alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Consent of Independent Auditors


Board of Directors
Global Med Technologies, Inc.:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statements (No.
333-28155, No. 333-39193, No. 333-45031 and No. 333-69851) on Form S-8 of Global
Med  Technologies,  Inc.  of our report  dated  April 9, 1999,  relating  to the
balance sheet of Global Med Technologies,  Inc. as of December 31, 1998, and the
related statements of operations,  stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows
for the year then ended,  which report appears in the December 31, 1998,  annual
report on Form 10-KSB of Global Med Technologies, Inc.


                                    KPMG LLP




Denver, Colorado
April 14, 1999
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2191 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2191

         To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 199.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 7, 2000

Mr. Edwards (for himself and Mr. Helms) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 199.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON PIGMENT YELLOW 199.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.32.00     Pigment Yellow   Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     199 (CAS No.                                                            31/2002          ''
                     136897-58-0)                                                                              .
                     (provided for
                     in subheading
                     3204.17.60)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                          AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Omega Ventures Group,
Inc.,on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, John M. Hickey, Principal Executive Officer and John Ray
Rask, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13
     (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date: November 22, 2004       By:/S/ John M. Hickey
                              -------------------------------------------
                              John M. Hickey, Principal Executive Officer



Date: November 22, 2004       By: /S/ John Ray Rask
                              -------------------------------------------
                              John Ray Rask, Principal Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2196

MAJOR MIKE WEBB,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN PORTER, From the Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-01346-CMH-IDD)

Submitted: April 18, 2024 Decided: April 19, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Major Mike Webb, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2196 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Major Mike Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his application 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

is an immediately appealable ruling. Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 339 

U.S. 844, 845 (1950). Because Webb recently paid the filing fee in full, however, his 

appeal of the denial of in forma pauperis status is now moot. See Holloway v. City of Va. 

Beach, 42 F.4th 266, 273 (4th Cir. 2022) (“A dispute is moot, depriving federal courts of

jurisdiction to decide it, when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a 

legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2196 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  9
<MULTIPLIER>               1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                SEPT-30-1996
<CASH>                                             5,201
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             3,345
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                       0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       29,070
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             8,521
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               8,424
<LOANS>                                          99,426
<ALLOWANCE>                                        1,947
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   148,167
<DEPOSITS>                                       127,536
<SHORT-TERM>                                       1,701
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                1,582
<LONG-TERM>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           2,120
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        15,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   148,167
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    6,606
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1,513
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    198
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                   8,319
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 3,535
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    83
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              4,700
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                          0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  223
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   2,958
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2,491
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        1,791
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1,791




<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       2.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       2.13
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                      6.26
<LOANS-NON>                                           82
<LOANS-PAST>                                          30
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     541
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    3,513
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   1,945
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        11
<RECOVERIES>                                          14
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  1,947
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               1,947
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            1,406
        

</TABLE>
1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2871

___________

Bobby Joe Olles, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Harley Lappin; Ray Carnahan, *

United States Marshal Service; *

Randy Johnson, Sheriff, Pulaski *

County Detention Facility, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 2, 2009

Filed: November 13, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bobby Joe Olles (Olles) appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his motion under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Having carefully reviewed the record and

Olles’s arguments, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Jones
-2-

v. Swanson, 512 F.3d 1045, 1048 (8th Cir. 2008) (explaining that the district court has

wide discretion in ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion and will be reversed only for clear

abuse of that discretion). We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
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 Annual Report of Radiologix, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sami S. Abbasi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Sami S. Abbasi                                  
|Sami S. Abbasi President and Chief Executive
Officer

Dated: September 26, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Radiologix, Inc. and will be retained by Radiologix, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered March 16, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 00345
- CV
IN RE A.H., Relator
Original Proceeding from the County Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 87976
- CC 

### O RDER
Based on the Court’ s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. Although we have reviewed relator’s petition and supporting appendix in determining this petition for writ of mandamus, because the attached appendix supporting the petition includes unred acted information that identifies the relator’s minor children, we STRIKE relator’s petition and supporting appendix. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.9(b). We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 17, 2023

NO. 03-22-00491-CV

Laguna Reef Condominium Association, Inc., Appellant

v.

Cross River Investments, LLC; Dr. John Moczygemba; and Sandra Moczygemba, 

Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 274TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART --

OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on February 14, 2022. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in 

the court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court reverses the award of damages and attorney’s fees 

and affirms the remainder of the judgment. We remand the case to the trial court for a new trial 

on damages and attorney’s fees. The appellees shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in 

this Court and in the court below.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Margherita Fresegna, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

July 2,1936.

*Angelo A. Corcillo,*for the petitioner.

*B. Leo Schwarz,*for the respondent.

Delehanty, S.

Petitioner asks revocation of letters of administration issued to a daughter of deceased, asserting that he is the surviving spouse. He bases his claim of status upon a common-law *818relationship. Petitioner had been married previously and two children were the issue of that marriage. Having sent his wife abroad with his two children, petitioner entered into a ceremonial marriage with deceased. Because of the bigamy so committed petitioner was convicted and served a term in prison. While in prison his wife obtained in this State an absolute divorce based upon the relations between petitioner and deceased following the bigamous marriage. After release from prison petitioner and deceased cohabited in this State and it is that cohabitation upon which petitioner bases his claim of a marital relationship.

Section 8 of the Domestic Relations Law provides that *“*a defendant for whose adultery the judgment of divorce has been granted in this State may not marry again during the lifetime of the complainant, unless the court in which the judgment of divorce was rendered shall in that respect modify such judgment.” The section contains limitations upon the power of the court to make the modification and one such limitation is the requirement of proof *“*that the conduct of the defendant since the dissolution of said marriage has been uniformly good.”

The claim here is of marriage in the State of New York. The statute declares the public policy of the State to forbid remarriage of a person whose innocent former spouse still lives. Here the former wife of petitioner is living. The resumption of relationship by petitioner with deceased after petitioner’s release from prison was a violation of the prohibition of the Domestic Relations Law. It was conduct which must be held to be bad because of the prohibition in the statute. The relationship so resumed must be held to have been meretricious just as the marriage was held to be bigamous. It follows of course that petitioner could not have validly entered into a marital relationship with deceased in this State and so he never acquired the status upon which alone his petition rests. *(Merrick*v. *Merrick,*266 N. Y. 120; *People*v. *Faber,*92 id. 146; *Haviland*v. *Halstead,*34 id. 643; *Cropsey*v. *Ogden,*11 id. 228.)

The application to revoke letters is denied.
Order filed July 7, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00474-CR

IN RE RONALD E. HAWKINS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1180372-A

ORDER

On June 28, 2022, relator, Ronald E. Hawkins, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52.

Relator’s petition does not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 

52.3(k)(1)(A) and 52.7(a). Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (“The appendix must 

contain: (A) a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other 

document showing the matter complained of”) (emphasis added); 52.7(a) (“Relator 
2

must file with the petition: (1) a certified or sworn copy of every document that is 

material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying 

proceeding; and (2) a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony 

from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a 

statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter 

complained.”) (emphasis added). To be a “certified or sworn copy,” in accordance 

with Rule 52, the document must be certified by the trial court clerk or attached to 

either a properly prepared affidavit or an unsworn declaration. See Tex. Civ. Prac. 

& Rem. Code Ann. § 132.001. 

By this order, the court gives relator notice that the petition will be 

dismissed unless an amended petition is filed on or before August 8, 2022 that 

addresses the record issues discussed above. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); 

see also In re Kholaif, 624 S.W.3d 228, 231 (order), mand. dism’d, 615 S.W.3d 

369 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020) (orig. proceeding).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Poissant.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Reynaldo Morales v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut

Appellate case number: 01-21-00549-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-54065

Trial court: 165th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, Reynaldo Morales, has filed an en banc motion for reconsideration.

After due consideration, the Court denies the motion.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____Justice Richard Hightower_______________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, 

Hightower, Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, Guerra, and Farris.

Date: ___June 21, 2022_____
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                    MONARCH DENTAL CORPORATION AND AFFILIATES

Monarch Dental Corporation
Partners Dental Corporation
Monarch Dental Associates, L.P.
Monarch Dental Associates (Houston), L.P.
Monarch Dental Management, Inc.
Modern Dental Professionals, P.C.
Midwest Dental Care, Mondovi, Inc.
Midwest Dental Care, Sheboygan, Inc.
Midwest Dental Management, Inc.
Monarch Dental Associates (Arkansas), Inc.
Modern Dental Professionals - Girlinghouse, P.A.
Modern Dental Professionals - St. Raymond (a Professional Dental Corporation)
Monarch Dental Associates (Indiana), Inc.
Drs. Johnson, Terry and Associates
Modern Dental Professionals - Indiana, P.C.
Three Peaks Dental Management, Inc.
Modern Dental Professionals - Colorado, P.C.
Monarch Dental (Press) Associates, L.P.
Monarch Dental Associates (Midland/Odessa), L.P.
Managed Dental Care Centers, Inc.
Monarch Dental Associates (Dayton), Inc.
Monarch Dental Associates (Abilene), L.P.
Monarch Dental Associates (Utah), Inc.
Monarch Dental Associates (Arizona), L.L.C.
Modern Dental Professionals - Utah, P.C.
Modern Dental Professionals - New Mexico, P.C.
Modern Dental Professionals - Arizona, P.C.
Modern Dental Professionals - Sternberg, Inc.
Valley Forge Dental Associates, Inc.
VFD of Pennsylvania, Inc.
Monarch Dental Associates (Cleveland), Inc.
Precise Dental Lab, Inc.
VFD of Georgia, Inc.
VFD of Pittsburgh, Inc.
ProDent, Inc.
VFD Realty, Inc.
Valley Forge Dental of Florida, P.A.
Western Dental Associates, P.C.
Allan M. Dworkin, D.D.S., (Fredrick), P.C.
Witkin Dentistry, P.C.
Horizon Dental Group International, Inc. - Mark B. Sternberg, D.D.S.
John E. Tiano, D.D.S., P.C.
Kenneth Tralongo, D.D.S. and Associates, P.C.
Dworkin and Clemens, D.D.S., P.C.
Modern Dental Professionals - Philadelphia, P.C.
Lawrence J. Paul, D.D.S. & Associates, P.A.
Village at Newtown Dentists, P.C.
Modern Dental Professionals - New Jersey, P.A.
Modern Dental Professionals - Minnesota,  P.C.
Midwest Dental Plan, Ltd.
Exhibit 99

            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 on Form 10-Q, filed pursuant
to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
of NBC Capital Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended
September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lewis F. Mallory, Jr., the Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
         or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
         amended; and

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


                                  /s/ Lewis F. Mallory, Jr.
                                      _____________________
                                  Name:  Lewis F. Mallory, Jr.
                                  Title: Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                         Executive Officer
                                  Date:  November 12, 2002


                                      25



Exhibit 99

            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 on Form 10-Q, filed pursuant
to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
of NBC Capital Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended
September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard T. Haston, 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:

     3)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
         or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
         amended; and

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


                     /s/ Richard T. Haston
                     _____________________
                     Name:  Richard Haston
                     Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
                            Officer
                     Date:  November 12, 2002


                                     26
#### In Re BRADLEY et al.

(Nos. 3,627, 3,628, 3,629.)

(Submitted February 16, 1915.

Decided February 27, 1915.)

[146 Pac. 944.]

*Habeas Corpus*— Kidnaping—Information— *Sufficiency.*

[For syllabus, see *In re McDonald,, ante,*p. 348.]

In the Matter of the applications of Joseph Bradley, Owen Smith and William Winchester, for writs of *habeas corpus.*

Writs denied, and complainants remanded.

*Mr. I. G. Denny*and *Messrs. Maury, Templeman & Davies,*for Complainants.

*Mr. D. M. Kelly,*Attorney General, and *Mr. C. S. Wagner,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BRANTLY

delivered the opinion of the court.

*Habeas corpus.*In these cases the question , presented is identical with that presented in the ease of *In re McDonald, ante,*p. 348, 146 Pac. 942. Upon the authority of that case the several writs are discharged, and the complainants are remanded to the custody of the warden of the state prison.

Mr. Justice Sanner and Mr. Justice Holloway concur.