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

 Exhibit 23.1        

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the use of our report dated March 3, 2009 on the consolidated balance sheets of  Uranerz Energy Corporation (the "Company") as at December 31, 2008 and 2007 and the  related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and stockholders' equity for each of  the three years in the period ended December 31, 2008 and accumulated from May 26, 1999  (Date of Inception) to December 31, 2008 that are included in the Company's Form 10-K for the  year ended December 31, 2008, which is incorporated by reference in the Company's Form S-8  Registration Statement (SEC File No. 333-129843) and the Company's Form S-3 Registration  Statements (SEC File Nos. 333-139537 and 333-151189). 

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTSVancouver, CanadaMarch 11, 2009 

----
Timothy John COLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3548

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Keiandre Lenard LOVETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1657

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

Section 1350 Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of MoneyFlow Systems International Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

To my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended October 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  February 14, 2005



BY:  /s/ Harold F. Schultz

HAROLD F. SCHULTZ

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF

FINANCIAL OFFER
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but 1

is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-08-00646-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE SAN JUANITA SANDOVAL MORENO

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

1

Relator, San Juanita Sandoval Moreno, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the

above cause on November 14, 2008. The real party in interest, Ismael Moran, filed a

response to the petition on November 19, 2008.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and the response thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not shown herself entitled to the

relief sought. 
2

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 1st day of December, 2008.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_science(1)
              - products_data(2)
              - products_maps(2)
              - products_publications(14)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_image(3)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141771(3)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(1)
              - california(7)
              - colorado(4)
              - hawaii(36)
              - iowa(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - (-)massachusetts(3)
              - north carolina(8)
              - oregon(1)
              - south dakota(1)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(3)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

Photography        August 19, 2020        Measuring carbon dioxide and methane fluxes

Photography        May 21, 2020        Rebecca Sanders-DeMott performing maintenance on an eddy flux tower

Photography        June 29, 2022        Federal Career Panel
Robert W. ARMSTRONG, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4323

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit








EXHIBIT (10-16)




The Gillette Company Senior Executive 
Financial Planning Program




















THE GILLETTE COMPANY SENIOR EXECUTIVE
FINANCIAL PLANNING PROGRAM
REVISED OCTOBER 2004
(with amendments adopted through August 21, 2006)


	
		
	Eligibility
	Chairman/CEO of the Company and his/her direct reports who are generally treated as United States employees for employment and benefit purposes.

	 
	 

	Program Benefit
	Reimbursement by Company of financial counseling, estate planning, tax preparation, retirement and other related financial planning services for the participant and his/her spouse, domestic partner or dependent children.

	 
	 

	Available Providers
	Any qualified tax, financial, legal or similar firm selected by participant.

	 
	 

	Excluded Services
	Brokerage or other investment transaction fees; asset management fees; insurance premiums; services for individuals other than participant, his/her spouse or domestic partner and dependent children.

	 
	 

	Maximum Benefits
	During employment:  Chairman/CEO - $25,000/other participants - $11,000 of reimbursements received in any calendar year.

	 
	Following retirement under a Company-sponsored retirement plan: $6,000 of reimbursements received in any calendar year, over the participant's life.

	 
	Employees who terminate under the terms of a Company Change of Control Severance agreement will receive a lump sum payment of these amounts on or about January 1 annually. An employee who is considered “bridgeable” under the terms of The Gillette Company’s Retirement Plan will be eligible to receive the active amount until his or her earliest retirement date.

	 
	 

	Tax Effects
	Program benefits received by participant will be includable in compensation. Company will provide tax gross-up for Federal and State income taxes and FICA Medicare tax.

	 
	 

	Termination of Participation
	Last day of calendar year in which participant ceases to be an executive officer of the Company, unless participant qualifies for retirement benefits under this program.

	 
	 

	Program Amendment and Termination
	At discretion of the Company, by action of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, without requirement of advance notice.

	 
	 

	Effective Date
	July 1, 2003 (for the Chairman/CEO of the Company and his/her direct reports in such positions on or after such date).

	 
	 

	 
	The Gillette Company

	 
	 

	 
	By:  /s/ Edward E. Guillet

	 
	Senior Vice President - Human Resources

	 
	 

	[reflects amendments adopted through August 21, 2006]
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_science(1)
              - products_data(1)
              - products_publications(10)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_image(39)
              - multimedia_image-141771(36)
              - multimedia_image-141775(2)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_video(18)
              - multimedia_video-149194(4)
              - multimedia_video-149195(5)
              - multimedia_video-149198(9)
              - (-)news_other_news(2)

## By Location

              - california(1)
              - connecticut(1)
              - florida(1)
              - (-)hawaii(2)
              - idaho(1)
              - maine(1)
              - montana(1)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south dakota(1)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Center News        June 17, 2018        Volcano Watch — Colorful plumes – can we see volcanic gases?

Center News        September 9, 2021        Volcano Watch — The MILEAGE project - Mapping Kīlauea’s Gas Emissions
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 19, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-30621

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY THOMAS, also known as Demon,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:03-CR-338-6-I

 

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony Thomas appeals his guilty-plea conviction of one count

of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or

more of cocaine base and quantities of cocaine hydrochloride.

Thomas argues that the district court violated his due process

rights, as well as 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a), in failing to order a

competency hearing sua sponte. He contends that the district court
1 Thomas was ultimately sentenced to 175 months’

imprisonment.

2 We note that the district court remarked in passing during

the hearing to withdraw the guilty plea that “I can’t force you to

have a [psychological] examination.” While this statement may be

overly broad as a general matter, the circumstances of this case

are not such as to have required or clearly warranted a mandatory

psychological evaluation. 

2

should have questioned his competence in view of his conflicts with

his attorneys, his refusal to cooperate with the probation officer,

his attempt to withdraw his guilty plea even though he might have

received a life sentence had he gone to trial,1 his attorney’s

expression of concern regarding his competence, and information

regarding head injuries and possible brain damage. Thomas’s

appellate counsel also represents that Thomas has engaged in

“irrational” behavior during the course of his representation.

Considering the absence of any indication of a prior history

of irrational behavior, Thomas’s lucid responses during district

court proceedings, matters reflected at the Rule 11 and motion to

withdraw hearings, and the lack of any prior medical opinion on

competency, the district court did not abuse its discretion in not

ordering a competency hearing sua sponte.2 See United States v.

Messervey, 317 F.3d 457, 463 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
M.K.P., A Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-868

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-31046

Conference Calendar

 

ROLANDO ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RONNIE BOOK; PETE TOLAR; BOOKER, Captain;

JOHN DOE, 1-5; JOHN DOE, 1-2,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CV-1057

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

February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rolando Alexander, INS detainee #A21156111, appeals the

district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

Alexander’s appellate brief does not address the issue of

exhaustion, which was the basis of the district court’s

dismissal. He has thus abandoned the issue on appeal. See Yohey

v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
No. 01-31046

-2-

Because Alexander fails to address the only issue on appeal,

his appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore DISMISSED AS

FRIVOLOUS. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. His motion for appointment of

counsel is DENIED.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

IN RE:

VICTOR R. GABUARDI, CASE NO. 21-21148-BKC-LMI

Debtor. CHAPTER 7

_________________________________/

AGREED ORDER GRANTING

CREDITORS, TREVOR TAYLOR,

ANA CORDERO AND PATRICIO CORDERO’S

THIRD AGREED EX PARTE MOTION TO ENLARGE

THE TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO GLOBAL DISCHARGE AND 

DISCHARGEABILITY OF THE CREDITORS’ SPECIFIC DEBTS (ECF NO. 44)

On July 11, 2022, Creditors, Trevor Taylor, Ana Cordero, and Patricio Cordero (“TCC 

Creditors”) filed their third agreed ex parte motion pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4004(b), 4007(c) 

and 9006(b) and Local Rule 9013-1(C)(1) and (6) to enlarge the time for the TCC Creditors to file 

a complaint objecting to Debtor’s discharge and/or the dischargeability of specific debts owed to 

Laurel M. Isicoff

Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge

___________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on July 12, 2022.

Case 21-21148-LMI Doc 45 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 2
the TCC Creditors ("Agreed Motion for Enlargement"). The Debtor agrees to the timely relief 

being sought in the Agreed Motion for Enlargement, and this form of Order. Therefore, it is –

ORDERED as follows:

1. The Agreed Motion for Enlargement is GRANTED.

2. The deadline for the TCC Creditors to file a complaint objecting to the 

Debtor’s discharge or the dischargeability of specific debts owed to the TCC Creditors is 

extended through November 30, 2022.

3. This Order is without prejudice to further requests for extension upon 

good cause being shown by the TCC Creditors.

 ###

Submitted by: David A. Samole, Esq.

Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, L.L.P.

2525 Ponce De Leon, 9th Floor

Miami, Florida 33134

Telephone: 305-372-1800

Facsimile: 305-372-3508

E-mail: das@kttlaw.com

Copies furnished to:

David A. Samole, Esq.

[Attorney Samole is directed to serve copies of this order on all interested parties and to file a 

certificate of service]

Case 21-21148-LMI Doc 45 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.2  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Mark S. Clayton, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Nova Star Innovations, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: March 27, 2007 /s/ Mark S. Clayton Mark S. Clayton Principal Financial Officer
Wayne Allen PELLICER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2522

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Steven Ray KILLINGSWORTH

NO. 2018-KH-0571

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 3, 2018

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR AUTO GLASS OF TAMPA BAY, INC.,

as assignee of Chris Laibinis,

Respondent.

No. 2D21-98

September 24, 2021

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth 

Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County; sitting in its appellate 

capacity.

John P. Marino and Lindsey R. Trowell of Smith, Gambrell & 

Russell, LLP, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.

David M. Caldevilla of de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A., Tampa; Anthony 

T. Prieto of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Tampa; Christopher P. Calkin 

and Mike N. Koulianos of Law Offices of Christopher P. Calkin, P.A., 

Tampa; J. Daniel Clark of Clark Martino, P.A., Tampa; and Matthew 

A. Crist of Crist Legal, P.A., Tampa, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.
2

Denied.

VILLANTI, BLACK, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-133681 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement
Nos. 333-128663, 333-119580 and 333-119578 on Form S-8 of our reports dated April 30, 2008, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of True
Religion Apparel, Inc. and the effectiveness of True Religion Apparel, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of True
Religion Apparel, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Los Angeles, California
April 30, 2008

---



QuickLinks
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 13, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00013

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.W.L. , G.L.L, L.R. III., and A.R., Children

From the 216th Judicial District Court

, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15759A

Honorable Cathy Morris

, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion issued this date, this appeal is ordered DISMISSED

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on March 13, 2019

.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 13th day of March, 2019

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
Michael J. RIGBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-305

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 5, 2018 Rehearing Denied August 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification By Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Walter Thomas Price III, Chairman, President and Director of Price Asset
Management, Inc., the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 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 and results of operations of the Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Walter Thomas Price IIIWalter Thomas Price IIIChairman, President and DirectorMarch 31, 2005




E-3