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



Exhibit 23.1 Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Consent The Board of Directors
  AMERIGROUP Corporation: We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-37410) on
post effective amendment No. 1 to Form S-1 and in the registration statement (No. 333-109134) on
Form S-8 of AMERIGROUP Corporation of our reports dated February 25, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of AMERIGROUP Corporation as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the
related consolidated income statements and statements of stockholders equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, and the related financial
statement schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of
AMERIGROUP Corporation. /s/ KPMG, LLC
Norfolk, Virginia
March 7, 2005
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Timeshare Holdings, Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul
Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





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




May
      14, 2008
            
            /s/
      Paul ThompsonPaul
      ThompsonChief
      Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

                Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350,
      as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of clickNsettle.com, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three and six months ended December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Form 10-QSB"), I, Roy Israel, 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 Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section
            13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
            or 78o(d)); and

            (2) The information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company.

Dated: February 11, 2005


/s/ Roy Israel
----------------------------------------------------
Roy Israel - Chairman of the Board, CEO and President


                                       28
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83838-83839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24152]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XE388]


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) 
Ecosystem and Ocean Planning (EOP) Committee and Advisory Panel (AP) 
will hold a joint meeting. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for agenda 
details.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, November 4, 2024, from 1 
p.m. through 4 p.m. and Tuesday, November 5, 2024, from 9 a.m. through 
12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place over webinar with a telephone-
only connection option. Details on how to connect to the meeting will 
be available at: https://www.mafmc.org.
    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N 
State

[[Page 83839]]

Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; website: 
https://www.mafmc.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 
526-5255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During this meeting, the EOP Committee and 
AP will review a completed draft of the Council's Ecosystem Approach to 
Fisheries Management (EAFM) risk assessment report. In 2023, the 
Council conducted a comprehensive review of the risk assessment and 
recommended a number of changes and updates to be included in a revised 
EAFM risk assessment. The draft report has been updated to reflect the 
approved changes to the risk assessment, incorporates the latest data 
and scientific information, and recent feedback from the EOP Committee 
and AP on an earlier draft. The EOP Committee and AP will provide any 
additional feedback before the 2024 EAFM risk assessment report is 
finalized and presented to the Council in December.
    A detailed agenda and background documents will be made available 
on the Council's website (https://www.mafmc.org) prior to the meeting.

Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with 
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aid should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251, at 
least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 15, 2024.
Alyssa Weigers,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-24152 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
#### Ezekiel B. Smith, plaintiff in error, *vs.*James Whittle, defendant in error. John Durden, administrator, plaintiff in error, *vs.*James Whittle, defendant in error.

A homestead, set apart to the defendant in execution, under the Act of 1808, though conveyed to the claimant with the approval of the Ordinary, is nevertheless subject to a judgment against said defendant, rendered before the passage of said Act.

*627Homestead. Judgments. Before Judge James Johnson. Talbot Superior Court. September Term, 1873.

The two foregoing cases, embracing the same question, were argued and determined together.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

Willis & Willis; Marion Bethune; E. H. Worrill, for plaintiffs in error.

B. B. Hinton & Son, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was a claim case, and comes before this Court on a bill of exceptions to the charge of the Court at the trial thereof. In 1862, the plaintiff in execution obtained a judgment against the defendants. In 1869, a homestead was set apart to the defendants, which was subsequently conveyed by deed to the claimant for a valuable consideration, with the approval of the Ordinary. The property was levied on as the property of the defendant in execution. The Court charged the jury, in substance, that, upon the foregoing statement of facts, the property was not subject to the execution levied thereon, to which charge the plaintiff excepted. This case comes within the ruling of this Court, in *Gunn vs. Thornton,*decided at the last term, and therefore must be controlled by it.

The case of Durden, plaintiff in execution, *vs.*Walton, defendant, and Whittle, claimant, in which the same question is involved, was argued in connection with the case first stated. In our judgment the Court below erred in its charge to the jury in both cases.„

Let the judgment of the Court below, in both cases, be reversed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 28, 2022

No. 04-22-00084-CR

Julian BAZAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR1157

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court imposed sentence on October 17, 2019. Because appellant did not file a 

motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on November 18, 2019. Tex. R. 

App. P. 26.2(a)(1). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on 

December 2, 2019. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until 

February 9, 2022. 

“A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.” Taylor v. 

State, 424 S.W.3d 39, 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “A defendant’s notice of appeal is timely if 

filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended, or within ninety days 

after sentencing if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial.” Id. (citing Tex. R. App. P. 

26.2(a)(1)). Because appellant did not timely file a notice of appeal, it appears that we lack 

jurisdiction over this appeal. 

We, therefore, ORDER appellant to show cause on or before March 14, 2022 why this 

appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All appellate deadlines are suspended 

until further order of the court. 

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

FILE COPY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of February, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bosco Holdings,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates indicated  below,  hereby  certifies  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:  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: February 22, 2010  /s/ Alexander Dannikov ---------------------------------------- Alexander Dannikov, President, C.E.O. and Chief Financial Officer
#### State ex rel. Arthur, District Attorney, Respondent, vs. Proctor, Judge, Appellant.

*June 10*

July *12, 1949.*

*356For the appellant there was a brief by *Rubin & Ruppa*of Milwaukee, and *Vaughn S. Conway*of Baraboo, attorneys, and *William B. Rubin*of Milwaukee of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Rubin*and *Mr. Conway.*

For the respondent there was a brief by the *Attorney General, William A. Plats,*assistant attorney general, and *Robert W. Arthur,*district attorney of Dane county, and oral argu-. ment by *Mr. Plats.*

Fairchild, J.

There are two separate questions to be determined here: (1) Is the proper venue in this case in Dane *357county ? (2) Does a writ of mandamus lie to compel a court to exercise its jurisdiction?

(1) The venue for a criminal case is the county where the offense was committed. Sec. 356.01, Stats. The offense in this action was the filing of a false corporation income-tax return. The superior court held that the offense was committed in Columbia county.where the accused made out the return. The state contends that the offense was committed in Dane county where the return was required to be filed. It is considered that the latter contention is the correct one. If we were to accept the former, a Wisconsin resident who made out his income tax in an out-of-state city would have committed the offense there. This would lead to taking from Wisconsin á rightful nieans of protection in maintaining the effectiveness of a proper regulation. It would be contrary to the plain right, which every state has, to determine duties limited, of course, or directly related to state affairs which are peculiar to the state. •

(2) A writ of mandamus is the proper remedy here. *State ex rel. T. L. Smith Co. v. Superior Court,*170 Wis. 385, 175 N. W. 927, is clear authority for that proposition! In that case a writ of mandamus granted by the circuit' court for Dane county to compel the superior court to change the venue of a certain case was affirmed. It was held that because an order denying a motion for change of venue was nonappealable under the statutes, mandamus was the proper remedy. .

Under sec."358.12 (3),.Stats., the state has the right to. appeal “from any final order or judgment, adverse to the state, made or rendered before jeopardy has attached.” , However, this final order or judgment must be of a court of record because'sec. _251.08 give's.the supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over circuit-courts, county courts, or other courts of record. *State v. Hunter,*235 Wis. 188, 292 N. W. 609. In *State ex rel. Maloney v. Proctor,*249 Wis. 377, 24 N. W. (2d) 698, 25 N. W. (2d) 742, it was held that the superior court of Dane *358county is not a court of record when sitting as a justice of the peace. Therefore, a writ of error on behalf of the state could not be taken. The circuit court under *State ex rel. T. L. Smith Co. v. Superior Court, supra,*had power in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed. Cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Perry A. Wallack, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc.



/s/ Perry A. WallackPerry A. WallackChief Financial Officer


Date: May 13, 2011
##### 



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
  (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.
 IMH SECURED LOAN FUND, LLCBy:
    Investors Mortgage Holdings, Inc.Its:
    ManagerBy:
    /s/ Shane AlbersShane AlbersChief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ Steven DarakSteven DarakChief Financial OfficerDated:
    November 14, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          19,859
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,266
<ALLOWANCES>                                       378
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,245
<PP&E>                                           3,745
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,837
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,790
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           139
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,269
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,140
<SALES>                                          6,501
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,501
<CGS>                                              294
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,125
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,293
<INCOME-TAX>                                        80
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,213
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,213
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 27, 2009 

d0120 

Order 

 

January 27, 2009 

137450 

JEFFREY J. SETTECERRI, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137450 

 COA: 284162 

Macomb CC: 03-000121-DM 

CYNTHIA A. SETTECERRI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 27, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 22, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30206 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KEVIN LAMAR BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:04-CR-50066

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kevin Lamar Brooks appeals his jury-trial conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Because Brooks failed to renew his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion, this court reviews the sufficiency of evidence “not under the usual standard of review for claims of insufficiency of evidence but rather under a much stricter standard.” United States v. Ruiz , 860 F.2d 615, 617 (5th Cir. 1988). The court isNo. 05-30206 -2- limited to determining “whether there was a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Brooks argues that the Government did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually knew about and possessed the firearm, which was found between the mattress and box springs of a bed. However, there was testimony that Brooks, who was physically present in the residence when the firearm was discovered by law enforcement officers, admitted that the firearm was his. There was also evidence that Brooks’s driver’s license was found in a drawer in the same bedroom as the firearm, and that mail was sent to Brooks at the residence. The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to establish Brooks’s possession of the firearm. See United States v. Mergerson , 4 F.3d 337, 349 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10

                                                       ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 3, 2001



                                  AMENDMENT OF
                           COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION
                         NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN
                           FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 11 of the Compaq Computer Corporation
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the "Plan"), the
Plan is amended effective as of September 4, 2001, as follows:


         37.      Section 10(a) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety as
                  follows:

                  Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the
                  contrary, (a) all Options granted prior to September 1, 2001
                  shall vest and become immediately exercisable upon a Change in
                  Control (as defined below) and (b) all Options granted on or
                  after September 1, 2001 shall vest and become exercisable if a
                  Participant's service as a director is terminated for any
                  reason (other than due to death, disability or retirement)
                  within one year following a Change in Control.

         38.      For purposes of Options granted on or after September 1, 2001,
                  the definition of Change in Control set forth in Section 10(b)
                  of the Plan shall be revised by substituting the phrase "a
                  merger or consolidation of the Company with any other
                  corporation is consummated" for the phrase "the stockholders
                  of the Company approve a merger or consolidation of the
                  Company with any other corporation" in clause (iii) of the
                  definition in said Section 10(b).