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

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP,INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 Nos. 333-52814, 333-71228 and 333-101115) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Plan (as amended) and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Catalytica Energy Systems, Inc. of our report dated February 7,2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Catalytica Energy Systems, Inc included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

Phoenix, Arizona 

March 28, 2003
#### UNITED FUEL GAS COMPANY v. Burbage CRIDER et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 12, 1954.

J. K. Wells, Paintsville, for appellant.

Coldiron & Warnock, Greenup, for ap-pellees.

MOREMEN, Judge.

This action was instituted by appellant to condemn a right of way 1496 feet in length, comprising 2.28 acres, across a part of appellees’ 112 acre farm in Green-up County for a pipe line easement, the right of ways for other portions of which were involved in United Fuel Gas Company v. Mauk, 272 S.W.2d 810, and United Fuel Gas Company v. Hieneman, 272 S.W.2d 813, 814, the opinions of which were rendered today, and other cases to which we need not refer because they involve the same questions as those presented in the above styled cases.

The property involved in this action in relation to the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company right of way, U. S. Highway 23, and the easement, lies substantially the same as the property described in the Mauk case. In this case too, on an appeal from the Greenup County Court, the Circuit Court entered a judgment on a verdict for $2,500 — $1,000 for the easement area and $1,500 resultant damages to the remainder of the tract.

The facts and questions presented are essentially the same as those decided in the above cases with the exception that witnesses were permitted to testify concerning the extent to which fear of explosion entered into their calculation of damages for depreciation in value.

In the case of Gulledge v. Texas Gas Transmission Corporation, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 349, the court specifically outlined standards which must be met before such testimony would be competent. The principal witness on this point, Mr. Farson, substantially met the qualifications prescribed in said case and we believe his testimony was competent.

Since this case will be reversed for a new trial — if there is a new trial — testimony should only be admitted under the rules of the Gulledge case.

The facts and the questions of law involved in this case are essentially the same as those involved in the two above cited cases. Therefore, for the reasons given in, and upon authority of, United Fuel Gas Company v. Mauk, and United Fuel Gas Company v. Hieneman, the judgment herein is reversed.
1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3377

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Darrell Coleman, * * [PUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 14, 2005 Filed: April 25, 2005

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Darrell Coleman appeals the revocation by the district court 1 of his term of supervised release and the sentence of nine months that the court imposed upon him for violating the conditions of his release. We affirm. Mr. Coleman challenges the district court's order only on constitutional grounds, arguing that the logic of Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004),-2-renders the United States Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional as well as his ninemonth sentence. Although the Supreme Court did hold the Sentencing Reform Act unconstitutional after the appellant filed his brief, United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738, 758, 764-65 (2005), the Court did not discard the guidelines wholesale. Instead, it excised from the Sentencing Reform Act only those provisions that made application of the sentencing guidelines mandatory and thus were contrary to the sixth amendment. Id. at 764. Among the remaining provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act that the Court recognized as constitutionally valid was the supervised release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3583. Id. Indeed, the advisory sentencing guidelines scheme that Booker creates, id. at 750, 764-66, is precisely what prevailed before Booker with respect to fixing penalties for violating the kind of release conditions that Mr. Coleman violated by not obtaining employment. In such circumstances, § 3583 leaves to the discretion of the district judge the decision to revoke a term of supervised release and impose imprisonment, provided the judge takes into account the relevant considerations set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); see alsoU.S.S.G. ch. 7, pt. A(1), A(2)(b), A(3)(a). Therefore Mr. Coleman's constitutional challenge fails.

Affirmed.

______________________________
#### STEVENS v. STATE.

No. 25162.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 21, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Robbery is the offense; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for fifty years.

The record before us contains neither bills of exception nor a statement of facts. Nothing is presented for consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is. affirmed.

Opinion approved, by the court.
#### LOVE v. STATE.

No. 25812.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 9, 1952.

Rehearing Denied May 14, 1952.

*629Winston P. Brummett and A. W. Salyars, Lubbock, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful sale of whiskey in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $300.00 and 90 days in jail.

The complaint and information appear, regular.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception; and nothing being presented for review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant has filed a motion for rehearing which he bases on two complaints. The first is that, subsequent to the trial in the county court appellant was indicted and tried in the district court upon a charge of perjury in which it is alleged that he swore falsely in the trial of this case, the particular defensive evidence being that he was not in the county at the time of the sale. Since this case has been on appeal he was tried and acquitted of perjury.

No brief and no arguments were presented on the original submission of this cause. After its affirmance a motion for rehearing has been filed and he 'has presented, with his brief and argument, certified copies of certain pleadings and orders in the district court in the perjury trial. This is to support his plea before this court for a reversal of the instant case under the contention that,1 having been acquitted by the district court jury of a different offense involving the same facts, before his case was finally disposed of in this court, he is now entitled to a plea of former jeopardy.

 In the first place, and without any intimation that there is merit in the contention, this court does not try cases on their merit. We are in no way concerned with what happened to appellant in some other case subsequent to the one from which this appeal comes. We have read his very interesting brief and cannot agree with the novel contentions made. . If this , court should permit additional pleading and ■ evidence we would be departing from the holding in any case known to us.'

The second proposition raises a question as to variance between the complaint and information; No question was raised about this in the court below and none on original submission of the case. It cannot be raised at this time. See Burnett v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 598, 228 S.W. 239.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**CAREADVANTAGE,
      INC**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





Pursuant
      to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Dennis J. Mouras, Chief
      Executive Officer and acting principal financial officer of CareAdvantage,
      Inc.
      (the “Company”), hereby certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      November 14, 2006    /s/ Dennis J. Mouras
              
              Dennis J. Mouras, Chief Executive Officer
                and
              acting
                Principal Financial Officer
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,714

EX PARTE THOMAS LOUIS VANHOOK, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 10,743 IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 1-A

FROM JASPER COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of failure to register

as a sex offender and sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to

timely file a notice of appeal. We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

The trial court has determined that trial counsel did not timely file a notice of appeal. We
2

find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of

conviction in Cause No. 10,743 from the Judicial District Court 1-A of Jasper County. Applicant

is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then,

with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. Within ten days of the issuance of this opinion,

the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to

be represented by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to represent

Applicant on direct appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed

on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to

prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court

within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Delivered: January 11, 2012

Do Not Publish
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: ^ 

# £87 ) H-K - (# ) -10 0 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

/Viw/er f /1/12/200 811:12:58AM

Sheet 287 of 325P. 2

C 3 

# Til II-K-(I)-10 0

199 0 PROJECTE D NE

W INDUSTRIAL FOSSI L FUEL-FIRE D BOILE RAI REMISSIONS , FUE L DEMAND , AN D COST S (HIGHE ROI L AN D GA S PRICES) . EEA , Inc . Novembe r 26 , 1985 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUN D I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M IV-K-(I)-8 .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
10QSB REPORT FOR THE QUARTER AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH 10QSB.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000095898
<NAME> SWISS CHALET , INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,956,563
<SECURITIES>                                   819,734
<RECEIVABLES>                                  337,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     34,615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,199,511
<PP&E>                                       5,927,037
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,949,534
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,247,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          573,388
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       700,581
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,912,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,247,879
<SALES>                                      2,187,336
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,404,041
<CGS>                                           41,861
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,775,131
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                587,049
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            587,049
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   587,049
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32



CAREADVANTAGE, INC

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. §
1350, I, Dennis J. Mouras, Chief Executive Officer and acting principal financial officer of CareAdvantage, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September
30, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: November 15, 2004



/s/ Dennis J. MourasDennis J. Mouras, Chief Executive Officer andacting Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1


                                                                EXHIBIT 21
                            SUBSIDIARIES

Acadian Consultants Corp.
ACT Medical Record Services, Inc.
APS Services Acquisition Corp.
Associate Record Technician Services Acquisition Corp.
B&B (Baltimore-Washington) Acquisition Corp.
California Medical Record Service Acquisition Corp.
CH Acquisition Corp.
Computer Central Corporation
DeBari Associates Acquisition Corp.
Delaware Major Acquisition Corp.
Deliverex Acquisition Corp.
Deliverex Sacramento Acquisition Corp.
DISC Acquisition Corp.
Doctex Acquisition Corp.
DPAS Acquisition Corp.
Eagle Legal Services Acquisition Corp.
F.Y.I. Corporate Acquisition Corp.
Imagent Acquisition Corp.
Information Management Acquisition Corp.
Input of Texas, Inc.
Leonard Archives Acquisition Corp.
Lifo Systems, Inc.
MAVRICC Management Systems, Inc.
Medicopy Acquisition Corp.
Micro Publication Systems, Inc.
Minnesota Medical Record Service Acquisition Corp.
MMS Escrow and Transfer Agency, Inc.
Permanent Records Acquisition Corp.
Premier Acquisition Corp.
QCS Inet Acquisition Corp.
Quality Copy Acquisition Corp.
RAC (California) Acquisition Corp.
Recordex Acquisition Corp.
Researchers Acquisition Corp.
Robert A. Cook Acquisition Corp.
Texas Medical Record Service Acquisition Corp.
The Rust Consulting Group, Inc.
ZIA Information Analysis Group, Inc.
Zip Shred Canada Acquisition Corp.
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 Winfield Capital Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Paul A. Perlin, Chairman of the Board 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, to the best of my knowledge,
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 result of operations of the Company.

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.


/s/ Paul A. Perlin
------------------
Paul A. Perlin
Chairman of the Board &
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: February 12, 2004


                                      -24-
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). P D M / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MAR C US L . HU DS ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. B . T R A N G O , C o rr e c tio n a l O f f ic e r ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15510 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - C V- 0 1 5 8 9 - R L HV PC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R oge rL . H unt , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dC L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M a r c us L . H uds on, aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n f o rf a ilu r e to 

# FI LED JAN 11 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSP D M / Res ea r ch 09- 15510 2 e xhaus ta dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s pur s ua ntt o the P r i s on L i t i ga t i on R e f orm A c t , 42 U . S . C . § 1 99 7e(a ). W e have j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e r evi ew d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l f o rf a ilu r e to e x h au s t, an df

o rc le a re rr o rits f a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s , W y at t v . T e rhune , 315 F . 3d 1108, 1117 ( 9th C i r . 2003) , a nd w e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d H uds on’ s c l a i m s be c aus e he di d not c om pl e t e the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve appe a l s pr oc e s s i n a c c or da nc e w i th the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve p r o c e du r a l ru le s , a n df

a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te th a t h e w a s o b s tru c te df r o m d o in g s o . Se e W oodf ord v . N go , 54 8 U . S . 81 , 90 -91 (20 06 ) ( expl ai ni ng that“ prop er e xhaus t i on” unde r§ 1997e ( a ) r e qui r e s i nm a t e s t o c om pl e t e “ a l l s t e ps tha tthe a g e n c yh o ld s o u t” a n dto f o llo w a d m in is tr a tiv e p r o c e du r a l ru le s ) . H ud son’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. A F F I R M E D .
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32. CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Getty Realty Corp. (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period
ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: March 12, 2004

By: /s/ LEO LIEBOWITZ
   ------------------
Leo Liebowitz
President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Getty Realty Corp. and will be retained by Getty Realty Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.

<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32. CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Getty Realty Corp.(the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period
ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: March 12, 2004

By: /s/ THOMAS J. STIRNWEIS
    -----------------------
Thomas J. Stirnweis
Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Getty Realty Corp. and will be retained by Getty Realty Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.