alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

              INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON SCHEDULE AND CONSENT

The Supervisory Board
DaimlerChrysler AG:

    The audits of DaimlerChrysler AG and subsidiaries ("DaimlerChrysler")
referred to in our report dated February 8, 2002, except for Note 3, which is as
of June 28, 2002, included the related financial statement schedule for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, as contained in
Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A to DaimlerChrysler's Annual Report on Form 20-F
for the year ended December 31, 2001. The financial statement schedule is the
responsibility of DaimlerChrysler's management. Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on the financial statement schedule based on our audits. In our
opinion, based on our audits and the report of other auditors, such financial
statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated
financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects
the information set forth therein.

    Our report refers to DaimlerChrysler's adoption in 2000 of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 133,"Accounting for Derivative Instruments
and Hedging Activities," and Emerging Issues Task Force Issue
No. 99-20,"Recognition of Interest Income and Impairment on Purchased and
Retained Beneficial Interests in Securitized Financial Assets."

    We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form F-3 (No. 333-13160) of DaimlerChrysler North America Holding Corporation
and the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-5074, 333-7082, 333-8998,
333-86934 and 333-86936) of DaimlerChrysler AG of our report dated February 8,
2002, except for Note 3, which is as of June 28, 2002, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of DaimlerChrysler as of December 31, 2001 and 2000,
and the related consolidated statements of income (loss), changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2001, and related financial statement schedule. Such
consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles in the United States of America. Our report with
respect thereto appears in Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A to DaimlerChrysler's
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2001, and was based
in part on the report of other auditors. As discussed above, our report also
refers to DaimlerChrysler's adoption in 2000 of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 133,"Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities," and Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 99-20,"Recognition of
Interest Income and Impairment on Purchased and Retained Beneficial Interests in
Securitized Financial Assets."

                                          KPMG Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft AG

Stuttgart, Germany
September 25, 2002
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-5039
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GERMAN MILLON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00341-1) Submitted: April 23, 2008 Decided: May 2, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tolly A. Kennon, III, KENNON & ASSOCIATES, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: German Millon appeals his conviction and seventy-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000). On appeal, Millon states only a single claim of ineffective assistance of co unsel. The Government has moved to dismiss Millon’s appeal based upon a waiver of appellate rights in his plea agreement. We deny the Government’s motion to dismiss. We have reviewed Millon’s claim and conclude that it does not “conclusively appear[]” on the record that counsel was ineffective. United States v. Richardson , 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Millon may raise his ineffective assistance claim in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We therefore affirm Millon’s conviction and sentence. 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
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. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of THOMAS PROPERTIES GROUP, INC. (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                    |  |  |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                    |  | 
|Dated: May 13, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    JAMES A. THOMAS 
|                    |  |  |  | James A. Thomas        
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration
statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.



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.
In the MATTER OF the Appeal of: COATS SOLAR LLC, Appellant,

No. COA18-392

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 20, 2018

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION        OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO**

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

**SECTION 906        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                             |                                   |                            |
|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                                             | WILSHIRE                BANCORP, INC.  |
|                                        |                              |                       |
| Date: November                9, 2005  | By:                          | /s/                Soo Bong Min |
|                                             |                                   | Soo                Bong Min     |
|                                             |                                   | Chief Executive Officer    |
|                                             |                                   |                            |
|                                             |                                   |                            |
| Date: November 9, 2005                           | By:                          | /s/                Brian E. Cho |
|                                             | Brian                E. Cho            |
|                                             | Chief                Financial Officer |

----
Ex parte Madison CONE, Individually and on Behalf of Tower Street Capital Management, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Robert E. HOOD, Respondent.

In re Madison Cone, Individually and on Behalf of Tower Street Capital Management, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Curtis C. Stewart, Atlantic Intermediaries, LLC, Allstar Financial Group, Inc., and Tower Street Capital Management, Inc., Defendants.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001008

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

December 18, 2018

**349ORDER

The Honorable Robert E. Hood granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration on certain claims and to stay the circuit court proceedings on the remaining claims in this matter. During discovery, the arbitrator appointed a special referee to review certain documents *in camera* to determine if they were discoverable. The special referee issued an order finding certain of the documents discoverable and requiring defendants to produce the documents to petitioner. Defendants appealed the special referee's order to the court of appeals. They also asked Judge Hood to lift the prior stay of the action in circuit court and to enjoin the arbitration proceedings while defendants' appeal from the special referee's order proceeded. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal from the special referee's order as interlocutory. We have denied defendants' request for a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision.

Petitioner now asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Hood to rescind and vacate the orders granting defendants' motion to lift the stay and staying the arbitration proceedings pending defendants' appeal of the special referee's order.

Petitioner has not shown he is entitled to a writ of mandamus in this matter as Judge Hood's decision was not a ministerial act. *See* **350*Willimon v. City of Greenville* , 243 S.C. 82, 87, 132 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1963) (to obtain a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must show: (1) a duty of the respondent to perform an act; (2) the ministerial nature of the act; (3) the petitioner's specific legal right for which discharge of the duty is necessary; and (4) the lack of any other legal remedy). Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

However, because the case had been sent to arbitration, Judge Hood did not have jurisdiction to lift the stay and issue a preliminary injunction. *See* *Main Corp. v. Black* , 357 S.C. 179, 181, 592 S.E.2d 300, 301-02 (2004) (when a case is sent to arbitration, the circuit court is divested of jurisdiction over the case). Accordingly, Judge Hood's orders issued without jurisdiction are void and are hereby vacated. *Ware v. Ware* , 404 S.C. 1, 11, 743 S.E.2d 817, 822 (2013) (a judgment is void if a court acts without jurisdiction); *Innovative Waste Mgmt. Inc. v. Crest Energy Partners GP, LLC* , 423 S.C. 611, 615, 815 S.E.2d 780, 782 (Ct. App. 2018) (a court has no discretion to perpetuate a void judgment).

*/s/ Donald W. Beatty* C.J.

*/s/ John W. Kittredge* J.

*/s/ Kaye G. Hearn* J.

*/s/ John Cannon Few* J.

*/s/ George C. James, Jr.* J.
Exhibit 10.2






Exhibit 10.2
FORM OF EXTENSION OF TERM
OF EMPLOYMENT PERIOD
MEMORANDUM




		
	To:
	     


		
	From:
	Patricia Smith Lawler,


EVP/Human Resources Division
		
	Re:
	Extension of Employment Period


		
	Date:
	May ___, 2013




The Board of Directors of BankFinancial, F.S.B. (the “Bank”) and its Human Resources Committee have completed their annual review of your Employment Agreement with the Bank dated ______________, as amended, and have determined to offer to amend your Employment Agreement (1) to extend the term of the “Employment Period” as referenced in Section 2(a) of your Employment Agreement to __________; and (2) to remove all references in your Employment Agreement to the term Office of Thrift Supervision (the “OTS”) and replace them with references to the term Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”).  
If you are agreeable to amending your Employment Agreement as provided above, please sign and date this document in the space indicated below and return it to me by no later than _______________. 
If you do not sign and return this document to me by such date, the term of your Employment Period and the Anniversary Date applicable to your Employment Agreement will remain unchanged. 




		
	Name:
	     




		
	Signature:
	     




		
	Date:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nestor Ortiz, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 820]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered March 13, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 years and 1 year, and judgment, same court (James Yates, J.) rendered June 5, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of bail jumping in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a concurrent term of IV2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was *289not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The evidence, including the complainant’s testimony that she observed defendant attempting to take property, clearly established defendant’s intent to commit a crime in the complainant’s apartment, and the jury properly rejected defendant’s intoxication defense.

Defendant’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made and nothing in his factual allocution casts any doubt upon his guilt of bail jumping *(see, People v Toxey,*86 NY2d 725; *People v Moore,*71 NY2d 1002, 1005). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.
Exhibit 8.1
                                                                    -----------

                    Subsidiaries of Mastellone Hermanos S.A.

         The following chart lists each of our subsidiaries and indicates its
principal activity and the percentage of the capital stock of each such
subsidiary which we owned, directly or indirectly, as of December 31, 2005, and
April 30, 2006:

Name of Subsidiary                  Principal Activity    % of capital and votes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Con-Ser Promotora y Asesora de       Insurance Broker                  99.99%
Seguros S.A.
Frigorifico Rydhans S.A.             Manufacturer of meat             100.00%
                                     products
Leitesol Industria e Comercio S.A.   Distribution of dairy products   100.00%
Promas S.A.                          Olive grower                     100.00%
Marca 4 S.A.                         Trademarks holder                 99.99%
Mastellone Hnos do Brasil S.A.       Inactive                         100.00%
                                     Manufacturer of dairy
Puralactea S.A.                      products                         100.00%
                                     Manufacturer of dairy
Mastellone San Luis S.A.             products                         100.00%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                       1
Motion Granted and Order filed February 10 , 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 10

- 00708

- CV

____________ THE PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS , Appellant

V.

ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION , Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2006

- 72970



### ORDER
The parties’ joint motion to modify the briefing schedule is granted

. Accordingly, we order the following : a. Port’s supplemental brief of appellant (15,000 words) to be filed April 13
, 2015;
b. Zachry’s supplemental brief of appellee (15,000 words) to be filed June
12 , 2015; andc. Port’s supplemental reply brief (7,500 words) to be filed July 13 , 2015.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christop her, and McCally.
In the MATTER OF: T.O., Jr., K.D.-D., and T.O.

No. COA18-596

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: January 15, 2019

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 22 (Thursday, February 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2006]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


The Manufacturing Council: Meeting of The Manufacturing Council

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Manufacturing Council will hold a full Council meeting to 
discuss topics related to the state of manufacturing. The Manufacturing 
Council is a Secretarial Board at the Department of Commerce, 
established to ensure regular communication between Government and the 
manufacturing sector. This will be the third meeting of The 
Manufacturing Council and will include updates by the Council's three 
subcommittees. For information about the Council, please visit the 
Manufacturing Council Web site at: http://www.manufacturing.gov/council.htm.

DATES: February 18, 2005. Time: 1:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Henry Ford Museum, Lovett Hall, 20900 Oakwood Blvd., 
Dearborn, MI 48124. This program is physically accessible to people 
with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aids should be submitted no later than February 10, 2005, to 
The Manufacturing Council, Room 4043, Washington, DC, 20230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Manufacturing Council Executive 
Secretariat, Room 4043, Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-1369). The 
Executive Secretariat encourages interested parties to refer to The 
Manufacturing Council Web site
(http://www.manufacturing.gov/council/) for the most up-to-date 
information about the meeting and the Council.

    Dated: January 28, 2005.
Sam Giller,
Executive Secretary, The Manufacturing Council.
[FR Doc. 05-2006 Filed 2-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
In the MATTER OF: B.W.

No. COA 18-437

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

REVERSED IN PART. VACATED IN PART.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0418 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RYAN CLINTON BLOOMER,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 12 , 2024 within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 4 2024

06/04/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0418
#### Marilyn WIGLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D03-595.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 16, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 29, 2003.

Juan C. Enjamio and James J. Thornton of Hunton *&*Williams, Miami, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

*785KLEIN, J.

In 1995 appellant plead guilty to drug possession charges, adjudication was withheld, and she received two years probation which she successfully completed. After the plea, she became a naturalized citizen; however, in December, 2000, the United States filed an action to revoke appellant’s naturalization based on the guilty plea.

Appellant then filed a rule 3.850 motion to vacate her plea because she was not adequately advised of immigration consequences, which the trial court held was premature under *State v. Carmona,*827 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). In that case the court pointed out that the 3.850 motion improperly assumed that the government would prevail in the denaturalization proceeding and, if it did, that the government would subsequently seek to deport the defendant. We agree with *Car-mona*and accordingly affirm without prejudice to the defendant seeking relief when the “threat of deportation,” *Peart v. State,*756 So.2d 42 (Fla.2000), is more demonstrable.

STONE and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
**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 theglobe.com, inc. (the "Company") on
        Form
        10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward A. Cespedes,
        Chief Financial 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 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.
 
 *Date:March
                  31, 2006*
                
                */s/
                  Edward A. Cespedes*
                *Edward
                  A. Cespedes*
                *Chief
                  Financial Officer*
1 The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2765

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Robert Allen Walters, also known as * Michael Genovese, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED] Robert Genovese, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 28, 2007 Filed: October 1, 2007

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Robert Allen Walters appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to mailing a threatening communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c). He argues the district court erred in applying an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(2) upon determining that the offense involved more than two-2- threats. Specifically, he challenges the di strict court’s finding that the letters in question were objectively threatening. We review the district court’s appli cation of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Amsden , 213 F.3d 1014, 1015 (8th Cir. 2000). We agree with the district court’s appli cation of section 2A6.1(b)(2), because the letters were substa ntially and directly related to the offense conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1, comment. (n.1) (in determining whether enhan cement should apply, court should consider conduct that is “subs tantially and directly connected to the offense, under the facts of the case taken as a whole”). We also conclude that the court did not clearly err in finding the letters objectively threatening, because we believe that unambiguous language in the letters would lead any reasonable person familiar with the context to perceive the letters as threatening. See United States v. Bellrichard , 994 F.2d 1318, 1323-24 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard is whether “a reasonable recipient, familiar with the cont ext of the communication, would interpret it as a threat”; communications must be vi ewed both in “textual context and also in the context of the totality of the circ umstances in which the communication was made”). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________