alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

INDEPENDENT FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this Quarterly Report of Independent Film Development Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009,, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeff Ritchie, the 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 my knowledge:



1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009,, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009,, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  September 23, 2009



/s/  Kenenth G. Eade

Kenneth G. Eade

Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DONALD R. IFERD,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 5:11cv19/RH/CJK

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This case is before the court upon plaintiff’s complaint filed pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security denying plaintiff’s claim for benefits. Pending is the defendant’s

motion to remand pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) (doc. 13). The plaintiff does

not oppose the motion according to the certification of the defendant.

Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court may “enter, upon the

pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing

the decision of the [Commissioner], with or without remanding the cause for a

rehearing.” The Commissioner of Social Security states that remand is appropriate

for the ALJ to consider the evidence of record, give appropriate consideration to

plaintiff’s credibility, and issue a new decision. Good cause has been shown for

remand.

Case 5:11-cv-00019-RH-CJK Document 14 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED as follows:

1. That the defendant’s motion to remand (doc. 13) be GRANTED and the

Commissioner’s decision denying benefits be REVERSED.

2. That this case be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

3. That defendant be ordered to direct the Administrative Law Judge to

consider the evidence of record, give appropriate consideration to plaintiff’s

credibility, and issue a new decision.

4. That the clerk be directed to enter judgment for plaintiff and close the

file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2011.

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITEDSTATESMAGISTRATEJUDGE

NOTICE TO PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within fourteen days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline

that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and

does not control. A copy of objectionsshall be served upon the magistrate judge

and al other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701

(11th Cir. 1988).

Case No: 5:11cv19/RH/CJK

Case 5:11-cv-00019-RH-CJK Document 14 Filed 06/15/11 Page 2 of 2
Case 4:09-cv-00323-SPM-WCS Document 1 Filed 08/21/09 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:09-cv-00323-SPM-WCS Document 1 Filed 08/21/09 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

Case No. 4:11cv200-RH/WCS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DAVID OLUSOLA OLADOKUN,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv200-RH/WCS

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. et al.,

Respondents.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 21, and the objections, ECF No. 22. I have reviewed 

de novo the issues raised by the objections. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s 

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The petition is DENIED.” The 

clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on October 4, 2011.

Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00200-RH-WCS Document 23 Filed 10/04/11 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT
      23.** **1**





INDEPENDENT
      REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
      National Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) on Form S-1, File No. 333-133732,
      and Form S-8, File No. 333-133733, of our report dated November 30, 2007, on
      our
      audits of the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of September
      30, 2007 and 2006 and for the years ended September 30, 2007, 2006 and 2005,
      which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




/s/
      Marcum & Kliegman LLP





New
      York,
      New York


December
      6, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1228 

TP 16-00691 

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL FREDERICK, PETITIONER, 

V ORDER

DONALD E. VENETOZZI, DIRECTOR, SPECIAL HOUSING 

UNIT, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT. 

 

MICHAEL FREDERICK, PETITIONER PRO SE. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County [Thomas G.

Leone, A.J.], entered April 22, 2016) to review a determination of

respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that

petitioner had violated an inmate rule. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANTHONY D. GARLAND,

D.O.C. # L42997,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:09cv358-SPM/WCS

DAVID B. WHEELER

and PETER SAPAK,

 

Defendants.

________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 7) dated October 2, 2009. Plaintiff has

filed objections (doc. 9) pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). Upon review, I have determined that the report and recommendation

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 7) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(doc. 5) is vacated.
Page 2 of 2

3. Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc.

3) is denied.

4. This case is dismissed because Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

5. The clerk shall note on the docket that this case was dismissed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

6. The clerk shall refund or return any partial filing fees received. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of October, 2009.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

 CASE NO. 4:09cv358-SPM/WCS
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

KIM BERRYMAN-DAGES, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00177-MP-GRJ

CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on doc. 106, Motion for Extension of Time by Kim

Berryman-Dages. Plaintiff requests an extension of time, until January 28, 2012, to

respond to defendant’s motion for summary judgment and motion in limine. The

defendant has consented to the relief sought in this motion.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, doc. 106, is GRANTED.

2. The plaintiff may respond to defendant’s motion for summary judgment

and motion in limine on or before January 28, 2012.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of December, 2011. 

áBZtÜç eA ]ÉÇxá 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00177-MP-GRJ Document 107 Filed 12/29/11 Page 1 of 1
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1282 

CA 16-00413 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, DEJOSEPH, AND CURRAN, JJ. 

 

COUNTY OF ERIE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FRANCIS B. VOLANTE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

MICHAEL A. SIRAGUSA, COUNTY ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ANTHONY B. TARGIA OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

SMITH, MURPHY & SCHOEPPERLE, LLP, BUFFALO (STEPHEN P. BROOKS OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Catherine

R. Nugent Panepinto, J.), dated August 17, 2015. The order granted in

part the motion of defendant for summary judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs. 

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to General

Municipal Law § 207-c (6) seeking to enforce its right to be

reimbursed for the salary and medical expenses paid on behalf of a

police officer who was injured when his patrol car collided with a

motor vehicle owned and operated by defendant. Supreme Court granted

defendant’s motion for summary judgment in part, concluding that

plaintiff’s “claim is . . . limited to those amounts it has paid in

excess of basic economic loss.” We affirm. 

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, its “potential recovery

pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c (6) of payments made to a

police officer injured by the alleged negligence of the defendant in

her ownership and operation of an automobile is limited by Insurance

Law article 51” (Village of Suffern v Baels, 215 AD2d 751, 751). 

Thus, the court properly determined that plaintiff can recover only

those amounts paid to its employee pursuant to section 207-c that are

in excess of basic economic loss as that term is defined by article 51

of the Insurance Law (see Incorporated Vil. of Freeport v Sanders, 101

AD2d 808, 809; City of Buffalo v Murry, 79 AD2d 1096, 1096, lv denied

53 NY2d 601). 

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
NO. 07-04-0273-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A AUGUST 31, 2004

______________________________ IN THE MATTER OFROBERT BURN S MCCALL

_________________________________ FROM THE 2 51st DIS TRICT CO URT OF POT TER COUNT Y; NO. 90,595-C; HONORABLE PATRICK PIRTLE, J UDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPIN ION RobertB. McCall, a ppella nt, an in mate p roceed ing pro se , appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his case for failure to comp ly with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. W e dismiss the appeal. The trial court clerk’s record was filed wi th this court on June 11, 2004; by

letter, that same day, thiscourt’s cl erk gave notice to appel lant of the filing of the t rial cou rt clerk’s record. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appe llate Procedure 38.6(a), appel lant’s bri ef was due July12, 2004. By letter dated August 9, 2004, we noti fied appellant that the due date for-2-

the brief had passed, that t he brief had not bee n filed and no m otion fo r ex tensi on of ti me to file had been received by the cour t. Citing Texas Rule of Appellate Proced ure 38.8, the letter also notified appel lant that the appeal would be sub ject to dismissal unless a response reasonably

explaini ng his failur

e to file a bri ef, together with a showing that the appellee has not been significantly in jure d by the failur e, was submi tted by Aug ust 19, 2004. Appellant

has not filed a responseto the court’ s August 9, 2 004 letter, nor has he since submitted a brief or a moti on for extensi on of time. Acco rdin gly, having given all parties more than the requir ed te n days ’ not ice, we dismiss the appeal fo r want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 38. 8(a)(1); 42.3(b).
James T. Campbell Justice
# C_2010003EN.01000101.xml

| 7.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 January 2010

2010/C 3/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4350 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,69 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4407 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89860 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,1870 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4823 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1880 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,338 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 268,88 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7095 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0953 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1585 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1185 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5677 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4920 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,1290 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9570 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0029 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 627,80 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,5320 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7973 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2950 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 376,56 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8517 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 66,017 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 42,8500 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,581 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4882 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,3752 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,7660 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4350

JPY

Japanese yen

132,69

DKK

Danish krone

7,4407

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89860

SEK

Swedish krona

10,1870

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4823

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1880

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,338

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

268,88

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7095

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0953

RON

Romanian leu

4,1585

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1185

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5677

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4920

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,1290

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9570

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0029

KRW

South Korean won

1 627,80

ZAR

South African rand

10,5320

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7973

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2950

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 376,56

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8517

PHP

Philippine peso

66,017

RUB

Russian rouble

42,8500

THB

Thai baht

47,581

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4882

MXN

Mexican peso

18,3752

INR

Indian rupee

65,7660

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 23, 2021

No. 04-20-00346-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF JVO AND JRO, CHILDREN,

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-02697

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellee, Vicky Ortega's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is hereby DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on February 23, 2021.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ANTHONY MARKIECE JACKSON, 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:11cv22/MCR/EMT

WALTER McNEIL, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated March 2, 2012 (doc. 29). The court has made three attempts to

provide plaintiff with a copy of the Report and Recommendation by mail to different

addresses. Each attempt has been returned as undeliverable. Having no other address

for the plaintiff, and no objections on file, the court has proceeded to make a de novo

review of the recommendation and finds that it is due to be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with

a court order and for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing

suit. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of May, 2012.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00022-MCR-EMT Document 35 Filed 05/18/12 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MARK BLACKMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 3:11cv146/LAC

MIDWEST ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES,

INC., et al.

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of FLSA

Settlement and Award of Attorneys' Fees (Doc. 353) as against Defendant Emergency

Response Group. A copy of the Settlement Agreement has been submitted.

Since this cause arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the settlement may not

take effect until the Court has approved the terms of the settlement as fair and reasonable.

See, e.g., Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982).

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 356 Filed 07/29/13 Page 1 of 3
Having duly considered the documentation submitted to the Court and proceedings

to date, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Court hasjurisdiction over the subject matter of this Lawsuit and over the parties;

2. The Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate; and

3. Plaintiffs' request for Fees and Costs is reasonable.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

4. The Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement and Award of Attorneys' Fees (Doc.

353) is GRANTED;

5. The Settlement Agreement between the Parties is approved, and the Parties shall

implement it pursuant to its terms;

6. The Court hereby dismisses with prejudice this Lawsuit against Defendant Emergency

Response Group, all claims contained therein against Emergency Response Group and all

released claims against Emergency Response Group and, in accordance with Rule 54(b) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, finds that there is no just reason for delay and Orders

the entry of a Final Judgment against Defendant Emergency Response Group;

7. This Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction and venue with respect to

the consummation, implementation, enforcement, construction, interpretation, performance

and administration of the Settlement Agreement;

8. The Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs as set forth in the Settlement

Agreement is hereby approved as reasonable and, except as provided in the Settlement

Agreement, the Parties are to otherwise bear their own attorneys' fees and costs; and

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 356 Filed 07/29/13 Page 2 of 3
9. This Court bars and permanently enjoins all Plaintiffs against Defendant Emergency

Response Group for liability based upon the released claims.

ORDERED on this 29th day of July, 2013.

s/L.A. Collier

Lacey A. Collier

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00146-LC-CJK Document 356 Filed 07/29/13 Page 3 of 3
#### William J. Logan et al., Appellants, *v.*New Amsterdam Gas Company, Respondent.

*Logan*v. *New Amsterdam Gas Co.,*172 App. Div. 898, affirmed.

(Argued October 23, 1918;

decided November 12, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of thé Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 11, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant ’ entered upon an order of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The action was brought by plaintiffs, as stockholders of the old Equitable Gas Light' Company, to restrain the defendant (a consolidated corporation) from proceeding to acquire their stock in the Equitable Company (one of the consolidating companies), through appraisal proceedings instituted under section 8 of the Business Corporations Law, and to compel the defendant -to buy their stock at a valuation to be determined by the court. The attempted appraisal of the stock by the defendant was attacked on the ground that section 8, as amended in 1902, permitting such appraisal, was unconstitutional.

*Alfred P. W. Seaman*and *James M. Gifford*for appellants.

*John A. Garver*for respondent,

*665Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan and McLaughlin, JJ. Absent: Crane, J.