alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
 
   
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3
    
 
   
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
    
 
   
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 33-59918, 33-59916, 33-59920, 33-91900, 33-92684 and 333-       )
pertaining to the Davstar Industries Ltd. Stock Option Plan, the 1992 Employee
Stock Option Plan, the Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan, the Davstar
Industries Ltd. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, Dacomed 1989 Stock Option Plan, 1996
Directors Non-Qualified Stock Incentive Plan, Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
Advanced Surgical 1992 Stock Plan and Employee Reserved Stock Agreements of
UroHealth Systems, Inc. of our report dated August 22, 1994, with respect to the
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows of
UroHealth Systems, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 1994, included in its
Transition Report (Form 10-K/A) for the nine months ended March 31, 1996, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
    
 
   
                                          /s/  DOANE RAYMOND
    
 
                                          --------------------------------------
   
                                               Chartered Accountants
    
 
   
Toronto, Canada
    
   
January 7, 1997
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Trimol Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, 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, 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 and for the periods
covered in the Report.



No purchaser or seller of securities or
any other person shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims
any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



| | /s/ Boris Birshtein    
| | -----------------------
| | Boris Birshtein        
| | Chief Executive Officer
| | TRIMOL GROUP, INC.     



August 14, 2012



[A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Trimol Group, Inc. and will be retained by Trimol Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.]
#### MUELLER et al. v. THOMAS.

No. 8925.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 30, 1932.

Jesse C. Poster, of Raymondville, for appellants.

SMITH, J.

Appellants purchased a tract of land from appellee, for a consideration based upon certain admittedly false and material representations as to the location, value, and title of the land. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of appellants for a specific amount, much less than the sum claimed by appellants. Appellee has filed no brief, and has not in any way contested the -appeal.

Appellants allege in their petition that ap-pellee represented to them that he had just paid $50 an acre for the land, which was in fact worth $150 an acre, but which he was able to get at the reduced price through the intercession of a Mexican go-between, whom he paid $200 commission therefor; that all taxes had been paid on the land; that he had full clear title-to the land. The facts were, however, that appellee had but recently purchased the land at $18.50 an acre (instead of $50), its actual market being only $15 (instead of $150); that a substantial amount of delinquent taxes were due on the land (instead of being fully paid); that the title (instead of being clear in appellee) was claimed by another who had a suit pending therefor at the time, with lis pendens *168notice on record. Other material representations made at tlie time by appellee to appellants were shown to have been quite as false as those recited. The price paid for the land by appellants included $200 appellee claimed he had paid the Mexican as commission.

The trial court directed the jury to return a verdict of $525 in favor of appellants; this amount apparently representing the amount appellants had paid appellee to reimburse him for the alleged $200 commission, and back taxes appellants have paid on the land.

Appellants contend, and it seems properly, that they were entitled to recover the difference between the market value of the land at the time they purchased it and the price they paid for it on account of the admitted deceit of appellee. The court should have submitted to the jury the controverted issues of fraud, and such other issues as were necessary to develop the proper measure of damages under the case made by the pleadings and evidence.

To that end the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF

JOHN V. WALTER, AN ALLEGED

INCAPACITATED PERSON

,

Appellant

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00206

- C V

Appeal from the

Probate Court

of Dallas C ounty, Texas

( PR

- 20

- 01 181

- 1 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appell ee J. Blake Walter’s motion to dismiss appeal for lack

of jurisdiction and to abate proceedings and stay briefing schedule. The motion ONLY AS TO

abate proceedings and stay briefing schedule is GRANTED. T he refore, the appeal is abated and

the briefing deadlines are suspended pending the ruling of the motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction.

I T IS SO ORDERED thi s 1st day of March , 20 2 1

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Alley , JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 77676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31489]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463; as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems.
    Date and Time: January 29 and 30, 2001, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 530, Arlington, Virginia 
22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Alison Flatau, Program Director, Dynamic 
Systems and Control, Sensor Technologies for Civil and Mechanical 
Systems, Room 545, (703) 292-8360.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning Sensing Initiative proposals submitted to NSF for 
financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate nominations for the FY'01 Sensor 
Technologies for Civil and Mechanical Systems Sensing Initiative 
Review Panel proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals.
    These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) of 
the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: November 28, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-31489 Filed 12-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      11,392,006
<SECURITIES>                                 4,409,814
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,043,774
<ALLOWANCES>                                   208,841
<INVENTORY>                                  3,177,519
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,577,252
<PP&E>                                       6,772,091
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,620,515
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,253,089
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,086,363
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       143,625
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,000,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,253,089
<SALES>                                     12,091,578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,402,193
<CGS>                                        4,100,255
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,608,494
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               177,245
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,087
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,433,469)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   120,037
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,563,506)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,563,506)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.46)
        

</TABLE>
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105 - 2498

**ME MORA**  **NDUM** SUBJECT: Heavy- Duty Hy brid Onboard Diagnostics FROM: Am y Kopin TO: The Docket DATE: July

15 , 2011 

### On May 16 th 

### , 2011 we held a conference call with Azure to discuss concerns raised by hy brid manufacturers regarding heavy - duty onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirements and timing. C oncerns were raised during the comment period for the heavy- duty greenhouse gas notice of proposed rulemaking that heavy - duty hy brid applications may

not be able to meet the 2013 heavy - duty

OBD regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD Final Rulemaking . 1 , 2 

### Attendees from th is meeting are shown in the table below. **Attendee Affiliation**  Cleophas Jackson EPA

– Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division Anthony Neam EPA

– Assessment and S tandards Division Amy Kopin EPA

– Assessment and Standards Division Jim Mancuso Azure M ike Kiers Azure Nicolas Bouchon Azure

1 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy - Duty En gines and Vehicles,” republished December 29, 2010. Available here: http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR - 2010 - 12 - 29/html/2010 - 32726.htm 2 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule Regulations Requiring Onboard Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy - Duty Engines Used in Highway Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy - Duty Vehicles Under 14,000 Pounds ,” published February 24, 200 9. Available here: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd - obd - frm - 02 - 24 - 09 - notice - 74 - fr - 8310.pdf OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
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 Annual Report of RadiSys Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott C. Grout, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Date: March 15, 2011





/s/ Scott C. Grout


Scott C. Grout


Chief Executive Officer
### -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74 38 39 40 41 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/01 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ●

●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
exv10w2



 






Exhibit 10.2




Summary of Nonemployee Director Compensation




     Cooper pays nonemployee directors an annual retainer fee of $45,000. In addition, nonemployee
directors are paid meeting attendance fees of $2,000 for regular Board meetings, $1,500 for regular
committee meetings and $2,000 for special Board or committee meetings. The Audit Committee
chairman receives a supplemental annual retainer of $10,000. Each nonemployee chairman of a
standing committee other than the Audit Committee receives a supplemental annual retainer of
$7,500. The Board has established a stock ownership guideline of three times the annual retainer
for each director.



     In lieu of receiving the annual retainer and meeting fees in cash, each nonemployee director
may elect, under the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan, to defer receipt of such amounts until a
date determined by the director or until retirement from the Board. Alternatively, each
nonemployee director may elect to receive all or a portion of the annual retainer fee and meeting
fees in Cooper Class A common shares instead of cash, under the Directors’ Retainer Fee Stock Plan,
which was approved by shareholders in April 1998. The Directors’ Retainer Fee Stock Plan also
provides that each nonemployee director may elect to defer the receipt of all or a portion of the
shares of Cooper stock otherwise payable under the Plan.



     Under the Directors’ Stock Plan, which was approved by the shareholders in April 1996, each
nonemployee director receives an annual stock award of 500 Cooper Class A common shares and 1,000
restricted stock units on each annual meeting date. Restricted stock units represent one Class A
common share each and vest during the year following grant on a pro rata basis depending on the
number of regularly scheduled board meetings during the year. Restricted stock units are credited
with additional shares equal to the amount of dividends that would have been paid on an equal
number of outstanding shares. Upon a director’s cessation of service on the board, restricted
stock units are converted into Class A common shares and are distributed to the director in
accordance with the director’s payment election. Each newly elected or appointed nonemployee
director receives, upon election or appointment, a pro rata stock and restricted stock unit award
according to the time remaining before the next annual meeting date. Each nonemployee director may
elect under the Directors’ Stock Plan to defer receipt of all or a portion of the Class A common
shares payable under the Plan until a date determined by the director or until retirement from the
Board. Each nonemployee director is also granted annually a stock option for 2,000 shares at fair
market value under the Directors’ Stock Plan. The option vests on the third anniversary of the date
of grant and has a 10-year term. As of December 31, 2004, options for 84,000 shares were
outstanding under the Directors’ Stock Plan.
Exhibit 32, Section 1350 Certifications

I, Barbara A. Manzolillo, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, certify this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Medical Information Technology, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

April 28, 2006
(Date)

Barbara A. Manzolillo, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Signature)

I, A. Neil Pappalardo, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, certify this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Medical Information Technology, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

April 28, 2006
(Date)

A. Neil Pappalardo, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
(Signature)
#### In the Matter of Noel P., a Child Alleged to be Abused.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Genesee County Family Court, Graney, J. (Appeal from order of Genesee County Family Court, Graney, J.—child abuse.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Den-man, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
(logo)Deutsche Bank

1761East St. Andrew Place

SantaAna, CA 92705-4934

 

Tel714 247 6000

Fax714 247 6009 

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT ASTO COMPLIANCE

 

DBWF 2015-LCMMortgage Trust

 

Theundersigned, David Co, a Director of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, asthe Certificate Administrator (a "Certifying Servicer'') under the Trustand Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 25, 2015 (the "Agreement''), byand among, Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland LoanServices, A Division of PNC Bank National Association, as Special Servicer,Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, and Deutsche Bank TrustCompany Americas, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent, and Custodian,here by certifies in accordance with Section 11.07 of the Agreement:

 

A)   A review of such Certifying Servicer's activities from January 1, 2017 toDecember 31, 2017 (the "reporting period") and of such CertifyingServicer's performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer'ssupervision and

B)   That, as to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, suchCertifying Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement, inall material respects throughout the reporting period.

 

DEUTSCHEBANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

asCertificate Administrator

 

/s/David Co

BY:David Co

Title:Director

Date: March 1, 2018
S I () - I ()()h I**~** - () I**~** Irene . Pelled

,,' . . Froni: . "US De pa rtment of Trah sportatlon Reference Serv i ce" <ntJ1@ma ilwc;cuslh elp.com> To: <ipelled.17@msn.com > • Sent: . Thursday, June 03 . 20 10 11:4 0 AM . .. Subject: airlines [lncident100603;.o00053 ) Dear 

### Mr. Hoo d, fapplaud youIor 

### ts kingin g on ilieairJin es. There are il few items 

### I would Ike to ad d. 1

)Vouchers should not have an expirati on date or any restricti o ns . 2) I believe the 

### passenger should have a cho i . c.

c . f cash or coucher 3) frequent flier mileage should not be allo wed to exp ire. Th at is unfair to the middl . e class and poor peoplethatcan;taffo rd tottavelonce every IS m onths.Bes ide s if y ou babethe miles the seat n um bers sboul clnot be**restrict~. 1**  have .Close t . 20Q,000 milt.'S o n on e and**69 oOO** **on** another and even a year in advance I never can get the seats 

### f ee, or if they quite a price to upgrade they use such a high fare it is cheaper to but the ticket. 4) The treatment of handicapped at the airports has alotot be desired . Although the airlines enter wheelchair in the record . the.. aids rnrely.sho w up; 

### ' 111e two worse offenders are 

### JFK and Atlanta. 1 have been in this horrific situation many limes. S)NYC. is one of the only airports in the workdtha l charges for til use of the luggage carts. Thatis**disgusting~** I have traveled all over the states nnd worldand no one charges. When foreigners come they 

### do not typically have a $5 . bi l l . Thal amount alone is outrageous . This is a poor welcome to them , This has to 

### be changed . Th anks you and 

### 1 hope to get 

# a reply to my recommendations Sincerel y



### ..**J~P ~J** **~~UeJ! .:** **~** 

### .. ; , ,._,..
#### City of New York et al., Respondents, and David Axelrod, as Commissioner of Health of the State of New York, et al., Intervenors-Respondents, v New Saint Mark’s Baths et al., Appellants, et al., Intervenors-Defendants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene L. Nardelli, J.), entered on March 28, 1990, which, *inter alia,*permanently enjoined defendants from maintaining a public nuisance on the premises of The New Saint Mark’s Baths, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Previously, in this action to permanently enjoin high-risk sexual activity in a gay bathhouse, we affirmed orders which preliminarily enjoined such activity (130 Misc 2d 911, *affd*122 AD2d 747, *appeal dismissed*70 NY2d 693) and which directed closure of the premises (139 AD2d 977). Defendants eventually sought to resolve this action by waiving their right to a hearing and consenting to the entry of a permanent injunction. Both plaintiffs and defendants submitted proposed orders. Justice Nardelli signed plaintiffs’ proposed order which provided that The New Saint Mark’s Baths could reopen a year from the effective date of the order (Sept. 29, 1989), prohibited defendants from maintaining private rooms which are not continuously open to visual inspection, and imposed penalities totaling $29,000.

Defendants now argue that a right to privacy prohibits regulation of gay sexual activity in private rooms on the premises. *People v Onofre*(52 NY2d 476, *cert denied*451 US 987), on which defendants rely, clearly applies only to private conduct in a noncommercial setting *(see, Stratton v Drumm,*445 F Supp 1305, 1309 [DC Conn 1978]), and affords no support for the proposition that privacy rights extend to *312sexual activity occurring on these premises *(see, Garaci v City of Memphis,*379 F Supp 1393).

The fines and costs imposed are appropriate under the circumstances. We have considered the remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7177

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL A. BOMAR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-92-568, CA-96-309-7-20AK)

Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 11, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Bomar, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Bomar, Nos. CR-92-568; CA-96-

309-7-20AK (D.S.C. June 24, 1996). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED