alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



Board of Directors
Varsity Brands, Inc.


         We have issued our report dated February 14, 2003, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of
Varsity Brands, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2002. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in
the Registration Statements of Riddell Sports Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8
(File No. 333-34355), effective August 25, 1997, on Form S-4 (File
No.333-31525), effective August 7, 1997, and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-43247),
effective February 13, 1998.




/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
----------------------
Grant Thornton LLP



Chicago, Illinois
March 30, 2003
Exhibit
32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection
with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sunrise Energy Resources,  Inc. (the Company)
for the period ended December 31, 2003 as  filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the  Report), I, Konstantin Tsirulnikov, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 5,
2005

| | By:
 /s/ Konstantin Tsirulnikov
      Konstantin Tsirulnikov
      Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
#### WHITE v. STATE.

No. 15451.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 15, 1932.

Shelton & Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, J.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or ¡bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is 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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4225

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus AUDREY HIGGINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-78) Submitted: July 15, 2005 Decided: August 16, 2005 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan Scott Gasser, Acting United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; 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: Audrey Higgins appeals the district court’s judgment revoking her supervised release and imposing a four-month custodial sentence. Higgins’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion by revoking her supervised release and imposing the custodial sentence. Higgins has been informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Because Higgins has been discharged from federal custody, her sentence did not include a term of supervised release, and there are no continuing collateral consequences from the district court’s judgment on revocation of supervised release, we dismiss the appeal as moot. SeeSpencer v. Kemna , 523 U.S. 1, 10 (1998). In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore dismiss Higgins’s appeal as moot. This court requires that counsel inform his c lient, in writing, of her right to petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.- 3 - 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 August 28, 2020

Order 

Clerk

August 28, 2020

160658

160660(173)(174)

TAXPAYERS FOR MICHIGAN

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, STEVE

DUCHANE, RANDALL BLUM, and SARA

KANDEL,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 160658

COA: 334663

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF

TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET and OFFICE OF AUDITOR

GENERAL,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________

TAXPAYERS FOR MICHIGAN

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, STEVE

DUCHANE, RANDALL BLUM, and SARA

KANDEL,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 160660

COA: 334663

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF

TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET and OFFICE OF AUDITOR

GENERAL,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motions of defendants-appellants in No. 160660 

to extend the time for filing their brief on appeal and for immediate consideration are

GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before September 

9, 2020. The filing of plaintiffs-appellants’ brief on appeal in No. 160658 is also extended 

to September 9, 2020.
EXHIBIT 11
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                      UNITED PAYORS & UNITED PROVIDERS, INC.
                                                 AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                 COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                                                    (Unaudited)


                                           Nine Months Ended              Three Months Ended
                                             September 30,                   September 30,
                                     ----------------------------   ----------------------------
                                          1996           1995           1996             1995
                                     ------------   ------------    ------------    ------------
<S>                                  <C>            <C>             <C>             <C>    

Net income (loss)                    $  7,611,449   $   (473,652)   $  2,601,979    $   (216,719)  
                                      ===========    ===========     ===========     ===========

Weighted average number of 
common shares outstanding               9,650,940      8,800,000      11,334,308       8,800,000
                                      ===========    ===========     ===========     ===========

Net income (loss) per common share   $       0.79   $      (0.05)   $      0.22     $      (0.02)
                                      ===========    ===========     ===========     ===========

</TABLE>
Exhibit 24
 
 Confirming Statement
 
 This statement confirms that the undersigned, Gary Lehman, has authorized and designated Jennifer Mainord or Rhonda Bost, to execute and file on the undersigned’s behalf, all Forms 3, 4, and 5 (including any amendments thereto) that the undersigned may be required to file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as a result of the undersigned’s ownership of or transactions in securities of First Merchants Corporation. The authority of Jennifer Mainord or Rhonda Bost under this statement shall continue until the undersigned is no longer required to file Forms 3, 4 and 5 with regard to the undersigned’s ownership of or transactions in securities of First Merchants Corporation, unless earlier in writing.
The undersigned acknowledges Jennifer Mainord or Rhonda Bost are not assuming any of the undersigned’s responsibilities to comply with Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
 
 Date:  09/10/2012
 
 /s/ Gary Lehman
 Signature
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2011

- 0648 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2010

-NM

- 276

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. Estimated Costs: Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

U.S. Registered Products Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet


### Revision/Deactivati on/Removal/Inspec tion/Replacement 33.0 $2,805 .0 0 

### $3,054 $5,859.00 

### 605 $3,544,695.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $3,544,695 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
On
- Condition Costs: Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Replacement 5.0 $ 425.00 

### $0 $ 425.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 5, 2012

d0227 

# Order

March 5, 2012

143974

LEASE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143974 COA: 297704 Oakland CC: 2009-100609-CZ EZ THREE COMPANY, L.L.C. and SHARON OAKES, Defendants,

and

DORIS BARNES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 4, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6448
LARRY DONNELL GAITHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN PENDER; J. S. CLARK, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-96-45-5) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Donnell Gaither, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gaither v. Pender , No. CA-96-45-5 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10QSB JUNE 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,492,390
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  430,128
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    698,173
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,002,713
<PP&E>                                         513,680
<DEPRECIATION>                                 243,249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,308,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,025,316
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         30
<COMMON>                                       142,591
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,433,205
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,308,338
<SALES>                                        125,032
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,032
<CGS>                                          258,229
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  258,229
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,187,856
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,298,280)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,298,280)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,298,280)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Samantha Tianne Erickson v. Lee Robert Erickson

Appellate case number: 01-19-00481-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-10540

Trial court: 308th District Court of Harris County

The en banc court has unanimously voted to deny appellant’s motion for en banc 

reconsideration of the denial of appellant’s request for temporary relief.

*

It is ordered that 

appellant’s motion for reconsideration and en banc reconsideration is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sarah B. Landau____________ 

 Acting for the En Banc Court

Date: July 12, 2019

* En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes, Higley, Lloyd, Kelly, 

Goodman, Landau, Hightower, and Countiss.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          28,055                  11,031
<SECURITIES>                                     3,832                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,645                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,734                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,274                  11,806
<PP&E>                                           9,846                   1,971
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,099                     409
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,809                  13,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,683                   1,302
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,591                  23,203
<COMMON>                                        52,509                     274
<OTHER-SE>                                     (33,604)                (12,189)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,809                  13,420
<SALES>                                          4,512                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,512                       0
<CGS>                                            6,414                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,414                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,846                   6,050
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  85                      26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (16,943)                 (5,983)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (16,943)                 (5,983)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16,943)                 (5,983)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.64)                  (2.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.64)                  (2.65)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.8



WITHDRAWAL, WAIVER OF EVENTS OF DEFAULTS AND RELEASE

OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC., a Maryland
corporation ("Omega"), and OMEGA (KANSAS), INC., a Kansas corporation
("Omega Kansas") are entering into this Withdrawal, Waiver of Events of
Defaults and Release (this "Waiver and Release") pursuant to the terms of
that certain Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") dated as
of June 4, 2003 by and between ALTERRA HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, for itself and as successor to Sterling House Corporation, a Kansas
corporation, AHC PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, ALS-Clare Bridge,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Omega and Omega Kansas.

Omega and Omega Kansas hereby (i) withdraw all
default notices and declarations of Events of Default given or declared prior to
the date of this Waiver by either or both of them with respect to the
Transaction Documents (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) or any of them
and (ii) irrevocably and unconditionally waive the Existing Defaults (as defined
in the Settlement Agreement) and (iii) release and forever discharge Alterra
Healthcare Corporation, AHC Properties, Inc., ALS-Clare Bridge, Inc. and the
Sublessees (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) from all claims, debts,
liabilities, demands, obligations, costs, expenses, actions, causes of action,
of every nature and description, whether known or unknown, absolute, mature or
not yet due, liquidated or nonliquidated, contingent, noncontingent, direct or
indirect, and arising with respect to the Existing Defaults; provided, however,
that Omega and Omega Kansas retain claims for unpaid Base Rent (as defined in
the Master Leases, which are defined in the Settlement Agreement) only to the
extent that such unpaid Base Rent is calculated as part of the Aggregate Base
Rent Reduction Amount (as defined in the Master Leases).



This Withdrawal, Waiver of Events of Defaults
and Release is made with the express intent that it may be relied upon by
Alterra Healthcare Corporation, AHC Properties, Inc., ALS-Clare Bridge, Inc.,
and the entities set forth on Exhibit "A", and is delivered under and by
virtue of entering into the Settlement Agreement and consummating the
transactions contemplated by the Settlement Agreement.

Dated:  July 7, 2003

OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC., a Maryland
corporation





OMEGA (KANSAS), INC., a Kansas corporation



---



Exhibit A



Sterling Cottage of Oklahoma City LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company



Sterling House of Kokomo L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
<PAGE>

                              AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
                                     TO THE
                         DONNA KARAN INTERNATIONAL INC.
                  1996 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION PLAN

         WHEREAS, Donna Karan International Inc. (the "Company") maintains the
Donna Karan International Inc. 1996 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan (the
"Plan");

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Section X of the Plan, the Board of Directors of
the Company (the "Board") has the right to amend the Plan without stockholder
approval if such approval is not required as a condition of compliance with the
requirements of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"); and

         WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of
shares of common stock of the Company that may be purchased pursuant to the
annual options granted under the Plan and stockholder approval is not required.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective as of May 1, 1998,
as follows:

         1. The reference to "500 Shares" in paragraph A of Section VI of the
Plan is amended to read as "1,000 Shares."