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

                                 August 28, 2006

El Capitan Precious Metals Inc.
Suite 216
14301 N. 87th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Gentlemen:

      The undersigned hereby consents to the reference to the undersigned in the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of El Capitan Precious Metals, Inc. for the year
ended September 30, 2005 (the "Annual Report"), including without limitation
references in Item 2 and the financial statements incorporated in the Annual
Report, to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

      I also confirm that I have read each of the references to me in the Annual
Report and concur with such statements. In giving this consent, the undersigned
does not admit that he is within the category of persons whose consent is
required by Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the rules
and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                            Sincerely,


                                            /s/ Clyde Smith
                                            -----------------------
                                            Clyde Smith
# C_2004228EN.01004002.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/40

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 27 May 2004

in Case T- 358/02: Deutsche Post AG and DHL International Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(State aid - Approval by the Commission of aid granted by the Italian authorities to Poste Italiane - Action for annulment brought by competitors - Inadmissibility)

(2004/C 228/91)

Language of the case: German

In Case T- 358/02: Deutsche Post AG, established in Bonn (Germany), DHL International Srl., established in Rozzano (Italy), represented by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Di Bucci, J. Flett and V. Kreuschitz), supported by the Italian Republic (Agents: initially U. Leanza, subsequently I. Braguglia, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and by Poste Italiane SpA, established in Rome (Italy), represented by B. O'Connor, Solicitor, and A. Fratini, lawyer — action for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/782/EC of 12 March 2002 on the aid granted by Italy to Poste Italiane SpA (formerly Ente Poste Italiane) (OJ 2002 L 282, p. 29) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President, V. Tiili, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 27 May 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission and by Post Italiane SpA. The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission and by Post Italiane SpA. The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 22.2.2003.

1

---
**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

 

      Each of the undersigned hereby certifies,in his capacity as an officer of Channell Commercial Corporation (the “Company”),for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

 

·                  The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K forthe fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

·                  The information contained in such reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operation of the Company.

 

Date: March 28, 2008

 
| /s/ William H. Channell, Jr. |                                   |
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
| Name:                             | William  H. Channell, Jr.         |
| Title:                            | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|                                   |                                        |  |

 

 
| /s/ Patrick E. McCready |                    |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|
| Name:                   | Patrick E. McCready     |
| Title:                  | Chief Financial Officer |
|                         |                         |  |

 

 

----
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


TIB FINANCIAL CORP.
KEY LARGO, FLORIDA

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated
February 18, 2000, relating to the consolidated financial statements of TIB
Financial Corp. and subsidiaries included in the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K as of and for the years ended December 31, 1999 and 1998, in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 pertaining to the TIB Financial Corp.
Incentive Stock Option Plan and Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan as Amended.


                                 /s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
                                -------------------------------------
                                BDO Seidman, LLP




Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 2000
### Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 25 , 2020

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00300

- CR

LEVI MAYS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1526077

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Levi Mays timely appealed his conviction for aggravated assault. We abated the appeal so a hearing could be held regarding appellant’s counsel’s failure to file a brief and whether app ellant desires to continue his appeal. At the hearing, appellant stated he did not want to continue the appeal. Appellant’s counsel filed a motion for voluntary dismissal, but we denied the motion because it was not signed by appellant as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2. The trial court has since made findings of fact that appellant expressed his intent to abandon his appeal. The findings of fact have been filed in a supplemental clerk’s record.2

A ppellant has not filed a motion to dismiss his appeal that complies with Rule 42.2(a). However, based upon appellant’s testimony at the hearing and the trial court’s finding that appellant does not want to continue his appeal, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42 .2(a) in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Wise, and Zimmerer

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Control, Prescribed Grazing.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
16-11-12 Complainants Reply to Answer / Motion to Dismiss Exhibit 50

See Official Docket File @ FAA, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC.

For assistance, please call 202-267-3473 or 202-267-3199.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003




In connection with the Annual Report of PetroKazakhstan Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 40-F/A for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that to the best of my
knowledge:

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

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


Date:  October 4, 2005               /s/ Bernard F. Isautier
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Name:  Bernard F. Isautier
                                     Title:  President & Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to PetroKazakhstan Inc. and will be retained by PetroKazakhstan Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 134401 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 134401 COA: 269294 Oakland CC: 2005-205109-FC ROSCOE DEWAYNE WEST, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2007 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.

p0917 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.

September 24, 2007

Clerk
# GEOLOGIC BOREHOLE LOG

Location: RHFSF Station Name: Location Type: Location Description: RHMW04 Establishing Company: TEC Inc. Drilling Foreman: Tomas Fernandez Drilling Company:Valley Well Drilling Geologist: N. Griffin/S. MacMillan Ground Surface Elevation (ft): Datum: MSL Drilling Sampling Method: Borehole Diameter (in): 8 Total Depth (ft): Date Drilling Started: 22 July 2005 Date Drilling Ended: 26 July 2005 Monitoring Well

Remarks: Rock Coring west. access rd., S of Navy Firing Range 313.03 320.5

Page 1 of2

# GEOLOGIC BOREHOLE LOG

Location: RHFSF Station Name: Location Type: Location Description: RHMW04 Establishing Company: TEC Inc. Drilling Foreman: Tomas Fernandez Drilling Company:Valley Well Drilling Geologist: N. Griffin/S. MacMillan Ground Surface Elevation (ft): Datum: MSL Drilling Sampling Method: Borehole Diameter (in): 8 Total Depth (ft): Date Drilling Started: 22 July 2005 Date Drilling Ended: 26 July 2005 Monitoring Well

Remarks: Rock Coring west. access rd., S of Navy Firing Range 313.03 320.5

Page 2of2
NRCS Registry

User Guide 

Expired Licenses

Office of the Chief Information Officer

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Washington, D.C.
NRCS REGISTRY USER GUIDE EXPIRED LICENSE 

 

Contents

1. Revision History 3

2. Updating an Expiring or Expired License/Certification 3

3. TSP Expiring or Expired License/Certification Notifications and Alerts 4
NRCS REGISTRY USER GUIDE EXPIRED LICENSE 

 

1. REVISION HISTORY

Version 

#

Implemented 

by:

Revision 

Date

Approved 

by:

Approval 

Date

Description of Change

2.0 Keith Harmon 08/10/2021 Updated the guide to include changes 

made for NRCS Registry 2.0 
NRCS REGISTRY USER GUIDE EXPIRED LICENSE 

 

2. UPDATING AN EXPIRING OR EXPIRED 

LICENSE/CERTIFICATION

1. Login to the NRCS Registry as a TSP

2. Click on tab to open the profile

3. Click on the License/Certification tab

4. Locate the expiring or expired license and click on the Update button. 

5. Update the Expiration Date and upload additional documentation for the License/Certification 

qualification

6. Click Save to update the license/certification

7. If the license/certification was expired, you will once again be visible on the FindaTSP public site as soon 

the update is complete. 

Note: If the License/certification has expired and it is tied to a Certified Practice, then the TSP will be 

removed from the FindaTSP public site until that expired license/certification is updated.
NRCS REGISTRY USER GUIDE EXPIRED LICENSE 

 

3. TSP EXPIRING LICENCSE/CERITIFICATION NOTIFICATIONS 

AND ALERTS

1. Login to NRCS Registry as a TSP User

2. If a license/certification qualification is about to expire or has expired, the TSP will see an alert banner 

on the home page, informing the TSP that their license/certification is set to expire within 30 or 60 days 

of the current date or has expired.

3. The banner will be gray if it is 60 days prior to expiration, orange is it is 30 days prior to expiration, or 

red if it is already expired. 

Email Notifications will be sent to the TSP with an Expiring or Expired License/Certification on the 

following days until the license/certification qualification is updated:

1. 60 Days prior to the Expiration Date

2. 30 Days prior to the Expiration Date

3. Day after the Expiration Date (license/certification is expired)

4. 30 Days after the Expiration Date (license/certification is expired)
#### Bernard Vincent MONTGOMERY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 8019.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

May 3, 1965.

Stanley J. Walter, Lakewood, Colo., for appellant.

Lewis O. Campbell, Asst. U. S. Atty. (John Quinn, U. S. Atty., was with him on the brief), for appellee.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and LEWIS and SETH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court for the District of New Mexico denying to appellant, after a full evidentiary hearing, any relief upon claims asserted by motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Appellant, now serving a maximum sentence imposed after entry of plea of guilty to a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) (sale of narcotics), asserts that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily entered, that he was denied the right of allocution pri- or to imposition of sentence, and that the remarks of the trial court at time of imposition of sentence were so fraught with personal bias as to constitute a denial of due process.

Appellant’s first two contentions are not novel and may be summarily determined to be completely without merit. The record clearly supports the trial court’s finding that the subject plea was voluntarily and understandingly entered after appellant had received the careful and conscientious advice of his retained counsel. And the record further reflects that the right of allocution was not denied to appellant.

 The remarks of the sentencing trial judge1 were indeed emphatic, couched in the vernacular, and were undoubtedly personally offensive to the appellant. However, a trial judge may and often should appraise both the offense and the offender at the time of sentencing and may use emphatic and forceful language which is understandable to the offender. See Simmons v. United States, 3 Cir., 302 F.2d 71. And certain it is that one who offends, as in this case most seriously, against the law has no constitutional right to be free from personal *956offense when his crime and character are aired. Appellant’s sentence is not invalid because of the sentencing court’s remarks.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. The sentencing judge is now deceased and was, of course, not the judge from whose judgment the instant appeal is taken.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, Jacob Inbar, ChiefExecutive Officer of AML Communications Inc., (the “Company”), certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AML Communications, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: August 12,2005

 
| /s/: Jacob Inbar        |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| By: Jacob Inbar         |
| Chief Executive  Office |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
BALANCE SHEETS & STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1998              JUL-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         808,742                  59,252
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  213,399                  25,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,034,607                  84,252
<PP&E>                                           5,545                   3,239
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,869)                   (750)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,039,348                  87,806
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          704,202                  68,321
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          5                       0
<COMMON>                                         7,538                   7,538
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,227,934)                  11,947
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,309,348                  87,806
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                  96,750
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,400,972                 113,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             170,790                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,569,705)                (16,018)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,569,705)                (16,018)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,569,705)                (16,018)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.61)                  (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.61)                  (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IRENA PIMKOVA, No. 70161

vs. CRAIG A. BUSCH, Appellant, 

# FILED AUG 0 9 2016 Respondent.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from an order dismissing appellant's complaint. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Timothy C. Williams, Judge.

On April 25, 2016, this court issued a notice to appellant regarding the applicable deadlines for filing in this appeal. That notice included the direction to file, within 15 days, a transcript request form or certificate that no transcripts would be requested, and, within 20 days, a docketing statement that complies with NRAP 14. Appellant failed to file the documents. On June 6, 2016, we entered an order directing appellant to file the required documents within 11 days. We cautioned appellant that failure to timely file any of the documents may• result in dismissal of the appeal. To date, appellant has failed to file either the transcript request form or certificate of no transcript request or the docketing

(0) 1947A 

# 110--- 4153statement. Accordingly, we conclude that appellant has abandoned this

appeal, and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.'

Hardesty bee

- t;

Saitta Pickering

cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Irena Pimkova Pyatt Silvestri Eighth District Court Clerk

'We deny as moot respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2