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


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report included in this Form 10-K/A into the previously
filed Registration Statements of the Company on Form S-3 File No. 333-37789,
Form S-4 File No. 333-28951, Form S-4 File No. 333-23135, Form S-3 File No.
333-53099, Form S-3 File No 333-72611, Form S-8 File No. 333-22689, Form S-8
File No. 333-41341 and Form S-8 File No. 333-92227.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
  March 13, 2002.
##### 



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 filing of the Quarterly Report of Paragon Real Estate
Equity and Investment Trust (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period
ending June 30, 2004 (the Report) with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, I, James C. Mastandrea, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President and I, John J. Dee, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice
President, of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
Company. PARAGON REAL ESTATE EQUITY AND INVESTMENT TRUSTBy:
    /s/ James C. MastandreaDate: August 3, 2004
    
    James C. MastandreaChairman, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentPARAGON REAL ESTATE EQUITY AND INVESTMENT TRUSTBy:
    /s/ John J. DeeDate: August 3, 2004
    
    John J. DeeChief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President -1-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the Financial Statements of Tice Technology, Inc. and is qualified in its 
entirety by reference to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         19,063
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                 204,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                   394,116
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              626,800 
<PP&E>                                        783,339
<DEPRECIATION>                                603,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,102,329
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         607,043
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       80,069
<OTHER-SE>                                  (141,093)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,102,329
<SALES>                                       892,713 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,344,231
<CGS>                                         751,093         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,841,661 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            1,278,873
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             94,358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (1,867,443)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   47,020
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (497,430)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                              (1,914,463)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
Dorothy DAVIS v. THE MACON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. 476P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2006.

S. Luke Largess, Charlotte, for Dorothy Davis.

Shannon Spainhour, Charlotte, for Macon County Bd. of Ed.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 632 S.E.2d 590.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of September 2006 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th day of November 2006."
<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. 333-28277 and No. 333-46691) of Puma Technology, 
Inc. of our report dated August 24, 1998 appearing on page 31 of the Annual 
Report to Stockholders which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 
10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report on the 
Financial Statement Schedule, which appears on page 26 of this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
November 11, 1998
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00002-CV

In the Interest of J.J.G., a child

On Appeal from the

28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 073736A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED 

and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the appeal

are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 9, 2023
STATE v. POLLARD.

No. COA06-721.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 20, 2007.

Certification Date March 12, 2007.

Appeal from Pitt (04CRS50805, 05CRS2097).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3054 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3054

To require all automobiles manufactured or sold in the United States to 
     be equipped with a real time and average fuel economy display.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2008

 Mr. Smith (for himself and Mr. Kerry) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require all automobiles manufactured or sold in the United States to 
     be equipped with a real time and average fuel economy display.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAL TIME FUEL ECONOMY DISPLAY.

    Section 32908 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(h) Real Time Fuel Economy Display.--Beginning with model year 
2013, any automobile manufactured or sold in the United States shall be 
equipped with a real time and average fuel economy display in a 
location that is easily visible to the driver of such automobile.''.
                                 <all>
```
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Chilco River Holdings
  Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March
  31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the “Report”), I, Gavin Roy, Secretary-Treasurer 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) and 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 results of operations of the Company.

|Dated:  May 12, 2005 | By: | /s/ Gavin Roy      
|-------------------- | --- | -------------------
|                     |     | GAVIN ROY          
|                     |     | Secretary-Treasurer

---
Exhibit 31 (a)
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 May 10, 2010/s/ Richard H. Smith

Chief Executive Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 66**  **80**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ROBERT GLENN FORD , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2 : 10

- cr - 00 083

- AWA

- FBS

- 1 ; 2 :1 3

- cv - 00 534

- AW A )

Submitted : November 30, 2016 De cided: December 14, 2016

Before WILKINSON and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. William Mallory Kent , LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MALLORY KENT, Jacksonville, Florida, for Appellant
. Melissa Elaine O’Boyle, Alan Mark Salsbury , Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virgi nia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Glenn Ford seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473 , 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatab le claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5599 

To designate the Federal building located at 4600 Silver Hill Road in 

Suitland, Maryland, as the ‘‘Thomas Jefferson Census Bureau Headquarters Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2008 

Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mr. WYNN, Mr. HOYER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. TURNER, Mr. HONDA, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. COHEN, and Mr. CANNON) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building located at 4600 Silver 

Hill Road in Suitland, Maryland, as the ‘‘Thomas Jefferson Census Bureau Headquarters Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds that— 

5 (1) Thomas Jefferson, as Secretary of State in 

6 1790, supervised the first modern census in world 

7 history; 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5599 IH

1 (2) the 1790 census was the first national cen2 sus in the United States and the first periodic cen3 sus in the modern nation-state era; 

4 (3) Jefferson urged President Washington to 

5 veto the first apportionment bill presented by Con6 gress on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, 

7 and Jefferson’s own apportionment formula was 

8 adopted and used until 1840; 

9 (4) Jefferson’s mastery of numbers and statis10 tical analysis helped alert the Nation to the impor11 tance of accuracy in the numbers used to describe 

12 the society and pointed to methods that later im13 proved census taking; 

14 (5) Jefferson offered population corrections to 

15 the European diplomatic community to more accu16 rately convey the fast-growing United States popu17 lation, which had been undercounted in previous cen18 sus taking; 

19 (6) Jefferson believed in the importance of ter20 ritorial expansion and insisted on equal representa21 tion for the territories that were to join the Union 

22 as States; 

23 (7) Jefferson supervised the first census in 

24 world history that gave to the people more than it 

25 took from them, being designed less to extract taxes 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5599 IH

1 or raise a militia than to apportion political power 

2 to the people of the United States according to their 

3 numbers; and 

4 (8) Jefferson’s role in establishing a republic 

5 based on principles of representation underscores the 

6 historical significance of the United States census 

7 and the way the Government views and governs 

8 itself today. 

9 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION. 

10 The Federal building located at 4600 Silver Hill 

11 Road in Suitland, Maryland, shall be known and des12 ignated as the ‘‘Thomas Jefferson Census Bureau Head13 quarters Building’’. 

14 SEC. 3. REFERENCES. 

15 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

16 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

17 building referred to in section 2 shall be deemed to be 

18 a reference to the ‘‘Thomas Jefferson Census Bureau 

19 Headquarters Building’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
TUBIOLO v. ABUNDANT LIFE CHURCH, INC.

COA06-193.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 7, 2006.

Certification Date November 27, 2006.

Appeal from the Orange (02CVS1342).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of George K. McCarthy, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District, Petitioner.

[801 NYS2d 227]

Order of disbarment entered. Memorandum: Respondent’s unexcused failure to appear or respond to the order to show cause constitutes a default. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Martoche and Lawton, JJ.
STATE v. Darian Jaquan HARRIS.

No. 472PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2006.

Thomas R. Sallenger, Wilson, for Harris.

Scott Thomas, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of November 2006 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and including the 6th day of December 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of November 2006."
EXHIBIT  23.1


McManus & Co., P.C., Certified Public Accountants
309 East Main Street, Rockaway, NJ 07866
350 5th Avenue, Suite 440, New York, NY 10118
Tel: 973-664-1065 - Fax: 973-664-1045
E-mail: McManusCPA@aol.com



                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants

We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the Registration
Statement  on  Form  S-8,  file number 333-94089, of our report dated April ___,
2001, relating to the financial statements of Fleetclean Systems, Inc. appearing
in the Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2000.  We also consent to the
reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the Registration Statement.


/s/  McManus  &  Co.,  P.C.
McManus  &  Co.,  P.C.
Morris  Plains,  New  Jersey
April  16,  2001


<PAGE>
Exhibit 99(c)



                              Gartner Group, Inc.
                                 P.O. Box 10212
                              56 Top Gallant Road
                               Stamford, CT 06904

                                                                July 16, 1999

R.H. Donnelley Corporation
One Manhattanville Road
Purchase, NY 10577

ACNielsen Corporation
177 Broad Street
Stamford, CT 06901

Dear Sirs:

                  Reference is made to (i) the Distribution Agreement (the "1996
Distribution  Agreement"),  dated  as  of  October  28,  1996,  among  Cognizant
Corporation,  which has been renamed Nielsen Media Research,  Inc. ("NMR"),  The
Dun &  Bradstreet  Corporation,  which  has  been  renamed  the  R.H.  Donnelley
Corporation ("RHD") and ACNielsen Corporation  ("ACNielsen") and (ii) the letter
of undertaking dated June 29, 1998 from IMS Health  Incorporated  ("IMS HEALTH")
to RHD and ACNielsen.  In June 1998, NMR distributed to its  stockholders all of
the  outstanding  shares  of  common  stock  of  IMS  HEALTH  (the  "IMS  HEALTH
Distribution").  IMS HEALTH has  announced  its  intention  to  distribute  (the
"Gartner  Distribution")  to its  stockholders  all of the shares of the Class B
Common  Stock of Gartner  Group,  Inc.  ("Gartner")  that IMS  HEALTH  will hold
following the recapitalization of Gartner contemplated by the Agreement and Plan
of Merger  dated June 17,  1999,  among IMS HEALTH,  Gartner  and GRGI,  INC. In
connection  with the IMS HEALTH  Distribution,  IMS HEALTH  undertook  (the "IMS
HEALTH  Undertaking")  to both RHD and  ACNielsen  to be jointly  and  severally
liable  for all  Cognizant  Liabilities  (as  defined  in the 1996  Distribution
Agreement).  Under  Section  8.9(c)  of  the  1996  Distribution  Agreement,  as
applicable to IMS HEALTH pursuant to the IMS HEALTH Undertaking,  IMS HEALTH may
not make a distribution  such as the Gartner  Distribution  unless it causes the
distributed  entity to  undertake  to both RHD and  ACNielsen  to be jointly and
severally  liable  for all  Cognizant  Liabilities  under the 1996  Distribution
Agreement. Therefore, in accordance with Section 8.9(c) of the 1996 Distribution
Agreement and intending to be legally bound hereby, from and after the effective
time  of the  Gartner  Distribution,  Gartner  undertakes  to  each  of RHD  and
ACNielsen to be jointly and severally liable for all Cognizant Liabilities under
the 1996 Distribution Agreement.

         Very truly yours,

         GARTNER GROUP, INC.


     By: /s/ Michael Fleisher
         --------------------
          Name:    Michael Fleisher
          Title:   CFO, Executive Vice President
STATE v. Qualo LOWERY.

No. 425P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Barbara A. Shaw, Assistant Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of August 2006 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

*186"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of October 2006."
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.
,

Appellant,

v.

JAMES NAUGLE, as Personal Representative of the

E STATE OF LUCINDA NAUGLE , deceased

,

Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 1852

[ January 6, 201 6 ]

Appeal and cross

- appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Jack B. Tuter , Judge; L.T. Case No.

2007

- CV

- 036736 (19)

.

Joseph H. Lang, Jr. of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Tampa, and Lauren R. Goldman of Mayer Brown LLP , New York, New York, for appellant.

Richard B. Rosenthal of The Law Offices of Richard B. Rosenthal, P.A., Miami, and Robert W. Kelley, John J. Uustal and Todd R. McPharlin of Kelley Uustal, PLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

This is the third appearance of this case in this court. See Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle , 103 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2012) (“ Naugle I”); Naugle v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. , 133 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2014) ( Naugle II).

In Naugle I, we affirmed on the issue of liability, but reversed for “a new trial on the issue of damages.” 103 So. 3d at 949.

After the retrial on damages, the court interviewed the jury foreperson. The interview disclosed that, after the return of the verdict in the damages retrial, the foreperson received a text message from a second juror which indicated that, over the weekend before the verdict, the second juror had googled the previous verdict in the case. Receipt of non

- record information concerning the amount of the prior verdict i s an overt act “‘which might have prejudicially affected the jury in reaching their own verdict.’” Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler, 579 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1991) ( quoting §2

90.607(2)(b), Fla. Stat. Ann. (1987) (Law Revision Council Note

- 1976) ) ; see also City of Winter Haven v. Allen , 589 So. 2d 968, 969 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The existence of the text message from the second juror established reasonable grounds to believe that some juror misconduct occurred, which constitutes a legal basis for an inter view of the second juror. See Sterling

v. Feldbaum , 980 So. 2d 596, 599 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2008). We therefore

remand for the trial court to conduct an interview of the second juror.

We have considered the other issues raised by appellant and find no

reversible error. On the cross

- appeal, the appellee waived the comparative fault issue by failing to cross

- appeal that point in Naugle I. See Airvac, Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co. , 330 So. 2d 467, 46 9 (Fla. 1976). We also note that appellee failed to lodge a specific objection as to the application of comparative fault at the retrial.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

.

G ROSS
, G ERBER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.