 
Tallahassee, FL 32301. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee 
to receive ethics training and orientation and plan future activities.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office by March 21, 2013. 
Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth St. SW., Suite 16T126, Atlanta, 
GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, 
or emailed to the Commission at erodriguez@usccr.gov. Persons who 
desire additional information may contact the Southern Regional Office 
at (404) 562-7000.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Southern 
Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled 
date of the meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee 
are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may 
contact the Southern Regional Office at the above email or street 
address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations 
of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, January 28, 2013.
David Mussatt,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2013-02119 Filed 1-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```