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


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     As independent public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our reports  included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's  previously filed
Registration  Statements:  Registration  Statement  No.  33-80943;  Registration
Statement  No.  33-80941;  Registration  Statement  No.  33-80801;  Registration
Statement No. 333-06561; and Registration Statement No. 333-06567.



                                                          ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Washington, D.C.
March 27, 1998



                                      E-3
EXHIBIT 99.1


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




In connection with the Quarterly Report of JCP&L Transition Funding LLC
("Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Earl T.
Carey, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





                                          /s/Earl T. Carey
                                    --------------------------------
                                             Earl T. Carey
                                               President
                                       (Chief Executive Officer)
                                           August 12, 2002


                                      10

<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 Quarterly Report of JCP&L Transition Funding LLC
("Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
H. Marsh, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





                                       /s/Richard H. Marsh
                                   -------------------------------
                                          Richard H. Marsh
                                      Senior Vice President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                          August 12, 2002




                                     11

<PAGE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 4157

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JOSUE ALDANA , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. ( 3:21

- cr - 00196

- FDW

- DSC

- 1 )

Submitted : March 13, 2024 Decided: May 29, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: William D. Auman , AUMAN LAW OFFICES , Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King , United States Attorney , Julia K. Wood , Assistant United States Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Charlotte, North Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4157 Doc: 40 Filed: 05/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM:
Josue Aldana was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D). The district cour t sentenced him to 78 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Aldana argues that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing: to object to a Drug Enforcement Administration special agent being qualified as an expert witness and to his t estimony regarding intent to
distribute ; to object to remarks made by Government counsel during rebuttal argument; and to move to dismiss the charges against him. This court typically will not review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel made on direct appeal, United States v. Maynes , 880 F.3d 110, 113 n.1 (4th Cir. 2018), “[u]nless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record,” United
States v. Faulls , 821 F.3d 502, 507 (4th Cir. 2016). To establish ineffective assistance by trial counsel, Aldana must satisfy the two

- part test set out in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). He “must show that counsel’s performance was [constitutionally] deficient” and “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Id. at 687. After review, we con clude that ineffective assistance by trial counsel does not conclusively appear on the face of the record. Aldana’s claims “should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” Faulls , 821 F.3d at 508. We therefore decline to address these claims at this juncture. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4157 Doc: 40 Filed: 05/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-4157 Doc: 40 Filed: 05/29/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
Order entered September 25, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00278
- CV JULIE E. SCHMADER, Appellant

V. MATTHEW M. BUTSCHEK D/B/A ACCENT FINANCI AL SERVICES, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 002
- 01100
- 2012



### O RDER
We GRANT appellee’s September 15, 2015 unopposed motion for substitution of
counsel. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to substitute Charles Baruch as counsel for appellee in the place of Millard O. Anderson, Jr.
We GRANT appellee’s September 23, 2015 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellee shall file a brief by NOVEMBER 10, 2015

. /s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
#### Nathan M. BOOTH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18762.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Dec. 21, 1964.

Decided Feb. 4, 1965.

Mr. James E. Greeley (appointed by this court), Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Daniel H. Benson, Atty., Dept, of Justice, with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nébeker and David Epstein, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Fahy and McGowan, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant conceded his part in the altercation which led to his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Although he presented a substantial claim of self-defense, the jury rejected it, as it had a right to do, under a charge which scrupulously alerted the jury to testimony which would support acquittal.

Appellant urges on appeal, but did not below, that he was arrested without probable cause, and that an illegally seized knife was admitted in evidence against him. On the record in this case, we find no merit in these contentions. Nor do we think that the three and one-half month delay between indictment and trial violates the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial in the particular circumstances here.

Affirmed.
#### Elbert Lee JOHNSON *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 73-87

498 S.W. 2d 651

Opinion delivered September 10, 1973

*Lohnes T. Tiner,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *James W. Atkins,*Deputy» Atty. Gen., for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

The appellant, charged with the theft of a tractor-trailer, was found guilty of grand larceny and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years. His only assignment of error is that the State failed to prove that the stolen property was worth more than $35.

The owner of the tractor-trailer testified, in March, 1973, that he paid $3,300 for it “about two weeks before Christmas,” which would have been less than three months before the theft on February 15, 1973. The proof also shows that the rig was in operating condition and had apparently just been driven to Arkansas from North Carolina with a load of furniture.

We find the testimony sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The qase is unlike *Rogers*v. *State,*248 Ark. 696, 453 S.W. 2d 393 (1970), cited by appellant, for there the State offered no testimony to indicate the value of the stolen car, in dollars and cents. Here the State showed what the owner had recently paid for the stolen rig, which is a permissible factor for the jury to consider in determining market value. *Williams*v. *State,*252 Ark. *341289, 482 S.W. 2d 810 (1972); Jones on Evidence, § 4.54 (6th ed., 1972). The jury, upon the uncontradicted proof in this case, could reasonably have concluded that the tractor-trailer combination was worth more than $35 on the date of the theft. In fact, the opposite conclusion would have been wholly unreasonable.

Affirmed.
#### People v Martin,

No. 90939;

Court of Appeals No. 117617.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Velocity Express Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for
the period ended June 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward W. Stone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The amended Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A 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/ Edward W. StoneEdward W. StoneChief Financial OfficerOctober 27, 2008


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K/A or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Velocity Express Corporation and will be retained by Velocity Express
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EX-10.14



 Exhibit 10.14 

Summary of Outside Director Compensation Program 

Annual Retainers 
  

					
	Director	 	$40,000	 	Paid quarterly at beginning of quarter
			
	Chair of Audit Committee	 	+$15,000	 	Paid quarterly
			
	Chair of Compensation Committee	 	+$10,000	 	Paid quarterly
			
	Non-chair committee member	 	+$5,000	 	Paid quarterly

 Note: All travel expenses paid based on voucher; pro-rated payment for the quarter during which the initial public offering is
consummated. 
  

			
	STOCK COMPENSATION:	    	$40,000/year; each grant subject to one year vesting; first year value based on initial public offering price and granted upon consummation of initial public offering; subsequent years’ stock compensation granted in May of
year.

 Note: For subsequent new Board members who join Board mid-year, cash and stock compensation is pro-rated.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001002531
<NAME> TOLLGRADE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       8,311,353
<SECURITIES>                                14,249,164
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,288,740
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                 13,201,771
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,658,332
<PP&E>                                       7,146,114
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,831,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,864,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,118,858
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,184,093
<OTHER-SE>                                  44,511,674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,864,575
<SALES>                                     45,767,409
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               510,000
<CGS>                                       19,620,226
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,620,226
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                50,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,007,102
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,039,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,967,302
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Form 10-Q of Microtune, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James A. Fontaine, Chief Executive 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                      |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ JAMES A. FONTAINEJames A. Fontaine Chief Executive Officer Date: November 4, 2004
|                                                                                      |  |
**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**

Inconnection with the yearly report of Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. (“PPD”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Daniel G. Darazsdi, Chief Financial Officer of PPD, 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 my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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 PPD as of, andfor, the periods presented in the Report. 

Date: February 26, 2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

RICHARD COLLETT, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:18-cv-43

vs.

LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, et al., District Judge Walter H. Rice

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED

______________________________________________________________________________

The undersigned, having been advised that the above-captioned matter has been settled, 

RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED, with prejudice as to all parties, provided that 

any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within thirty (30) days following adoption of this 

Report and Recommendation, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. Parties 

intending to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the settlement should be aware of 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994), and incorporate 

appropriate language in any substituted judgment entry.

Date: September 24, 2018 s/ Michael J. Newman

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1 Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and 

Recommendation. 
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections 

to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with 

this Report and Recommendation. This period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) if 

served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If, however, 

this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to 

SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Parties may seek an extension of the 

deadline to file objections by filing a motion for extension, which the Court may grant upon a 

showing of good cause. 

Any objections filed shall specify the portions of the Report and Recommendation objected 

to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report 

and Recommendation is based, in whole or in part, upon matters occurring of record at an oral 

hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such 

portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the 

assigned District Judge otherwise directs. 

A party may respond to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN days after being 

served with a copy thereof. As noted above, this period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If, 

however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended 

to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 

Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. 

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 

(6th Cir. 1981).
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 08, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 08, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19I0165. JACKSON BERNARD MORELAND v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

18CR1208
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 

SPRINGFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HBH TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Case No. 3:17-cv-330 

District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

ORDER 

On November 14, 2018, United States District Judge Thomas M. Rose granted 

Attorney Bryce A. Lenox’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (Doc. #16) and granted 

Defendant HBH Technology, Inc. (formerly known as Computer Automation Systems, 

Inc.) until December 14, 2018 to acquire counsel or face possible sanctions including 

default judgment. Defendant HBH Technology did not acquire counsel. 

It is well settled that corporations, partnerships, and associations cannot appear in 

federal court except through a licensed attorney. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 

506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); Doherty v. American Motors Corp., 728 F.2d 334, 340 (6th 

Cir. 1984) (“[A] corporation cannot appear in federal court except through an attorney.”). 

It is, moreover, insufficient that the person attempting to represent a business entity is one 

of its officers. Ginger v. Cohn, 426 F.2d 1385, 1386 (6th Cir. 1970). 

 Defendant HBH Technology must therefore retain a trial attorney. Defendant’s 

attorney shall file a notice of appearance in this case on or before January 3, 2020. 
2 

Upon the filing of a notice of appearance, the case will proceed further. Defendant HBH 

Technology is advised that failure to timely comply with this Order to obtain new counsel 

may result in sanctions. 

 The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Defendant HBH 

Technology, Inc. at the following addresses: 

HBH Technology, Inc. 

f/k/a Computer Automation Systems, Inc. 

PO Box 590 

Mountain Home, AR 72654 

 and 

HBH Technology, Inc. 

f/k/a Computer Automation Systems, Inc. 

2351 CR 57 

Mountain Home, AR 72653 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

Defendant HBH Technology, Inc. shall retain a licensed attorney to represent it in 

this case, and on or before January 3, 2020, Defendant’s attorney shall file a notice of 

appearance in this case. 

December 3, 2019 s/Sharon L. Ovington 

 Sharon L. Ovington

 United States Magistrate Judge