alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital Title Group, Inc., (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Donald R. Head, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 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 the operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Donald R. Head                   
|    |  | Donald R. Head                       
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|    |  | March 11, 2005
#### SHIMBERG, Appellant, v. WEAVER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by Sarah Shimberg against Van R. Weaver.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
# L_2010096EN.01000701.xml

| 16.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 96/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 96/7

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 9 April 2010

appointing one Greek member and one Greek alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

(2010/217/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Greek Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).

| (2) | A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Nikitas KAKLAMANIS. An alternate member’s seat has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Dimitris KALOGEROPOULOS as a member of the Committee of the Regions, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Nikitas KAKLAMANIS. An alternate member’s seat has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Dimitris KALOGEROPOULOS as a member of the Committee of the Regions,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| (a) | as member:






  — | Mr Dimitris KALOGEROPOULOS, Mayor of the City of Egaleo (change of mandate); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

as member:

—

Mr Dimitris KALOGEROPOULOS, Mayor of the City of Egaleo (change of mandate);

and

| (b) | as alternate member:






  — | Mr Dimitris MARAVELIAS, Mayor of Chaidari. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

as alternate member:

—

Mr Dimitris MARAVELIAS, Mayor of Chaidari.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussel, 9 April 2010.

For the Council

The President

M. Á. MORATINOS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22 and OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

1

---
#### LAIDLEY, Appellant, v. LAIDLEY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by Edward T. Laidley against Etta M. Laidley.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT and PARKER, JJ.

W. S. Bennett, for appellant.

W. I. Grow, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report of Wilsons The LeatherExperts Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for thefiscal year ended January 28, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Michael M. Searles, Chairman andChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     1) the Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and     2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.     /s/ Michael M. Searles       **Michael M. Searles** **Chairman and Chief Executive Officer**Date: April 12, 2006
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Blount International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Calvin E.Jenness, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)            The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periodsexpressed in the report.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BlountInternational, Inc. and will be retained by Blount International, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

 

Date: November 10,2008

 

 

| /s/ Calvin E. Jenness      |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| Calvin E. Jenness          |   |
| Senior Vice President  and |   |
| Chief Financial Officer    |   |

 

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

131035(77)(80) Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

HARVEY GRACE,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 SC: 131035 

v COA: 257896 

Oakland CC: 2002-045572-NM 

BRUCE LEITMAN and BRUCE 

LEITMAN, P.C., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

______________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by defendants-appellees for extension to 

August 29, 2007 of the time for filing their brief is considered and it is GRANTED. The 

motion by the Insurance Institute of Michigan, ProNational Insurance Company and 

Professionals Direct Insurance Company for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is 

considered and it is GRANTED. 

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. 

September 27, 2007 

 Clerk
#### Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Allgood.

Appeal from Anniston City Court.

Tried before the Hon. James W. Lapsley.

J. M. Falkner and Ray Rushton, for appellant.

A. P. Agee, for appellee.

_ This suit was commenced in the justice court by appellee, plaintiff in the court below, to recover damages for the negligent delay in the transmission and delivery of a telegraphic message. A judgment was rendered in the justice court against the defendant Telegraph Company, from which an appeal was taken to the city court, where the cause was tried *ele novo*by the court without the intervention of a jury, and judgment was there rendered against the defendant, from which an appeal is prosecuted to this court.

On the undisputed evidence in the case, it is shown, that there existed no relation between the defendant Telegraph Company and the Telephone Company, to-which latter the message was delivered by Brock, the sender, contractual or otherwise. And the evidence fails to show that there was any di-scloure to the -defendant Telegraph Company of any -agency between Brock, the sender of the message and Allgood the sendee.

'The court hol-ds that on this state of facts, under the authority of *W. Ü. Tel. Go. v.*Adair, 115 Ala. Ill; *Daughter^/ v. American Union Tel. Go.,*75 Ala. 168; TP. *U. Tel. Go. v. Wilson,*93 Ala. 32; TP. *Un. Tel. Go. v. Gunningham,*99 Ala. 314, the sendee Allgood had no right of recovery in this action against the defendant for damages resulting from the delay in delivering the message sent by Brock.

Judgment in favor of 'the plaintiff is reversed, and judgment here rendered in favor of the defendant.

Opinion by

Dowdell, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COMPANY'S
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME TAXES AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.     
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001001185
<NAME>                        IDX SYSTEMS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                           <C>               <C>         
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998       JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1998       JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1                 1   
<CASH>                             12,537            16,389
<SECURITIES>                      105,470           104,259  
<RECEIVABLES>                      78,230            57,354
<ALLOWANCES>                       (1,356)           (1,197)
<INVENTORY>                             0                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  205,482           190,805
<PP&E>                             60,393            51,928
<DEPRECIATION>                     30,682            26,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    250,686           224,205
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              47,311            47,010
<BONDS>                                 0                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0                 0
<PREFERRED>                             0                 0
<COMMON>                              263               227
<OTHER-SE>                        194,672           169,812
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      250,686           224,205
<SALES>                           152,101           116,991
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  152,101           116,991
<CGS>                              77,656            61,025
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      53,978            44,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       88               411
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     43                64
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    22,848            13,959 
<INCOME-TAX>                       10,340             5,587 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                12,508             8,372
<DISCONTINUED>                          0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0                 0
<CHANGES>                               0                 0 
<NET-INCOME>                       12,508             8,372
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.48              0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.46              0.32
        


</TABLE>
D ISMISS; and Opinion Filed September 29, 2014 . 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 14
- 00031
- CV JOY JACKSON
- ATKINS , Appellant V. FREDERICK L. ATKINS , Appellee On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 13
- 02571 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O ’ Neill, Lang

- Miers, and Brown Opinion by Justice Lang

- Miers Joy Jackson

- Atkins’s brief was due August 5, 20 14. When appellant failed to file her brief, we notified her, by postcard dated August 6, 2014, that the time had expired and directed her to file her brief along with an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned that the failure to file her brief a nd extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not filed her brief, filed an extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of her brief or this appeal.
Acco rdingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3 (b), (c)

.

140031F.P05 /Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

JOY JACKSON

- ATKINS, Appellant
No. 05

- 14

- 00031

- CV V. FREDERICK L. ATKINS, Appellee On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 13

- 02571. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang

- Miers, Justices O’Neill and Brown participating.
In a ccordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee FREDERICK L. ATKINS recover his costs of this appeal, if any, from appellant JOY JACKSON

- ATKINS.
Judgment entered this 29th day of September, 2014.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0477

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JOHN HILL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension 

of time, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 17, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s reply brief on appeal.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 14 2024

05/14/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0477
EXHIBIT 23.1






                                   [Letter Head of McGovern, Hurley, Cunningham]






                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference of our report dated  February 17,
2000  (except  as to note 17  which  is  dated  as  April  7,  2000)  in (i) the
Registration Statement on Form S-3, Registration No. 333-70763,  filed by Altair
International   Inc.  with  the   Securities   and  Exchange   Commission   (the
"Commission"),  (ii) the  Registration  Statement  on Form S-8  filed by  Altair
International  Inc.  with  the  Commission  on July  11,  1997,  and  (iii)  the
Registration  Statement on Form S-8 filed by Altair  International Inc. with the
Commission  on  September  29, 1998 and to the  reference  to our firm under the
heading "Experts" in the Prospectus or Disclosure Document, as applicable, which
is a part of each such Registration Statement.

                                        By:/s/McGovern, Hurley, Cunningham
                                        ----------------------------------
                                        McGovern, Hurley, Cunningham
                                        Chartered Accountants

North York, Canada
April 7, 2000
NRCS 800 - SUMMER RIMLatitude: 42.696Longitude: -120.802Elevation: None

NRCS 800 - Summer Rim

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Crazyman Flat Site Page...



Crazyman Flat

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Silver Creek Site Page...



Silver Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Summer Rim Site Page...



Summer Rim
#### TOUART v. KORAL.

(Decided November 13, 1913.)

Appeal from Mobile Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. Saffold Berney.

*672No counsel marked for either party.'

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
#### Kelly et *al. v.*Weiss.

*(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.*

*July 18, 1890.)*

Appeal—Review—Sufficiency of Evidence.

A judgment will not be disturbed on appeal when the verdict on which it is based is justified by the evidence.

Appeal from eleventh district court.

Action by Thomas P. Kelly and others against Leopold Weiss, to recover $99.50 for storage of a brougham and a T cart under an agreement at a specified price. There was a verdict in plaintiff’s favor, and from a judgment thereon defendant appeals.

Argued before Larremore, C. J., and Allen and Bookstaver, JJ.

*Horwitz & Hirshfleld,*for appellant. *J. Cochrane,*for respondents.

Per Curiam.

No question of law is presented on this appeal. The justice, from the testimony, was justified in finding the verdict he did, and the judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs to the respondents.
#### Georgia Home Ins. Co. *v.*Boykin *et*al.

Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court.

Tried before the Hon. John R. Tyson.

Tompkins & Troy, for appellant.

W. S. Thorington and J. M. Chilton, for appellee.

This vras an action of assumpsit brought by the appellant against the appellees. The only rulings presented for review on the present appeal were upon the evidence sought to be introduced by the plaintiff. These rulings, being adverse to the plaintiff, the plaintiff took a non-suit with bill of exceptions. 'There was judgment-rendered in favor of the defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

Opinion by

Haralson, J.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harry E. Wenzel, Also Known as Harry Edward Wenzel, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered June 13, 1983, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the evidence adduced at the trial was legally sufficient to support a finding that the defendant possessed the requisite intent for the commission of attempted murder in the second degree, and that the defendant failed to prove the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We reject the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in charging the jury, pursuant to CPL 250.10 (5), that the defendant did not submit to the pretrial psychiatric examination ordered by the court pursuant to CPL 250.10 (3) and that such failure could be considered by the jury in determining the merits of the defendant’s affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. The defendant contends that because he did not call any witnesses at the trial, he did not present "proof’ of his affirmative defense, within the meaning of CPL 250.10 (5). However, although the defendant did not call his own witnesses, he endeavored to prove his affirmative defense by cross-examination of the People’s witnesses. Moreover, since extreme emotional disturbance is an affirmative defense *(see,*Penal Law § 125.25 [1]), it is the defendant’s *717burden to establish that defense by a preponderance of the evidence *(see,*Penal Law § 25.00 [2]). Had the defendant not proffered proof of the defense, it could not have even been considered by the jury. The defendant was foreclosed by CPL 250.10 (5) from both advancing his affirmative defense and preventing the People from attempting to disprove the affirmative defense by the testimony of a psychiatrist *(cf., Matter of Lee v County Ct.,*27 NY2d 432, *cert denied*404 US 823).

By failing to object to the comments in the prosecutor’s summation that he now claims prejudiced him, the defendant did not preserve these matters for appellate review. In any event, a new trial is not warranted owing to any of the claimed errors.

Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the defendant was provided with meaningful representation *(see, People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796, 798-799). Accordingly, the defendant’s claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel must be rejected.

The other contentions raised by the defendant, including those raised in his *pro se*brief, are either unpreserved for our review or without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
#### Richard A. Williamson, as Successor Liquidating Trustee on Behalf of Lipper Convertibles, L.P., and Lipper Fixed Income Fund, L.P., Respondent, v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Appellant.

Submitted March 26, 2007;

decided March 29, 2007

Motion by Ross Fuerman for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
Exhibit 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Capital Title Group, Inc.

We consent to  incorporation  by reference  in the  Registration  Statement  No.
333-66375 on Form S-8 of Capital Title Group,  Inc. of our report dated March 3,
2003,  relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of Capital Title Group, Inc.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related  consolidated
statements of operations,  stockholders'  equity and comprehensive  income,  and
cash flows for each of the years in the  three-year  period  ended  December 31,
2002,  which report  appears in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K
of Capital Title Group, Inc.

Our report  refers to the  Company  adopting  the  provisions  of  Statement  of
Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 141, "Business  Combinations" and SFAS
No. 142,  "Goodwill  and Other  Intangible  Assets"  which changed the Company's
method of accounting for goodwill and other intangible  assets effective January
1, 2002.

                                        /s/ KPMG LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
March 20, 2003
#### In the Matter of the Claim of David P. Cruz, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Submitted December 4, 2006;

decided March 29, 2007

Motion for reargument denied *[see*7 NY3d 711].