alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Janel World Trade Ltd.
150-14 132nd Avenue
Jamaica, New York 11434

Gentlemen:

We have issued our report dated December 6, 2005 accompanying the financial
statements of Janel World Trade Ltd. and subsidiaries contained in the Form 10-K
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We consent to the use of
the aforementioned report in the Form 10-K under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and to the use of our name as it appears in Item 9 of Form
10-K.


                                                  /S/ PARITZ & COMPANY, P.A.
                                                  --------------------------
                                                      Paritz & Company, P.A.

Hackensack, New Jersey
December 21, 2005
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
 
 **Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants**
 
 We consent to the inclusion in the Form 10KSB/A being filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Vision Global Solutions, Inc. of our report dated June 30, 2004, relating to our audits of the consolidated balance sheets of Vision Global Solutions, Inc. as of March 31, 2004 and 2003 and the related Consolidated Statements of Income, Consolidated Changes in Stockholders Equity, and Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years then ended.
 
 Malone & Bailey, PLLC
 www.malone-bailey.com
 Houston, Texas
 
 June 30, 2004, except Note 10,
 as to which the date is
 September 10, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE QUARTERLY  PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFRENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             132,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,478,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100,000
<INVENTORY>                                      8,397,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,037,000
<PP&E>                                           1,820,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     765,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,490,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,288,000
<BONDS>                                          6,143,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           313,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,746,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,490,000
<SALES>                                          2,089,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,089,000
<CGS>                                            1,235,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,235,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   844,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 664,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (654,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (654,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (654,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.29)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the periodic report of
Endocare, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Craig
T. Davenport, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for
purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of
the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) the Report fully complies with the
    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates
    and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be
deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.



| |                                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ CRAIG T. DAVENPORT                               
| |                                                      
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
    Board

Date: August 9, 2004
#### THE STATE TO THE USE OF JACOB MERRILL vs. JAMES R. McMINN & AL.

Where the' only record of the appointment and qualification of a constable Was in the' following words, to-wit: “James R. McMinn appeared in Court and filed his bond as constable for the County of Henderson for one year and was duly sworn.” *Held,*that, under the Act of 1844, curing defects in the official bonds of certain officers therein named, this was sufficient evidence of the appointment of the constable, and of his having qualified and given bond.

The case of *The State*v. *Pool,*5 Ired. 105, cited and approved.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Henderson County, at the Spring Term, 1845, his Honor Judge Manly presiding.

*347This was an action of debt on the bond of MeMinn, one of the defendants, as a constable in the County of Henderson. Plea, *non est factum.*The relator on the trial produced the entry of record made in the County Court, which entry is in the following words, to-wit: “ James R. MeMinn appeared in Court, and filed his bond as constable for the County of Henderson for one year and was duly sworn.” The defendant objected that this entry did not establish his legal appointment as constable. The Court thought otherwise, and a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed.

*N. W. Woodfin,*for the plaintiff.

*J. W. Woodfin*and *Francis,*for the defendants.

Daniel, J.

It is very certain that the objection would have been held good, had it not been for. the Act of the General Assembly, at its session of 1844-5, curing defects in the official bonds of certain officers therein named. The circumstance, that the constable’s bond was taken by a Court, composed of only three magistrates, makes no difference since the passage of the aforesaid Act of Assembly. *State*v. *Pool,*5 Ired. 105.

Per Curiam-. Judgment affirmed.
HomeNuclear SecurityDomestic SafeguardsLicensing Requirements

# Frequently Asked Questions About the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan

On this page:
        - Which licensees must submit a Fundamental Nuclear Control (FNMC) plan?
        - What must the FNMC plan contain?
        - What are NRC?s requirements for an acceptable FNMC plan?
        - When must NRC approve changes to an FNMC plan?

Index to All Frequently Asked Questions Pages

**Which licensees must submit a Fundamental Nuclear Control (FNMC) plan?**

An FNMC plan is required for all licensees authorized to possess more than 1 effective kilogram of special nuclear material, with the exception of a production or utilization facility (i.e., a reactor) or operations involved in waste disposal.

**What must the FNMC plan contain?**

The FNMC plan describes what the licensee will do to control and account for the special nuclear material and how the licensee will do it.

**What are NRC?s requirements for an acceptable FNMC plan?**

NRC?s acceptance criteria and related information is found in the following documents:
        - NUREG-1065 , Acceptable Standard Format and Content for Fundamental Nuclear Material Control (FNMC) Plan Required for Low-Enriched Uranium Facilities
        - NUREG-1280 , Standard Format and Content/Acceptance Criteria for the Material Control and Accounting Reform Amendment
        - NUREG/CR-5734 , Recommendations to the NRC on Acceptable Standard Format and Content for the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan Required for Low-Enriched Uranium Enrichment Facilities

**When must NRC approve changes to an FNMC plan?**

NRC must give prior approval for new approaches or changes that reduce effectiveness of the Material Control and Accounting program. NRC must be notified of any other changes, even if they do not reduce the effectiveness of program.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, August 14, 2017
#### Ross, Appellant, vs. City of Shawano, Respondent.

*January 12*

February *6, 1923.*

*Municipal corporations: Defective sidewalk: Liability.*

A city is not liable for injuries sustained by a pedestrian who slipped upon a cement block, forming part of a sidewalk, which had settled two and one-fourth inches, causing a slope in the surface of the sidewalk.

*596Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Shawano county: Edgar V. Werner, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

For the appellant the cause was submitted on the brief of *Dillett & Fischer*of Shawano, and for the respondent on that of *D._H. Winter,*city attorney, and *P. 7. Winter*of Shawano, of counsel.

Jones, J.

This is a suit for personal injuries sustained on a sidewalk alleged to be defective in the city of *Slmwano,*

The allegations are that there was an abrupt difference in elevation of the surface of the sidewalk of about two and one-quarter inches, caused by the south side of the cement block with which the walk was constructed having settled and sunk down, causing the surface of the cement blocks to slope downward toward the south, and that the insufficiency and want of repair further consisted of and was occasioned by the cement walk adjacent to the said cement blocks being constructed about two and one-quarter inches higher than the surface of the walk immediately north thereof, leaving an abrupt elevation, without the angles between such two portions of the walk being filled with cement or other material. It was alleged that as the plaintiff was walking thereon in the daytime in a southerly direction he slipped on the slanting surface, and, falling, his knee struck the exposed corner of the elevated portion of the walk and he was injured.

There were allegations that the defect was known to the city and its officers and that due notice of the injury had been given. It appears that the accident was caused by slipping before plaintiff had reached the abrupt elevation. It does not appear whether the slope of two and one-quarter inches was in the length of one cement block or in the length of several blocks.

The case is ruled by numerous decisions of this court. *Hollan v. Milwaukee,*174 Wis. 392, 182 N. W. 978; *Pad-*
      *597
      *den v. Milwaukee,*173 Wis. 284, 181 N. W. 209; *Van der Blomen v. Milwaukee,*166 Wis. 168, 164 N. W. 844; *Snyder v. Superior,*146 Wis. 671, 132 N. W. 541; *Kawiecka v. Superior,*136 Wis. 613, 118 N. W. 192; *Kleiner v. Madison,*104 Wis. 339, 80 N. W. 453.

*By the Court.*— The order sustaining the demurrer is affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT

To the Participants of the Accenture Ltd 2001 Employee Share Purchase Plan and
the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Accenture Ltd:

We have audited the accompanying statements of financial condition of Accenture
Ltd 2001 Employee Share Purchase Plan (the Plan) as of August 31, 2003 and
2002, and the related statements of operations and changes in plan equity for
the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Plans management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits of these statements in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit
includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as
well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe
that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial condition of Accenture Ltd 2001 Employee
Share Purchase Plan as of August 31, 2003 and 2002, and the changes in its
financial status for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Chicago, Illinois
November 7, 2003
SILVERSTAR HOLDINGS LTD - 10Q                                Filing Date 2/17/04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


EXHIBIT 32.2

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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Silverstar Holdings, Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Clive Kabatznik, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes--Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) 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.


                                                         /s/ Clive Kabatznik
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Name: Clive Kabatznik
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                         Date: February 17, 2004


                                                                              20
---

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

I, Robert Wyllie, Chief Financial Officer of Balaton Power Inc.
(the Company), hereby 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:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the Annual Report) fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                 

| | By:    | /s/ Robert Wyllie      
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Robert Wyllie          
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | August 11, 2006        



This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
20-F. A signed original of this statement 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.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
Exhibit 32.2

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

     I, Jack M. Rapport, Chief Financial Officer of Zanett, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby 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 Form
10-KSB of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 (the
"Form 10-KSB"), 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-KSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date: April 14, 2004


/s/  Jack M. Rapport
     ---------------
Name:  Jack M. Rapport
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffPerformance and Accountability Report (NUREG-1542)

# Performance and Accountability Report — NRC Summary of Performance And Financial Information Fiscal Year 2009 (NUREG-1542, Volume 15, Supplement 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1542, Volume 15, Supplement 1 (PDF - 2.06 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published**: February 2010

Resource Management and Support StaffOffice of the Chief Financial OfficerU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

NRC Summary of Performance and Financial Information Fiscal Year 2009 provides performance results and audited financial statements that enable Congress, the President, and the public to assess the performance of the agency in achieving its mission and stewardship of its resources.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,251,575
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  515,407
<ALLOWANCES>                                    75,932
<INVENTORY>                                  1,142,865
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,027,483
<PP&E>                                         863,200
<DEPRECIATION>                               (550,360)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,693,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,456,853
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,477
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,362,528
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,693,028
<SALES>                                        417,147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               417,147
<CGS>                                          268,608
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  268,608
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,068,012
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,868,185)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,868,185)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,868,185)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
#### Sterling Shoes Corporation, Appellant, vs. Plankinton Building Properties, Inc., Respondent.

*March 6*

April *1, 1930.*

*376For the appellant there were briefs by *Poss, Toelle & Schuler,*attorneys, and *Benjamin Poss*and *H. W. Schuler,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Poss*and *Mr. Schuler.*

*Walter D. Corrigan, Sr.*of Milwaukee, for the respondent.

*377Stevens, J.

The telegrams and letter quoted above constitute a contract to extend the existing lease for an additional period'of five years upon the terms contained in the lease with the two exceptions stated in this correspondence. That contract bound both parties to this action until such time as it should be modified or changed by mutual consent of the parties. The parties never agreed upon any modification of this contract.'

The plaintiff did not forfeit its right to have this contract specifically performed when it attempted to secure its rights under the contract by negotiations and compromise in the hope that it might not be compelled to resort to the courts to secure an extension of the lease.

The difference between a request for a modification of an offer before and after acceptance of the offer must be kept in mind. “A request for a change or modification of a proposed contract, made before an acceptance thereof, amounts to a rejection of it. ... A request, suggestion, or proposal of alteration or modification, made after unconditional acceptance, and not assented to by the opposite party, does not affect the contract put in force and effect by the acceptance.” *Turner v. McCormick,*56 W. Va. 161, 49 S. E. 28, 33. See, also, 1 Page, Contracts, p. 265, § 183; *Culton v. Gilchrist,*92 Iowa, 718, 61 N. W. 384, 385.

The fact that both parties understood that a formal writing would be drawn embodying the terms of the new lease does not change the binding effect of the agreement evidenced by the telegrams and letter quoted in the statement of facts.

*By the Court.*— The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to decree specific performance.