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



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 and S-3 (Nos. 33-60145, 33-61275, 33-61277, 333-99707 and
333-31280) of our report dated March 14, 2007, relating to the financial
statements incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of BIW
Limited for the year ended December 31, 2006.




/s/ Dworken, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C.
--------------------------------------------------
Dworken, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C.

April 30, 2007
Shelton, Connecticut
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6117

STEVEN WAYNE GOODMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HARRY L. CARRICO, Chief Justice, Supreme Court

of Virginia, individually and in his official

capacity; P. CLARKE KATTENBURG, P.C., individually and in his official capacity; WILLIAM D.

PICKETT, individually and in his official capacity; THOMAS A. EDMONDS, Virginia State Bar,

individually and in his official capacity;

NOEL D. SENGEL, individually and in her official capacity; ROBERT BROOKS ALTIZER, individually and in his official capacity; JAMES A.

BUTTS, III, individually and in his official

capacity; JOHN A.C. KEITH, individually and in

his official capacity; EDWARD B. LOWRY, individually and in his official capacity; WILLIAM

G. MURRAY, individually and in his official

capacity; W. SCOTT STREET, III, individually

and in his official capacity; SHARON MAITLAND

MOON, individually and in her official capacity; GEORGE ALLEN, Governor, individually and

in his official capacity; JAMES F. ALMAND,

individually and in his official capacity;

EDWARD M. HOLLAND, individually and in his

official capacity; JAMES GILMORE, Attorney

General, individually and in his official

capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.
2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-391-3)

Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 19, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Wayne Goodman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Steven Wayne Goodman, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.

1998) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1998). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find that this appeal is

frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. Goodman v. Carrico, No. CA-97-391-3 (E.D. Va.

Dec. 30, 1997). Although not explicitly addressed by the district

court, Goodman’s First Amendment claim was also properly dismissed

as frivolous. We deny Appellant’s motions for appointment of counsel and to remand case and dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit
99.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Prakash Agarwal, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended October 27, 2002 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NeoMagic
Corporation.  By:
  /s/ Prakash AgarwalName:
  Prakash AgarwalTitle:
  Chief Executive Officer  I, Stephen T. Lanza, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended October 27, 2002 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NeoMagic
Corporation.  By:
  /s/ Stephen T. LanzaName:
  Stephen T. LanzaTitle:
  Chief Financial Officer
**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





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Lease Equity Appreciation Fund I, L.P.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert
      K. Moskovitz, Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner 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/
      Robert K. Moskovitz


March
      30,
      2006   Robert
      K.
      Moskovitz


Chief
      Financial Officer of the General Partner
China BAK Battery, Inc. Exhibit - Prepared by TNT Filings Inc.










Exhibit 10.90

Summary of Loan Agreement Entered into by and between
Shenzhen 
BAK Battery Co., Ltd. (“the Company”) and Shenzhen Eastern Branch,
Agricultural 
Bank of China (“the Creditor”) dated July 22, 2009


Main contents


	Contract number: 81101200900001661;
  
	Loan principal: RMB 50 million;
  
	Loan term: from July 22, 2009 to January 21, 2010;
  
	Floating interest rate: annually 4.617%, rate adjustment in a 3-month
  cycle; 


	
  Interest accrued and settled per month, interest settlement day is the
  20th day of each month;
  

	
  Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 4.617% plus 30% *4.617%;
  

	
  Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 4.617% plus 50%
  *4.617%; 



	Purpose of the loan is to provide working capital for purchasing raw
  material of the Company;
	Advanced repayment of loan needs to be approved by the Creditor;
  
	Breach of contract penalties: correct the breach of contract in time
  limit; suspension of loan unprovided; release loan agreement, demand
  prepayment of loan principal and interest before maturity; imposition of
  punitive interest incurred due to delayed loan; imposition of punitive
  interest for embezzlement of loan; imposition of plural interest for unpaid
  interest; withdraw from any accounts of the Company the loan principal,
  interest and other fees; compensation for the Creditor’s expenses incurred due
  to demanding the loan principal and interest in case of litigation, etc.
  
	Supplemental: in the event that the Company repaid the loan in advance, it
  has to pay extra handling fee: advanced repaid amount * share months * 1%.
  


Headlines of the articles omitted:


	Loan arrangement
  
	Interest clearing of the loan
  
	Payment of the loan
  
	Rights and obligation of the Creditor
  
	Rights and obligations of the Company
  
	Interest penalty of loan
  
	Guarantee of the loan agreement
  
	Disputation settlement
  
	Validity
  
	Text
  
	Notification
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Jersey Mining
Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer and Director of New
Jersey Mining 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.

Date: November 13, 2008

By /s/ FRED W. BRACKEBUSCHFred W. Brackebusch,
President, Treasurer & Director



---
# C_2021098EN.01002002.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2021 — Kampete v Council

(Case T-113/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures - Right to private and family life - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)

(2021/C 98/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, H. Marcos Fraile, S. Van Overmeire and M.-C. Cadilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2018 L 134, p. 47) and, second, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2018 L 314, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ilunga Kampete to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ilunga Kampete to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
WILLIAM HENRY CHASE

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF F ILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 0703

Opinion filed January 25, 2017.

Petition for Belated Appeal

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

William Henry Chase, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General,

Tallahassee

, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

ROWE, RAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Elizabeth Farina et al., Appellants, v Pan American World Airlines, Inc., Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Green, J.), dated January 4, 1985, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion granted to the extent of awarding plaintiff partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for further proceedings to determine damages.

On October 9, 1983, plaintiff Elizabeth Farina was injured when an aircraft in which she was a passenger went off a runway while landing at Kennedy Airport. The record is silent as to what caused the aircraft’s departure from the *619runway. Upon these facts, there is a sufficient evidentiary basis for invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur *(see, e.g., Abbott v Page Airways,*23 NY2d 502, 510; *Zaninovich v American Airlines,*26 AD2d 155). The res ipsa doctrine creates a permissible inference of negligence which may be rebutted *(see, Pfaffenbach v White Plains Express Corp.,*17 NY2d 132, 135). However, as the Court of Appeals noted in *George Foltis, Inc. v City of New York*(287 NY 108, 121): "There may be cases where the *prima facie*proof is so convincing that the inference of negligence arising therefrom is inescapable if not rebutted by other evidence” *(see also, Gravitt v Newman,*114 AD2d 1000; *Notice v Regent Hotel Corp.,*76 AD2d 820).

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted an attorney’s affirmation and thereby sought to defeat plaintiffs’ motion by reference to speculative issues of fact concerning the proximate cause of the accident. There is no allegation made therein that the affirmant had personal knowledge of the relevant facts. Therefore, the affirmation has no probative value to defeat the motion for summary judgment *(see, e.g., Roche v Hearst Corp.,*53 NY2d 767, 769; *Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Mfg. Co. v A-1-A Corp.,*42 NY2d 496, 500). Accordingly, defendant has failed to refute the inference of its negligence and partial summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor is warranted as a matter of law. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, Mary Jane Robertson, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Crum &Forster Holdings Corp., certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact, or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of and for the periods presentedin this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       Date:June 28, 2005 By: /s/ *Mary Jane Robertson*           Mary Jane Robertson
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JAVAUGHN SKINKLE,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-2504

LT Case No. 2021-CF-101477

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed May 20, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Volusia County,

James R. Clayton, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, 

and Joseph Chloupek, Assistant 

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, 

for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Kristen L. 

Davenport, Assistant Attorney 

General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.
2

In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm Javaughn Skinkle’s judgment and 

sentence with one exception. The trial court erred in assessing investigative 

costs under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2021), in the absence of a 

request from the State. See Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574, 577 (Fla. 

2020) (“[T]he State must request investigative costs to make a defendant 

liable for those costs . . . .” (citation omitted)). We remand for the trial court 

to enter an amended judgment without including these investigative costs. In 

all other respects, we affirm. See State v. Dortch, 317 So. 3d 1074, 1084 

(Fla. 2021) (“[T]here is no fundamental-error exception to the preservation 

requirement of rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c).”).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

LAMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
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

I, Douglas R.
Young, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2006
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of NeoMagic Corporation.

Date: November 27, 2006



By:

/s/ Douglas R. YoungName:

Douglas R. YoungTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
Motion Denied and Order filed August 30, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00556

- CV NO. 14

- 16

- 00578

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF A .L.H., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014

- 00466J



### ORDER
These are consolidated, accelerated appeal s from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of the parent

- child relationship is at issue (“parental termination case”). The notice s of appeal were filed on July 15, 2016 and July 21, 2016

. Appellant s have established indigence or are presumed to be indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(a). The reporter’s record was originally due within 10 days after the notice of appeal was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1(b); 28.4(a)(1). Through
extensions granted to appellants and the court reporter , the reporter’s record was most recently due on August 25, 2016. When we granted the last extension, we noted
tha t no further extensions would be granted. The record has not been filed. On August 25, 2016, Jill Bartek, the official court reporter for the 313th District Court,filed a further motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record.

Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed.
See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). The trial and appellate courts are jointly respo nsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). The trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately commence the preparation of the reporter’s record and must arrange for a substitute reporter, if neces sary. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(1). Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely in this accelerated appeal, we issue the following order: The motion for extension to file the reporter’s record is DENIED

. We order
Jill Bartek , the official c ourt reporter, to file the record in this appeal on or before September 2, 2016

. If Bartek does not timely file the record as ordered, the court will issue an order requiring her to appear at a hearing to show cause why the record has not been timely file d and why she should not be held in contempt of court for failing to file the record as ordered. Contempt of court is punishable by a fine and/or confinement in jail.

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to**

 

**Section 906of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

I, Joel Boyarski, theChief Financial Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Qof WorldGate Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended June 30,2005, which this certification accompanies, fully complies with requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and information contained in the June 30, 2005 Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to WorldGateand will be retained by WorldGate and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Dated: August 15,  2005 |   | /s/ JOEL  BOYARSKI       |
|------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                         |   | Joel Boyarski            |
|                         |   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----