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

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Grey Wolf, Inc.

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
Nos. 33-34590, 33-75338, 333-19027, 333-65049, and 333-41334 of Grey Wolf, Inc.
on Form S-8 and Registration Statements Nos. 333-14783, 333-06077, 333-26519,
333-20423, 333-36593, 333-39683, 333-86949, and 333-40874 of Grey Wolf, Inc. on
Form S-3, of our report dated February 12, 2001, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Grey Wolf, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and
1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders'
equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2000, and the related financial statement
schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report on From
10-K of Grey Wolf, Inc.

                                                            KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
March 20, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 27(b)


The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 1997 and the Consolidated Statement
of Income and the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for the six months
ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>    0000052485
<NAME>   IES UTILITIES INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,344,001
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     79,954
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         117,820
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        10,273
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 195,717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,747,765
<COMMON>                                        33,427
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      279,042
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            221,622
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 534,091
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     18,320
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           517,265
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               5,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 145,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      140
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     13,816
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                13,923
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 500,210
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,747,765
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      396,021
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            14,649<F1>
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     336,995
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     336,995<F1>
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         59,026
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                (560)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  58,466
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        25,075
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,742
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        457
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   18,285
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        28,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       37,780
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          82,458
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Income tax expense is not included in Operating Expense in the Consolidated
Statements of Income for IES Utilities Inc.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
August 9 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

THE PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, TE XAS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 10

- 00708

- CV V.

ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION , Appellee

____________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Zachry Construction Corporation, signed April 28, 2010, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of Z achry Construction Corporation on its claims against appellant, the Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas . We therefore ORDER the judgment of the court below
REVERSED and RENDER judgment that Zachry Construction Corporation take nothing on its claims against the Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas

. We further RENDER judgment that the Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas have and recover attorney’s fees as found by the jury with respect to Zachry Construction Corporation’s claim for delay or hindrance damages as follows: (1) $10,500,000 for trial, (2) $90,000 for appeal to the court of appeals, and (3) $22,500 for appeal to the Texas Supreme Court; and with respect to Zachry Construction Corporati on’s claims for withholding liquidated damages as follows: (1) $80,250 for trial, (2) $3,750 for appeal to the court of appeals, and (3) $1,250 for appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.

We order appellee, Zachry Construction Corporation, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Case 1:07-cv-03317-SHS Document 4 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. CAMP

No. 160 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 404.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 14 July 1977.
#### State *vs.*Barbara Bower.

*Public Officer—Evidence.*

The prosecuting witness, a constable, in order to show his authority for being at the house of the defendant, is not allowed to state that he had an execution in hand. The execution is the only authority; what the witness may say has nothing to do with it.' The way to show that he had a right to be there is to produce the paper by which that authority is shown.

*(May 21,*1898.)

Rore, C. J., and Spruance and'Grubb, J. J., sitting.

*Peter L. Cooper, Jr.,*Deputy Attorney-General for the State.

*Artemas Smith,*for the defendant.

Court of General Sessions, New Castle County,

May Term, 1898.

The defendant was indicted for resisting a public officer. At the trial the State called David W. Cush, the prosecuting witness, who was asked by the Deputy Attorney-General what was the occasion of his going to the house of the defendant. The witness proceeded to state in reply that he had an execution against her husband. Counsel for defendant objected on the ground that the execution, which was the authority of the constable, must be proved by the production of the paper itself and could not be proved by parol testimony.

Rore, C. J:—

The execution is his only authority. What the witness may say has nothing to do with it. He says he was authorized and had a right to be there. The defendant says he had not, and the only way to show that he had a right to be there is to produce the paper by which that authority is shown.

The testimony later developed that the prosecuting witness first put his hands upon the defendant, and the State thereupon entered a *nolle prosequi.*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

 No. 98-50440 cons/w

No. 98-50682

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELWOOD CLUCK, also known as Jack Cluck, 

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-95-CR-99-1

- - - - - - - - - -

July 27, 1999

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In case number 98-50440, Elwood Cluck, also known as Jack

Cluck, appeals the district court’s orders of denial regarding

his motion to rescind judgment, his motion for rehearing of his

motion to rescind judgment, and his applications for writs of

audita querela and coram nobis. In case number 98-50682, Cluck

appeals the district court’s order of denial regarding his

subsequent application for writ of coram nobis. We sua sponte
Nos. 98-50440 c/w 98-50682

-2-

consolidate the appeals because they are so closely related. 

Fed. R. App. P. 3(b)(2).

Cluck has filed a motion to expedite appeal and a motion for

initial hearing en banc. Because Cluck can neither show good

cause to expedite the appeal nor meet the stringent standards for

cases warranting en banc consideration, both motions are DENIED. 

5th Cir. R. 27.6; Fed. R. App. P. 35(a).

Cluck argues that the district court erred by denying all of

his motions and applications filed in the district court while

the appeal from his judgment of conviction and sentence was

pending. As correctly stated by the district court, it had no

jurisdiction to consider Cluck’s pleadings. See United States v.

Hitchmon, 602 F.2d 689, 692-94 (5th Cir. 1979). Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case 1:07-cv-03330-DC Document 9 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
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  Quarterly  Report of The X-Change  Corporation  on Form
10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  Charles  Stidham,
President  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 result of operations
           of the Company.




By:/s/ Charles Stidham
Charles Stidham, President and Chief
Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)



May 20, 2005



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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


            SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


The undersigned, Chairman, President and Treasurer of Jaco Electronics, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Quarterly Report") accompanying this
certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) the information
contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and
for the periods presented as required by such report. The foregoing
certification is based upon, among other things, my responsibilities as
principal executive officer of the Company, my own due diligence and
representations made by certain other members of the Company's senior
management.

Date:  May 15, 2006

                                 /s/ Joel H. Girsky
                                 -----------------------------------
                                 Joel H. Girsky
                                 Chairman, President and Treasurer
                                 (Principal Executive Officer)
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5396 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the depreciation 

of certain roof systems. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 25, 2010 

Mr. PASCRELL (for himself, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. HERGER, Mr. 

HELLER, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. NUNES, and Mr. GUTHRIE) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 

Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for the depreciation of certain roof systems. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Green Energy Efficient 

5 Roofs and Job Creation Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEPRECIATION RECOVERY PERIOD FOR CERTAIN 

7 ROOF SYSTEMS. 

8 (a) 20-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD.—Subparagraph 

9 (F) of section 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5396 IH

1 1986 (relating to classification of certain property) is 

2 amended to read as follows: 

3 ‘‘(F) 20-YEAR PROPERTY.—The term ‘20- 

4 year property’ means— 

5 ‘‘(i) initial clearing and grading land 

6 improvements with respect to any electric 

7 utility transmission and distribution plant, 

8 and 

9 ‘‘(ii) replacement of an existing roof 

10 on a commercial building during 2010 or 

11 2011 with a roof assembly which has the 

12 new insulation installed entirely above the 

13 roof deck and which meets or exceeds the 

14 minimum R-value for the appropriate cli15 mate zone specified in the following table: 

‘‘Climate zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

R-Value 20 25 25 25 25 30 35 35’’. 

16 (b) REQUIREMENT TO USE STRAIGHT LINE METH17 OD.—Paragraph (3) of section 168(b) of such Code is 

18 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara19 graph: 

20 ‘‘(J) Any roof system described in sub21 section (e)(3)(F)(ii).’’. 

22 (c) ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM.—The table contained in 

23 section 168(g)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by striking 

24 the last item and inserting the following new items: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5396 IH

‘‘(F)(i) ............................................................................... 25

(F)(ii) ................................................................................ 20’’. 

1 (d) Section 168(e) is amended by adding after para2 graph (8) the following: 

3 ‘‘(9) COMMERCIAL BUILDING.—The term ‘com4 mercial building’ means any commercial building, as 

5 that term is used under section 202 of the 2009 

6 International Energy Conservation Code, located in 

7 the United States with respect to which depreciation 

8 (or amortization in lieu of depreciation) is allowable 

9 and which was in existence on December 31, 2009. 

10 ‘‘(10) CLIMATE ZONE.—The term ‘climate zone’ 

11 means climate zones as specified in section 301 of 

12 the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code.’’. 

13 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

15 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 16 Filed 06/24/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 16 Filed 06/24/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### DUNN v. DUNN

No. 77 PC.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 713.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 May 1975.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in registration statements of Supreme Industries,Inc. (File Nos. 333-118584, 333-104386 and 333-89867) and in the relatedProspectus, pertaining to the Supreme Industries, Inc. 2004 Stock Option Plan,2001 Stock Option Plan and 1998 Stock Option Plan, respectively, of our reportdated February 5, 2007 on our audits on the consolidated financial statementsand financial statement schedule of Supreme Industries, Inc. and itssubsidiaries, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofSupreme Industries, Inc. for the year ended December 30, 2006.

/s/Crowe Chizekand Company LLC

South Bend, Indiana

March 26, 2007

 

----
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00120-CV

JUDGE CARLOS CORTEZ, Appellant

V.

COYT RANDAL (RANDY) JOHNSTON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-10-14346

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
2

O RDER

Carlos Cortez has filed an appeal from an order denying his motion to seal court records 

and vacating extant sealing orders. At this point, only a notice of appeal has been filed. The 

order, signed October 29, 2013, was provided to this Court by Cortez in connection with a 

contemporaneously-filed petition for writ of mandamus. 

The case is now before this Court after transfer by the Texas Supreme Court from the 

Fifth Court of Appeals. 

We perceive that if the documents which are the ultimate focus of this appeal are released 

to the public by the district clerk, the purpose of the appeal—to prevent their release—will be 

vitiated, and the appeal would be moot. 

To protect our jurisdiction, we therefore temporarily stay the trial court’s October 29, 

2013, Order Denying Motion to Seal and Vacating Sealing Order while we consider the merits of 

the appeal. See Dallas Morning News v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 842 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex. 

1992) (orig. proceeding).

The clerk of this Court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the attorneys of 

record, the trial court judge, and the trial court clerk. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

BY THE COURT

Date: November 15, 2013
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

As of September 29, 2001 the Company's subsidiaries, all wholly-owned and
incorporated in California (except where noted otherwise) are:

<TABLE>
 <C> <S>
     Grocers and Merchants Insurance Service, Inc.
     Grocers Capital Company
     Springfield Insurance Company Limited (incorporated in Bermuda)
     Grocers Specialty Company
     Grocers Development Center, Inc.
     Preferred Public Storage Company
     Crown Grocers, Inc.
     Grocers General Merchandise Company
 (1) Springfield Insurance Company
     Unified International, Inc.
     Morga No. 12 Acquisition Corp.
     Walnut Creek No. 7 Acquisition Corp.
     Lauresm Corporation
 (2) Sav Max Foods, Inc.
 (3) Northwest Process, Inc.
 (3) R&R Liquidating Corporation
 (3) U.G. Resources, Inc.
 (3) United Resources, Inc.
 (3) Western Security Services, Ltd.
 (3) Western Passage Express, Ltd.
</TABLE>
--------
(1) Outstanding capital shares are owned by Grocers and Merchants Insurance
    Services, Inc.
(2) Outstanding capital shares are owned by Grocers Capital Company (10%) and
    Crown Grocers, Inc. (90%)
(3) Incorporated in Oregon
# U n i te d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p pe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 20-3076 September Term, 2021 1: 18-c r-001 02-DLF-1 Filed O n: July 8, 20 22 In re : Se aled Case,
BEFORE: Sriniv asan , Chief Jud ge; T ate l*, Circuit Jud ge; an d E dwards, Sen ior Circuit Judge 

# UNDE R SEA L OPINIO N NOTAVAILA BLE TO PUB LIC

* Circuit Jud ge T ate l assum ed senio r statu s after th is case w as a rg ued an d b efore t he dat e th e o pinion issued

.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.E., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF 

PRISONS, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION, Fort Worth, TX, Employer

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1140

Issued: October 25, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 28, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 21, 2022

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-1140.

In a letter dated and received October 14, 2022, appellant, through counsel, requested that 

the appeal be withdrawn.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that appellant’s request for the 

withdrawal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no cla im f or a f ee f or 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board.

Id. An attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, 

subject to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of

fees to a representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the withdrawal of the appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 22-1140 is dismissed.

Issued: October 25, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69509-69510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22726]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Foreign Agricultural Service


Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers

AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), today

[[Page 69510]]

accepted a petition filed by a group of Florida avocado producers for 
trade adjustment assistance. The Administrator will determine within 40 
days whether or not increasing avocado imports contributed importantly 
to a decline in domestic producer prices of 20 percent or more during 
the marketing period beginning June 1, 2004, and ending February 28, 
2005. If the determination is positive, all producers who produce and 
market their avocados in Florida will be eligible to apply to the Farm 
Service Agency for no cost technical assistance and for adjustment 
assistance payments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean-Louis Pajot, Coordinator, Trade 
Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, FAS, USDA, (202) 720-2916, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f6b6d7e7b7a317e7b756a6c6b727a716b5f797e6c316a6c7b7e31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd898f9c9998d39c9997888e8990989389bd9b9c8ed3888e999cd39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: November 3, 2005.
A. Ellen Terpstra,
Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service.
[FR Doc. 05-22726 Filed 11-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-10-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>