alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of SBM Certificate Company for the
year ended December 31, 1995 of our reports dated March 29, 1995 and February
18, 1994 and contained in Registration Statement No. 33-38066 of SBM Certificate
Company on Form S-1 under the Securities Act of 1933 insofar as such reports
relate to the financial statement schedules of SBM Certificate Company for the
two years ended December 31, 1994.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche, LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
February 26, 1996

                                       38
#### PATTERSON v. STATE.

No. 15135.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 3, 1932.

Rehearing Withdrawn April 20, 1932.

L. D. Hartwell and J. Benton Morgan, both ,of Greenville, for appellant.

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

*269CALHOUN, J.

The offense is transporting intoxicating liquor; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No defect either in the indictment dr procedure has been pointed out or has been perceived. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PEE. CUKIAM.

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

HAWKINS, J.

Appellant files his affidavit requesting that his motion for rehearing in this cause be dismissed. In compliance therewith, the motion for rehearing is withdrawn, and mandate directed to issue on the original opinion.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 29, 2014

h0922 

# Order

Clerk September 29, 2014

148609(38)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148609

COA: 317159

Wayne CC: 04

- 012409

- FC

KEVIN ALLEN

- JERMAINE BROWN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 29, 2014

order is considered, and it is DENIED, becau se it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements 
of Ross Systems. Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-42036, 33-48226, 33-58584, 
33-72108, 33-89128, 333-36745 and 333-44665) and Forms S-3 (File Nos. 
33-89504, 333-19619, 333-06053, 333-44363 and 333-47877) of our report dated 
August 21, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and 
financial statement schedules of Ross Systems, Inc. as of June 30, 1997 and 
1996, and for the years ended June 30, 1997 and 1996, which report is 
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 1997. 
We also consent to the references to our firm under the caption "Experts."

                                      Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Atlanta, Georgia
April 30, 1998
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 21, 2000. 

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City**                     (D. Michael Manies, Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                 

*1. Stephen Dale Kroenke, Douglas Britt Kroenke, and Dwight Alan Kroenke*, all of Lincoln, Missouri; to acquire voting shares of Lincoln Bancshares, Inc., Lincoln, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Farmers Bank of Lincoln, Lincoln, Missouri.                 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 1, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-31030 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CURRENCY>                     British Pounds Sterling
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.6278
<CASH>                                          18,459
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                        63
<INVENTORY>                                      2,838
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,869
<PP&E>                                           1,315
<DEPRECIATION>                                     542
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,682
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,321
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,979
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,982
<SALES>                                         18,192
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                            9,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,716
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,610)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       995
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,605)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance (FACI)

COVID-19 Preparedness Subcommittee

Recommendations to FACI 

September 9, 2021 FACI Meeting

In addition to the COVID-19 Preparedness recommendations to the FACI in 2020, the 

COVID-19 Preparedness Subcommittee has continued to work on premium relief 

principles. In our discussions with the FACI, this recommendation had 2 elements, a 

condition for application and then specific definition of the type of relief.

TOPIC #1: Definition of State of Emergency for Inclusion in Recommendation to 

Federal Insurance Office (FIO) About Principles for Premium Relief

Context: Since the June FACI meeting, the Subcommittee continued to refine the term

“state of emergency”. This was in response to FACI member encouragement to add 

additional flexibility to the definition of state of emergency. 

Proposal:

1 – A national public health emergency for which a Public Health Emergency is declared 

by the Secretary of Health and Human Services pursuant to the Public Health Service Act 

OR an Emergency Declaration is made by the President of the United States (pursuant to 

the Stafford Act or the National Emergencies Act); AND

2 – The closure or significant curtailment of normal business activity for an extended

period in any state where accommodations are considered, pursuant to state orders

or other circumstances, including but not limited to a pandemic similar to COVID-19.
TOPIC #2: Recommendation to Federal Insurance Office (FIO) About Principles 

for Insurance Premium Relief

Context: Since the initially proposed principles did not include recommendations for 

property and casualty insurance, the Subcommittee sought feedback from the American 

Property and Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA). Since our June meeting, the 

Subcommittee continued to work on incorporating property and casualty insurance with 

FACI property and casualty insurance members as well as regulators and updated our

proposed principle as follows: 

Proposal:

If there is a state of emergency declared, the subcommittee supports applying the 

following principles to both the property and casualty and life insurance industries.

1. For property and casualty and life insurance premium payment relief, 

a. Allowing premium payments up to a total of 90 days from the premium due 

date so that the policy is not canceled or lapsed;

b. Allowing reasonable repayment options for unpaid premiums;

c. Waiving any late premium payment fees or penalties;

d. Providing reasonable flexibility to policyholders or their beneficiaries 

regarding proof of claim;

e. Allowing insurers to reduce any first party claim payments by the amount of 

premium owed due to delayed payment during a state of emergency – any 

withholding of claim payments shall reduce the amount of premium owed in 

equal amount; and

f. Providing policyholders the ability to make premium payments, report a claim 

or otherwise communicate with the policyholders’ insurer or producer 

electronically, or if in person, by maintaining safe social distancing standards.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Hatchett, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress. The record at the suppression hearing clearly supports the court’s determination that the conversations overheard and observations made by the police during their surveillance of two hotel rooms were sufficient, standing alone, to provide probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, independent of any observations they may have made upon their initial illegal entry into the hotel rooms.

Defendant and a female companion were occupying room 1116 at the hotel. Police officers, who occupied an adjacent room, were able to conduct a surveillance of that room by looking through the peephole on their door and were able to overhear conversations in room 1116 through a common door. The officers overheard several conversations which related to drug activity. Later that evening, they were advised that defendant’s companion rented room 1114 in defendant’s name. Although the police could not physically observe that room from their location, they were aware that there was traffic between the rooms. They also overheard a directive from room 1116 to go to the other room to get the "cut”, a term denoting *970a dilutant for cocaine. Defendant was found hiding in a closet in that room when it was secured by the police.

On this record, we conclude that the evidence seized, pursuant to the valid search warrant obtained on the basis of information gathered from lawful sources prior to and independent of the initial illegal entry, did not constitute the fruit of any prior police illegality and was properly held to be admissible at trial *(see, People v Harris,*62 NY2d 706; *People v Arnau,*58 NY2d 27, *cert denied*468 US 1217). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.—criminal possession of controlled substance, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 76275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31005]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary


Alaska Land Managers Forum

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Notice, reestablishment of advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is published in accordance with section 9(a)(2) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (1988) and 
41 CFR 101-6.1015(a). Following consultation with the General Services 
Administration and the Office of Management and Budget, notice is 
hereby given that the Secretary of the Interior is administratively 
reestablishing an advisory committee known as the Alaska Land Managers 
Forum. The purpose of the committee is to advise the Secretary on 
Alaska land and resources issues.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This decision is effective November 29, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Heiman, Special Assistant to 
the Secretary for Alaska, Office of the Secretary, Department of the 
Interior, 1689 C Street, Suite 100, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-5151, (907) 
271-5485.

Marilyn Heiman,
Special Assistant to the Secretary for Alaska, Department of the 
Interior, Office of the Secretary
[FR Doc. 00-31005 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-RP-U
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 3 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Relating to the disapproval of obligations under the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the obligation of any amount 

4 exceeding the amounts obligated as described in 

cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HJ 3 EH 

1 paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 115(a) of the Emer2 gency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 22, 

2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with BILLS

cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with BILLS

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 3 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Relating to the disapproval of obligations under the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. 

cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 21838.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 14, 1942.

R. W. Webb, of Snyder, for appellant.

*891Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Willie Williams was tried before the county judge of Scurry County without the intervention of a jury on a charge of violation of the liquor laws and assessed a penalty of nine months in jail, from which this appeal comes.

The record is before us without bills of exception and without statement of facts. The procedure appears to be regular and we find no error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Bozema Bulan, Appellant, v Division of Housing and Community Renewal et al., Respondents.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered October 23, 1989, which dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging *308a determination by respondent upholding a tenant overcharge complaint and continuing the tenant’s rent-controlled status, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Competent evidence in the record supports the respondent’s determination that the subject tenant was in occupancy of the apartment throughout the relevant time period. A document of the New York City Marriage License Bureau established the tenant’s marriage to the prime tenant, who had been receiving residential telephone service in the subject apartment since March 1971. Accordingly, the IAS court properly found that Division of Housing and Community Renewal’s determination was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, and properly declined to substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency *(Matter of Tener v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*159 AD2d 270). Concur —Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
#### MANLEY v. STATE.

No. 20822.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 7, 1940.

Curtis Douglass, of Panhandle, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is knowingly receiving and concealing stolen property; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The indictment charged that the appellant received the property from some person to the grand jurors unknown. We understand from the testimony that the grand jury did know or should have known by the exercise of reasonable diligence that appellant received the property from Less Downey and Gordon Parks, both of whom appear to have stolen from Ed Rawson several joints of pipe having the value of’ more than fifty dollars. These witnesses' testified for the state to the effect that' they delivered the property to appellant.’ Appellant contends that there is a variance-between the proof and allegation relative to the party from whom the property was received. It appears that his contention is sustained by the holding in Hunnicutt v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 260, 97 S.W.2d 957, 958. In that case the court said: “It has been held by this court that whenever it is charged in the indictment that the property was received by the accused from a person whose name was unknown to the' grand jury, some proof must be offered that said party’s name was unknown to the grand jury and that by the exercise of reasonable diligence it could not be ascertained.” The State’s Attorney before this court confesses error on this point.

Downey and Parks were accomplice witnesses and the court instructed the jury that they were accomplice witnesses as a matter of.law. Appellant excepted to the charge because it failed to instruct the jury that one accomplice witness could not corroborate another accomplice witness. This exception was well taken. Jolly v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 102, 103 S.W.2d 161.; Lightfoot v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 281, 80 S.W.2d 984. The State’s Attorney also confesses error on this point.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*614PER 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.
#### SHELMAN *v.*STATE.

No. 15677.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 9, 1932.

Barron & Ware, of Bryan, for appellant.

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

CALHOUN, J.

The offense, murder; the punishment, three years in the penitentiary.

■ The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No defect either in the indictment or procedure has been pointed out or has been perceived. No question is presented for review.

We note that the verdict of the jury finding the appellant guilty of murder without. *121-malice assessed his punishment at three years in the penitentiary, and the sentence fixed his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for a straight term of three years. The sentence will therefore be reformed so as to assess appellant’s punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for an indeterminate period of not less than two years nor more than three years, and, as so reformed, no question being presented for .review, the judgment is affirmed. •

.Reformed and affirmed.

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.

.HAWKINS, J., not sitting.
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 Ross Systems,  Inc. (the "Company") Annual Report on Form
10-K/A for the  period  ended June 30,  2003 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, , J. Patrick Tinley,
Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: January 20, 2004


                                       /s/ J. Patrick Tinley
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                           J. Patrick Tinley
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer