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




                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 8,
2001 (relating to the consolidated financial statements of DaimlerChrysler
Corporation not presented separately herein), included as Exhibit 10.3 of this
Annual Report on Form 20-F of DaimlerChrysler AG for the year ended December 31,
2001, in the following Registration Statements:

                  REGISTRATION
FORM              STATEMENT NO.             ISSUER

F-3               333-13160                 DaimlerChrysler North America
                                            Holding Corporation

S-8               333-5074                  DaimlerChrysler AG

S-8               333-7082                  DaimlerChrysler AG

S-8               333-8998                  DaimlerChrysler AG



Deloitte & Touche LLP

Detroit, Michigan
February 20, 2002
EXHIBIT 13.1





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 Annual Report of Pointer Telocation Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Danny Stern, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 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) 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.




/S/ DANNY STERNDanny SternMarch 24, 2010


Chief Executive Officer





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.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 29, 2013

t0422

Order 

April 29, 2013

146601

ANNETTE BREARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 146601

COA: 310342

MCAC: 10-000100

EMPLOYMENT GROUP, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2012 

order 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.
VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Thursday, the 30th day of November, 2000.

Arnold Ainley Wright, III, Appellant, against Record No. 001024 Court of Appeals No. 2306-98-2 Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee.

Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals of Virginia on the 4th day of April, 2000.

Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument of counsel, the Court is of opinion that the Attorney General's motion to dismiss should be granted. The defendant's sole assignment of error is: "The Circuit Court erred when it subsequently sentenced the Appellant to Five (5) years when the same Court had previously imposed the same sentence on the condition that the Appellant serve Twelve (12) months in the County

Jail." The defendant abandoned the foregoing issue in the Court of Appeals of Virginia, Wright v. Commonwealth , 32 Va. App. 148, 154, 526 S.E.2d 784, 787 (2000), and he may not resurrect the issue here. Moreover, the defendant's arguments in this appeal, both on brief and orally, are not encompassed within the assignment of error. This Court considers only questions that are properly presented by an appropriate assignment of error. Accordingly, and because the circuit court had jurisdiction to revoke defendant's suspended sentence at the June 25, 1998 revocation hearing, this appeal is hereby dismissed.It is ordered that the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County allow counsel for the appellant a fee of $725 for services rendered the appellant on this appeal, in addition to counsel's costs and necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses. The Commonwealth shall recover of the appellant the amount paid court-appointed counsel to represent him in this proceeding, counsel's costs and necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses, and the

costs in this Court and in the courts below. This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports and shall be certified to the Court of Appeals of Virginia and to the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County.

A Copy,

Teste:

David B. Beach, Clerk

Costs due the Commonwealth by appellant in Supreme Court of Virginia: Attorney's fee $725.00 plus costs and expenses

Teste: David B. Beach, Clerk
Gene Wayne HAYMOND v. Erik HOOKS, Secretary of Prisons; Kenneth E. Lassiter, Dir. of Prisons; Current Superintendent, Pamlico C.I.

No. 200P10-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 20, 2018

Gerald K. Robbins, Special Deputy Attorney General, Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Gene W. Haymond, for Haymond, Gene Wayne.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 15th of October 2018 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wilkes County:

*87"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of November 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of October 2018 by Petitioner for Appointment of Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of November 2018."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1254

GERALD O. DEEL, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

HOME DEPOT USA, INCORPORATED; ESTES EXPRESS LINES, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. William M. Catoe, Jr., 

Magistrate Judge. (7:08-cv-00856-WMC) 

Submitted: September 30, 2009 Decided: October 20, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Gerald O. Deel, Appellant Pro Se. Larry Dwight Floyd, Jr., 

PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina; 

Charles Edward Raynal, IV, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, 

Raleigh, North Carolina; Thomas Lynn Ogburn, III, POYNER 

SPRUILL, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Gerald O. Deel appeals the magistrate judge’s order 

dismissing for failure to state a claim Deel’s breach of 

contract and defamation complaint.∗

 We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Deel v. Home Depot USA, 

Inc., No. 7:08-cv-00856-WMC (D.S.C. Feb. 25, 2009). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

 ∗

 The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1538

KATHERINE A. HOOVER, M.D.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

ALFRED J. VINCENT, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

versus

ELLEN BRIGGS; RONALD WALTON; DEBRA LEWIS

RODECKER; AHMED D. FAHEEM; LEE ELLIOTT SMITH,

M.D.; EILEEN CATTERSON; H. DARREL DARBY;

KATHLEEN WIDES, M.D.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District

Judge. (CA-01-300-C)

Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.
2

Katherine A. Hoover, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Katherine A. Hoover, M.D., appeals the district court’s order

denying a “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Injunctive

Relief,” and other post-judgment motions. The denial of a temporary

restraining order is ordinarily not appealable absent exceptional

circumstances. Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30

(4th Cir. 1976). Because this case presents no exceptional

circumstances, we decline to review the denial of a temporary

restraining order and dismiss the appeal insofar as it pertains to

that portion of the district court’s order. Insofar as Hoover

appeals the denial of her request for a preliminary injunction, we

have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no

abuse of discretion. To the extent that Hoover appeals that part

of the district court’s order denying her other post-judgment

motions, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s order

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Hoover v. Briggs, No. CA-01-

300-C (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 16, 2002). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4747 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4747

To amend the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to prevent the 
  use of Indian reservations located on the United States borders to 
   facilitate cross-border drug trafficking, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 2010

  Mr. Owens introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 
    and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to prevent the 
  use of Indian reservations located on the United States borders to 
   facilitate cross-border drug trafficking, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Cross Border Reservation Drug 
Trafficking Sentence Enhancement Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT FOR THE USE OF A BORDER INDIAN 
              RESERVATIONS TO FACILITATE CROSS-BORDER DRUG TRAFFICKING.

    Section 1010(b) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act 
(21 U.S.C. 960(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(8)(A) Whoever during and in relation to a violation of 
        subsection (a) enters, leaves, or is within a border Indian 
        reservation, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined 
        under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 
        10 years, or both. Any term of imprisonment imposed under this 
        paragraph shall be served consecutively to any term imposed for 
        the violation of subsection (a).
            ``(B) In this paragraph, the term `border Indian 
        reservation' means a Federal or State Indian reservation that 
        borders or traverses any portion of a United States 
        international border.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32








CERTIFICATIONS
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 report of Ridgewood Energy K Fund, LLC (the “Fund”) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned
officers of the Fund hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to 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 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 Fund.





Dated:
                      April
      29, 2009
                      
                      
                      
                      RIDGEWOOD
      ENERGY K FUND, LLCBy:
                      /s/
                      
                      ROBERT
      E. SWANSONName:
                      
                      Robert
      E. SwansonTitle:
                      
                      President
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)Dated:
                      April
      29, 2009By:
                      /s/
                      
                      KATHLEEN
      P. MCSHERRYName:
                      
                      Kathleen
      P. McSherryTitle:
                      
                      Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to
Ridgewood Energy K Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood Energy K Fund,
LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
First National Bancshares, Inc.
Bradenton, Florida

We consent to the use of our report dated January 17, 2003 relating to the
consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related
consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002 of First
National Bancshares, Inc., in the Annual Report for 2002 on Form 10-K of First
National Bancshares, Inc.

                                                CHRISTOPHER, SMITH, LEONARD,
                                                  BRISTOW, STANELL & WELLS, P.A.

MARCH 12, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7652

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES EDWARD MCMILLON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-105-BO, CA-01-366-5-BO) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Edward McMillon, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charles Edward McMillon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. McMillon , Nos. CR-98-105-BO; CA-01-366-5-BO (E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 31, 2001; entered Sept. 4, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Leroy CHAPMAN.

No. 2002-KO-2759.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Chapman, Leroy;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 324141; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 0123.

Denied.
#### Arnold ADAMS, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 1D03-0726.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 12, 2003.

Arnold Adams, pro se, petitioner.

William L. Camper, General Counsel, and Alexandria E. Walters, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Parole Commission, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We elect to treat the Parole Commission’s motion for remand as a concession of error. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the circuit court’s order denying Adams’ petition for writ of habeas corpus, and remand to the circuit court for reconsideration in light of *Tedder v. Florida Parole Commission,*842 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). We direct the circuit court to expedite its reconsideration of Adams’ petition.

WEBSTER, LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
**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 Form 10-Q of Madison Avenue Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
      for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/
                Alex KamAlex
                KamChief
                Executive Officer and President(principal
                executive officer)Date:
                November 14, 2008/s/
                Pan-Rong LiuPan-Rong
                LiuChief
                Financial Officer(principal
                financial officer and principal accounting
                officer)





Date:
      November 14, 2008





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Madison Avenue Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Madison Avenue Holdings,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
STATE of North Carolina v. Luciano Ledezma FLORES, Defendant.

No. COA18-326

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 20, 2018

NO ERROR IN PART; VACATED IN PART.
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  Dynadapt  Systems,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending April 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").  I, Wesley
Whiting,  CEO of the  company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 USC Section  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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.


                                         /s/ Wesley Whiting
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Wesley Whiting, CEO

Dated:  December 7, 2004
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 16, 2018

No. 04-17-00375-CR

Charles D. TUTTOILMONDO Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2246

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. 

Appellant’s brief is due on February 28, 2018.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of February, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 58756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20300]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

Information Security Oversight Office


National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee: 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 
2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101.6, announcement is made for 
the following committee meeting:

    Name of Committee: National Industrial Security Program Policy 
Advisory Committee (NISPPAC).
    Date of Meeting: November 15, 2005.
    Time of Meeting: 10 a.m.-12 noon.
    Place of meeting: National Archives and Records Administration, 
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Thomas Jefferson Room 122, Washington, 
DC 20408.
    Purpose: To discuss National Industrial Security Program policy 
matters.
    This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space 
limitations and access procedures, the name and telephone number of 
individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the Information 
Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than October 28, 2005. 
ISOO will provide additional instructions for gaining access to the 
location of the meeting.
    For Further Information Contact: J. William Leonard, Director 
Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives Building, 
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20408, telephone number 
(202) 219-5250.

    Dated: October 4, 2005.
Mary Ann Hadyka,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-20300 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-U
In the MATTER OF: E.D.

No. COA17-1254

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 15, 2018

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Kenneth Morgan STANCIL, III

No. COA18-346

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

NO ERROR.