alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PANEL 

Order Pronounced April 16, 2008 

08-0142 IN RE DELTA LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY OF HOUSTON, 

TEXAS 

- consolidated with - 

08-0208 IN RE HURRICANE RITA HOMEOWNERS' CLAIMS 

Pursuant to Rule 13.3(j) counsel for movant is ordered to file with the clerk, by 5:00 p.m. 

on April 23, copies of the following documents: (1) the Requests for Production and 

Interrogatories to Delta Lloyds (No. 08-0142) and (2) the petitions and the Requests for 

Production and Interrogatories to the insurance companies in the Hurricane Rita cases 

(No. 08-0208).
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 5.1

                       KYLE L. TINGLE CPA, LLC LETTERHEAD



June 21, 2005


To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of Kyle L. Tingle, CPA, LLC consents to the inclusion of his report
dated June 16, 2005 accompanying the audited financial statements of AP
Henderson Group as of December 31, 2004, in the Form 10-KSB, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, and to our reference to the Firm under the
caption "Experts" in the Prospectus.


Very truly yours,


/S/ Kyle L. Tingle

Kyle L. Tingle
Kyle L. Tingle, CPA, LLC
**EXHIBIT 31.2**MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTINGThe management of Ohio Legacy Corp is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequateinternal control over financial reporting as defined in rules 13a-15(f) BS 15D-159F) under theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, The company’s internal control over financialreporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financialreporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with U.Sgenerally accepted accounting principles.The Company’s internal control over financial reporting include those policies and procedures that(i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflectthe transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Company, (ii) provide reasonable assurancethat transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements inaccordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expendituresof the Company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors ofthe Company, and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding preventions or timely detection ofunauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the Company’s asset that could have a materialeffect on the financial statements.Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent ordetect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods aresubject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or thatthe degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Based on our assessmentand those criteria, management concluded that the Company maintained effective internal controlover financial reporting as of December 31, 2007.Management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting asof December 31, 2007. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by theCommittee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in InternalControl-Integrated Framework.This annual report does not contain an attestation report of the Company’s registered publicaccounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Managements report was notsubject to attestation by the Company’s registered public accounting firm pursuant to temporaryrules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit the Company to proved only management’sreport in this annual report.       By: /s/ D. Michael Kramer       D. Michael Kramer      President and Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial Officer and acting Principal Accounting OfficerMarch 31, 2008
-82-
Page 1 of 2

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

LE'VIETA DOSTER, 

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv50-MCR/WCS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending is Plaintiff's Motion for attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to

Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) representing attorney fees in the amount of

$3,375.00 and paralegal fees in the amount of $615.00, for a total award of $3,990.00. 

Docs. 22. Defendant has filed a response advising the court that they have no objection

to the amount requested by Plaintiff, but point out that the fee should be paid to Plaintiff. 

Doc. 24. Defendant is correct. In accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521,

2010 WL 2346547 (June 14, 2010) (No. 08-1322), the EAJA fee should be made

payable to Plaintiff, not to Plaintiff's attorney. 
Page 2 of 2

In light of the above, it is RECOMMENDED that:

Plaintiff’s Petition for attorney’s fees, doc. 22, be GRANTED and the court order

that the Secretary certify and pay to Plaintiff $3,990.00 as a reasonable attorney and

paralegal fee.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on December 14, 2010.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14

days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections

limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 5:10cv50-MCR/WCS
Exhibit 32.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF TEHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I,  Thomas  Cooke,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Annual
Report of Saratoga  Resources,  Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended  December
31, 2003 fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that  information  contained  in such Form
10-KSB  fairly  presents in all material  respects the  financial  condition and
results of operations of Saratoga Resources, Inc.


                                           By:   /S/ Thomas Cooke
                                                 ____________________________
                                           Name: Thomas Cooke
                                           Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                           Dated: July 8, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6334

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM C. GAMBLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (6:01-cr-00820-HMH-AL)

Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 30, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Gamble, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William C. Gamble appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for modification of his sentence. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United

States v. Gamble, No. 6:01-cr-00828-HMH-AL (D.S.C. Feb. 7, 2006).

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
### TEX A S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00747- CV M ax we ll F or d, Lt d. , d/ b/ a M ax we ll F or d, App e lla nt v. Lisa L . Sayer, Appellee FROM THE COU NTY COU RT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. 27550 7, HONO RABLE J . DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Appellant Maxwell For d, Ltd., d/b/a Maxwell For d and appe llee L isa L . Sayer ha ve filed a joint motion to di smiss this appea l. We gr ant the motion, set aside the t r ial cour t’s judgment without r egar d to the m er i t s , and r emand the c ause to the tr ial cour t for r endition of judgment in accor dance with the par ties’ settlement agr eeme nt. T ex. R. App. P . 42. 1(a) (2)( B ).

__________________________________________ Jan P . P atter son, Justice B efor e Justices B . A. S mith, P atter son and P ur year D ismiss ed on Joint M otion F iled: Januar y 6, 2006
No. 07

- 20

- 0020 3

- CV

In re Caleb Logan Hart, Relator §

§

§

§ Or iginal Proce eding

September 29, 2020

Opinion Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the opinion of the Co urt dated September 29, 2020 , it is ordered,

adjudged, and decreed that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is conditionally

granted to the extent that the Honorable Steven R. Emmert rule on Relator’s pending

motions. Writ will issue only if Judge Emmert fails to act in accor dance with this Court's

opinion.

o O o
Exhibit
4.3


 


ASSUMPTION
AGREEMENT


 


THIS
ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (this “Assumption”), dated as of the date indicated on the signature
below, between Broadridge Corporate Issuer Solutions, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (“Broadridge”)
and Legacy Education Alliance, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”).


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS,
pursuant to that certain Rights Agreement, dated as of February 16, 2017 (as amended by the Amendment to Rights Agreement dated
as of November 12, 2018 and as otherwise amended, modified, supplemented or restated from time to time. the “Agreement”)
by and between the Company and Vstock Transfer, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Vstock”)
the Company has sent notification of termination to Vstock pursuant to Section 21 of the Agreement;


 


WHEREAS,
Broadridge desires to assume the duties of Rights Agent (as defined in the Agreement) pursuant to Section 21, of the Agreement;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereto intending to be legally bound do hereby covenant and agree as follows:


 


1.
Effective as of the date hereof, Broadridge hereby agrees to assume the role of Rights Agent under the Agreement and hereby
agrees, promptly and faithfully, to keep, fulfill, observe, perform and discharge all of the terms, covenants, conditions and
agreements of the Rights Agent to be fulfilled, observed, performed and discharged under the Agreement from and after the
date hereof.


 


2.
The Company consents to Broadridge, form the date hereof, assuming the role of Rights Agent under the Agreement.


 


[Signature
Page Follows]





 






     


     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Assumption as of the date indicated in the signature pages below.


 


	 	LEGACY EDUCATION ALLIANCE, INC.
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ James E. May
	 	 	Name:   	James E. May
	 	 	Title:	 Chief  Executive Officer
	 	 	Date:	11/25/19
##### 



Exhibit 10.5
 THE LAMSON & SESSIONS CO.
 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
(POST-2004)
 ARTICLE I
 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
   ARTICLE II
 DEFINITIONS




---



##### 



- 2 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
 ELECTIONS BY DIRECTORS
    ARTICLE IV
 ACCOUNTS AND INVESTMENTS
  - 3 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE V
 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS
    - 4 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI
 CREDITORS AND INSOLVENCY
   ARTICLE VII
 ADMINISTRATION
   - 5 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE VIII
 MISCELLANEOUS
       THE LAMSON & SESSIONS CO.Date:
    
    February 15, 2007By:
    
    /s/ James J. AbelTitle:
    
    James J. Abel Executive Vice President,
Treasurer, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
 - 6 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                      UT
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Statement of Income,  Balance Sheet and Statement of Cash Flows and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
                                                 
                  
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

       
<S>                                            <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       3,664,701
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        18,061
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          1,103,374
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           66,753
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  7,355,675
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,208,564
<COMMON>                                          602,562
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       1,074,781
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                               846,473
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  2,523,816
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             638,500
<PREFERRED>                                        63,677
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            4,472,675
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                      0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                               0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                     250,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                           4,800
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                             0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                        0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  4,255,096
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  12,208,564
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       2,408,592
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                              167,653
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      1,674,047
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      1,841,700
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                           566,892
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 23,197
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                    590,089
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          337,785
<NET-INCOME>                                      252,304
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        39,194
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                     213,110
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          160,127
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                         291,174
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                            642,268
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       $1.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       $1.77
        


</TABLE>
#### STATE v. FRAZIER

No. 92 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 104.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 24 May 1972.
#### STATE v. WILLIAMS

No. 38 PC.

Case below: 13 N.C. App. 619.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 April 1972.
---

|DAVIDSON & COMPANY LLP |                       |                                             | 
|---------------------- | --------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | 
|                       | Chartered Accountants | A Partnership of Incorporated Professionals

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM

To the Board of Directors of 
Rockwell Diamonds Inc.

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 20-F
of:

- our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated May 20,
  2008 on the consolidated balance sheets of Rockwell Diamonds Inc. ("the
  Company") as at February 29, 2008 and May 31, 2007 and the consolidated
  statements of operations and comprehensive loss, shareholders' equity and cash
  flows for the nine month period ended February 29, 2008 and the years ended
  May 31, 2007 and 2006;
- our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated May 20,
  2008 on the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of February
  29, 2008;

each of which is contained in this annual report on Form 20-F
of the Company for the fiscal period ended February 28, 2010.

DAVIDSON & COMPANY LLP

|Vancouver, Canada | Chartered Accountants
|----------------- | ---------------------

August 31, 2010



---
# C_2009050EN.01000602.xml

| 3.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5463 — Hitachi/Hitachi Koki)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 50/05)

On 17 February 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5463. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5463. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 09, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-617

Lower Tribunal Nos. 11-32285, 05-6744

________________

Pamela Z. White, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Willie

D. Williams,

Appellant,

vs.

Greymar Associates, LLC,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Monica Gordo,

Judge.

Carlos A. Ziegenhirt, for appellant.

Mark Evans Kass, for appellee.

Before SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

EMAS, J.
We affirm the trial court’s entry of partial summary judgment, as well as the

subsequent final judgment of foreclosure, each entered in favor of appellee, upon

its determination that appellee was a bona fide purchaser for value, and because

there was no evidence establishing that, at the time appellee acquired its mortgage

interest, it had constructive or actual notice of the existence of an unrecorded

agreement, upon which appellant relies for the contention that appellant had a

previously-acquired and outstanding interest in the property. See § 695.01(1), Fla.

Stat. (2008); Gabel v. Drewrys Ltd., U.S.A., Inc., 68 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1953);

Warner v. Watson, 17 So. 654 (Fla. 1895). We also find no error in the trial court’s

denial of appellant’s motion to stay execution of the final judgment.1

1 We note that, at the time the notice of appeal was filed, there remained

unadjudicated counterclaims below in lower case number 05-6744. However,

appellee is not a party to those counterclaims and neither the trial court

proceedings which form the basis for this appeal, nor our disposition of this appeal,

affects appellant’s right to proceed on those counterclaims.

2
#### HUDSPETH v. BUNZEY

No. 56 PC.

Case below: 35 N.C. App. 231.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 April 1978. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 April 1978.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 2, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50538

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CLARENCE W. STEINBRECHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:00-CR-184-ALL

 

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clarence W. Steinbrecher appeals the 30-month sentence he

received following the revocation of his supervised release after

his jury-trial conviction and sentence for failing to file a tax

return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. He argues that the

$50,000 fine imposed as part of his sentence following his

underlying conviction exceeded the maximum allowed by statute.

Steinbrecher cannot challenge the fine imposed in the original
judgment in this appeal. Cf. United States v. Moody, 277 F.3d 719,

720-21 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Stiefel, 207 F.3d 256, 259

(5th Cir. 2000). Even if Steinbrecher’s challenge to the $50,000

were reviewable in this proceeding, it is without merit. The fine

imposed by the district court was authorized by law. 18 U.S.C. §

3571(b)(1) & (5), (e); 26 U.S.C. § 7203.

Steinbrecher’s brief also includes several pro se issues

briefed by Steinbrecher rather than counsel. Although included

with counsel’s brief, counsel has not adopted these issues.

Steinbrecher does not have a “constitutional right to hybrid

representation.” See United States v. Ogbonna, 184 F.3d 447, 449

n.1 (5th Cir. 1999); see also 5TH CIR. R. 28.7 (“Unless specifically

directed by court order, pro se motions, briefs or correspondence

will not be filed if the party is represented by counsel.”). Cf.

Myers v. Johnston, 76 F.3d 1330, 1335 (5th Cir. 1996) (“when a

criminal appellant accepts the assistance of counsel, but later

objects to his attorney’s appeal strategy or preparation of the

brief, the criminal appellant cannot then expect to be allowed to

file a supplemental brief. By accepting the assistance of counsel

the criminal defendant waives the right to present pro se briefs on

direct appeal.”). Therefore, we do not consider these issues,

which in any event are frivolous and wholly without merit.

AFFIRMED.