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

 

[Larrowe & Company, PLC Letterhead] 

 

***CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS***

 

The Board of Directors 

Surrey Bancorp 

145 North Renfro Street 

Mount Airy, North Carolina 27030-8038 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-108676and 333-108677) of Surrey Bancorp on Forms S-8 of our report dated January 14, 2005 on the consolidated financial statements of Surrey Bancorp as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004which report appears in this December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Surrey Bancorp. 

 

/s/ Larrowe & Company, PLC 

Galax, Virginia 

September 20, 2005
Warren PINK, DOC #T44131, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-28

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 6, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1

Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section  1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of  2002

Michael D.
Durham, as President and Chief Executive Officer of ADA-ES, Inc. (the  Company),
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant  to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)
the Companys Annual Report on Form  10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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/  Michael
D. DurhamName:  Michael D.  DurhamTitle: President and Chief Executive
Officer Date: March  27, 2007
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131158 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131158 

 COA: 268375 
 Wayne CC: 04-011167-01

LARRY ANDREW SCHAEFER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 21, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0821 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

August 29, 2006 

 Clerk
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Early Warnings and Alerts

Filters

              - science_science(1)
              - products_publications(9)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)

## By Location

              - california(12)
              - colorado(1)
              - hawaii(2)
              - (-)oregon(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(5)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        September 22, 2022        PubTalk-09/2022 - You Can be Powered by ShakeAlert®️ - Earthquake Early Warning for All!
Exhibit 99.1

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Shareholders of Inergy Holdings
GP, LLC

We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Inergy Holdings GP, LLC (the Company) as of September 30, 2008. This balance sheet is the
responsibility of the Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this balance sheet based on our audit.

We conducted our
audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Companys internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures
that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the balance sheet referred to above presents fairly,
in all material respects, the financial position of Inergy Holdings GP, LLC at September 30, 2008 in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Kansas City, Missouri

November 25, 2008



---

INERGY HOLDINGS GP, LLC

BALANCE SHEET



|                      |  |                   |      
|--------------------- |  | ----------------- | -----
|                      |  | September 30,2008
|ASSETS                |  |                   |      
|Current assets:       |  |                   |      
|Cash                  |  | $                 | 1,000
|                      |  |                   |      
|Total assets          |  | $                 | 1,000
|                      |  |                   |      
|MEMBERS EQUITY       |  |                   |      
|Members equity       |  | $                 | 1,000
|                      |  |                   |      
|Total Members equity |  | $                 | 1,000
|                      |  |                   |      

See accompanying note.



---

INERGY HOLDINGS GP, LLC

NOTE TO BALANCE SHEET

1. Nature of Operations

Inergy Holdings GP, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company, which was formed on January 19, 2005, and owns a non-economic general partner interest in Inergy Holdings, L.P.

On April 14, 2005, the individual members contributed $1,000 to Inergy Holdings GP, LLC in exchange for a 100% membership interest.

Inergy Holdings, L.P. was converted from a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Inergy Holdings, LLC to a Delaware limited partnership on April 28,
2005.
Emmanuel MCMEANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2977

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
State of West Virginia
  
  CERTIFICATE
 
 
 I, Joe Manchin III, Secretary of State of the
 State of West Virginia, hereby certify that
   PDC 2002-D LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
 
 has delivered originals of its
 
 CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
 
 to me as required by the provisions of Chapter 47, Article 9, Sections 8 and 13 of the West Virginia State Code and the Certificate conforms to law and is filed in my office. I therefore declare the organization to be formed as a limited partnership for the purposes stated in its Certificate and I attach to this certification a duplicate original of its Certificate of Limited Partnership,
  
 seal 3
Given under my hand and the

Great Seal of the State of

West Virginia on this day of

June 3 ,2002









/s/ Joe Manchin III



Secretary of State
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-09-00059-CR

SCOTT BOEHLER,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court

Freestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21952

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Scott William Boehler was found guilty of a Class C Misdemeanor, failure to 

control speed, in the justice of the peace court. TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 545.351 

(Vernon 1999). That conviction was appealed to the county court for a trial de novo. 

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 45.042 (Vernon 2006). Boehler was found guilty by 

a jury in the county court, and the court imposed a fine of $100. Boehler has now 

attempted to appeal that judgment.

The Clerk of this Court notified Boehler by letter that we questioned our 

jurisdiction because the appeal was from a trial de novo in the county court from an 
Boehler v. State Page 2

inferior court’s ruling. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 4.03 (Vernon 2005). In the 

same letter, the Clerk warned Boehler that the Court would dismiss the appeal unless, 

within 21 days from the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal. Boehler has not provided a response.

We have no jurisdiction of appeals from a trial de novo in the county court of an 

inferior court’s ruling if the fine imposed in the county court does not exceed $100. Id. 

The fine imposed in the county court at law did not exceed $100.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3. 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed April 29, 2009

Do not publish 

[CR25]
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report of Smart Online, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, David Colburn, Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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/
      David Colburn**


David
      Colburn


Principal
      Executive Officer


November
      14, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
Independent
Accountants' Report






The Board
of Directors Navistar Financial Corporation




We have
examined management's assertion, contained in Appendix I, that Navistar
Financial Corporation (the Company) complied with the minimum servicing
standards set forth in Sections 3.02, 8.07 and Article IV of the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement for the Navistar Financial 1998-1 Dealer Note Master Trust,
Navistar Financial 2000-WC Dealer Note Master Trust, Navistar Financial 2004-1
Dealer Note Master Owner Trust, and Navistar Financial 2005-1 Dealer Note Master
Owner Trust. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those
minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assertion about the Company's compliance based on our
examination.




Our
examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance
with the minimum servicing standards specified above and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum
servicing standards.




In our
opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing standards as of and for the year ended October 31, 2006
is fairly stated, in all material respects.









KPMG












September
8, 2008







E-7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ANDREW RUBIN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50239

D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00610-RGK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2014** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Andrew Rubin appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the

sentence of 12 months and one day imposed upon revocation of supervised release. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

FEB 27 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Rubin contends that the district court erred by failing to respond to his

mitigating arguments and to consider adequately all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. ValenciaBarragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects

that the district court listened to Rubin’s mitigating arguments, considered the

relevant sentencing factors, and adequately explained the sentence. See United

States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

Rubin also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because

the court gave too much weight to his offenses and insufficient weight to his

mitigating circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

imposing Rubin’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)

sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Rubin’s repeated

supervised release violations. See id.; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez,

587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a

particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-50239
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 Quarterly Report of Creative Vistas, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dominic Burns, 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 to
the best of my knowledge:





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 result of operations of the Company.





By:
              /s/ Dominic
      BurnsDominic
      BurnsChief
      Executive Officer




May 15, 2009
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-79,344-01

EX PARTE DAVID VILLAREAL, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 10 CR 1423 D (S1) IN THE 105 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM NUECES COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

robbery and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed

his conviction. Villareal v. State, 13-10-00605-CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Dec. 15,

2011) (unpublished). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed. The trial court entered

findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that relief be granted due to a “breakdown
2

in the system.” Ex parte Riley, 193 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court and attached her correspondence with

Applicant. Based on that evidence, it is apparent that appellate counsel failed to timely notify

Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App.

1997). 

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition

for discretionary review of the judgment of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 13-10-

00605-CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 10 CR 1423 D (S1) from the 105 District th

Court of Nueces County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court

within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: June 5, 2013

Do not publish
----

|   | (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 Registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Richard W. McCullough                          |   | March 30, 2011 |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------|
| Richard W. McCullough                              |   |
| Chief Executive Officer                            |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |   |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |
|                                               |   |
| /s/ Gysle R. Shellum                               |   | March 30, 2011 |
| Gysle R. Shellum                                   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                            |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |   |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |
|                                               |   |

----
**Exhibit 99.3** Thefollowing disclosure was provided in the Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2005 (filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on November 22, 2006). **ITEM 5.****MARKET    FOR THE REGISTRANT’S COMMON STOCK, RELATED STOCKHOLDER    MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES** ***Market    Information***     Our common stock is traded on the NYSE under the trading symbol    “BE.” Until we are current in all of our periodic    reporting requirements with the SEC, the NYSE will identify us    as a late filer on its website and consolidated tape by affixing    the letters “LF” to our common stock ticker symbol.     By letter dated April 4, 2005, we were notified by the NYSE    that under current NYSE procedures, we had until nine months    from the date our 2004    Form 10-K    was required to be filed with the SEC before the NYSE would    consider commencing delisting actions. In response to a request    letter from us, on December 16, 2005, the NYSE granted us    an extension until March 31, 2006 to file our 2004    Form 10-K.    On January 31, 2006, we filed our 2004    Form 10-K.     On March 31, 2006, we notified the NYSE that we failed to    file our 2005 Annual Report on    Form 10-K    in a timely manner. By letter of April 3, 2006, the NYSE    notified us that if we failed to file our 2005    Form 10-K    within six months of the filing due date, the NYSE would    determine whether we should be given up to an additional six    months to file the 2005    Form 10-K    or whether to commence suspension and delisting procedures. On    September 29, 2006, the NYSE notified us it would give us    an additional three months to file this Annual Report on    Form 10-K.    The filing of this Annual Report on    Form 10-K    today is within the time period specified by the NYSE.     In addition, we have not complied with the NYSE listing    standards that require us to hold an annual meeting of    stockholders every fiscal year.     The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices for    our common stock as reported on the NYSE for the quarterly    periods indicated. **Price    Range of Common Stock**            **Price Range of**
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50151 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NOE HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-92-CR-239-3
- - - - - - - - - - April 15, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Noe Herrera appeals his resentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court did not err in not reducing his fine. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G., Appendix C amd. 505; United States v. Segler , 37 F.3d 1131, 1135 (5th Cir. 1994). Herrera did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to argue for a reduction in the fine. See Koch v. Puckett , 907 F.2d 524, 527 (5th Cir. 1990).No. - 2 - AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1 

 

Consent of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm 

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-122665) pertaining to the 2004 Stock Incentive Plan and 2000 General Stock Incentive Plan of MediciNova, Inc. of our report dated March 8, 2005, with respect to the financial statements ofMediciNova, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

San Diego, California 

March 17, 2005