alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 File No. 333-108227) pertaining to Argonaut Group, Inc. registration of 2,953,310shares of Series A Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock, Registration Statement (Form S-3 File No. 333-100321) pertaining to Argonaut Group, Inc. shelf registration of $150 million of common stock, preferred stock, and debt securities, RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 File No. 333-12034) pertaining to Argonaut Group, Inc. 1986 Stock Option Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 File No. 333-10712) pertaining to Argonaut Group, Inc. 1986 Stock Option Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 FileNo. 333-86101) pertaining to Argonaut Group, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 File No. 333-43230) pertaining to Argonaut Group, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan, Registration Statement (FormS-8 File No. 333-101822) pertaining to Argonaut Group, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-31547) pertaining to the Employee Stock Investment Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-89603)pertaining to the Employee Stock Investment Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-66652) pertaining to the Employee Stock Investment Plan, and Registration Statement (Form S-8 File No. 333-43228) pertaining to the Argonaut Group, Inc.Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan of our report dated February 20, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Argonaut Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2003. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

San Antonio, Texas 

March 10, 2004
George E. BAKER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0718

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 9









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 filing of the
annual report on Form 40F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”) by New Gold Inc. (the
“Company”), I, Brian W. Penny, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:



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



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









|Dated: March 30, 2017   | 
|----------------------- | 
|                        | 
|/s/ Brian Penny         | 
|                        | 
|Brian W. Penny          | 
|Chief Financial Officer |
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00285-CV

SHAWN PERKINS APPELLANT

V.

CITIBANK, N.A. APPELLEE

------------

FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 342-275644-14

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

------------

We have considered appellant’s “Motion For Voluntary Dismissal With 

Prejudice.” It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, 

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution 

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: October 15, 2015
Keion Marquise JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1068

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Eric BRADHAM, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-0503

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2018

Eric Bradham, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

Rowe, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Kamal Tauheed RUSSAW v. STATE

CR-15-1251

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONUNDER****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Glacier Water Services, Inc., (the Company) onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. David Walters, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and forpurposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 of the Company as of the dates indicated and results of operations of the Company for the periodsindicated. |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

  

|                                                                                   |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ W. DAVID WALTERS                                                                   |   |   |        |
|                                                                                        |   |   |   |
| **W. David Walters****Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer**July 31, 2003 |   |   |   |
Exhibit
21





**Subsidiaries
of Raytech Corporation**





The
following is a list of subsidiaries of Raytech Corporation as of January 2,
2005, all of which are directly or indirectly wholly-owned, except as
noted.





Name
      and
    State
      ofPrincipal
      Address
    IncorporationAllomatic
      Products Company
    Delaware609
      E. Chaney StreetSullivan,
      IN 47882(57%
      owned)Raybestos
      Friction Products (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
    ChinaXiang
      Yang Road, Suzhou New District215011
      Suzhou, ChinaRaybestos
      Industrie-Produkte GmbH
    GermanyIndustriestrasse,
      7D-54497
      Morbach, GermanyRaybestos
      Products Company
    Delaware1204
      Darlington AvenueCrawfordsville,
      IN 47933Raybestos
      Reibtechnik GmbH
    GermanyIndustriestrasse,
      7D-54497
      Morbach, GermanyRaybestos
      U.K. Ltd.
    England16,
      Spindus RoadSpekeLiverpool
      L24 1YA, EnglandRaybestos
      G.B.F. Ltd.
    Englandc/o
      Addleshaw Booth & Co.100
      Barbirolli SquareManchester
      M2 3AB, EnglandRaybestos
      Powertrain, LLC
    Indiana312
      St. Clair StreetSullivan,
      IN 47882Raybestos
      Automotive Components Company
    Michigan44600
      Merrill RoadSterling
      Heights, MI 48314Raytech
      Composites Europe GmbH
    GermanyIndustriestrasse,
      7D-54497
      Morbach, GermanyRaytech
      Composites, Inc.
    DelawareSuite
      295, Four Corporate DriveShelton,
      CT 06484
  
  Raytech
      Powertrain, Inc.
    DelawareSuite
      295, Four Corporate DriveShelton,
      CT 06484Raytech
      Systems, Inc.
    Delaware312
      S. St. Clair StreetSullivan,
      IN 47882RIH,
      LLC
    IndianaFour
      Corporate Drive, Suite 295Shelton,
      CT 06484RIHL,
      LLC
    IndianaFour
      Corporate Drive, Suite 295Shelton,
      CT 06484Raytech
      Innovative Solutions, LLC
    IndianaFour
      Corporate Drive, Suite 295Shelton,
      CT 06484
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 26, 2016

a1017

Order 

Clerk

October 26, 2016

152921

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152921

COA: 328944

Wayne CC: 10-008679-FC

RONALD BISHOP THOMPSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 19, 2015 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Constance BUCHANAN, as legal guardian of John Doe 2, a fictitious name for a minor, Appellant, v. CROSSROADS UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, INC., a Florida Non-Profit Corporation, Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., and Christopher Robert Bacca, Appellees.

No. 1D18-1820

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2018

Gerald B. Stewart, Jacksonville; Willie J. Walker of The Walker Law Offices, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Michael R. D'Lugo of Wicker Smith O'Hara McCoy & Ford, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee Campus Crusade for Christ.

No appearance for Appellees Crossroads United Methodist Church or Christopher Robert Bacca.

Per Curiam.

*1211Upon consideration of Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Appellant's Response in Opposition, the Court has determined that the appeal must be dismissed because the "Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Partial Final Judgment as to Count VIII" is not an appealable partial final judgment. *See**Jensen v. Whetstine* , 985 So.2d 1218, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) ("An order is not an appealable partial final order where there is a factual overlap between the pending claims and the claims resolved by the order.") *Cf.* Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k). "An appeal from an order dismissing a count of a complaint, where other counts against the same parties remain, is authorized only when the dismissed count arises from a separate and distinct transaction independent of the other pending, pleaded claims." *Biasetti v. Palm Beach Blood Bank, Inc.* , 654 So.2d 237, 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) ; *see also**Harrison v. J.P.A. Enters., L.L.C.* , 51 So.3d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Appellant's complaint includes two pending counts alleging claims against the same defendant for damages stemming from the same conduct as Count VIII. Therefore, the claims are interrelated and the order on Count VIII is not independently appealable as a partial final judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k).

The appeal is hereby DISMISSED .

Rowe, Kelsey, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
##### 



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 The undersigned, Brion Umidi, the Chief Financial Officer of ReGen Biologics,
Inc. (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with the
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2004 (the
Report). The undersigned hereby certifies 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: June 18, 2004
    
    /s/ Brion UmidiName: Brion UmidiTitle: Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Fox Strategic
Housing Income Partners and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                        3,906,000  <F1>
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      0
<PP&E>                                       21,030,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (5,183,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               20,028,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                       7,778,000
<COMMON>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                   11,729,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 20,028,000
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              2,840,000
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 1,986,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              977,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (152,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (152,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (152,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
<FN>
<F1> Cash includes cash investments of $2,497,000.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6032 

To amend Public Law 88–657 to require greater transparency in the consideration of projects for the Forest Service Legacy Road and Trail Remediation Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 24, 2023 

Ms. SCHRIER (for herself and Mrs. CHAVEZ-DEREMER) introduced the 

following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee 

on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 88–657 to require greater transparency in the consideration of projects for the Forest 

Service Legacy Road and Trail Remediation Program, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transparency in Leg5 acy Road and Trail Remediation Act of 2023’’. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6032 IH

1 SEC. 2. FOREST SERVICE LEGACY ROAD AND TRAIL REME2 DIATION PROGRAM TRANSPARENCY. 

3 Section 8 of Public Law 88–657 (16 U.S.C. 538a) 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (c)(2)— 

6 (A) by striking subparagraph (B) and in7 serting the following: 

8 ‘‘(B) solicit and consider public input re9 gionally in selecting projects for funding under 

10 the Program by— 

11 ‘‘(i) publishing annually, for each re12 gion, a list of projects considered for fund13 ing under the Program; 

14 ‘‘(ii) accepting public comment on the 

15 projects described in clause (i); and 

16 ‘‘(iii) considering public comments in 

17 selecting projects for funding under the 

18 Program;’’; and 

19 (B) in subparagraph (D)— 

20 (i) in the matter preceding clause (i), 

21 by inserting ‘‘annually, for each region,’’ 

22 before ‘‘publish’’; and 

23 (ii) by striking clause (ii) and insert24 ing the following: 

25 ‘‘(ii) a list that includes a description 

26 of— 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6032 IH

1 ‘‘(I) each project considered for 

2 funding under the Program; 

3 ‘‘(II) public comments received 

4 on each project described in subclause 

5 (I); 

6 ‘‘(III) the ranking within the ap7 plicable region of each project de8 scribed in subclause (I); and 

9 ‘‘(IV) the proposed outcome of 

10 each project funded under the Pro11 gram for the applicable fiscal year.’’; 

12 and 

13 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(f) DEFINITION OF REGION.—In this section, the 

15 term ‘region’ means one of the 9 regions of the Forest 

16 Service.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Johnson *v.*State.

Opinion delivered September 24, 1928.

*1052
      *G. T. Carpenter,*for appellant.

*3. W. Applegate,*Attorney -General, and *Effie Combs,*Assistant, for appellee.

Kikby, J.

Appellant -prosecutes this -appeal from a judgment of conviction for selling intoxicating liquors, and has abandoned all assignments of error save one— that the court erred in permitting the introduction of incompetent testimony.

Indictment was returned on the 29th day of November, 1927, and charged the -sale to have been made on the 26th day of July, 1927.

Two witnesses testified that ’they purchased a pint of whiskey from appellant on the 26th day of July, and the sheriff was -allowed to testify, over objections, that he had made a search of the defendant’s premises since he was arrested for the -sale of the whiskey, -and found six pints -of liquor and a number -of large containers in his house, on .September 17, 19-27.

The court -overruled the objection to the introduction of this testimony, stating: ‘ ‘ The jury will determine whether it sheds light on the kind and character -of business he was engaged in. ’ ’

This testimony was admissible as tending to throw light upon the transaction and the kind and character of business that appellant was engaged in, and the court’s statement that the jury would determine this matter was sufficient .to prevent the- jury’s consideration of the testimony for any other purpose. (Sections 3019 and 3013, par. 2, C. *&*M. Digest; *Casteel*v. *State,*151 Ark. 69, 235 S. W. 386; *Tong*v. *State,*169 Ark. 708, 276 S. W. 1004; *Lynn*v. *State,*169 Ark. 680, 277 S. W. 19; *Taylor*v. *State,*169 Ark. 589, 276 S. W. 577.

The-testimony is sufficient to support the verdict, and the judgment -is affirmed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00180-CV

Muhammad Y. Ahmed, Appellant

v.

Randall R. Mallory, Appellee

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-08-013056, HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Muhammad Y. Ahmed appeals from the county court’s order in favor of

appellee Randall R. Mallory in Ahmed’s suit against Mallory for forcible entry and detainer in

relation to commercial property located in Travis County. Mallory has filed a motion to dismiss,

asserting that this Court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal in light of section 24.007 of the

property code, which states, in relevant part, “A final judgment of a county court in an eviction suit

may not be appealed on the issue of possession unless the premises in question are being used for

residential purposes.” Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 24.007 (West 2000). Under section 24.007, we lack

jurisdiction to review the county court’s determination of the right of possession and any findings

essential to the issue of possession. See Terra XXI, Ltd. v. Ag Acceptance Corp., 280 S.W.3d 414,

416 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, pet. filed) (collecting cases). While Ahmed asserts that the Court

improperly denied his requested relief and issued erroneous conclusions of law, all relief sought by
2

Ahmed and all conclusions of law issued by the county court are based on the issue of possession.

See Academy Corp. v. Sunwest N.O.P., Inc., 853 S.W.2d 833, 834 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

1993, writ denied) (appellate court may not review points of error based on “the merits of

possession”). The county court’s order concerns only possession of the premises in that it awards

possession to Mallory and does not award monetary damages. Ahmed does not dispute that the

property at issue is not being used for residential purposes. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for

want of jurisdiction. 

Mallory’s motion is granted to the extent we dismiss this appeal. Any other requested

relief is denied.

__________________________________________

 Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: July 1, 2009