alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 2-74613 on Form S-16and No. 33-66474 on Form S-8 of EnergySouth, Inc. (the “Company”), as successor to Mobile GasService Corporation, No. 333-02271 on Form S-3, and No. 333-103713 on Form S-8 of the Company, ofour report dated December 1, 2006, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company forthe year ended September 30, 2006.   /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP  Atlanta, Georgia  December 13, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of J.Crew Group, Inc. and J.Crew Operating Corp. (collectively, the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
period ended January 29, 2005 (the "Report") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Millard S. Drexler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Amanda J.
Bokman, Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial 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 their knowledge:

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.

|Dated: April 29, 2005                                                                    |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/MILLARD S. DREXLERMillard S. Drexler
Chief Executive Officer                          |  | 
|/s/AMANDA J. BOKMANAmanda J. Bokman
Executive Vice-President and
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as
part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.

---



QuickLinks
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-21131

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROSENDO CARRILLO-CRUZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-516-ALL

--------------------

November 14, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rosendo Carrillo-Cruz appeals his bench-trial conviction for

illegal reentry after deportation following an aggravated felony.

He first argues that the dismissal of the original indictment for

Speedy Trial Act violations should have been with prejudice. The

district court properly considered the statutory factors of 18

U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2), and its supporting factual findings were not

clearly in error. United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 337
g:\opin-sc\01-21131.opn.wpd 2

(1988). Accordingly, we find that the district court did not abuse

its discretion in dismissing the first indictment without prejudice

and in permitting reindictment. See United States v. Blevins, 142

F.3d 223, 224 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Carrillo-Cruz also avers that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), which was

used to enhance his sentence based on his prior aggravated felony

conviction, is unconstitutional. Carrillo-Cruz acknowledges that

his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he

seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of

the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90, 496; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). CarrilloCruz’s argument is foreclosed. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.1

          Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted
            Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     I, Sidney Ackerman, the President of Rosedale Decorative Products Ltd. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and

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



Dated: April 14, 2003



                                                             /s/ SIDNEY ACKERMAN
                                                           Name: Sidney Ackerman
                                                                Title: President

          Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted
            Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     I, Norman G. Maxwell, the Chief Financial Officer of Rosedale Decorative
Products Ltd. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge:

     (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and

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



Dated: April 14, 2003



                                                           /s/ NORMAN G. MAXWELL
                                                         Name: Norman G. Maxwell
                                                  Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Benjamin P. Whitaker, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District, Petitioner.

Resignation accepted and name stricken from the roll *981of attorneys. Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Green, JJ.
#### STEPHENSON v. STATE.

No. 23747.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 4, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for carrying a pistol with a penalty of $105.

The record before us contains no bills of exception. The statement of facts was not signed by the county judge and, consequently, is in no position to be considered by us. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### CASTLE v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 8, 1951.

Edward L. Allen, Prestonsburg, for appellant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Guy L. Dickinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

Earl Castle has filed a motion for an appeal from a judgment sentencing him to a $20 fine and 30 days in jail on a liquor charge. The Commonwealth points out that we have no jurisdiction of the case under Section 347 of the Criminal Code of Practice. We so held in the recent case of Coomer v. Commonwealth, Ky., 237 *452S.W.2d 530. Castle contends, however, that, since he was required to execute a peace bond, Section 347 of the Criminal Code of Practice is not applicable. He cites the case of King v. Commonwealth, 153 Ky. 404, 155 S.W. 749, in support of that contention. The King case dealt with a different situation, and, in addition, the second paragraph of KRS 242.410 expressly provides that: “The order of the trial court, requiring the execution of the peace bond, shall not be subject to appeal and shall not be considered as punishment.”

For the reasons given the appeal is dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2726 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2726

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
    Veterans Affairs to enter into contracts and agreements for the 
transfer of veterans to non-Department medical foster homes for certain 
             veterans who are unable to live independently.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 2013

Mr. Miller of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
    Veterans Affairs to enter into contracts and agreements for the 
transfer of veterans to non-Department medical foster homes for certain 
             veterans who are unable to live independently.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Long-Term Care Veterans Choice 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS CONTRACT AUTHORITY FOR TRANSFER 
              OF VETERANS NON-DEPARTMENT MEDICAL FOSTER HOMES.

    Section 1720 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(h)(1) At the request of a veteran for whom the Secretary is 
required to provide nursing home care under section 1710A of this 
title, the Secretary may transfer the veteran to a medical foster home 
that meets Department standards, at the expense of the United States, 
pursuant to a contract or agreement entered into between the Secretary 
and the medical foster home for such purpose. A veteran who is 
transferred to a medical foster home under this subsection shall agree, 
as a condition of such transfer, to accept home health services 
furnished by the Secretary under section 1717 of this title.
    ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `medical foster 
home' means a home designed to provide non-institutional, long-term, 
supportive care for veterans who are unable to live independently and 
prefer a family setting.''.
                                 <all>
```
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 

 

 **** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING **** 

 The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of 

Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 

1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice 

Thomas J. Moyer. 

 Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's 

Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. 

Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative 

Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. 

Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. 

 NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the 

full texts of the opinions after they have been released 

electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised 

to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West 

Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. 

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume 

and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound 

volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. 

 

The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Durr, Appellant. 

[Cite as State v. Durr (1994), Ohio St. 3d .] 

Appellate procedure -- Application for reopening appeal from 

 judgment and conviction based on claim of ineffective 

 assistance of appellate counsel -- Application denied when 

 no colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is 

 found. 

 (No. 94-1820 -- Submitted October 24, 1994 -- Decided 

December 30, 1994.) 

 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 

57140. 

 Appellant, Darryl Durr, was convicted of one count of 

aggravated murder with specifications that the murder was 

committed while the appellant was committing, attempting to 

commit, or fleeing after committing, aggravated robbery, rape, 

and kidnapping, and of kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and 

rape, each with a violence specification. He was sentenced to 

death. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. State 

v. Durr (Dec. 7, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 57140, unreported. 

We also affirmed the convictions. State v. Durr (1991), 58 

Ohio St.3d 86, 568 N.E.2d 674. 

 On June 30, 1993, appellant filed with the court of 

appeals an application pursuant to State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 

Ohio St. 3d 60, 584 N.E. 2d 1204, for delayed reconsideration, 

alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to raise 

thirty-five issues on direct appeal. The court of appeals 

examined each issue, found no colorable claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel, and denied the application. Appellant 

now appeals that decision to this court. 

 

 Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Carmen M. Marino, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 

for appellee. 

 David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, William S. Lazarow 

and Randy D. Ashburn, for appellant. 
 

 Per Curiam. The decision of the court of appeals is 

affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion. 

 Judgment accordingly. 

 Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney 

and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. 

 Wright, J., dissents.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-506-001]

Take notice that on October 2, 2000, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) tendered for filing and acceptance the following tariff sheets as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, to be effective as indicated:

### To Be Effective March 27, 2000

Substitute Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 5-A

### To Be Effective July 1, 2000

Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 5-A

Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to correct errors on Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 5-A. Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 5-A was accepted by the Commission on September 22, 2000 in Docket No. RP00-506-000.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-26129  Filed 10-11-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### DUNCAN v. STATE.

No. 23217.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 14, 1945.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1945.

Polk Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for burglary, punishment being two years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record. In this condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

****

**CERTIFICATION**

******PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connect with the quarterly
report of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended February 29, 2004 to be filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on
or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas P. Taylor, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 as of the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.

It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

|Date: April 13, 2004 | By: | /s/ Douglas P. Taylor                     
|-------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------
|                     |     | Douglas P. Taylor, Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Listof Subsidiaries**
| Name of Subsidiary                           | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Organization** |
|----------------------------------------------|------------|------------|------------|----------------------------------|
| K-Sea OLP GP LLC                             |       | Delaware   |
| K-Sea Operating Partnership L.P.             |       | Delaware   |
| K-Sea Transportation Inc.                    |       | Delaware   |
| Norfolk Environmental Services, Inc.    |       | Delaware   |
| Inversiones Kara Sea SRL                     |       | Venezuela  |
| K-Sea Acquisition2, LLC                      |       | Delaware   |
| K-Sea Transportation LLC                     |       | Delaware   |
| K-Sea Canada Holdings, Inc.             |       | Delaware   |
| K-Sea Canada Corp.                           |       | Canada     |
| K-Sea Hawaii Inc.                            |       | Delaware   |
| Smith Maritime LLC                           |       | Delaware   |
| Marine Logistics, LLC                        |       | Hawaii     |
| Tow Boat Services & Management, LLC |       | Hawaii     |
| Hawaiian Interisland Towing, LLC             |       | Hawaii     |
| Uaukewai Diving,  Salvage and Fishing, LLC   |       | Hawaii     |

 

----
#### WALDREP v. STATE.

No. 23592.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 26, 1947.

Tom L. White, of Monahans, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Under the information charging that appellant, as an adult male, committed an assault upon the person of a female, appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and his punishment assessed at six months in jail.

The undisputed evidence in the case shows that the appellant was eighteen years of age.

The prosecuting witness testified that she considered the appellant as being an adult male.

It is insisted that the facts are insufficient to support the conviction because the State failed to prove that the appellant was an adult male.

The term “adult male,” within the meaning of this prosecution, means one who has attained the full age of twenty-one years. Branch’s P. C., Sec. 1569, p. 927: Hartsell v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 389, 116 S.W. 1159; White v. State, 68 Tex.Cr.R. 147, 151 S.W. 826.

The facts being insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Dean D. Durbin, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Vertis,Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b) [Omitted in accordance with the guidance of SECRelease No. 33-8238]

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
|   |                                              |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ DEAN D. DURBIN                                |   |
|   | **Name: Dean D. Durbin**                     |
|   | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer |

Date: March 27, 2006

 

----