alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-86155, 333-86159, 333-45288 and 333-63036)
pertaining to the LJL BioSystems, Inc. 1994 Equity Incentive Plan, LJL
BioSystems, Inc. 1997 Stock Plan, LJL BioSystems, Inc. 1998 Directors' Stock
Option Plan, 1995 Stock Option Plan, 1995 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option
Plan, and 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Molecular Devices Corporation of
our report dated January 15, 2002 (except for Note 11, as to which the date is
March 1, 2002), with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Molecular Devices Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 26, 2002
NUMBER 13-19-00429-CV

COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

TEXAS WINDSTORM INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Appellant,

v.

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE COASTAL BEND, INC., Appellee.

On Petition for Permissive Appeal from the 

94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras, Justices Longoria and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

Texas Windstorm Insurance Association has filed a petition for permissive 

interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s order denying its Plea to the Jurisdiction

and in the Alternative Partial Motion for Summary Judgment in trial court cause number 

2018DCV-4018-C. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3; TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 

51.014(d), (f). The trial court plaintiff, Boys and Girls Club of the Coastal Bend, Inc., has 

not filed a response to the petition for permissive appeal. See generally TEX. R. APP. P.

28.3. 
This Court, having examined and fully considered the petition, is of the opinion that 

the petition should be granted. Accordingly, we GRANT permission to appeal. A notice 

of appeal is deemed to have been filed on this date. See id. R. 28.3(k). The appeal will

be governed by the rules for accelerated appeals. Id.; see TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1.

We direct the clerk of this Court to file a copy of this order with the trial court clerk. 

See TEX. R. APP.P. 28.3(k). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

20th day of December,2019.

2
#### The People on the relation of David E. Harbaugh v. The Judge of the Wayne Circuit.

*.Settling bills of exceptions: Practice: Abuse of discretion: Mandamus,*while it is irregular and an abuse of discretion to discard a proper bill of exceptions tendered for settlement by tbe parly taking the exceptions, and to adopt as a substitute one submitted by the adverse party, yet -where the bill as settled is not so far defective as to fail fairly to present substantially all the questions sought to be raised, the case is not one calling fox the extraordinary writ of *mandamus.*

*.Settling bills of exceptions: Practice.*The proper course in settling bills of exceptions is to adopt as the framework the bill tendered by the party taking the exceptions, if proper in form, with such changes and amendments as the facts warrant.

*Pills of*exceptions.- *Stenographer’s minutes.*The practice of tacking a formal beginning and conclusion upon the stenographer’s minutes of the entire evidence on the trial, and signing that for a bill of exceptions, is criti-cised and condemned.

*Heard and decided June 15.*

Application for *Mandamus.*

*Mandamus*is sought to require the respondent to settle and sign a bill of exceptions in a' cause to which the relator is a party. . It ajipeared that the relator’s counsel prepared .a bill of exceptions, embracing the exceptions which had .been takeh in the cause on relator’s behalf, and submitted the same for settlement. After some controversy over the bill submitted, and the suggestion of some oral amendments, to which no objection was made, the counsel for the adverse party, without submitting any written amendments to such bill, presented an entirely new bill as a substitute for the une submitted by the relator’s counsel. -The respondent, against the objections of relator’s counsel,' signed this new bill. Both bills ’were before the court on this hearing.

*George IT. Prentis*and *Alfred*Russell, for relator.

*JS. W. Meddaugh*and *Theodore Romeyn,*for respondent.

The Coubt

held that while the course pursued was irregular and an abuse of discretion, the hill as settled does *260not appear to be so far defective as to fail to fairly present substantially all tbe questions sought to be raised, and that, therefore, the case is not one calling for the extraordinary writ of *mandamus;*but that the bill first submitted was also a proper one in form, and presented the questions for review in equally as good if not better shape than the one which was signed, and that it should have been adopted as the framework of the bill to be settled, with such changes and amendments as the facts warranted.

The practice too frequently adopted, of tacking a formal beginning and conclusion upon the stenographer’s minutes of the entire evidence on the trial, and signing that for a. bill of exceptions, is criticised and condemned as improper and unwarranted.

Writ denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2435-2436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00696]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than February 14, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
    (Chris P. Wangen, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, 
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
    1. Alerus Financial Corporation, Grand Forks, North Dakota; to 
merge with MPB BHC, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Metro Phoenix 
Bank, both of Phoenix, Arizona.


[[Page 2436]]


    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 11, 
2022.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-00696 Filed 1-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```

Exhibit 31

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Dennis Mast, CEO and CFO, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HydroFlo, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. I am 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 we 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 is made known to us
by others within the Corporation, particularly during the period in which this
quarterly 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. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

        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

        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:  May 24, 2004

                       /s/ DENNIS MAST
                       Dennis Mast
                       CEO and CFO
```
Memorandum O rder issued August 27 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 9
- 0 0 264
- CV

——————————— JOHN QUINTEN GREENVI LLE , Appellant

V. R ICARD B. BILLS AND S&P INTERESTS, LLC , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 2 1 2 th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 17
- CV
- 1338

MEMORANDUM O RDER Appell ant, John Quinten Greenville ha s filed a motion to dismiss appellee , S&P Interest s , LLC. Counsel for appellee Richard B. Bills and appellee , S&P
Interes ts , LLC do not oppose the motion

.2

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the portion of the appeal against S&P Interests, LLC

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)( 2 ) , 43.2(f)

. The appeal between appellant, John Quinten Greenville , and appellee , Richard B. Bills , remains pending

. See id. 42.1(b).
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Higley

.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**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 Annual Report of Globix Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert M. Dennerlein, 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 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:          December 23, 2005* | * * | * *                                               | */s/ Robert M. Dennerlein* |
|   | * *                           | * * | *Robert          M. DennerleinChief Financial Officer* |
|        |                                    |          |                                                        |  |

----
15956

#### SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. ISTHMIAN S. S. CO.

(43 S. E. (2d) 138)

*Messrs. Moore & Mouson,*of Charleston, for Appellant, cite:

*Mr. John M.*Daniel, Attorney General, of Columbia, and *Messrs. Huger Sinkler*and *Augustine T. Smythe,*of Charleston, for Respondent, *cite:*

*423June 6, 1947.

*Messrs. Moore & Mouson,*of Charleston, in Reply, for Appellant, cite:

Per Curiam.

Judgment upon the appeal of The South Carolina State Highway Department, plaintiff in this action, against Isthmian Steamship Company, defendant, and respondent in that appeal but appellant here, was filed this day. 43 S. E. (2d) 132. It holds that the Company waived its objections to the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County. That court finally overruled such objections and the Company, defendant below, excepted and seeks review of that action in this appeal. But whether there was error has become a moot question by reason of the result of the prior appeal. Under these circumstances the appeal is dismissed. 3 Am. Jur. 308 *et seq.,*Appeal and Error, Sec. 733; 4 C. J. S., Appeal and Error, Sec. 1362, p. 1967 *et seq.) Wallingford & Russell v. Benson,*17 S. C. 591; *Cantwell v. Williams,*35 S. C. 602,44 S. E.. 549; *Burgess v. Crumpton,*93 S. C. 562, 77 S. E. 356; *Page v. Page,*167 N. C. 350, 83 S. E. 627.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7508

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY JAY BLACKWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Rock Hill. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-90-319) Submitted: May 18, 1999 Decided: June 7, 1999 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven A. Bernholz, BERNHOLZ LAW FIRM, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Timothy Jay Blackwell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to correct an alleged clerical mistake in his judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinionand find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Blackwell , No. CR-90-319 (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 10.1

 

COMBIMATRIX CORPORATION
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FEBRUARY 2015
 COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANTS
 WARRANT NO.: «Warrant_No»

 

THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL WARRANT CERTIFICATES

 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FEBRUARY 2015 COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANTS (this “Amendment”) is made as of October 12, 2015 by and between CombiMatrix Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and the undersigned holder (the “Holder”) of those certain Common Stock Purchase Warrants described below (the “Warrants”).  The Warrants are one of a series of warrants to purchase shares of the Company’s Common Stock that were issued February 18, 2015 pursuant to that certain Securities Purchase Agreement dated February 13, 2015 by and among the Company, the Holder and certain other investors (the “Purchase Agreement”).

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Holder desire to amend the Warrants issued pursuant to the Purchase Agreement as set forth herein.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties to this Amendment hereby agree that the Warrants are hereby amended as follows:

 

1.              Section 2(b) of the Warrants is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

 

“Exercise Price.  The exercise price per share of the Common Stock under this Warrant shall be $1.10, subject to adjustment hereunder (the “Exercise Price”).”

 

Except as amended herein, all other terms, conditions and provisions of the Warrants, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect without any modification whatsoever.

 

(Signature Page Follows)

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Holder have executed this Amendment No. 1 to February 2015 Common Stock Purchase Warrants as of the last date set forth below.

 

	
 
    	
COMBIMATRIX CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Date:
    	
 
    


 

 

	
 
    	
HOLDER: «Holder»
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
WARRANT NO.:   «Warrant_No»
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
WARRANT SHARES REMAINING:   «Remaining_Shares»

 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
(Signature of Holder)
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
(Name of Signatory — if   Holder is an entity)
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
(Title of Signatory —   if Holder is an entity)
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Date:
Z Sains

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT __ Yep. :

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO op
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

STATE OF OHIO
EX REL TED MARCUM,

Petitioner, : Case No. 3:17-cv-437
- VS - District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
SHERIFF DAVE DUCHAK,
Respondent.

RECOMMITTAL ORDER

This case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 34 & 35) to the
Magistrate Judge’s Reports and Recommendations (ECF Nos. 25 & 28).

The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be
more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with instructions

to file a supplemental report analyzing the Objections and making recommendations based on that

analysis.

February G_, 2018. <

lho

Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 458 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 458

                For the relief of Alejandro E. Gonzales.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2009

Mr. Pastor of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                For the relief of Alejandro E. Gonzales.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF, DENIAL OF ADMISSION TO, 
              ALEJANDRO E. GONZALES.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 212(a) and 237(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, Alejandro E. Gonzales may not be 
removed from the United States, or denied admission to the United 
States, by reason of any act of his that is a ground for removal or 
denial of admission and is reflected in the records of the Department 
of Homeland Security, or the Visa Office of the Department of State, on 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Rescission of Outstanding Order of Removal.--The Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall rescind any outstanding order of removal, or 
any finding of inadmissibility or deportability, that has been entered 
against Alejandro E. Gonzales by reason of any act described in 
subsection (a).
    (c) Establishment of Good Moral Character.--Notwithstanding section 
101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, any act described in 
subsection (a) may not be considered in determining whether Alejandro 
E. Gonzales is, or during any period has been, a person of good moral 
character for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### William Dana Orcutt *vs.*Charles L. Drillen.

March 6, 1940.

*R. E. Kempton & B. H. Stoodley,*for the defendant.

*C. B. Cross,*for the plaintiff.

Order dismissing report affirmed. This action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries and property damage was tried in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston, where there was a finding for the plaintiff. The defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the finding was against the evidence, and on other grounds, was denied. Requests for rulings made by the defendant at the hearing on this motion also were denied. A report to the Appellate Division of the refusal of these requests was dismissed and the defendant appealed. The defendant’s sole contention in this court is that it was error for the trial judge to refuse to rule as requested by him that the “finding of the trial judge for the plaintiff was against the evidence to such an extent that the denial of the defendant’s motion for a new trial, alleging that the finding was against the evidence, amounts to an abuse of discretion.” This request for a ruling presented no question of law •— except as hereinafter stated — which could not have been raised at the trial on the merits, and it does not appear that the judge revived any such question. *Ross*v. *Colonial Provision Co. Inc.*299 Mass. 39, 42. The only question for our consideration is whether the denial of the motion for a new trial would be an abuse of discretion. An examination of the evidence reported discloses no such abuse. *Gallagher*v. *Boston Elevated Railway,*259 Mass. 33. *Mantho*v. *Nelson,*285 Mass. 156. *Golba*v. *Gajewski,*301 Mass. 328.
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 1 of 18 PAGEID #: 1520
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 2 of 18 PAGEID #: 1521
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 3 of 18 PAGEID #: 1522
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 4 of 18 PAGEID #: 1523
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 5 of 18 PAGEID #: 1524
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 6 of 18 PAGEID #: 1525
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 7 of 18 PAGEID #: 1526
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 8 of 18 PAGEID #: 1527
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 9 of 18 PAGEID #: 1528
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 10 of 18 PAGEID #: 1529
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 11 of 18 PAGEID #: 1530
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 12 of 18 PAGEID #: 1531
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 13 of 18 PAGEID #: 1532
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 14 of 18 PAGEID #: 1533
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 15 of 18 PAGEID #: 1534
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 16 of 18 PAGEID #: 1535
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 17 of 18 PAGEID #: 1536
Case: 1:18-cv-00144-MWM Doc #: 73 Filed: 03/08/21 Page: 18 of 18 PAGEID #: 1537