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

Exhibit (21)

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                     LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
               FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JANUARY 1, 2000



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Percentage of
                                                               Voting Securities
                                         Jurisdiction of            Owned by
Subsidiaries                              Incorporation          the Registrant
----------------------------------   ----------------------  ----------------------


<S>                                      <C>                     <C>
Commander Systems, Inc.                      Ohio                        100%

Corporate Design, Inc.                       Ohio                        100%

LB Communications, Inc.                      Ohio                        100%

LB Development Corp.                         Ohio                        100%

LB Investments, Inc.                       Delaware                      100%

LB Europe Limited                          England                       100%

Inpaco Corporation                           Ohio                        100%

Liqui-Box International, Inc.                Ohio                        100%

Liqui-Box International, Corp.             Barbados                      100%

Liqui-Box of Canada, Ltd.                   Canada                       100%
</TABLE>


                                       60
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
on Form 10-Q of Tier Technologies, Inc., (the “Company”), for the period ended
June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Ronald L. Rossetti, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that, to his knowledge:







1.
            This
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
  amended.






2.
            The
      information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.







Dated:  August
      7, 2008
            /s/
      Ronald L. RossettiRonald
      L. RossettiChief
      Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.1



Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Neil Christiansen, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Freedom Resources Enterprises, Inc. (the Company), certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. As certifying officer, I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, 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 registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the Evaluation Date); and



c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5. As certifying officer, I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and



6. I have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





September 21, 2005

/s/ Neil Christiansen

Neil Christiansen

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer
## **EXHIBIT23.1**

## ** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

 

Board of Directors and Stockholders

Arden Group, Inc. and ConsolidatedSubsidiaries

 

We consent to the inclusion in this Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Arden Group, Inc. for the year ended January 3, 2009and to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement on Forms S-8 (No. 333-46704and 333-69787) of Arden Group, Inc. of our report dated March 13,2009 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, appearing in Item 8 in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K.

 

/s/ Moss Adams LLP

 

Moss Adams LLP

Los Angeles, California

March 13, 2009

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          33,206
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,850
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,056
<PP&E>                                       3,223,930
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,904
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,327,273
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,606
<BONDS>                                      1,306,602
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,853,149
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,327,273
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               254,860
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  163,488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 91,372
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             91,372
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    86,773
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.97
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 
**- 6139** 

VICTOR GLEN WILKES ,
Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.

WARDEN, FCI EDGEFIELD , Respondent

– Appellee,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Terry L. Wooten , Chief District Judge. ( 8:12

- cv
- 03046

- TLW )

Submitted : May 3 0 , 2013 Decided: June 5, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Victor Glen Wilkes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Victor Glen Wilkes , a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge a nd denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2241
(West 2006 & Supp. 2012) petition. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. We further find that the district
court correctly rejected Wilkes’ altern ative request for a writ
of audita querela because he had available another remedy, a 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. * Accordingly, although
we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Wilkes v. Warden , No.

8:12

- cv
- 03046

- TLW (D.S.C. Dec. 10, 2012; Jan

. 16, 2013) . We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional pr ocess.

AFFIRMED

* The fact that Wilkes cannot proceed under § 2255 unless he obtains authorization from this court to file a successive motion does not alter this conclusion. United States v. Valdez

– Pacheco , 237 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 2001) (“We agree with our sister c ircuits . . . that a federal prisoner may not challenge a conviction or sentence by way of a petition for a writ of audita querela when that challenge is cognizable under § 2255.”).
#### *In re*RUBIN, Ellen Ruth

(MR 21831)

Tucson, AZ

*700Order of the Court:

The petition by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to impose reciprocal discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 763 is allowed, and respondent Ellen Ruth Rubin, who has been disciplined in the State of Arizona, is reprimanded in the State of Illinois and placed on probation subject to the condition imposed in the State of Arizona.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                         CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Bell & Howell Company:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-99982, 333-93099 and 333-48425) on Form S-8 of Bell & Howell Company of our
report dated February 20, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Bell & Howell Company and subsidiaries as of the end of fiscal years 2000 and
1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders'
equity, and cash flows for the fiscal years 2000, 1999 and 1998, which report
appears in the fiscal 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Bell & Howell Company.

Our report refers to a change in the methods of accounting for certain inventory
costs and in revenue recognition.

                                                       KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 23, 2001
#### Victoria Corsel, Respondent, v Ralph Corsel, Appellant.

— In a matrimonial action, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Abrams, J.), entered June 16, 1986, as denied that branch of his motion which was to direct a nonparty witness to appear for an examination before trial, and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for a pendente lite award of an appraisal fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant husband’s application to direct a nonparty *605witness to submit to an examination before trial was properly denied. The basis for the defendant’s application was that the plaintiff wife had committed adultery with the nonparty witness. However, pretrial discovery concerning the merits of a matrimonial action should not be permitted *(see, Ginsberg v Ginsberg,*104 AD2d 482). Although marital fault, in an appropriate case, may be a factor in fixing an award of maintenance *(see, Blickstein v Blickstein,*99 AD2d 287, 293; *see also, Stevens v Stevens,*107 AD2d 987), the single act of adultery alleged herein was not so egregious as to warrant its consideration and, thus, to justify departure from the rule proscribing pretrial discovery with respect thereto.

Finally, because broad pretrial financial disclosure is critical in matrimonial actions *(see, Kaye v Kaye,*102 AD2d 682, 686; *Colella v Colella,*99 AD2d 794; *Ahern v Ahern,*94 AD2d 53, 56), the pendente lite award for an appraisal of certain real property in which both parties claimed an interest was proper *(see, Ahern v Ahern, supra,*at 58). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Harwood, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         176,024
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,494
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                15,200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  2,170,207
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      3,200,034
<ALLOWANCE>                                     42,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,947,686
<DEPOSITS>                                   4,028,570
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,111,630
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             82,270
<LONG-TERM>                                    154,771
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       163,208
<OTHER-SE>                                     407,237
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               5,947,686
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                252,975
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              132,623
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                13,006
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               398,604
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             160,914
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             216,120
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          182,484
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    6,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,634
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                174,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 95,949
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      70,772
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    70,772
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.72
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,621
<LOANS-PAST>                                     5,469
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                41,737
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    9,485
<RECOVERIES>                                     4,633
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               42,885
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            42,885
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         19,859
        


</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 21 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 21 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 21 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE 10-K FOR THE YEAR
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,205
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                       150
<INVENTORY>                                      4,486
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,266
<PP&E>                                           6,939
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,418
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,849
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,332
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           485
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,849
<SALES>                                         22,843
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,843
<CGS>                                           12,758
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,758
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,534
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    13
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,695
<INCOME-TAX>                                       578
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,117
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,117
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .98
        


</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 3 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 4 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 5 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 6 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 7 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 8 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 9 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 10 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 11 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 12 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 13 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 14 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 15 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 16 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 54-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 17 of 17
#### 2002 IRREVOCABLE TRUST FOR Richard C. HVIZDAK, a legal trust, 2007 Richard C. Hvizdak Separate Trust, a Delaware trust, RCH Trust Holdings I, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. The HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK successor by merger with Sky Bank, Foshan Poly Marine Engineering Co., Ltd., a Chinese corporation, et al., Defendants, Shenzhen Development Bank Co. Ltd, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 10-14045.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 3, 2011.

Scott Andrew Wagner, Michael T. Moore, Moore & Company, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Frances P. Kao, Amy L. Gelder, Marcella L. Lape, Amanda Scott Williamson, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher *&*Flom, LLP, Chicago, IL, Casey K. Weidenmiller, Naples, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before HULL, KRAVITCH and STAPLETON,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Walter K. Stapleton, United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

After review and oral argument, we find no reversible error in the district court’s order, dated March 26, 2010, and thus affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant-Appellee Shenzhen Development Bank Co. Ltd. on the Plaintiffs’ claims in Counts I, III, IV, and V of the Second Amended Complaint. In addition, we agree with the reasons set forth in the thorough and well-reasoned March 26, 2010 order of the district court judge.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Tramell, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the warrant to search the premises at 1112 Ferry Avenue was overbroad. The warrant specified that 1112 Ferry Avenue was an apartment house and the area to be searched included the rear entrance way and basement. The police, in searching these areas, seized controlled substances. The description in the warrant, along with its supporting affidavit, sufficiently delineates the area of this multiple dwelling to enable the searcher to identify the place authorized to be searched *(see, People v Brooks,*54 AD2d 333, 335; *cf, People v Nieves,*36 NY2d 396, 401; *People v Henley,*135 AD2d 1136, *Iv denied*71 NY2d 897).

*990Defendant further contends that the proof is insufficient to sustain his conviction for possession or sale of controlled substances because the People’s proof did not establish the identity of the substances tested. We conclude that the extensive evidence of chemical analyses, including both screening and confirmatory tests, testified to by the People’s forensic chemist was more than adequate to support the expert’s opinion that the substances were cocaine and heroin *(see, People v Flores,*138 AD2d 512, *lv denied*72 NY2d 859; *People v Harris,*130 AD2d 939, *lv denied*70 NY2d 647). Additionally, the forensic chemist testified that prior to his use of the known standards he tested them to verify their identity *(cf., People v Branton,*67 AD2d 664; *People v Miller,*57 AD2d 668).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, DiFlorio, J. — criminal sale of controlled substance, third degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.