alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We  consent  to the incorporation by reference  in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8  pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1992 Stock Option Plan of 
Standard Management  Corporation   of our report dated March 18, 1997,  except 
for Note 20, as to  which  the  date  is  August  21,  1997,  with respect to 
the  consolidated financial statements and schedules of Standard  Management 
Corporation included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K/A No. 2 for the year 
ended December 31, 1996, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                          Ernst & Young LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
November 26, 1997
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10942 Summary Calendar

__________________
JAMES EDWARD O’NEAL, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CV-005-Y

- - - - - - - - - - September 9, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Texas prisoner James Edward O'Neal, # 611087, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. O'Neal contends that his due process rights were violated when the trial court denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea or appeal without holding a hearing, that counsel was ineffective forNo. 95-10942 -2- failing to secure O'Neal's presence at such a hearing, and that the revocation of O'Neal's parole violated principles of double jeopardy. For the first time on appeal, O'Neal argues that the revocation of his parole violated the Ex Post Facto clause. We reject O'Neal's ex post facto argument as lacking factual basis. Having reviewed the record and O'Neal's brief, we AFFIRM the district court's denial of the petition for essentially the reasons adopted and set forth by the district court. O'Neal v.
Scott , No. 4:95-CV-005-Y (N.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 1995).
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER  Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  I, G. Gordon Greenwood, certify that: (1)
I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Weststar Financial Services
Corporation (the Registrant);  (2)
Based
on my  knowledge,  this report does not contain any untrue  statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact      necessary to make the statements  made, in light of
the  circumstances  under which such  statements  were made, not misleading      with
respect to the period covered by this report;  (3)
Based
on my knowledge,  the financial  statements,  and other financial  information included
in this report, fairly present in      all material  respects the  financial  condition,
 results of operations  and cash flows of the  Registrant as of, and for, the
     periods presented in this report;  (4)
The
Registrants  other  certifying  officer and I are responsible for  establishing  and
maintaining  disclosure  controls and      procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:  (a)
Designed
such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under           our  supervision,   to  ensure  that  material
 information  relating  to  the  Registrant,   including  its  consolidated
          subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those  entities,
 particularly  during the period in which this report           is being prepared;  (b)
Evaluated
the  effectiveness  of the  Registrants  disclosure  controls and  procedures  and
presented in this report our           conclusions  about the  effectiveness  of the
disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered by
          this report based on such evaluation; and  (c)
Disclosed
in this report any change in the  Registrants  internal  control over financial
 reporting that occurred during           the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially  affected,  or is reasonably likely to materially  affect,
          the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  (5)
The
Registrants  other certifying  officer and I have disclosed,  based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over      financial  reporting,  to the Registrants
 auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons
     performing the equivalent functions):  (a)
All
 significant  deficiencies  and material  weaknesses  in the design or operation  of
internal  control over  financial     reporting which are reasonably  likely to adversely
 affect the  Registrants  ability to record,  process,  summarize and     report
financial information; and  23   (b)
Any
fraud,  whether or not material,  that  involves  management  or other  employees  who
have a  significant  role in the                  Registrants internal control over
financial reporting.Date: November 4, 2004
        By:
        /s/ G. Gordon Greenwood

G. Gordon Greenwood
President and Chief Executive Officer24
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Sonic Innovations, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
Company), for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Samuel L. Westover, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Michael M. Halloran, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:



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



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



/s/    SAMUEL L.
WESTOVERSamuel L. Westover President and Chief Executive Officer November 9, 2006/s/    MICHAEL M.
HALLORANMichael M. Halloran Vice President and Chief Financial Officer November 9, 2006


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6414** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. KENNETH RAY HAYES , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. James A. Beaty, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00336

- JAB

- 1 ; 1:11

- cv - 00800

- JAB

JEP )

Submitted : July 29, 2014 Decided: August 1, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kenneth Ray Hayes , Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller , Assistant U nited S tates Attorney s , Greensboro, North Carolina; Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Winston

- Sal em, North Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Ray Hayes seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner sati sfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 ( 2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U .S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hayes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
? b

b

b 8

6

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ. >

Allegro

f

œ œ

>

œ

> nœ.

>

bœ œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

J

œ

^

‰ ‰

œ.

F

‰

œ

- œ

- œ œ œ

5 - œ

J

œ œ

J

œ

? b

b

b

œ. œ. œ œ

- œ

- œ

J

œ

- œ

œ œ

- œ œ œ

- œ

- œ œ œ œ œ œ J

œ œ

J

œ œ. J

œ

‰ ‰

? b

b

b ‰ œ

- œ

- œ œ œ

13 - œ

J

œ œ J

œ œ. œ œ

- œ

- œ. J

œ

‰ ‰

œ

- œ œ œ œ œ œ

- œ œ œ œ œ

? b

b

b

œ

J

œ œ

J

œ

J

œ

‰ ‰

>

œ. ‰

œ

- œ

- œ œ œ

21 - œ

J

œ œ

J

œ œ. œ. œ œ

- œ

- œ

J

œ

-

? b

b

b

œ

-

œ œ œ œ œ œ

- œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. J

œ

‰ ‰ ‰

œ

> œ

> >

œ.

f

29

œ. Jœ

‰ ‰

? b

b

b ‰

œ

> œ

>

>

œ. Jœ

‰ ‰

>

œ. œ

>

œ

>

œ

> œ

>

J

œ

>

ƒ

œ

>

J

œ

> œ. > >

 ̇.

sfp

 ̇.  ̇. Jœ

^

‰ ‰ Œ.

ƒ

ALWAYS READY, ALWAYS THERE

Words & Music by

CW4 David A. Myers

40th Army Band, VTARNG

Trombone

The Official Song of the National Guard Bureau

Dedicated to the Men and Women, Soldiers and Airmen of America's National Guard

Brass Quintet - Ceremonial Version
Exhibit 99.1
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


The undersigned  hereby  certifies  that, to his knowledge,  (i) the Form 10-QSB
filed by Weststar Financial Services  Corporation (the "Issuer") for the quarter
ended March 31, 2003,  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  that  report  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the  financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of the  Issuer on the dates and for the
periods presented therein.


                                     Weststar Financial Services Corporation


Date:   April 30, 2003               By:   /s/ Randall C. Hall
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Randall C. Hall
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           Executive Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial and
                                           Principal Accounting Officer


Date:   April 30, 2003               By:   /s/ G. Gordon Greenwood
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           G. Gordon Greenwood
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           President & Chief Executive Officer






                                                                              21
<PAGE>


                                   SIGNATURE

In accordance  with the  requirement of the Exchange Act, the registrant  caused
this  report to be  signed on its  behalf  by the  undersigned,  thereunto  duly
authorized.

                                         Weststar Financial Services Corporation
                                        (Registrant)

April 30, 2003                           /s/Randall C.  Hall
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Randall C. Hall
                                         Executive Vice President and
                                         Chief Financial and
                                         Principal Accounting Officer


                                                                              22
Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, of Magnum Hunter Resources, Inc.,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. | this quarterly report on Form 10-Q 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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents,
          in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Magnum Hunter Resources, Inc.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: May 6, 2004 |                                                                                                           
|----------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  | /s/ Gary C. EvansGary C. Evans, ChairmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Clearfield County Industrial Development Authority v. Rowles

*503
      *David Blakley,*for plaintiff.

*John Sughrue,*for defendant.

June 1, 1977

REILLY, P.J.,

This action arises out of attempts by the Clearfield County Industrial Development Authority to take by eminent domain certain properties for the purpose of creating an Industrial Park. The condemnees have filed preliminary objection to the declaration of taking, raising, among other things, the issue that the Industrial Authority does not have the power of eminent domain. The authority relies upon the provisions of the Industrial Development Authority Law of August 23, 1967, P.L. 251, sec. 1, 73 P.S. §371 et seq., for its authority.

It is clear that under Pennsylvania law, statutory provisions conveying the power of eminent domain must be strictly construed: Act of May 28, 1937, P.L. 1019, 46 P.S. §548; and in acts delegating the power of eminent domain to public agencies, the authority to condemn is specifically set forth. The act relied upon by the condemnors in the instant case at nó time specifically states that such authorities have the right and power of eminent domain. Neither the words “eminent domain” nor “condemnation” are ever mentioned in the full text of the act. Therefore, in order to confer this power upon the authority, one must do so from the broad wording of the act, which is contrary to the rule of strict construction; especially in view of the fact that in other cases where the legislature intended the power to be delegated, it did so by specifically granting it.

*504In view of the above, this court must conclude that by failing to specifically grant the power of eminent domain, the legislature intended to withhold it from Industrial Development Authorities, and therefore, this court is constrained to grant the first preliminary objection of the condemnees and quash the declaration of taking. This being the case, the court need not pass on the second preliminary objection filed by the condemnees.

Wherefore, the court enters the following

ORDER

Now, June 1, 1977, this court being satisfied that the power of eminent domain has not been delegated to the Clearfield County Industrial Development Authority by the legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Act of August 23, 1967, P.L. 251, sec. 3, it is the order of this court that defendants’ preliminary objection setting forth the above be and is sustained and the declaration of taking quashed.
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.35


 


Maximum Pledge Contract


 


Contract No.:2012JIYINZUIQUANZHIZIDI12140160


 


Pledgor :Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd.


 


Pledgee : CITIC Shijiazhuang Branch


 


Signing Date : March 6, 2012


 


Pledge Definition :   To ensure multiple loans Party
B (Pledgee) has lent to Hebei Xuhua Trade Co., Ltd., Party A (Pledgor) is willing to provide the Maximum Pledge Guarantee hereunder
for Party B.


  


Maximum Amount: RMB260, 000,000


 


Pledge Term : From March 6, 2012 to August 29, 2013


 


Collateral: The assets Party A pledges to Party B as Collateral
are listed in Maximum Pledge Contract (No. 2012JIYINZUIZIDI12140160-01). The appraised value of the Collateral is RMB 608,495,273.43.
#### Haig and others *vs.*Commissioners of Confiscated Estates.

case xh.

3i. b. p. *140.*

Order on purchaser to whjT there should not be Hs^isk.6’ &t

On motion of general Pinckney, it is ordered, that James Neilson shew cause before the judges of this court, wby the property called Greenwood’s wharf, pui-chased by him at the sale directed by this court, to be made by muster thereof, should not be again sold, and the said James Neilson be answerable for any deficiency that may happen in the price for which the same may he re-sold; the said James. Neilson having refused to give security for the purchase money, agreeable to the terms of sale*
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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Superclick, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending January 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, Jean Perrotti, Chief Financial 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results 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.





Dated:  March 10, 2011
/s/ Jean PerrottiName:  Jean PerrottiTitle: Chief Financial Officer

And Principle Accounting Officer
#### WILLIAM E. BEST, Appellant, *vs.*WILLIAM P. YOUNG, Respondent.

APPEAL PROM COLUMBIA CIRCUIT COURT.

Where the clerk on his return sent up all the papers filed in the case, none of them attached together, hut enclosed in an envelope, the appeal was dismissed.

The rule of the court requires the clerk to return the notice of appeal and the judgment roll, or a Certified copy thereof, when directed by the Circuit Judge.

The judgment roll consists of certain papers attached together, 'but loose papers filed in the cause, inclosed in an envelope, will not be taken for, or deemed a judgment roll.

*By the Cmvrt,*

Whiton O J.

The return in this case, not being in conformity to our rules, the appeal must he dismissed.

Rule three of this court requires that the return shall consist of the notice of appeal and the judgment roll, unless the Circuit Court shall direct a certified copy of the judgment roll to be transmitted instead of the original, when the appeal is from a final judgment.

Section 191 of the Code of Procedure, provides that unless the party, or his attorney, shall furnish a judgment roll, the clerk shall immediately after entering the judgment, attach together and file certain papers specified in the section, which shall constitute the judgment roll.

In this case no papers are attached together, but all the papers which were filed by the parties in the progress of the suit are sent up, enclosed in an envelope.

This is not a compliance with the rule, and we cannot consent to look through a mass of papers, not properly a part of the return, in order to judge of the merits of the appeal.

Appeal dismissed,
**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**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Pharma Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank Waung, Chief Financial 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.

|        |   |                                                   | Date: June 24, 2009                              |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |        |
|        |   |                                                   | By: /s/Frank Waung                               |   |   |
|        |   |           |        Frank Waung |   |   |
|        |   |                                                   | Chief Financial Officer                     |   |   |