alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature
appears below constitutes and appoints Maureen M. Giammara and William J.
Rauwerdink, and each of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents,
with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name,
place and stead, in any and all capacities (including his capacity as a director
and/or officer of Lason, Inc.), to sign and file pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for Fiscal Year
1999 and any and all amendments to such Annual Report on Form 10-K, together
with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and
agents, and each them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every
act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as
fully to all intents and purposes as might or could be done in person, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of
them, or their, or either's, substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause
to be done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Power of
Attorney this 29th day of March, 2000.


/s/ Gary L. Monroe                                /s/ Robert A. Yanover
------------------------------                    -----------------------------
Gary L. Monroe                                    Robert A. Yanover
Chairman of the Board and                         Director
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) and
Director

/s/ William J. Rauwerdink                         /s/ Allen J. Nesbitt
------------------------------                    -----------------------------
William J. Rauwerdink                             Allen J. Nesbitt
Chief Financial Officer and                       Director
Director

/s/ Fariborz Ghadar                               /s/ Joseph P. Nolan
------------------------------                    -----------------------------
Fariborz Ghadar                                   Joseph P. Nolan
Director                                          Director

/s/ Michael T. Willis
-----------------------------
Michael T. Willis
Director
STATE v. PITTER.

COA05-1547.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 21, 2006.

Certification Date December 11, 2006.

Appeal from the Guilford (03CRS97521).

Case reported without published opinion. No prejudicial error.
STATE v. OWENS.

No. COA05-1275.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 1, 2006.

Certification Date August 21, 2006.

Appeal from Henderson (04CRS57653).

Case without published opinion. No error.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dennis Green, Also Known as Eugene Dennis, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 739]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Parker, J.), rendered August 8, 2002, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
STATE v. Bobby O. CURRY.

No. 528P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2006.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of October 2006 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 16th day of November 2006."
STATE v. Eric Marshall HAMMETT.

No. 83A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 21, 2006.

Kelly L. Sandling, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of September 2006 by Defendant for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 21st day of September 2006."
#### Kimberly Regensdorfer, Respondent, v Orange Regional Medical Center et al., Appellants.

[799 NYS2d 571]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Horowitz, J.), dated October 4, 2004, as denied those branches of their motion which were to strike the plaintiff’s response to the items of their demands for bills of particulars which sought a statement of each and every act or omission which was claimed as the basis of the alleged malpractice, to preclude the plaintiff from *360offering proof thereon at the trial, or to direct the plaintiff to provide amended responses thereto, and, in effect, denied their separate motion to compel the plaintiff to return her original mammogram films and pathology slides.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof which, in effect, denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to compel the plaintiff to return the original pathology slides, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs time to return the pathology slides is extended until 20 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order.

The plaintiff’s response in her bill of particulars to the defendants’ demand in issue was sufficient *(see Garrett v Community Gen. Hosp. of Greater Syracuse,*288 AD2d 928 [2001]; *Dellaglio v Paul,*250 AD2d 806 [1998]; *Heyward v Ellenville Community Hosp.,*215 AD2d 967, 968 [1995]; *Cirelli v Victory Mem. Hosp.,*45 AD2d 856 [1974]).

The defendants are not entitled to the return of the plaintiffs original mammogram films since the institutional defendants, Orange Regional Medical Center and Horton Medical Center, permanently transferred the original mammogram films to her pursuant to 21 CFR 900.12 (c) (4) (ii).

However, with respect to the pathology slides, the defendants submitted an affidavit from Dr. Schuyler Newman, Director of Pathology, stating that the pathology slides were loaned to the plaintiff, and the institutional defendants never intended to relinquish ownership of those slides. The plaintiff did not submit her own affidavit disputing those allegations. Since the institutional defendants never relinquished ownership of the pathology slides, the slides should be returned *(see Gerson v New York Women’s Med.,*249 AD2d 265 [1998]).

Finally, the denial of the plaintiff’s cross motion for the imposition of a sanction is not before this Court since she did not file a notice of appeal from the order. H. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
| 1.  | I am the President, chief executive officer and chief financial officer of Rotate Black, Inc.  |
|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.  | Attached to this certification is Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, a periodic report (the “periodic report”) filed by the issuer with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), which contains financial statements.  |
|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.  | I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: |
|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| · | The periodic report containing the financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| · | The information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer for the periods presented. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                        |                                                           |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: November 3, 2010 | /s/ John Paulsen                                               |
|                        | John Paulsen                                                   |
|                        | (Principal Executive officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5675 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5675

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to revise 
                 the classification of certain cigars.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2008

 Mr. Meek of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to revise 
                 the classification of certain cigars.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN CIGARS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 24 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by striking subheading 2402.10.80 and 
inserting the following new subheadings and superior text thereto, with 
such superior text having the same degree of indentation as the article 
description for subheading 2402.10.80 as in effect immediately before 
the enactment of this Act:

``      ...............  Each valued 23       ...................  ...................  ...................  ...
                          cents or over:
        2402.10.80         Cigars certified   57 cents/kg + 1.4%   Free (A, AU, BH,     $9.92/kg + 25%       ...
                            as handmade.....                        CA, CL, E, IL, J,
                                                                    MA, MX, P, SG)
        2402.10.90         Other............  57 cents/kg + 1.4%   Free (A, AU, BH,     $9.92/kg + 25%       ''.
                                                                    CA, CL, E, IL, J,
                                                                    MA, MX, P, SG)

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Henry BURR.

No. 111P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Roy A. Cooper, III, Attorney General, Iain M. Stauffer, Associate Attorney General, for State.

Kevin P. Bradley, Durham, for Burr.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of February 2005 by Defendant 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 6th day of October 2005."

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 22nd day of February 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
Exhibit
11
  
 **PAULA
FINANCIAL AND SUBSIDIARIES**
 **Computation
of Basic and Diluted Earnings Per Share**
 (In
thousands, except per share data)
 
 **Nine
      Months Ended****September
      30,****2005**
    
    **2004**Net
      income
    $1,152
    
    $915Weighted
      average shares outstanding for calculating basic earnings per
      share
    6,504,138
    
    6,458,216Options
    187,288
    
    287,833Total
      shares for calculating diluted earnings per share
    6,691,426
    
    6,746,049Basic
      earnings per share
    $0.18
    
    $0.14Diluted
      earnings per share
    $0.17
    
    $0.14
  16
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                    4,620,437
<SECURITIES>                                464,101
<RECEIVABLES>                               340,142
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          5,424,680
<PP&E>                                    7,806,604
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           13,231,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     1,614,513
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                               3,949,207
<COMMON>                                     40,957
<OTHER-SE>                                7,626,607
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             13,231,284
<SALES>                                      56,786
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             56,786
<CGS>                                         6,782
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 6,782
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          1,306,136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (1,256,132)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                             (1,256,132)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0



</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-20,058-25

EX PARTE CURTIS RAY GOODIE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 928493-E IN THE 248TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault and was sentenced to fifteen years’

imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas

corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

In his first ground for review in this application, Applicant alleges that he is being improperly

required to comply with sex offender conditions of parole in a different case based on his conviction

in this case, despite having discharged his sentence in this case. In his second ground, Applicant

alleges that the DNA linking him to this offense was unlawfully collected and entered into a DNA

database as a result of an error in the judgment from a previous case. 
2

This Court has reviewed Applicant’s first ground for review and determined that it is without

merit. Therefore, Applicant’s first ground is denied. Applicant’s second ground for review is barred

by Article 11.07, Section 4 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and is dismissed.

Filed: May 18, 2022

Do not publish
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT


TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer of ERF Wireless, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.




March 19,
2009







/s/ H. Dean Cubley
              H. Dean Cubley
              Chief
      Executive Officer
Abatement Order filed October 21, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00707

- CR

____________ ELENA ANTOINETTE BR ADFORD , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 1

Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MD

- 0348870



### ABATEMENT ORDER

The clerk’s record has not been filed in this appeal. The county clerk has informed the court that appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee to prepare the clerk’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(A). This court is unaware whether appellant is entitled to proceed without the payment of costs. See
Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(B). Accordingly, we enter the following order. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c).We ORDER the judge of the Galveston County Court at Law No. 1 to

immediately conduct a hearing at which appellant, appellant’s counsel, if any, and
counsel fo r the State shall participate, either in person or by video teleconference, to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, and, if so, whether appellant is indigent and, thus entitled to a free record and appointed counsel on appeal. The j udge may appoint appellate counsel for appellant if necessary. The judge shall see that a record of the hearing is made, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall order the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplement al clerk’s record containing the findings and conclusions. The transcribed record of the hearing, the court’s findings and conclusions, and a videotape or compact disc, if any, containing a recording of the video
teleconference shall be filed with the cler k of this court by November 20, 2015

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date fr om the trial court and to schedule a hearing in compliance with this court’s order. If the parties do not request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties of such date.

PER CURIAM
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

November 15, 2016 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICKY THOMPSON

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County

No. 104175 G. Scott Green, Judge

No. E2015-02464-CCA-R3-CD

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., J., dissenting.

I agree with the majority’s discussion of the photographs and subsequent legal 

analysis of their admissibility; however, I do not agree that the error in admitting the 

surgical photographs was harmless.

In determining whether non-constitutional errors are harmless, “Tennessee law 

places the burden on the defendant who is seeking to invalidate his or her conviction to 

demonstrate that the error ‘more probably than not affected the judgment or would result 

in prejudice to the judicial process.’” State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361, 372 (Tenn. 

2008) (quoting Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b)). “When assessing the impact of a nonconstitutional error, appellate courts must review the record as a whole, considering 

properly admitted evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” State v. Curtis Scott Harper, No. 

E2014-01077-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 6736747, at *17 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 3, 2015)

(citing Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d at 372). “The greater the amount of evidence of guilt, the 

heavier the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that a non-constitutional error 

involving a substantial right more probably than not affect[ed] the outcome of the trial.” 

Id.

Here, as evidenced by the jury verdict, the evidence of guilt against the Defendant 

for aggravated assault and robbery was weak. The record clearly establishes that the 

victim suffered serious bodily injury; however, there was conflicting evidence regarding 

the circumstances of how the victim obtained these injuries. The victim admitted to 

being intoxicated on the evening of the incident, and the testimony of Marquita Cruze, a 

disinterested witness, directly contradicted the victim’s version of events. The jury was 

04/27/2017
tasked with weighing evidence from persons of questionable credibility and, apparently, 

discounted significant portions of the victim’s testimony in that the Defendant was 

acquitted of the robbery charge. But for the gruesome surgical photographs, the jury may

have acquitted the Defendant of both robbery and reckless aggravated assault. 

Convicting the Defendant of the lesser-included offense of reckless aggravated assault

does not necessarily mean that the jury’s decision was not improperly influenced. The 

surgical photographs were inflammatory and their probative value does not outweigh the 

danger of unfair prejudice. Thus, given the weakness of the State’s proof against the 

Defendant, it is more probable than not that these photographs affected the jury’s 

decision and resulted in prejudice to the judicial process. Respectfully, I would reverse 

the conviction. 

____________________________________

 D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE