alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
pertaining to the 1995 Employee Stock Incentive Plan (Form S-8 No. 33-93542),
the 1995 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors (Form S-8 333-2824), the
Employee Stock Purchase Plan (Form S-8 333-33207), and the 1998 Stock Incentive
Plan, 1998 Synergy Stock Option Plan, and 1998 ExpressBill Stock Option Plan
(Form S-8 333-56887) of ENVOY Corporation of our report dated March 5, 1998,
except for the business combinations accounted for as poolings of interests
referred to in Notes 1 and 4, as to which the date is April 29, 1998; the
restatement for the beneficial conversion feature referred to in Note 2, as to
which the date is June 26, 1998; the restatement related to acquired in-process
technology referred to in Note 2 and the subsequent event referred to in Note
22, as to which the date is November 9, 1998, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of ENVOY Corporation included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A No. 1 dated November 20, 1998, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.



                                                  Ernst & Young LLP
                                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Nashville, Tennessee
November 18, 1998
S06A1529.

#### BRITT v. CONWAY.

(637 SE2d 43)

CARLEY, Justice.

David Britt was arrested on a warrant charging him with theft by taking. Thereafter, an accusation was filed and defense counsel was appointed to represent him. During the pendency of the criminal case, Britt filed a pro se petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. However, the habeas court denied relief and dismissed the petition. Britt appeals pro se from the habeas court’s order.

Contrary to Britt’s contention, he was not entitled to appointed counsel in the habeas corpus proceeding. *Gibson v. Turpin,*270 Ga. 855 (513 SE2d 186) (1999). He also urges that the habeas court was required to make a determination of his mental state. However, that was an issue to be addressed in the context of the criminal prosecution.

> “ Where the proceedings under which the petitioner is detained are still pending undisposed of, and the ordinary established procedure is still available to him, the orderly *190procedure by trial and appeal should not be interfered with by a writ of habeas corpus (cits.), there being another adequate remedy (cits.), and no necessity for issuance of this high extraordinary writ (cit.).’ ” [Cit.]

Decided October 30, 2006.

David E. Britt, *pro se.*

*Daniel J. Porter, District Attorney, Julie L. Johnson, James M. Cavin, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

*Kearse v. Paulk,*264 Ga. 509, 510 (448 SE2d 369) (1994).

Although it appears that the habeas court did not conduct a hearing, “where the petition and exhibits attached thereto disclose without contradiction that the petition is without merit, it is not error to dismiss the same without a hearing.” *Bass v. Ault,*229 Ga. 309-310 (191 SE2d 73) (1972). A writ of habeas corpus is not available to one who “is imprisoned under lawful process issued from a court of competent jurisdiction unless his case is one in which bail is allowed and proper bail is tendered . . . .” OCGA § 9-14-16 (1). Britt did not seek issuance of the writ on the ground that he had tendered proper bail in connection with his then-pending prosecution on the criminal charge. Therefore, his petition failed to state any viable claim for pre-conviction habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the habeas court did not err in dismissing the petition without first conducting a hearing on its merits.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
[LOGO]

May 4, 2005

To: JRT Associates

From: Paul S. Lipschutz


      RE: Consulting Agreement

This letter is an addendum to our agreement dated October 10, 2004.

Collectible  Concepts  Group,  Inc.  hereby  agrees that because of the services
provided by Mr.  Theismann in attaining  the NFL license for CCGI,  we will also
pay 5% (five percent) of sales (as defined by the previous  agreement and on the
terms of the previous agreement) for NHL (upon completion of license) sales made
by CCGI.

Additionally,  we will issue options for an additional 3 million  shares at .003
(3 mills) good for 3 years from the date of this addendum.

/s/ Paul S. Lipschutz
---------------------
President
#### Laird *v.*Mayor of De Soto.1

*Circuit Court, E.*D. *Missouri.*

September 30, 1885.

Mandamus—Federal Courts should Conform: to State Practice in Issuing.

A federal court sliould not issue a *mandamus*ordering the mayor of a city to collect a thx for the payment of a judgment against the city, without an execution having first been issued and returned unsatisfied in whole or in part, where the statutes of the state in which the court is held only permit a *mandamus*to be issued by state courts after an execution has been so returned.

Motion to quash an alternative writ of *mandamus*ordering the collection of a tax to pay an execution. The section of the Bevised Statutes of Missouri referred to below is as follows:

“Whenever an execution, issued out of any court of record in this state against any incorporated town or city, shall be returned unsatisfied in whole or part for want of property whereon to levy, such court, at the return term, or any subsequent term thereof, may, by writ of *mandamus,*order and compel the chief officer, trustees, council, and all other proper officers of such city or toivn, to levy, assess, and collect a special tax to pay such execution and all costs: provided, the rate of taxation so ordered to be levied and assessed shall in no case exceed the rate prescribed by its charter. ”

*77*Mills & Flitcraft,*for plaintiff.

*Dyer, Lee & Ellis,*for defendant.

1

 Reported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.

Brewer, J.,

*(orally.)*In this ease a judgment was rendered against the defendant, an incorporated city, upon certain municipal obligations. An alternative writ was issued without a prior execution. The statutes of Missouri provide that if an execution be issued against an incorporated city and be returned unsatisfied, then a writ of *mandamus*may go. 1 Rev. St. § 2415. I understand that the practice in this court has conformed to the provisions of this statute. It should so conform. No right of the judgment creditor is lost; all that results is a slight delay. And the acts of congress indicate the propriety, if not the duty, of conformity. Desty, Fed. Proc. § 914; *U. S.*v. *Keokuk,*6 Wall. 514; *Moran*v. *City of Elizabeth,*9 Fed. Rep. 72. Hence the writ was prematurely issued, and the motion to quash will be sustained.
#### Michael E. KOHN; Catherine K. Kohn, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.

No. 09-3092.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 2, 2010.

Filed: May 26, 2010.

Michael E. Kohn, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

Catherine Kriegshauser Kohn, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

Andrew Weiner, Nathan J. Hochman, U.S. Department of Justice, William Wilkins, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Michael Kohn and Catherine Kohn challenge the tax court’s1 decision, rendered after a bench trial, upholding the Internal Revenue Service’s Notice of Determination (NOD) related to the Kohns’ liabilities for tax year 2001. We review the tax court’s legal conclusions de novo, and its findings of act for clear error. *See Campbell v. Comm’r,*164 F.3d 1140, 1142 (8th Cir.1999).

Assuming without deciding that the tax court had authority under 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1) to consider certain matters raised by the Kohns related to tax years prior to 2001, *cf. Orum v. Comm’r,*412 F.3d 819, 821-22 (7th Cir.2005), we affirm the tax court’s decision for the reasons stated in its memorandum and opinion. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable L. Paige Marvel, United States Tax Court Judge.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2059

___________________________

James F. Boschert

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: January 5, 2016

 Filed: January 15, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BYE and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

James F. Boschert appeals the district court’s dismissal of his diversity action

1

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We agree with the district court that

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court

1

for the Eastern District of Missouri.
dismissal for failure to state a claim was warranted, see Mountain Home Flight Serv.,

Inc. v. Baxter Cnty., Ark., 758 F.3d 1038, 1042-43 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review),

and we find no merit to Boschert’s objections to the no-argument designation of the

instant appeal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
#### Gregory McCLELLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David MOUNTAIN; P. Heard, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-15596.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 6, 2010.

Gregory McClellan, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gregory McClellan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims concerning parole conditions and revocation of parole. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Weilburg v. Shapiro,*488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys. LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

We affirm the dismissal of McClellan’s claims challenging parole conditions. *See Hatton v. Bonner,*356 F.3d 955, 961-67 (9th Cir.2004) (rejecting ex post facto challenge); *Neal v. Shimoda,*131 F.3d 818, 826-27 (9th Cir.1997) (same); *see also United States v. Bee,*162 F.3d 1232, 1234-35 (9th Cir.1998) (rejecting constitutional challenge to condition of supervised release).

However, we vacate the dismissal under *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), of McClellan’s claim challenging parole revocation. The district court did not expressly consider the *Heck*exception set forth in *Non-nette v. Small,*316 F.3d 872 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings on this claim.

McClellan shall bear his own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
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
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of HUGHES Telematics, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Craig J. Kaufmann,
Vice President Finance and Treasurer of the Company, hereby 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ CRAIG J. KAUFMANNName:

Craig J. KaufmannTitle:

Vice President Finance and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Date:

November 13, 2009
Order filed, December 27, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-01090-CR

____________

MAURICE LEE MOORE JUNIOR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 300th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 81635-CR

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 14, 2018. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Renee Rape, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
No. 120.

#### Public Service Commission *v.*Batesville Telephone Co.

See *ante,*p. 6.
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 903 

AN ACT 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance the 

roles of dentists and allied dental personnel in the Nation’s disaster response framework, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 903 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dental Emergency Re3 sponder Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DENTAL EMERGENCY RESPONDERS: PUBLIC 

5 HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESPONSE. 

6 (a) NATIONAL HEALTH SECURITY STRATEGY.—Sec7 tion 2802(b)(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 300hh–1(b)(3)) is amended— 

9 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

10 by inserting ‘‘and which may include dental health 

11 facilities’’ after ‘‘mental health facilities’’; and 

12 (2) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ‘‘(which 

13 may include such dental health assets)’’ after ‘‘med14 ical assets’’. 

15 (b) ALL-HAZARDS PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICAL

16 RESPONSE CURRICULA AND TRAINING.—Section 

17 319F(a)(5)(B) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

18 U.S.C. 247d–6(a)(5)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘public 

19 health or medical’’ and inserting ‘‘public health, medical, 

20 or dental’’. 

21 SEC. 3. DENTAL EMERGENCY RESPONDERS: HOMELAND SE22 CURITY. 

23 (a) NATIONAL RESPONSE FRAMEWORK.—Paragraph 

24 (6) of section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

25 (6 U.S.C. 101) is amended by inserting ‘‘and dental’’ after 

26 ‘‘emergency medical’’. 
3 

•HR 903 EH

1 (b) NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS SYSTEM.—Subpara2 graph (B) of section 653(b)(4) of the Post-Katrina Emer3 gency Management Reform Act of 2006 (6 U.S.C. 

4 753(b)(4)) is amended by striking ‘‘public health and med5 ical’’ and inserting ‘‘public health, medical, and dental’’. 

6 (c) CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER.—Paragraph (5) of 

7 section 516(c) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 

8 U.S.C. 321e(c)) is amended by striking ‘‘medical commu9 nity’’ and inserting ‘‘medical and dental communities’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 903 

AN ACT 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance 

for other purposes. in the Nation’s disaster response framework, and the roles of dentists and allied dental personnel
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of CorMedix Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, John C. Houghton, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  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:
      May 11, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      John C. HoughtonName:
            John
      C. HoughtonTitle:
            President
      and Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATIONS 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








In connection with the Quarterly Report of We Save Homes, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Craig Stewart, Chairman of the Company, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and,





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates for the periods expressed in the Report.





Date: November 26, 2010





By:
/s/ Craig StewartCraig StewartChairman (Principal Executive Officer)
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000932127                      
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         2,309
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  99,659
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,309
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          99,659
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,953
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,309
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  233,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               79,002
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (233,902)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (233,902)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.05)
        


</TABLE>
# CE2011004EN.01007101.xml

| 7.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 4/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 4/71

---

Thursday 25 March 2010Appointment of a member of the Court of Auditors – Mr Eoin O’Shea

P7_TA(2010)0083

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the nomination of Eoin O’Shea as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0033/2010 – 2010/0812(NLE))

2011/C 4 E/22

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0033/2010),

having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 15 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0043/2010),

| A. | whereas Eoin O’Shea fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Eoin O’Shea fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

| 1. | Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Eoin O’Shea as a Member of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Eoin O’Shea as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

---
---

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 Asia Atlantic
Resources (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: December 17, 2007

/s/ Christopher Murphy Christopher Murphy, President
and C.E.O. (Principal Executive Officer)

---