alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
23.1




Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm




Langer,
Inc. and Subsidiaries


New York,
New York




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-139882, 333-130765 and 333-92014 on Form S-3, Registration Statement Nos.
333-130764, 333-94769 and 333-110962 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No.
333-94769 on Form S-8A of Langer, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated
March 20, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements which appear
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008.




/s/ BDO
Seidman, LLP


Melville,
New York


March 20,
2009
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1233 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1233

 To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to suspend a 
 limitation on the period for which certain borrowers are eligible for 
                         guaranteed assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2011

 Mr. Boswell (for himself, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. King of 
  Iowa, Mr. Latham, and Mr. Braley of Iowa) introduced the following 
        bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to suspend a 
 limitation on the period for which certain borrowers are eligible for 
                         guaranteed assistance.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON PERIOD FOR WHICH BORROWERS ARE 
              ELIGIBLE FOR GUARANTEED ASSISTANCE.

    Section 319(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
(7 U.S.C. 1949(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
        inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Suspension.--During the period beginning December 31, 
        2010, and ending December 31, 2011, paragraph (1) shall have no 
        force or effect.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 654 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 310
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 654

                          [Report No. 104-208]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel SUNRISE.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 30 (legislative day, March 27), 1995

Mr. Kerry (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

                            January 26, 1996

              Reported by Mr. Pressler, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel SUNRISE.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as 
applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with the 
appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
vessel SUNRISE (United States official number 950381).
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 310

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 654

                          [Report No. 104-208]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel SUNRISE.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 26, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report dated February 22, 2000 included (or incorporated by reference) in
Mandalay Resort Group's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
January 31, 2000 into Mandalay's previously filed Form S-8 Registration
Statements File Nos. 2-91950, 2-93578, 33-18278, 33-29014, 33-39215, 33-56420,
33-53303, 333-51073, 333-93803, and 333-93805 and to Mandalay's previously filed
Form S-3 Registration Statement File No. 333-60975.

                                          ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Las Vegas, Nevada
April 27, 2000
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 29, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-922

Lower Tribunal No. 11-25608

________________

Omar Romay, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Caribevision Holdings, Inc., et al.,

Appellees.

An appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, Monica Gordo, Judge.

Gelber Schachter & Greenberg, P.A., and Adam M. Schachter, Dan Gelber

and Freddy Funes; David M. Rogero; Coffey Burlington, P.L., and Kendall B.

Coffey and Benjamin H. Brodsky, for appellants.

Dorta & Orta, P.A., and Omar Ortega and Nicole Ruesca, for appellees.

Before SALTER, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM
Pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(3)(D) of the Florida Rules of Appellate

Procedure, Appellants (“Romay”) seek review of the trial court’s non-final order

appointing a receiver to take control of the assets and business operations of the

parties’ joint venture.1 Upon its formation, Romay and the Appellees

(“Caribevision”) each owned fifty percent of the joint venture. The parties’ dispute

involves, among other things, the validity of equity adjustments in favor of Romay

that affect the parties’ respective ownership interest in the joint venture.

Caribevision asserts that a receivership is necessary to prevent irreparable

harm to the parties’ joint venture, and that, consistent with our holding in Romay

v. Caribevision Holdings, Inc, 147 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), sections

607.1432(6) and 608.4492(6)2 of the Florida Statutes authorize the trial court to

appoint a receiver for the joint venture.

After conducting an evidentiary hearing over the course of two days, the

trial court entered a detailed and extensive order granting Caribevision’s motion

for appointment of a receiver. In its order, the trial court recognizes “an imminent

need to preserve the status quo” of the joint venture during the pendency of the

parties’ continuing litigation concerning the ownership of the joint venture.

1 The joint venture consists collectively of America-CV Network, LLC and

America-CV Station Group, Inc., both Delaware entities.

2 Section 608.4492(6) has been re-numbered under the Florida Revised Limited

Liability Act as section 605.0704(6).

2
Further, the order appointing a receiver contemplates that the receiver will resume

the holding of board of directors meetings, which have not occurred despite a prior

trial court order – approved by this Court3 – that appointed a referee to conduct

such meetings.

We review the appointment of a receiver under an abuse of discretion

standard. Puma Enters. Corp. v. Vitale, 566 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Based on the record before this Court, we conclude that the trial court did not

abuse its discretion by entering the order on appeal.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the parties’ underlying

dispute, we affirm the trial court’s order appointing a receiver.

Affirmed.

3 Romay v. Caribevision Holdings, Inc., 147 So. 3d at 126-27.

3
Order entered November 20 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 00515 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF K .L.H., R.A.L.H, S.C. H., E.N.H., S.L.H. A ND F.A.H., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas Coun ty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 07 - 01903 

### O RDER W e GRANT appellant’s November 18, 2014 unopposed motion for second extension of time to file brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than December 26, 2014

. We caution appellant that no further exten sions will be granted absent exigent circumstances.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 10514 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

–

Appellee ,

v.
BENETH CASAS

- AMADOR , Defendant

– Appellant

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15

- CR

- 336

- 1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Beneth Casas

- Amador has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Casas

- Amador has filed a response. The record is not su fficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Casas

- Amador ’s claims of ine ffective assistance of counsel; we therefore de cline to consider the claims

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 9, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-10514 Document: 00513869127 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2017No. 16

- 10514

2 without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Casas

- Amador ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Casas

- Amador’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Case: 16-10514 Document: 00513869127 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2017
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**

**THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Robert L. Howard-Anderson, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Occam Networks, Inc.on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in suchQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of Occam Networks, Inc.

 
| Date: November 6, 2009 | By:    | /s/ ROBERT L. HOWARD-ANDERSON         |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                        | Name:  | Robert L. Howard-Anderson             |
|                        | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

I, Jeanne Seeley, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report of Occam Networks, Inc. on Form 10-Q for thefiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in suchQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of Occam Networks, Inc.

 
| Date: November 6, 2009 | By:    | /s/ JEANNE SEELEY                                 |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                        | Name:  | Jeanne Seeley                                     |
|                        | Title: | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Occam Networks, Inc. and will beretained by Occam Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 538 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 98
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 538

                          [Report No. 104-75]

To reinstate the permit for, and extend the deadline under the Federal 
Power Act applicable to the construction of, a hydroelectric project in 
                    Oregon, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 10 (legislative day, March 6), 1995

 Mr. Hatfield introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

               April 27 (legislative day, April 24), 1995

              Reported by Mr. Murkowski, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reinstate the permit for, and extend the deadline under the Federal 
Power Act applicable to the construction of, a hydroelectric project in 
                    Oregon, 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. REINSTATEMENT OF PERMIT AND EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

    Notwithstanding the expiration of the permit and notwithstanding 
the time period specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 
U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission project numbered 7829, the Commission shall, at the request 
of the licensee for the project, reinstate the permit effective May 23, 
1993, and extend the time period during which the licensee is required 
to commence the construction of the project to the date that is 4 years 
after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                     

                                                        Calendar No. 98

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 538

                          [Report No. 104-75]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To reinstate the permit for, and extend the deadline under the Federal 
Power Act applicable to the construction of, a hydroelectric project in 
                    Oregon, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

               April 27 (legislative day, April 24), 1995

                       Reported without amendment
```
EXHIBIT 99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                             PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Brian  Bonar  Chairman  and  Chief Executive Officer of Imaging Technologies
Corporation,  certify  that:

1.     I  have  reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Imaging Technologies
Corporation  (the  "Registrant");

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

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

4.     I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures  (as  defined  in  Exchange  Act  Rules  13a-14  and  15d-14) for the
Registrant  and  have:

a.     designed  such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is  made  known  to  me by others within those entities, particularly during the
period  in  which  this  Annual  Report  is  being  prepared;

b.     evaluated  the  effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures  as  of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this Annual
Report  (the  "Evaluation  Date");  and

c.     presented in this Annual Report my conclusions about the effectiveness of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on  my  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation  Date;

5.     I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's
auditors  and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing  the  equivalent  functions):

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

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

6.     I  have  indicated  in  this Annual Report whether there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
any  corrective  actions  with  regard  to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

/s/  Brian  Bonar.
------------------
Brian  Bonar

CEO  and  CFO
(Principal  Executive  and  Financial  Officer)

Date:  November  18,  2002
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of
Trinity Place Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended March 1, 2014 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard G. Pyontek, Chief Financial Officer and Chief
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|/s/ Richard G. Pyontek                           | 
|------------------------------------------------ | 
|Richard G, Pyontek                               | 
|Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary | 
|Trinity Place Holdings Inc.                      | 
|June 30, 2014                                    |
#### MASLOW COOPERAGE CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. Hon. Stephen S. JONES, Judge, Jefferson Circuit Court, Common Pleas Branch, 4th Division et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 10, 1958.

*861Greenebaum, Barnett & Wood, Louisville, for petitioners.

Ewing L. Hardy, Louisville, for respondents.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

An attempted appeal by the Maslow Cooperage Corporation from a civil judgment against it was dismissed by this Court because there was no showing made, in accordance with KRS 21.060 and 21.070, that the amount in controversy was such as to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See Maslow Cooperage Corporation v. Hofgesang, Ky., 316 S.W.2d 126 (petition for rehearing overruled this day). While a petition for rehearing was pending, the corporation filed a motion in the trial court for an order to “correct” the judgment by stating therein the amount in controversy, in accordance with KRS 21.070. The trial judge advised the parties that he would overrule the motion, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to correct the judgment while the case was pending in the Court of Appeals on petition for rehearing. The corporation then instituted the present original proceeding in this Court, seeking an order of mandamus to compel the trial judge to take jurisdiction of the motion to correct the judgment.

As we view the matter, it is immaterial whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to pass on the motion, because in any event effective relief could not be granted on the motion.

The petitioner bases its right to relief on CR 60.01 and 60.02(6). The first of these two rules authorizes the correction of “clerical mistakes” in a judgment. One reason why this Rule is not available is that the omission from the judgment of a statement of the amount in controversy is obviously not a clerical mistake, but is simply the result of the failure of either party to request that such a statement be made in the judgment. Under KRS 21.070 such a request is required.

Even if it should be considered that the missing statement could be supplied by way of correction of a “clerical mistake” under CR 60.01, this would be of no avail to the petitioner because the time for taking an appeal from the original judgment has long since expired, and correction of the judgment by insertion of a statement of the *862amount in controversy could not operate to revitalize the judgment in such a way as to start anew the running of the period for taking an appeal.

The second rule relied upon, CR 60.02(6), authorizes modification of a judgment for a “reason of an extraordinary nature justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” This Rule furnishes no basis for granting the motion in question because, first, the motion does not seek “relief from the operation of the judgment,” but merely the supplying of a jurisdictional requirement for appeal purposes, and second, the circumstances are not so extraordinary or unusual, and do not impose such undue hardship, as to justify the invoking of the rule. See Clay, CR 60.02, Comment 7.

The petition for an order of mandamus ds denied.