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

                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of our report dated February 1, 1997, on our audits of the financial
statements of Cardiothoracic Systems, Inc. as of December 31, 1996 and 1995
and for the year ended December 31, 1996 and the period from June 15, 1995
(date of inception) to December 31, 1995, which report is included in the
Company's Annual Report to Stockholders.

                                                   COOPERS & LYBRAND, L.L.P.


San Jose, California
March 26, 1997


                                       1
<PAGE>


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of our report dated February 12, 1996, on our audits of the financial
statements of Informed Creation as of June 14, 1995 and for the period from
January 1, 1995 to June 14, 1995, the year ended December 31, 1994, and the
cumulative period from November 3, 1993 (date of inception) to June 14, 1995,
which report is included in the Company's Annual Report to Stockholders.


                                                   COOPERS & LYBRAND, L.L.P.


San Jose, California
March 26, 1997


                                      2
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43217

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JORDAN GARTH BRANDON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 507

Filed: April 28, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia

County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Jordan Garth Brandon pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-

2732(c)(1). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district 

court sentenced Brandon to a unified term of four years, with a minimum period of confinement 

of one year. The district court retained jurisdiction, and Brandon was sent to participate in the 

rider program.

After Brandon completed his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. However, 

the district court sua sponte reduced Brandon’s sentence to a unified term of one and one-half 
2

years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year. Brandon appeals, claiming that the 

district court should have further sua sponte reduced his sentence. 

Our decision in State v. Clontz, 156 Idaho 787, 792, 331 P.3d 529, 534 (Ct. App. 2014) 

forecloses a claim that a district court erred by failing to sua sponte reduce an underlying 

sentence upon relinquishment of jurisdiction. Brandon asserts that Clontz is distinguishable from 

his case because the district court did sua sponte reduce his sentence. However, the district court 

did not err because it did not deny any relief requested by Brandon. Accordingly, Brandon’s

argument that the court should have further sua sponte reduced his sentence fails.

We note that pursuant to I.A.R. 14, Brandon could have directly appealed his sentence 

after jurisdiction was relinquished. However, even if we treat Brandon’s appeal as an appeal of 

his sentence, there is no error. Our appellate standard of review and the factors to be considered 

when evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well established. State v. Burdett, 134 

Idaho 271, 1 P.3d 299 (Ct. App. 2000); State v. Sanchez, 115 Idaho 776, 769 P.2d 1148 (Ct. App. 

1989); State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 653 P.2d 1183 (Ct. App. 1982); State v. Toohill, 103 

Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1982). 

Brandon’s argument that the district court should have further sua sponte reduced his 

sentence is foreclosed by Clontz. Even if we treat Brandon’s appeal as a direct appeal of his 

sentence, he has shown no error. The district court’s order relinquishing jurisdiction and the 

sentence imposed are affirmed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The Chalone Wine
Group, Ltd. (the Company), hereby certify that to my knowledge the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2004
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company. This written statement is being furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed
original of this 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. By:
    
    /s/ Shawn M. Conroy Blom

          Shawn M. Conroy Blom
 November 12, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000740876
<NAME> FIRST WESTERN BANCORP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          37,441
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           9,143
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                14,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    327,355
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         266,055
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           261,709
<LOANS>                                      1,021,718
<ALLOWANCE>                                     17,315
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,703,650
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,177,015
<SHORT-TERM>                                   342,014
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             27,815
<LONG-TERM>                                      5,577
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,227
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,195
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,703,650
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 22,514
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                8,199
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   606
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                31,319
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,802
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,096
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           14,223
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,974
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,974
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,831
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       8,831
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,872
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.83
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,770
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,105
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                16,054
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,084
<RECOVERIES>                                       371
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               17,315
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             8,947
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          8,368
        

</TABLE>
#### James B. Given, Respondent, *v.*Llewelyn L. Powell, Appellant.

Second Department,

June 9, 1911.

Eraud — misrepresentation on sale of stock — evidence—sources of information — good faith.

In an action to recover damages from á promoter for fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the sale of corporate stock it is reversible ' error to exclude evidence offered by the defendant to show the sources of his information. The defendant is entitled to show the sources of his • information, that he was justified in relying on it and that he made the statements in good faith.

Appeal by the defendant, Llewelyn L. Powell, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Brooklyn, in favor of the plaintiff, rendered on the llth day of February, 1911.

*George R. Cooper*and *Arthur B. La. Far,*for the appellant.

*Leon M. Woodworth*and *Lester 8. Abberley,*for the respondent.

Per. Curiam:

Defendant appeals from a judgment in an action for damages for fraud and deceit in connection with the sale of stock, of the Rubber Company of America. He was a promoter, and engaged in the sale of stock of said company.

There was a sharp conflict of evidence as to the character of the representations made. At the close of plaintiff’s case there was no direct evidence that, even if defendant made the *560representations testified to by plaintiff as to the amount of capital stock which had been sold for cash, the price paid therefor, as to the existence of large orders for goods manufactured by said company, and other similar matters, they were known to him to be false. It might possibly be, however, that there .was then enough to go to the jury upon the theory that defendant made statements recklessly, not knowing whether they were false or true and not caring what the effect might be, and paying no heed to the injuries which might result therefrom. *(Kountze*v. Kennedy, 147 N. Y. 124.)

Defendant, however,- was clearly entitled to show the sources of his information, and that he was justified in relying upon it, and made the statements in good faith. When defendant was upon the stand, he was asked whence he obtained the information in connection with which he made the statements to plaintiff, and this was excluded. This was error. *(Duryea*v. *Zimmerman,*121 App. Div. 560.)

The correctness of many other rulings in the course of the trial has been challenged. As the foregoing is fatal we need not consider any others.

The judgment of the Municipal Court must be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event. ‘

Jenks, P. J., Hjrsohberg, Burr, Woodward and Rich,JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.
#### Herman Prince, Respondent, v. Franklin Brewing Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

_________________________

No. 06-11-00244-CR

______________________________

MISTY LAVERNA DALE MAYO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 26,277

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

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Misty Laverna Dale Mayo entered an open plea of guilty to all fourteen charges spread 

across five cases tried together in Hunt County, Texas. The multiple counts included charges for 

injury to a child, indecency with a child by contact, sexual assault of a child, and aggravated 

sexual assault of a child.1 The trial court accepted her plea, found her guilty on all counts, and 

ultimately sentenced her to various terms of confinement ranging from ten to fifty years each. 

After finding errors in the judgments regarding whether the sentences for the eight charges 

contained in the last two cases were to be served concurrently or consecutively, the trial court 

attempted to correct the errors by entering nunc pro tunc judgments with revised sentencing 

instructions.

 

1

The five cases before us on appeal, all resolved by opinions issued today, are as follows:

Appeal Case 

Number

Trial Case 

Number

Count: Offense Sentence Sentence 

Group

06-11-00243-CR 26,276 Count 1: injury to a child 10 years

A

Count 2: injury to a child 10 years

06-11-00244-CR 26,277 Count 1: injury to a child 10 years

Count 2: injury to a child 10 years

06-11-00245-CR 26,278 Count 1: aggravated sexual assault of a child 50 years

Count 2: aggravated sexual assault of a child 50 years

06-11-00246-CR 26,279 Count 1: indecency with a child by contact 20 years

B

Count 2: indecency with a child by contact 20 years

Count 3: aggravated sexual assault of a child 50 years

Count 4: aggravated sexual assault of a child 50 years

06-11-00247-CR 26,303 Count 1: indecency with a child by contact 20 years

C

Count 2: sexual assault of a child 50 years

Count 3: sexual assault of a child 50 years

Count 4: sexual assault of a child 50 years
3

Here, Mayo appeals from her two convictions in trial court cause number 26,277. After 

reviewing the record and the briefs in this case, we find that Mayo failed to raise a point of error 

regarding these convictions. 

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: June 4, 2012

Date Decided: June 7, 2012

Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,160
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,160
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,160
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          210,159
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        86,327
<OTHER-SE>                                   (281,326)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   15,160
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,374)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,374)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,374)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32
                                                       ----------

                    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 Diversified Historic
Investors  on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended  June  30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on  the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Spencer Wertheimer, President  and
Treasurer of the Company's managing partner, EPK, Inc.,  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 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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




Date:  August 16, 2006                    /s/ Spencer Wertheimer
       ---------------                  ------------------------
                                 Name:  Spencer Wertheimer
                                Title:  President
                                        (principal executive
                                         officer) of the
                                         registrant's
                                         managing partner,
                                         EPK, Inc.

<PAGE>
February 14, 2001

AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
7277 164th Avenue, NE
Redmond, WA 98052
Attn:  William Hague

      Re:  Termination of Equity Purchase Agreement and Put Rights Agreement
           -----------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      Reference is made to that certain Equity Purchase Agreement (for TeleCorp
Shares), dated as of December 22, 2000 (the "Equity Purchase Agreement"), among
Gerald T. Vento ("Vento"), Thomas H. Sullivan ("Sullivan") and AT&T Wireless
Services, Inc. ("AT&T Wireless") and that certain Put Rights Agreement, dated as
of December 22, 2000, among AT&T Wireless, Vento and Sullivan (the "Put
Agreement").

      In consideration of the mutual premises and covenants set forth herein,
AT&T Wireless, Vento and Sullivan intending to be and being legally bound, agree
as follows:

      1.  Termination of the Equity Purchase Agreement.  The Equity Purchase
Agreement is hereby terminated and shall no longer be of any force or
effect.  None of the parties hereto shall have any further obligations under
the Equity Purchase Agreement or as a result of its termination.

      2.  Termination of the Put Agreement.  The Put Agreement is hereby
terminated and shall no longer be of any force or effect.  None of the
parties hereto shall have any further obligations under the Put Agreement or
as a result of its termination.

      3.  Release of Vento and Sullivan by AT&T Wireless. AT&T Wireless hereby
discharges and releases each of Vento and Sullivan from any and all claims and
causes of action that AT&T Wireless may have against either of Vento or Sullivan
as of the date hereof and hereafter relating to the Equity Purchase Agreement or
the Put Agreement or the termination of either.

      4.  Release of AT&T Wireless by Vento and Sullivan. Each of Vento and
Sullivan hereby discharges and releases AT&T Wireless and its affiliates, and
their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives (each an "AT&T
Entity") from any and all claims and causes of action that either Vento or
Sullivan may have against AT&T Wireless or any AT&T Entity as of the date hereof
and hereafter relating to the Equity Purchase Agreement or the Put Agreement or
the termination of either.

      5.  Consideration.  No party has received consideration for entering
into this agreement other than the mutual premises and covenants expressly
set forth herein.


<PAGE>


      If you are in agreement with the terms of this letter, please sign a copy
of the same in the space provided below and return it to the undersigned.


                                                Very truly yours,


                                                ---------------------------
                                                Gerald T. Vento



                                                ---------------------------
                                                Thomas H. Sullivan


<PAGE>


Agreed and accepted as of the date hereof:

AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC.


BY:
      -----------------------------
      Name:   William W. Hague
      Title:  Senior Vice President
Exhibit
      32


Section
      1350 Certifications





**STATEMENT
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**


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





The
      undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
      Minghua Group International Holdings Limited. This Certification is made
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification
      accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Minghua Group International
      Holdings Limited for the year ended December 31, 2005.





The
      undersigned certify that such 10-KSB Report fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
      information contained in such 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Minghua Group
      International Holdings Limited as of December 31, 2005.





This
      Certification is executed as of November 20, 2006


*By:
                /s/ Jie Chen*
              *-----------------------------------------*
              *Name:
                Jie Chen*
              *Title:
                Chief Executive Officer*
              *(Principal
                Executive Officer)*


*By:
                /s/ Chang-de Li*
              *-----------------------------------------*
              *Name:
                Chang-de Li*
              *Title:
                Chairman and Chief Financial Officer*
              *(Principal
                Financial Officer)*




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Minghua Group International Holdings Limited and will be retained by Minghua
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.