alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Geospatial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Mark A Smith, 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:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                   |  |        |  |                        
|------------------ |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 17, 2010 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Mark A. Smith      
|                   |  | Name:  |  | Mark A. Smith          
|                   |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 18.1


May 9, 2005


Board of Directors
Titanium Metals Corporation
1999 Broadway, Suite 4300
Denver, Colorado  80202

Dear Directors:

We are  providing  this letter to you for  inclusion  as an exhibit to your Form
10-Q filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

We have been provided a copy of the Company's  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2005. Note 1 therein describes a change in accounting
principle  from the LIFO cost method of  inventory  accounting  to the  specific
identification cost method for certain of the Company's  inventories.  It should
be understood that the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over
another for inventory  accounting  has not been  addressed in any  authoritative
accounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence below we have relied on
management's   determination  that  this  change  in  accounting   principle  is
preferable.   Based  on  our  reading  of   management's   stated   reasons  and
justification for this change in accounting  principle in the Form 10-Q, and our
discussions  with  management as to their judgment  about the relevant  business
planning  factors  relating to the change,  we concur with  management that such
change represents, in the Company's circumstances,  the adoption of a preferable
accounting principle in conformity with Accounting  Principles Board Opinion No.
20.

We have not audited any  financial  statements  of the Company as of any date or
for any period  subsequent to December 31, 2004.  Accordingly,  our comments are
subject  to  change  upon  completion  of an audit of the  financial  statements
covering the period of the accounting change.

Very truly yours,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### Dolores J. Drew et al., Respondents, v Frances I. Hooper, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Same memorandum as in *Drew v Hooper*([appeal No. 2] 168 AD2d 903 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
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. EC01-27-000]

Take notice that on November 17, 2000, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Niagara Mohawk) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an Application pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824b, for authority to transfer ownership of a substation from RG&E to Niagara Mohawk. RG&E and Niagara Mohawk request that the Commission expeditiously review this Application and issue an order granting authority for the proposed disposition by December 29, 2000.

A copy of this Application was served on the New York Public Service Commission.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before December 8, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-30489 Filed 11-29-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1 

### Pe r e z , I d a lia

F r om: J eann i ne T a c k ett [ J eann i ne. T a c k ett @ v a ll e y a i r .o rg ]
S e nt: T hu rs da y

, F eb r ua r y 20, 2014 1:23 PM

T o: P e r e z , Ida lia
Cc: s a m i r

. s he i k h @ v a ll e y a i r .o r g; T odd De Y oung; E rr o l Vill ega s ; J e ss i F i e rro S ub jec t: Ru l e 9610 Re vi s i ons A tt ac hm e nt s: A nnua l De m on s t r at i onRepo r t 1.30.14 F i na l .do cx ; 9610 P r o j e c tData f o r P ub li c UNL O C KE D
1

- 30

- 14. x l sx ; 06 R9610 A ppend i x D_M O P 01.31.14.do cx

Id alia, h e r e i s t h e fi n al v e r s i o n o f t h e 9 6 1 0 a nnu al D e m o n s t ra t i o n r e p o r t

, M O P

, a n d D a t a Sp r e a d s h e e t

. I w ill s e nd t h e

sa m e d o c s bu t w i t h t r a ck c h a ng e s i n a s e p ar a te e m ail

.

T h e s e c t i o n s o f

t h e Annu al D e mo n s t ra t i o n R e p o r t t h a t h a d s o m e m i n o r r e v is i o n s ar e

S e c t i o n V( A )

–

M i n o r L a ngu a g e c h a ng e s a nd sli gh t f o r m a t c h a ng e s t o b ett e r d iff e r e n t ia t e b e t wee n t h e 2 s e p ara te a ud i t

ye ars m e n t i o n e d.

S e c t i o n I V( A )

– U pd a te d t h e 2 0 1 7 p r o j e c te d a m o un t s

. T h is s e c t i o n s r e p r e s e n t s i n f o r m a t i o n “ t o d a t e ” t h e r e f o r e w i t h t h e

n ew J a nu ar y d a te o f t h e r e p o r t t h e d a t a r e qu ir e d s om e upd a t i ng.

A ls o
, p l e a s e n o t e t h a t i n t h e M O P t h e r e ar e s o m e m i s si ng li n ks o n p a g e D

- 13

. T h o s e w ill b e fill e d i n w h e n y o u p o s t

o n li n e

. T h e as s o cia t e d d o c u m e n t s ar e n o t a v aila b l e v i a N RC S w e b si te s o t h e y w il l b e h o u s e d o n t h e D is t r i c t s si te a nd a
li n k w ill b e p r o v i d e d i n t h e M O P t o t h o s e d o c s

. T h e r e h a v e b e e n n o o t h e r c h a ng e s t o t h e M O P si n c e t h e las t v e rs i o n w a s

s e n t t o y o u

.



## J ea n n i n e T a c k e t t

S e n i or A i r Q u a l i t y S p e c i al i s t

S trate gi e s & I n c e n t i v e s D e pt.

S a n J oa q u i n V al l e y AP C D

559

- 23 0

- 58 4 3 ** fa x 559

- 230

- 611 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 88 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 88

Urging local tax assessors, in light of the current housing market and 
 economic struggles of people in the United States, to more frequently 
   reassess the property values used to determine property taxes for 
   primary residences, and encouraging local governments to provide 
     property tax relief to those whose home values have declined.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 30, 2009

  Mr. Stupak submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Urging local tax assessors, in light of the current housing market and 
 economic struggles of people in the United States, to more frequently 
   reassess the property values used to determine property taxes for 
   primary residences, and encouraging local governments to provide 
     property tax relief to those whose home values have declined.

Whereas the current credit crisis and declining housing market have caused 
        property values to decrease significantly;
Whereas although property taxes are determined by the assessment of property 
        value by local tax assessors, properties often are not reassessed for up 
        to 5 to 10 years;
Whereas many homes in the United States are currently assessed at values higher 
        than their current market value;
Whereas because many property values have not been assessed since well before 
        the recent decline in the housing market, many people in the United 
        States are paying higher rates for property taxes than would otherwise 
        be due;
Whereas many people in the United States are losing their homes and are not 
        paying their property taxes, further contributing to declining housing 
        market values, reducing the local tax base, and exacerbating the current 
        economic downturn; and
Whereas more frequent reassessment of the property values, taking the current 
        housing market into account, would ensure that people in the United 
        States are paying their fair share of property taxes: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) urges local tax assessors to more frequently reassess 
        property values, especially those of primary residences, used 
        to determine property taxes; and
            (2) encourages county commissioners, city council members, 
        school board members, and others, as they set their yearly 
        budgets, to provide, when possible, property tax relief during 
        this current economic downturn.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,640
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             463
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                10,360
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     31,047
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        164,420
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 223,700
<DEPOSITS>                                     203,775
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,336
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,633
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 223,700
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,909
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,387
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   204
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                13,500
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,667
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,096
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,403
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      450
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,228
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,373
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       894
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .94
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.10
<LOANS-NON>                                        107
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,085
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,237
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       55
<RECOVERIES>                                        20
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,652
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### STOVALL v. STATE.

No. 21050.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 10, 1940.

Rehearing Denied May 22, 1940.

Hardin, Hardin & Hardin and Fred W. Hofstetter, all of Edinburg, and R. H. Wilson, of Wharton, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the County Court of Wharton County for violating the motor truck statute; and his fine was assessed at $110.

The case originated in the Justice Court of Wharton County and the prosecution was under a general complaint, the material allegations of which are as follows:

> “Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Larry Daniel, who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says: that heretofore, to wit; On or about the 18 day of Dec. A. D., 1939, and before the making and filing of this complaint in the County of Wharton, and State of Texas, L. V. Stoval did then and there unlawfully operate a commercial *105motor vehicle, to wit: Truck, tractor and semi-trailer, upon the public highway, outside the city limits of an incorporated town dr city, to wit; U. S. Highway No. 96, in the County of Wharton, State of Texas, with a load on said vehicle in excess of seven thousand pounds net weight. Contrary to the Provisions of House Bill No. 336, Sec. 5, against the peace and dignity of the State.

> “Larry Daniel, Complainant.”

In Leo W. Fortson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 138 S.W.2d 822 which is a prosecution under Art. 827a, Vernon’s Ann. Penal Code, it was held that it was incumbent upon the State to allege and prove that the load was in excess of 7,000 pounds and that he did not come under any of the exceptions set out in Art. 827a, sec. 5, P.C. Before these facts may be proved they must be alleged. There is no allegation in the complaint above set out that the appellant did not come within the exceptions listed in the statute. There being no such allegation, the State would not be permitted to prove it.

The complaint is insufficient, because of which the case is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

The State presents a request for leave to file a delayed motion for rehearing based on the contention that we were in error in holding the complaint bad because it failed to negative certain exceptions. The request for leave to file this motion comes long after the time has expired in which motions for rehearing may ordinarily be filed but is predicated on the ground that the court has control over its judgments during the term at which rendered. We recognize the rule, but doubt the expediency of its application in the present instance. The mandate from this court has long since issued, and perhaps many complaints of like character have been disposed of under that opinion in this case. We therefore think it proper to deny the request for leave to file the motion. However, we wish it understood that such denial is not to be taken as in any way expressing an opinion on the merits of the State’s contention regarding the State’s pleadings.

The request- for leave to file the motion is denied.
### NUMBER 13 - 14 - 00 513 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS , RICHARD FREYMANN ,

AND DARRELL KOVACK

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1 Relators, State Farm Lloyds , Ri chard Freymann, and Darrell Kovack , have filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court direct respondent, the Honorable Rose Guerra Reyna, P residing Judge of the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, to withdraw her order denying relators’ verified plea in abatement and to enter an order abating the suit for damages brought agai nst relators by the real part ies in i nterest, Leobardo Ma rquez and Gladis Marquez, u ntil sixty days after they provide relators with a

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

notice letter for t he i r claim stating the specific, separate amounts for the claimed damages and attorney’s fees. See T EX

. I NS

. C ODE A NN . § 541.154 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Prior Notice of Action”); id. § 541.155 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Abatement”); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.1 (“Commencement” of Original Proceedings). In addition, relators request that this Court iss ue immediate temporary relief staying respondent’s order denying the plea in abatement. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10 (“Temporary Relief”).
T he Court, having examined and fully considered th e petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the o pinion that th e petition for writ of mandamus should be denied for the reasons expressed in our opinion in In re State Farm Lloyds, Richard Freymann, and Nathan Burris , No . 13

- 14

- 00347

- CV, 2014 WL 4243701 ,at ** 4

– 9 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi Aug. 27, 2014, o rig. proceeding) (mem. op ). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the petit ion for writ of mandamus and request for immediate temporary relief

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 52.8( d ).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 16th day of September, 2014.
#### Arthur BERENSON, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 246.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 8, 1940.

Arthur Berenson, pro se, and Lawrence Berenson, both of New York City, and Bernard Berenson, of Boston, Mass., for appellant.

Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Carlton Fox, and Lee A. Jackson, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and PATTERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decision affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of MBNA Corporation and in the related Prospectuses of our report
dated January 23, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of MBNA Corporation included in the 2002 Annual Report to Stockholders of MBNA
Corporation and incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2002:

|       |  |           |  |                                                                                   
|------ |  | --------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Number |  | 33-41936  |  | on Form S-8 dated July 22, 1991                                                   
|Number |  | 33-41895  |  | on Form S-8 dated July 24, 1991                                                   
|Number |  | 33-71640  |  | on Form S-8 dated November 15, 1993                                               
|Number |  | 33-95438  |  | on Form S-8 dated August 4, 1995                                                  
|Number |  | 333-15721 |  | on Form S-3 (as amended by Post-Effective Amendment
No. 1) dated December 10, 1996
|Number |  | 333-21181 |  | on Form S-4 (as amended by Amendment No. 1) dated
February 25, 1997               
|Number |  | 333-06824 |  | on Form S-8 dated April 22, 1997                                                  
|Number |  | 333-51477 |  | on Form S-8 dated April 30, 1998                                                  
|Number |  | 333-74919 |  | on Form S-3 (as amended by Post-Effective Amendment
No. 1) dated March 24, 1999   
|Number |  | 333-79987 |  | on Form S-8 dated June 4, 1999                                                    
|Number |  | 333-44422 |  | on Form S-8 dated August 24, 2000                                                 
|Number |  | 333-45814 |  | on Form S-3 dated September 14, 2000                                              

Baltimore, Maryland
March 24, 2003



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP