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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No.  333-89943) of InsWeb Corporation of our report dated
January  31,  2001,  except  for Notes 11 and 19 for which the date is March 30,
2001 relating to the financial  statements,  which appears in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K.  We also consent to the  incorporation  by reference of our report
dated  January 31, 2001  relating to the  financial  statement  schedule,  which
appears in this Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Sacramento, California
March 30, 2001
Yaroslav S. SKLYARSKY, petitioner, v. Charles KOCORAS, Judge, United State District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

No. 17-8662.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Dorrinus JEWEL, petitioner, v. UAW INTERNATIONAL, et al.

No. 15-9532.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
In Re Dean CARBAJAL, petitioner.

No. 17-8836.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
# C_2011152EN.01000801.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — Ferrero SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Tirol Milch reg.Gen.mbH Innsbruck

(Case C-552/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community figurative mark TiMi KiNDERJOGHURT - Earlier word mark KINDER - Invalidity proceedings - Article 52(1)(a) - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) - Assessment of the similarity of the signs - Family of marks)

2011/C 152/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Ferrero SpA (represented by: C. Gielen, advocaat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent), Tirol Milch reg.Gen.mbH Innsbruck

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2009 in Case T-140/08 Ferrero SpA v OHIM — Tirol Milch, by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 30 January 2008 in Case R 682/2007-2 annulling the decision of the Cancellation Division declaring the word mark ‘TiMi KiNDERJOGHURT’ invalid for goods in Class 29 in invalidity proceedings brought by the appellant

Ferrero SpA

OHIM — Tirol Milch

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ferrero SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ferrero SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001076779
<NAME>                        March Indy International, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     200
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           200
<PP&E>                                     330,400
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             3,122,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      55,000
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   10,999
<OTHER-SE>                                 3,056,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               3,122,028
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              157,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (157,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (157,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (157,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.01)




</TABLE>
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 ROO Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-KSB  for the  fiscal  year ended  December  31,  2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robin
Smyth,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and  furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


March 31, 2005                         /s/ Robin Smyth
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Robin Smyth
                                       Chief Financial Officer
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Larry Strube, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00090

- CV v.

Cleo Patricia Shelby, Appellee Appeal from the 102nd District Court of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 13C0872

- 102 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by C hief Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of

the court below. Therefore, we reverse the temporary injunction order, dissolve the temporary
injunction, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings

. We further order that the appell ee , Cleo Patricia Shelby , pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MARCH 13, 2014 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**Exhibit** **21**




**Subsidiaries
      of**


**HERBORIUM
        GROUP, INC.**


**at
      November 30, 2007**




**Herborium.com,
      Inc.**


3
      Oak
      Street


Teaneck,
      NJ 07660


EIN:
      54-2137152


State
      of
      Incorporation: Delaware





**Herborium,
      Inc.**


3
      Oak
      Street


Teaneck,
      NJ 07660


EIN:
      22-3816686


State
      of
      Incorporation: Delaware





*
      * *
      *
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RIVER MASCARI,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00279-CR

Appeal from the

210th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20120D06121)

O R D E R

On November 1, 2016, Brock Benjamin, Appellant’s retained attorney, filed with this 

Court a motion to withdraw and appoint counsel. However, before this Court considers this 

motion, it will be necessary for the trial court to conduct a hearing.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the trial court conduct a hearing in order to determine if 

the appellant is entitled to court-appointed counsel or if he wishes to proceed pro se. The trial 

court shall enter all necessary orders and/or findings which may include appointing counsel to 

represent Appellant on appeal. In the event Appellant elects to proceed pro se, the trial court 

shall make Appellant aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation and develop 

evidence as to whether appellant’s apparent decision to relinquish benefits associated with 

counsel and to proceed pro se is knowingly and intelligently made under Hubbard v. State, 739 

S.W.2d 341 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987)

The trial court shall forward its findings to the District Clerk of El Paso County, Texas, 

on or before November 23, 2016. The District Clerk shall prepare and forward a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing the findings and any order appointing counsel, and forward the same to 

this Court on or before December 3, 2016. Further, the transcription of the hearing shall be 

prepared, certified and filed with this Court on or before December 3, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3

rd day of November, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
John GOUVEIA, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5230.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE

CAROL MARIE STUTZKE,

Respondent,

v.

JESSICA LEIGH COX,

Appellant. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 39801

- 3

- III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

L AWRENCE

- B ERREY

, C.J.

— Jessica Leigh Cox a ppeals the entry of a domestic

violence protection order (DVPO) restraining her from contact with her mother. We

affirm.

FACTS

Jessica Leigh Cox is the adult daughter of Carol Marie Stutzke. In May 2023, Ms.

Stutzke petitioned for a DVPO against Ms. C ox. At that time, Ms. Cox was living with

her parents after a divorce. In the petition, Ms. Stutzke described multiple episodes of

Ms. Cox becoming angry and violent. 

### FILED
JU LY 2 , 2024

In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division IIINo. 39801

- 3

- III

Stutzke v. Cox

2 On May 25, 2023, after a hearing on the petition, 1 the trial court issued a one

- year

DVPO restraining Ms. Cox from contact with Ms. Stutzke.

Ms. Cox timely appealed.

ANALYSIS

Ms. Cox contends the trial court erred when it entered the DVPO because she did

not know she could request an enlargement of time under CR 6. She also contends her

mother’s petition contained inadmissible hearsay. We reject her arguments.

First, Ms. Cox asks us to reverse the DVPO because she needed more time to

prepare her defense and did not know she could request more time under CR 6. She

seems to argue the tri al court should have recognized she needed more time to respond.

CR 6 provides:

(b) Enlargement. When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court f or cause shown may at any time in its discretion, (1) with or without motion or notice, order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order or, (2) upon motion m ade after the expiration of the specified period, permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect . . . .

We have no record of Ms. Cox arguing to the trial court for it to continue the

hearing to give her time to res pond. In general, we decline to review claims of error not

1 The hearing transcript is not in the record.No. 39801

- 3

- III

Stutzke v. Cox

3 argued below. RAP 2.5(a). Ms. Cox does not provide us any argument for not applying

this general rule. We therefore decline to review this unpreserved claim of error.

Second, Ms. Cox argues the trial court relied on impermissible hearsay evidence

contained in her mother’s petition. However, the rules of evidence need not be applied in

proceedings for protection orders. ER 1101(c)(4). Thus, even if the trial court

considered hearsay evidence, its actions would not constitute error.

Affirm ed

.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to

RCW 2.06.040.

_______________________ __________ Lawrence

- Berrey, C.J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________ _________________________________ Fearing, J. Pennell, J.
### Supreme Court ofthe United States Office ofthe Clerk 

## Washington, DC 20543-0001 September 3, 2015
Clerk 

### Court of Criminal Appeals ofTexas P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Station Scott S. Harris Clerk of the Court (202)479-3011 

# RECEIVED Austin, TX 78711 ,QQUflTOFCWMINtfAPPEALS
Re: Albin Adalin Zelaya-Zelaya v. Texas No. 15-5945 (Your No. WR-81,318-02) 

## 4MAG08ta.Cteri<

Dear Clerk: 

### The petition for a writ ofcertiorari in the above entitled case was filed on August 28, 2015 and placed on the docket September 3, 2015 as No. 15-5945.
Sincerely, 

### Scott S. Harjris, Clerk by Erik FossJm Case Analyst
EXHIBIT 10.34

                            QUIKCAT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
                              (ABN 82 106 946 043)
       Registered Office: 3/56 Mount Street, West Perth WA 6005, Australia

                                                              31ST DECEMBER 2003

                                 REDEEMABLE NOTE
                                 CERTIFICATE 001

Holder   IA Global Inc (IAO) (a company registered in the State of Delaware,
         organised under the laws of the United States) and which has its
         registered address at 533Airport Boulevard, Suite 400, Burlingame, CA
         94010 United States of America

Issuer   QuikCAT Australia Pty Ltd (QCA) (a company organised under the laws of
         the Australia and designated the Australian Company number ABN 82 106
         946 043) and which has its registered address at 3/56 Mount Street,
         West Perth WA 6005, Australia

Amount   US$34,060 (19/08/03) + US$15,000 (15/11/03) + US$25,000 (19/12/03) =
         US$74,060

Terms             i)       Unsecured but with priority to any payment by way of
                           distributions of dividends to QCA shareholders;

                  ii)      Redeemable by QCA at any time but only from retained
                           profits and in any case only repayable out of
                           retained profits of QCA;

                  iii)     Redeemable by IAO at any time with written notice of
                           3 months, after initial non-redeemable period of 1
                           year, but redeemable only to the extent that QCA has
                           sufficient surplus assets to affect redemption;

                  iv)      3% per annum interest rate, with such interest
                           accruing once QCA's profit on a monthly basis exceeds
                           AUD$10,000 for 3 consecutive months; and

                  v)       Redeemable in US$.



/s/ Mark Jenkins
Mark Jenkins
Director
# C_2011340EN.01000502.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/5

---

Order of the Court of 22 June 2011 — Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL v European Commission

(Case C-521/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Alleged infringements of the provisions of European Union law relating to competition - Application seeking to require the Commission to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations)

2011/C 340/09

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL (represented by: R. García García, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Castilla Contreras, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 August 2010 in Case T-386/09 Grúas Abril Asistencia v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s letter of 7 August 2009 informing the then applicant that the facts in respect of which it had lodged a complaint with the Commission did not permit the conclusion that there had been an infringement of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC and that no action would be taken in respect of its complaint.

Grúas Abril Asistencia v Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.01.2011.

1

---
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.02

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with this quarterly report of John W. Henry & Co./Millburn L.P.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"),
I, Michael L. Pungello, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. This Report containing the financial statements 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 14, 2005
------------------------
By /s/ MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO
   -----------------------
Michael L. Pungello
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 2, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135538 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

DOROTHY SMALL,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135538 

 COA: 275332 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices Van Buren CC: 05-054407-NH 

STEPHEN T. WYSONG, M.D. and 

HEALTHCARE MIDWEST,

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 13, 2007 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the 

completion of the proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals. 

MARKMAN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and states as follows: 

Although I would deny leave to appeal with regard to the characterization by the 

Court of Appeals of plaintiff’s two other claims, I believe that the court erred in 

characterizing as an ordinary-negligence claim plaintiff's claim that an x-ray should have 

been conducted following her appendectomy and before her incision was closed. 

Because this seems to me a matter significantly beyond common knowledge, Bryant v 

Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr, Inc, 471 Mich 411 (2004), I believe that this claim sounds 

in medical malpractice. 

YOUNG, J., dissents and states as follows: 

For the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion, I would reverse 

the Court of Appeals judgment in part and affirm the trial court’s ruling that plaintiff’s 

complaint sounded in medical malpractice rather than ordinary negligence. 

CORRIGAN, J., joins the statement of YOUNG, J. 

d0429 

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. 

May 2, 2008 

Clerk
II-00781

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Charlie White <art@charliewhitestudio.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:24 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Charlie White

11965 NW Kearney St

Portland, OR 97229