alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 33-60114) relating to the 2000 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of
Shoe Carnival, Inc., and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-74050
and 333-44047) relating to the 1993 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of Shoe
Carnival, Inc., and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-80979)
relating to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Shoe Carnival, Inc., and the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-82819) relating to the Outside
Directors Stock Option Plan of Shoe Carnival, Inc. of our report dated March 8,
2002 (March 18, 2002 as to Note 5), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Shoe Carnival, Inc. for the year ended February 2, 2002.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Deloitte & Touche LLP
San Francisco, California
April  , 2002
#### D. S. SMITH v. H. C. WHITLEY et al.

(Filed 24 November, 1926.)

Appeal by defendants from *Stack, J.,*at February Term, 1926, of Stanly. No error.

Action to recover damages for trespass upon land. Defendants allege that such acts as they committed on the land described in the complaint were lawful by reason of their ownership of the minerals in said land, under a reservation in the deeds in plaintiff’s chain of title. The issues submitted to the jury were answered as follows :

1. Did the defendants enter upon and commit trespasses upon the land of the plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint ? Answer: Yes.

2. If so, what damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of defendants ? Answer: $200.

From judgment upon this verdict defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

*No counsel for plaintiff.*

*Hartsdl & Eartsell, B. L. Smith & Son for defendants.*

*826Pee Cublam.

Defendants’ assignments of error upon this appeal cannot be sustained.

Plaintiff is seized in fee and in possession of tbe land described in tbe complaint, subject to tbe rights of defendants; defendants, by virtue of reservations in deeds under wbicb plaintiff owns said land, own tbe minerals in same. Defendants went upon tbe land and did tbe various acts thereon as alleged in tbe complaint. Tbe jury upon competent evidence has so found. Under a charge wbicb is free from error, such acts, or some of them, were found by tbe jury to constitute trespasses upon tbe rights of plaintiff. Tbe damages were assessed by tbe jury, upon sufficient evidence, under instructions wbicb are well sustained, both upon principle and by authoritative decisions of this Court. Tbe judgment is affirmed. There is

No error.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Diane Knowles, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Diane S. Knowles   
|    |  | Diane S. Knowles       
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | August 9, 2006         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Killbuck Bancshares,
Inc. and will be retained by Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 12(a).3

 

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 annualreport on Form 20-F/A of M-Systems Flash Disk Pioneers Limited (the "Company")for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Dov Moran, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of his knowledge andbelief: 

 

(1)  the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2)  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

By: /s/ DovMoran   

Dov Moran,

President andChief Executive Officer

M-Systems FlashDisk Pioneers Ltd. 

Dated November 10 th, 2003 

  

 

**____ 1 ____**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0320

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. 

ETTA KOEHLER DOUBEK,

Defendant and Appellant

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 26, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 18 2020

05/18/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0320
Exhibit 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 33-94026,  33-51234,  33-75028,  33-77684,  33-57628,  33-80581, 33-80583,
333-42775, 333-89325, 333-89329 and 333-89327) of Apria Healthcare Group Inc. on
Form S-8 of our report dated February 14, 2001,  appearing in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Apria  Healthcare  Group Inc.  for the year ended  December  31,
2000.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
March 21, 2001
#### STATE v. JOE SPRUILL.

(Filed 17 September, 1958.)

Appeal by defendant from *Stevens, J.,*March Term, 1958 of ChowaN.

The defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charging that he did unlawfully, wilfully, and feloniously receive certain stolen goods, to wit, a quantity of cigarettes of a value in excess of $100.00, knowing at the time that the cigarettes had been stolen.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and from the judgment imposed the defendant appeals, assigning error.

*Attorney General Seawell, Asst. Attorney General Bruton for the State.*

*Robert B. Lowry, McMullan, Aydlett ■& White for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s sole assignment of error is based on his exception to the refusal of the court below to sustain his motion for judgment as of nonsuit.

A review of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that it was sufficient to warrant its submission to the jury. Hence, the ruling of the court below is

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
Audited financial statements for fiscal year ended June 30, 2000 included in the
annual report on Form 10-KSB financial statement.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,287,385
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      499,277
<ALLOWANCES>                                        45,044
<INVENTORY>                                         16,898
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,175,089
<PP&E>                                           6,293,990
<DEPRECIATION>                                     878,632
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,999,885
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,792,546
<BONDS>                                          1,262,489
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                            228
<COMMON>                                             3,897
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,940,725
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,999,885
<SALES>                                            143,082
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,090,773
<CGS>                                               79,393
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,250,189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,178,607
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    38,003
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,076,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (16,175,462)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (16,175,462)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16,175,462)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (2.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (2.41)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Diane Knowles, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 
|-----------------
|                 
|By:              
|                 
|                 
|November 12, 2003



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit
      23**








**CONSENT
      OF MALONE & BAILEY, PC,**


**INDEPENDENT
      REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





Ener1,
      Inc.


Fort
      Lauderdale, Florida





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
      Ener1, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-148980, 333-112583 and 333-112581) of
      our
      report dated March 5, 2008 for Ener1, Inc.








MALONE
      & BAILEY, PC


www.malone-bailey.com


Houston,
      Texas





March
      10,
      2008
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 14575 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:11

- cr - 00121

- JES

- SPC

- 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,
versus STEPHEN KOZAK,
Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (November 19, 2013) Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and HILL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Donna Lee Elm, appointed counsel for Stephen Kozak in this direct criminal Case: 12-14575 Date Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 1 of 22 appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel = s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination o f the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel = s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Kozak’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED
.

Case: 12-14575 Date Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 2 of 2
#### Philip Quinn, Appellant, v County of Nassau et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for defamation, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), dated August 18, 1988, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the plaintiff failed to commence the action at bar within the applicable Statute of Limitations *(see,*CPLR 215; General Municipal Law § 50-i), the Supreme Court properly dismissed the cause of action in the complaint sounding in tort. The record reveals that the alleged wrongdoing—the dissemination of defamatory statements and the disclosure of a confidence in violation of the attorney-client privilege—could have occurred no later than September 1986, over 1 year and 90 days prior to the commencement of the action in January 1988. Further, and contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the alleged tortious conduct of which he complains cannot be construed as a "continuing” series of wrongs *(cf., Bloomfield Bldg. Wreckers v City of Troy,*41 NY2d 1102, 1103). The relevant claim accrued date does not change merely because continuing consequential damages are alleged *(see, e.g., New York Seven-Up Bottling Co. v Dow Chem. Co.,*96 AD2d 1051, 1052, *affd*61 NY2d 828; *Pekar v Town of Veteran,*65 AD2d 651; *cf., Sniper v City of Syracuse,*139 AD2d 93, 95).

The plaintiff’s cause of action premised upon an alleged breach of the collective bargaining agreement was also properly dismissed, since the plaintiff has neither exhausted his contractual remedies nor alleged that his union has failed to represent him fairly *(see, Matter of Board of Educ. v Ambach,*70 NY2d 501, 505, *cert denied sub nom. Margolin v Board of Educ.,*485 US 1034; *Berlyn v Board of Educ.,*55 NY2d 912; *see also, Vaca v Sipes,*386 US 171; *Neiman v Kingsborough Community Coll.,*146 AD2d 612, 613-614). Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-774]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


Industrial Funding of Federal Supply Schedule Program

agency: General Services Administration, Federal Supply Service.

Action: Notice; corrections.

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

summary: This notice makes corrections to a notice published for 
comment on December 27, 1994 (59 FR 66545).

for further information contact: Linda S. Hauenstein, FCO (703) 305-
5272.

supplementary information: A typographical error was made Under 
Paragraph A, Background, second paragraph, third sentence from end of 
paragraph. The amount shown that the contractor will invoice GSA should 
be $90.00, and not $90.90. Another similar typographical error was made 
in the example shown under Paragraph 7c. The amount shown in the 
sentence that reads, ``The contractor invoices GSA at the awarded 
contract price of $90.90'' should be $90.00.

    Dated: January 5, 1995.
Nicholas M. Economou,
Director, FSS Acquisition Management Center.
[FR Doc. 95-774 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-24-M
**Exhibit 99.1**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

May 7, 2008 

Board of Directors 

Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. 

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and its subsidiary as of March 31, 2008, and the related consolidatedstatements of income for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, and the consolidated statement of changes in stockholders’ equity for the three-month period ended March 31, 2008 and the consolidated statements of cashflows for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2008 and 2007. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. 

We conducted our review in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analyticalprocedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles U.S. generally accepted. 

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as ofDecember 31, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated February 29, 2008 we expressed anunqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. 

/s/ S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C. 

S.R. Snodgrass, A.C. 

626 North Fourth Street 

Steubenville, Ohio 43952-1982 

Phone: 740-282-2771 

Facsimile: 740-282-1606
#### MARY SCHWARBERG, ELIZABETH SCHWARBERG and ELIZABETH M. PETTES v. E. M. HOWARD, V. L. COLE and UNITED STATES LAND COMPANY.

(Filed 24 April, 1929.)

Appeal and Error E a — Complaint is necessary part of record proper.

Under Rule 19, section 1, the complaint is a necessary part of the record proper, and when it is not contained therein, the case on appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal by defendants from *Stacie, J.,*at September Term, 1928, of Moose.

*J ohnson & J ohnson for plaintiffs.*

*J. A. D. Parrish and, L. B. Clegg for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.

It appears from the statement of case on appeal, which constitutes the entire record sent to this Court, that summons in an action entitled as above, was issued out of the Superior Court of Moore County 29 March, 1928, and that thereafter, 25 July, 1928, two of the defendants, E. M. Howard and United States. Land Company, through their counsel, entered a special appearance and move, first, that the action be dismissed for want of proper service as to them; and, second, that the action be moved to Carteret County for trial, if not dismissed. Both motions were overruled and the defendants appeal. The complaint is not sent up as a part of the record as required in all cases, and we are not able to determine the nature and character of the action.

It is provided by Rule 19, sec. 1, of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court that “the pleadings on which the case is tried, the issues and the judgment appealed from shall be a part of the transcript in all cases.”. 192 N. C., p. 847. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed for *127failure to comply with the rules, or to send up the necessary parts of the record proper. *S. v. McDraughon,*168 N. C., 131, 83 S. E., 181; *Cressler v. Asheville,*138 N. C., 482, 51 S. E., 53; *Sigman v. R. R.,*135 N. C., 181, 47 S. E., 420; *Jones v. Hoggard,*107 N. C., 349, 12 S. E., 286.

As to whether the defendants did not waive their special appearance and enter a general appearance by moving for change of venue as a matter of right, see *Motor Co. v. Reaves,*184 N. C., 260, 114 S. E., 175.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Glenn Virgil PERKINS, Appellant.

No. WD 40628.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 8, 1988.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 27, 1988.

Jeffrey Rosanswank, Public Defender, Craig Johnston, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, C.J., and MANFORD and BERREY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from conviction of unlawful use of a weapon, section 571.030.1(4), RSMo 1986, and from sentence of three years imprisonment.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25.(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,977,434
<SECURITIES>                                   109,543
<RECEIVABLES>                                  232,698
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,429,537
<PP&E>                                         393,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                 172,136
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,829,488
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          384,847
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       146,169
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,537,409
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,829,488
<SALES>                                      2,669,101
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               883,175
<CGS>                                          830,007
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  830,007
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 74,631
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             74,631
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    74,631
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>