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

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-115871-99, 333-54688-99, 333-81813-99, 333-29885-99, and 333-157907) of Invitel Holdings A/S of our report dated April 30, 2009 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedules and the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting of Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp., which appears in this Form 20-F. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers Kft. 

Budapest, Hungary 

May 14, 2009
Joseph W. ATKINS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

CASE NO. 1D17-3146

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 8, 2017 Rehearing Denied January 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER AND N OTICE OF I NTENT TO D ISMISS FOR W ANT OF P ROSECUTION

Appellate case name: Karen Kristine Silvio v. Jason B. Ostrom and Nicole K. Sain

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 4

- 00 647

- CV

Trial court case number: 9 3 7,164

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County

This appeal was stayed pursuant to the Suggestion of Bankruptcy filed in this

Court on December 9, 2014, stating that the appellant, Karen Kristine Silvio, had filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of Title 11, United States Code, i n the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which was assigned case number 14

- 36744. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 8.2 ; s ee also 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (automatic stay in bankruptcy) . Through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) website, the Court has learned that appellant’s bankruptcy case was dismissed wi th prejudice on April 21, 2015. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of this Court to

r einstate this appeal as an active case on the Court ’s docket.

However, according to this Court’s October 7, 2014 Order on Motion, the filing

fee ha d not been paid then and the clerk’s record ha d not yet been filed due to appellant’s lack of payment

, and she ha s not established indigence

. Thus, appellant is ORDERED

t o pay the $195.00 filing fee to the Clerk of this Court and pay, or make arrangements to pay, the county clerk for the $300.00 c lerk’s record fee, and file evidence of such payment with the Clerk of this Court within 30 days of the date of this order, or th is appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution without further notice

. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P . 5 , 37.3(b), 42.3 (b), (c)

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

 Acting individually

Date: August 15, 2016
Garcia HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-3019

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned,
certifies that to the best of his knowledge (1) this Annual Report of CNL Macquarie Global Growth Trust, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (this Report), 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 Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of December 31, 2010 and 2009.



|                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                            
|------------------- |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Steven D. Shackelford                                                  
|Date: March 2, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | STEVEN D. SHACKELFORD Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)
Samuel NANCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106618

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: April 16, 2019

Randall Brachman, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.

Eric S. Schmitt, Atty. Gen., Shaun J. Mackelprang, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

*702***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

Samuel Nance appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. An opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)(5).
Motion Denied; Order filed March 1 , 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 17

- 00760

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF R .P.R. , JR., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 04660J



### ORDER Appellant R.J.R. is represented by court

- appointed counsel on appeal,
William Thursland. On January 9, 2018, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief stating the appeal in this cause is frivolous, under the authority of Anders v.
Cal ifornia , 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). See In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d 326,
329

– 30 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (applying Anders procedures to a parental termination case). On January 10, 2018, counsel filed a motion to withdraw as ap pellate counsel based on his Anders brief

.The Supreme Court of Texas has concluded that the right to counsel under

Family Code section 107.013(a)(1) through the exhaustion of appeals under Family Code section 107.016(2)(B) encompasses all proceedings in the Supreme Court of Texas, including the filing of a petition for review. In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Once appointed by the trial court, counsel should be permitted to withdraw only for good cause and on appropriate terms and

c onditions. Id . Mere dissatisfaction of counsel or client with each other is not good

cause. Id . Nor is counsel’s belief that the client has no grounds to seek further review from the court of appeals’ decision. Id . Counsel’s obligation to the client
still may be satisfied by filing an appellate brief meeting the standards set in Anders v. California and its progeny. See Anders , 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 1396 ; In re P.M ., 520 S.W.3d at 28

. However, counsel’s motion to withdraw in this court, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature. In re
P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27. If counsel for R.J.R. has concluded that there are no non

frivolous points to urge in a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas,
counsel should file in that court a petition for review that satisfies the standards for

an Anders brief. See id. (stating that “[i]n this Court, appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the
standards for an Anders brief”).
A petition for review must be filed with the Supreme Court clerk within 45 days after the following: (1) the date the court of appeals rendered judgment, if no motion for rehearing or en banc reconsideration is timely filed; or (2) the date of the court of appeals’ l ast ruling on all timely filed motions for rehearing or en banc reconsideration. Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(a). The Supreme Court of Texas may extend the time to file a petition for review if a party files a motion complying with TexasRule of Appellate Procedur e 10.5(b) no later than 15 days after the last day for

filing the petition. Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(f).
Because the only grounds counsel has identified for withdrawal do not constitute good cause, we DENY counsel’s motion to withdraw.

PER CURIAM

Panel consist s of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Busby and Wise.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION




In
connection with the annual report of Liberator, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ronald P. Scott, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of WES Consulting Inc.*, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:




(1)
     The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.





Date:
      June 30, 2010
            /s/
      Ronald P. ScottRonald
      P. ScottChief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial and AccountingOfficer) of WES
      Consulting, Inc.*




* On
October 19, 2009, Liberator, Inc. merged with and into WES Consulting,
Inc.  As WES Consulting, Inc. is the surviving entity from such merger
and Liberator, Inc. has been merged out, this certification is signed by the
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of WES Consulting, Inc.
Willie James JONES, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-697

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Daniel K. MCKAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106621

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

FILED: May 7, 2019

Emily S. Danker-Feldman, 120 S. Central Ave., Ste. 130, Clayton, MO 63105, for appellant.

Gregory L. Barnes, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Daniel K. McKay ("McKay") appeals the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. In his sole point on appeal, McKay argues that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to cite the proper burden of proof for prejudice in appealing the denial of McKay's speedy trial motion under the *764Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law ("UMDDL").

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 664 

Recognizing the 25th Army Corps of the Union Army and thanking them 

for their role in capturing Galveston, Texas, on June 5th, 1865, and 

liberating thousands of enslaved people. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 25, 2023 

Mr. GREEN of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 25th Army Corps of the Union Army and 

thanking them for their role in capturing Galveston, 

Texas, on June 5th, 1865, and liberating thousands of 

enslaved people. 

Whereas this resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Original Resolution Honoring the 25th Army Corps’’; 

Whereas the 25th Army Corps was the largest unit of African 

Americans in the Union Army during the Civil War, comprised of more than 1,000 soldiers; 

Whereas the 25th Army Corps captured Galveston, Texas, on 

June 5, 1865, a week before General Gordon Granger’s 

arrival on June 19, 1865; 

Whereas the 25th Army Corps chased the rebel government 

and soldiers of Texas into Mexico and spread the word 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 664 IH 

about freedom, liberating thousands of enslaved people in 

Texas before the arrival of General Granger; 

Whereas the 25th Army Corps were the first unit to occupy 

the former capital of the Confederacy, Richmond, Virginia, on April 3, 1864; 

Whereas the members of the 25th Army Corps, who were 

previously held in the bondage of slavery, not only emancipated enslaved persons in Galveston, they also released 

Union soldiers and enslaved persons taken captive by the 

Confederate Army; 

Whereas the soldiers of the 25th Army Corps, through their 

actions and sacrifices, brought a crucial victory for the 

Union and played an indispensable role in the struggle 

for human rights, contributing to the abolition of slavery; 

Whereas the 25th Army Corps not only waged war against 

the Confederacy but also waged a significant battle 

against racial prejudice and discrimination across the 

Nation; and 

Whereas the legacy of the 25th Army Corps continues to inspire subsequent generations, instilling the values of 

courage, freedom, and justice and reminding us of our 

shared humanity: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes and thanks the 25th Army Corps of the Union Army 

3 for their role in capturing Galveston, Texas, on June 5, 

4 1865, and liberating thousands of enslaved people days 

5 prior to the arrival of General Gordon Granger on June 

6 19, 1865. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM SIERRA PACIFIC PENSION INVESTORS '84 JUNE 30, 2000 FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          11,115
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  155,605
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,414
<PP&E>                                       3,988,989
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,836,134
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,006,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,733
<BONDS>                                      1,358,189
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,520,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,006,000
<SALES>                                        272,542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               352,128
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  213,674
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                73,957
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,682
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                233,019
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            233,019
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   233,019
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.00


</TABLE>
Blake COFIELD v. STATE

CR-15-0705

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 14, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000746631
<NAME> ASDAR INC

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                              67
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    67
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      67
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,734
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,167)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        67
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,750
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,750)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,750)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,750)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
10.17


 


TERMINATION
AGREEMENT


 


THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into
as of the          day of
                    ,
2007, by and between HSW INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
and HOWSTUFFWORKS, INC., a Delaware corporation (“HSW”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company and HSW are parties to that certain Services
Agreement, dated as of October 2, 2007 (the “Services Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to terminate the Services Agreement in its
entirety.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual premises
contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.             Termination of
Services Agreement.  Effective as of the date hereof, the
Services  Agreement is hereby terminated
and shall be of no further force and effect, and neither the Company nor HSW
shall have any further obligation or liability under the Services Agreement.


 


2.             Binding Effect; Severability.  This Agreement is binding on, and
shall inure to the benefit of, the parties and their respective successors and
assigns.  If any part of this Agreement
is deemed unreasonable by a court of competent jurisdiction, this Agreement shall
be subject to judicial modification in order to render this Agreement
reasonable and enforceable.  Further, if
any part of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of
this Agreement still is enforceable.


 


3.             Governing Law.  This Agreement shall be governed
by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York,
excluding its choice of laws provisions. The Parties agree that the exclusive
venue and jurisdiction for any actions or disputes arising from this Agreement shall
be a federal or state court in New York.


 


4.             Counterparts.  This
Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts and by facsimile, each of
which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute
one and the same instrument.


 


 


[SIGNATURES
CONTAINED ON FOLLOWING PAGE.]


 


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed by the parties under
seal as of the date first written above.


 


	
   

  	
  HSW
  INTERNATIONAL, INC.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  HOWSTUFFWORKS,
  INC.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
					



 


 


2
|   | 1. | Such      Annual Report on Form 10-K Amendment No. 1 for the year ending March 31,      2009 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K Amendment No. 1      for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Jack Jie Qin                                     |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Jack      Jie Qin                                    |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer, President and Chairman |
|   | (Principal      Executive Officer)                   |

----
----

Action brought on 11 February 2005 by P. against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-103/05)

(2005/C 132/54)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 February 2005 by P., residing in Barcelona (Spain), represented by Matías Griful I Ponsati, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is against the decision of the appointing authority of 28 October 2004 which, after noting that the defendant's medical department had confirmed that the applicant was fit to travel and work on a half-time basis, confirmed suspension of payment of his salary from 15 April 2004 until the date on which he commenced performing his duties at the Commission's offices in Brussels.

It is claimed in that connection that the applicant, whose appointment to a post at the Commission's Representative Office in Barcelona was justified by family circumstances, was subject to anxiety and depression as a result of the abolition of his post at that office.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

----