alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### W. M. Hancock and F. F. Bardin, partners doing business as Hancock & Bardin, *Plaintiffs in Er*ror, v. State Exchange Bank, a Corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion filed Nov. 2, 1915.

1. A plea by one sued on a note as a member of a partnership, merely denying that he made or authorized the making of the note, is bad as not responsive to the issue.

2. Errors assigned upon supposed charges not presented by the record will not be considered.

*2443. A judgment upon a declaration against H. *&*B. composing a partnership, awarding recovery from “the defendant, the said H. & B.” is defective.

Writ of Error to Circuit Court, Columbia County; M. F. Horne, Judge.

Reversed for proper entry of judgment.

*Cone &*Chapman, for Plaintiffs in Error;

*R. T. Boozer,*for Defendant in Error.

Cockrell, J.

This is an action upon promissory notes given the bank by a partnership composed of Hancock & Bardin.

Bardin interposed no defense, while Hancock files three pleas in which he denied that he-made the notes, or authorized any one to do so for him. Demurrers to these pleas were properly sustained. The declaration sought to bind Hancock as a member of a partnership, the makers of the notes, and the material question of the partnership was submitted to the jury upon other pleas. The pleas found deficient, denied neither the partnership nor the making of the notes by the partnership.

We can not consider the assignment based upon the supposed charge of the court. It is not presented to us in a bill of exceptions, nor in the statutory substitute therefor.

The verdict is sufficiently intelligible in settling the issues submitted, finding for the plaintiff, and, assessing its damages finds that the partnership existed and that the notes were the notes of the partnership.

*245The judgment, however, is defective. It does not follow the declaration, but awards recovery from “the defendant, the said Hancock & Bardin.” The use of the singular “defendant,” leaves doubt as to whether the individuals composing the partnership are meant, or the partnership treated as a distinct entity. This confusion and departure causes us to send the cause back for the entry of a proper judgment. See Baker & Holmes Co. v. Indian River State Bank, 61 Fla. 106, 55 South. Rep. 836.

Reversed for proper judgment.

Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 15.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Elbit Vision Systems Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form S-8 (File No.333-144991) of our report dated April 29 2013, relating to the consolidated financial statements of the Company included in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012.




Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co.


Certified Public Accountants


A Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu


Tel-Aviv, Israel




August 8, 2013
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF MAX RE CAPITAL LTD.**

This certification is providedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (the “Form 10-Q/A”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 of Max Re Capital Ltd. (the“Issuer”). 

I, Keith S. Hynes, the Chief Financial Officer of Issuer certify that: 

(i) the Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m(a) or 78o(d)); and 

(ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, 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 the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuerand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

Dated: November 14, 2006
**EXHIBIT 23****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**To the Administrative Committee of the
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 27, 1997 AND FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 27,
1997 CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 27, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>   0000910721 
<NAME>  DM MANAGEMENT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                          19,260
<SECURITIES>                                     3,890
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,579
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,728
<PP&E>                                          14,174
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,381
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,893
<BONDS>                                          8,346
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            61
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,081
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,381
<SALES>                                        135,533
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,533
<CGS>                                           59,788
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,741
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (3)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,392
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,493
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,899
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,899
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.72
        

</TABLE>
#### M. Hampton MAGRUDER, United States Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Maryland, Appellant, v. George Stewart BROWN and Susan M. Brown, his Wife, Appellees.

No. 4472.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Aug. 29, 1939.

PER CURIAM,

Judgment of District Court, 25 F.Supp. 161, reversed and cause remanded with directions to enter judgment for the defendant in accordance with opinion of the court filed in, 106 F.2d 428.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, John Hiner, President and Chief Executive Officer of Geocom Resources Inc., and Paul Chung, Chief Financial Officer of Geocom Resources Inc., each hereby certifies, 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-QSB of Geocom Resources Inc. for the interim period ended December 31, 2004 (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 Geocom Resources Inc.

Dated:  February 22, 2005

/s/ John Hiner	John Hiner
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ Paul Chung					Paul Chung
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2012-0588

Directorate Identifier: 2012NM017AD

84-57-24 --- 9/30/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
**Exhibit 23.2**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We have issued our report dated June 30, 2010 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Casinos Poland Sp. z.o.o included in theAnnual Report of Century Casinos, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Century Casinos,Inc. and subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-132510, effective March 17, 2006 and File No. 333-13801, effective October 9, 1996). 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON FRACKOWIAK SP. Z.O.O. 

Poznań, Poland 

June 30, 2010
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

California Environmental Protection Agency

STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RULEMAKING

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE

LARGE CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITY DEFINITION

Release Date: May 6, 2005

Scheduled for Consideration: June 23-24, 2005
size range such as engines over 50 horsepower. In both these cases, the criteria for

determining if the source is regulated are based on the size of the process, and not

specifically the emissions. Also, the San Joaquin Valley APCD, when adopting

Rule 4550, based the animal feeding operation sizes on capturing more than 70 percent

of the animal populations (SJV 2004a). Due to many factors, the headcount based

approach,.which addresses the majority of the livestock emissions, is the most

beneficial, reasonable, and effective method for defining large confined animal facilities.

One other consideration in establishing proposed facility size cuts was whether the

natural break points resulted in equitable treatment between the different livestock

categories. As Table 24 shows, the proposed thresholds generally result in similar

amounts of emissions from the different types of livestock facilities, based on current

emission estimates.

Table 24. Livestock Facility Emissions at Proposed Size Cuts

Livestock ROG ROG

Category Head (tons/year) Head (tons/year)

Dairy 1,000 milking cows 7.2 2,000 milking cows 14.4

Beef Feedlots 2,500 6.9 5,000 13.8

Other Cattle

Operations 7,500 8.0 15,000 15.9

Chickens --

Broilers 650,000 8.1 1,300,000 16.1

Chickens --

Egg Layers 500,000 6.2 1,000,000 12.4

Turkeys 100,000 3.2 200,000 6.4

Swine 3,000 6.9 6,000 13.8

Sheep 15,000 7.2 30,000 14.4

Goats 15,000 7.2 30,000 14.4

Horses 2,500 8.4 5,000 16.8

Ducks 650,000 8.1 1,300,000 16.2

Notes: The base emission factor (FE) for dairy, beef, and other cattle operations is 12.8 lbs/head/year. The

emissions for these categories are scaled based on manure output of various animal classes and the animal

composition in the SJV. The layer, turkey, and duck FE are scaled based on the recently released broiler FE.

Other EFs are from the ARB emission estimation methodology (ARB 2004a).

Nnn~iff~inmpnf Areas Attainment Areas

33
# C_2009019EN.01003401.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/34

---

Action brought on 18 November 2008 — NEC Display Solutions Europe v OHIM — C More Entertainment (see more)

(Case T-501/08)

(2009/C 19/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: P. Munzinger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C More Entertainment AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 August 2008 in case R 1388/2007-4 and reject the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 August 2008 in case R 1388/2007-4 and reject the opposition;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs; and

| — | Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, should it become an intervener in this case. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, should it become an intervener in this case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘see more’ for goods in class 9 — application No 4 034 741

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: Danish trade mark registration No VR 2004 01590 of the word mark ‘CMORE’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 41; Finish trade mark registration No 231 366 of the word mark ‘CMORE’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 41

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

Pleas in law:

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Ludy ANDERSON, a/k/a Kai Young, a/k/a Cory Young, a/k/a Coy Young, a/k/a Tony Romano, a/k/a Gary B. Smith, a/k/a Randolph Sheyldon Womack, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-8195

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 22, 1994.

Howard J. Manchel, Atlanta, GA, for defendant-appellant.

Joe D. Whitley, U.S. Atty., James Thomas Martin, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, GA, for plaintiff-appellee.

*369Before ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Walter Anderson appeals his sentence for conspiracy to import drugs into the United States and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. Anderson contends that he was entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because he admitted the charges in the indictment and apologized for his conduct and involvement in the offense. He claims that the court denied him the aeceptance-of-responsibility reduction because he exercised his right to object to an enhancement for having a managerial role in the offense. He asserts that although he requested a three-level rather than a four-level increase for having a managerial role in the offense, his request did not constitute a denial of any relevant conduct in the offense.

Because the sentencing judge is uniquely positioned to evaluate the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, we defer to the court’s determination and review for clear error. *United States v. Carroll,*6 F.3d 735, 739 (11th Cir.1993), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —-, 114 S.Ct. 1234, 127 L.Ed.2d 577 (1994). If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for the offense, the court may decrease the offense level by two points. United States Sentencing Commission, *Guidelines Manual,*§ 3El.l(a) (Nov. 1992). The defendant bears the burden of showing the entitlement to the reduction and must present more than just a guilty plea to demonstrate that he accepted responsibility. *United States v. Cruz,*946 F.2d 122, 126 (11th Cir.1991). If the defendant falsely denies or frivolously contests relevant conduct that the court determines to be true, the defendant has not accepted responsibility. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment, (n. 1) (Nov. 1992).

In denying Anderson the contested reduction, the court found that he did not timely provide the government information regarding his involvement in the offense and that he was incarcerated three months before entering a guilty plea. The court further found that Anderson denied a portion of his relevant conduct and attempted to minimize his role in the criminal activity by falsely stating the period during which he was involved in the conspiracy. The record supports the court’s finding that Anderson falsely denied his participation in the whole conspiracy and belies Anderson’s claim that the court denied acceptance of responsibility because he exercised his right to object to the enhancement for his role in the offense. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s sentence of Anderson.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit
        32.2**
 
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. §1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY
        ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of IVI Communications, Inc., (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        the
        undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 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.
  Date:
                  February 14, 2007
              
              /s/ Charles
                RoodenburgCharles
                  Roodenburg
                Chief Financial
                  Officer
#### GUY T. HELVERING, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Petitioner, v. Harry S. BERGER and Mrs. Harry S. Berger, Husband and Wife, Respondents.

No. 8413.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 9, 1939.

Samuel O. Clark, Jr., J. P. Wenchel and Sewall Key, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

No counsel appearing on the docket for respondents.

Before HICKS and SIMONS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion of the petitioner on review in the above-entitled cause to docket and dismiss the petition to review the decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals in the said cause, and it appearing that a certificate of the clerk of the said Board has been filed showing that the petition to review was duly filed with the said Board, and it further appearing that the respondents in said cause have consented to the granting of said motion, it is ordered that the above-entitled cause be by the clerk of this court docketed and that the said petition to review be and the same is hereby dismissed.

It is further ordered that the clerk of this court forthwith transmit a certified copy of this order to the clerk of the United States Board of Tax Appeals at Washington, D. C.
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 Y-Tel International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve
Lipman, President and Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

           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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

 Dated: May 16, 2005


 /s/ Steve Lipman
 --------------------------------
 Steve Lipman, President and CEO

































                                     32.1-1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 3RD
QUARTER 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       9,105,403
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               43,005,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,075,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,234,180
<DEPRECIATION>                                 623,675
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             156,062,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      136,314,600
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,575,000
<COMMON>                                    14,022,473
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,150,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               156,062,708
<SALES>                                     68,197,986
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            77,008,946
<CGS>                                       60,632,950
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               64,404,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,797,564
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,238,744
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,961,389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,608,660
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,443,464
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,165,196
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48
        

</TABLE>