alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF EXPERTS AND COUNSEL
<PAGE>
 
              [LETTERHEAD OF KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP APPEARS HERE]


                         Independent Auditors' Consent
                         -----------------------------



The Board of Directors
Northwest Bancorp, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 
333-46651) on Form S-8 of Northwest Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated 
August 14, 1998, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition 
of Northwest Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 1998 and 1997, and 
the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash 
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 1998, which 
report appears in the June 30, 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Northwest 
Bancorp, Inc.


                                       /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
September 28, 1998
exh10-2f.htm


    
      EXHIBIT
10.2(f)

      


      AMENDMENT
NO. 1

      TO
THE

      CENTURYTEL,
INC.

      2005
DIRECTORS STOCK PLAN

      


      WHEREAS,
CenturyTel, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the CenturyTel, Inc. 2005 Directors
Stock Plan (the “Plan”);

      


      WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 11.10 of the Plan, the Plan may be amended by the Board of
Directors of the Company (the “Board”) at any time; and

      


      WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to
amend the Plan as set forth below.

      


      NOW,
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

      


      1.        Section
11.12(b) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated, in its entirety, as
follows:

      


      (b)  Upon
a Change of Control, all outstanding Incentives granted pursuant to this Plan
shall automatically become fully vested and exercisable, all restrictions or
limitations on any Incentives shall automatically lapse and, unless otherwise
provided in the Incentive Agreement, all performance criteria and other
conditions relating to the payment of Incentives shall be deemed to be achieved
at the target level without the necessity of action by any person.

      


      2.        Except
as herein expressly amended, the Plan shall continue in full force and
effect.

      


                     
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this amendment on this 24th day of
October, 2008.

    

     

     

    
      	 
      	
              CENTURYTEL,
      INC.

            
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
              By:/s/  R.
      Stewart Ewing, Jr.         
      

            
	 
      	
                   R.
      Stewart Ewing, Jr.

            
	 
      	
                   Executive
      Vice President and

            
	 
      	
                   Chief
      Financial Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Richard BOLDEN, Defendant/Appellant. Richard BOLDEN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 65778, 67387.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 14, 1995.

Lew Kollias, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL, J., and RONNIE L. WHITE, Special Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction by a jury for distribution of a controlled substance within one thousand feet of real property comprising a school. § 195.214, RSMo Supp.1992. He was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent offender to a prison term of twenty years. We affirm.

Defendant addresses no points on appeal to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief; that appeal is considered abandoned. *See State v. Nelson,*818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (MoApp.1991). We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error on direct appeal to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 120 (Thursday, June 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15760]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 35 and 385

[Docket Nos. RM95-8-002 and RM94-7-003]


Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of 
Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities

Issued: June 14, 1996.
AGENCY: Federal; Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; notice of filing of motion for extension of time.

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

SUMMARY: On June 12, 1996, the American Public Power Association, the 
Electricity Consumers Resource Council, the National Rural Electric 
Cooperative Association and the Ohio Consumers' Counsel (Joint Movants) 
filed a joint request to extend the comment period for compliance 
filings made under this final rule (Order No. 888, 61 FR 21540, May 10, 
1996) from the 15-day comment period established in the final rule to a 
45-day comment period. Joint Movants also asked that the Commission 
require that the compliance tariff filings, as well as redline versions 
of those filings, be made in electronic format and posted on the FERC 
Bulletin Board. Copies of the motion are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection.

DATES: Any person desiring to respond to the motion should file an 
answer on or before June 21, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send answers to: Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David D. Withnell, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, Office of the General Counsel, 888 First St., 
NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 208-2063.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15760 Filed 6-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16344]


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


OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee Cancellation of Open 
Committee Meeting

    According to the provisions of section 10 of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given that the meeting 
of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee scheduled for 
Thursday, June 27, 1996, has been canceled.
    Information on other meetings can be obtained by contacting the 
Committee's Secretary, Office of Personnel Management, Federal 
Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, Room 5559, 1900 E Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-1500.

    Dated: June 17, 1996.
Phyllis G. Foley,
Chair, Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 96-16344 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16616]


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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

University of California, Los Alamos; Notice of Decision on 
Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 96-008. Applicant: University of California, Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, CA 87545. Instrument: Mass 
Spectrometer, Model Plasma Trace 2. Manufacturer: Fisons Instruments, 
United Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 61 FR 8042, March 1, 1996.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as it is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the 
United States. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides a magnet sector 
analyzer with sub-ppt detection limits for Be, Co, In, Bi and U with 
abundance sensitivities of 5 x 10<SUP>-7 for Zn and 1 x 10<SUP>-6 for U 
at resolution 400. These capabilities are pertinent to the applicant's 
intended purposes and we know of no other instrument or apparatus of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being 
manufactured in the United States.
Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 96-16616 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
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





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned officers of Pacific Copper Corp. (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended April 30, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies
with the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Dated:
June 11, 2009





/s/
      Andrew BrodkeyAndrew
      BrodkeyChief
      Executive OfficerPacific
      Copper Corp.





Dated:
June 11, 2009





/s/ Rakesh MalhotraRakesh
      Malhotra, C.A.,Chief
      Financial OfficerPacific Copper
Corp.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Pacific Copper Corp. and will be retained by Pacific Copper Corp. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Natasha WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 65610.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

May 16, 1995.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after a jury convicted her of two counts of involuntary manslaughter, § 565.024, RSMo 1994. We affirm.

We find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion and affirm by summary order. Rule 30.25(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 105 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 27128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13531]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

International Standards on the Transport of Dangerous Goods; 
Public Meeting

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), Department 
of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise interested persons that RSPA will 
conduct a public meeting to prepare for the twelfth session of the 
United Nation's Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous 
Goods (UNSCOE).

DATES: June 26, 1996 at 9:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Room 8236-8240, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frits Wybenga, International Standards Coordinator, Office of Hazardous 
Materials Safety, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590; 
(202) 366-0656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting will be held in preparation for 
the twelfth session of the UNSCOE held from July 1 to 12, 1996, in 
Geneva, Switzerland. During this public meeting, U.S. positions on 
proposals submitted to the twelfth session of the UNSCOE will be 
discussed. Topics to be covered include matters related to 
international harmonization of classification criteria, restructuring 
the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods into a model 
rule, criteria for environmentally hazardous substances, review of 
intermodal portable tank requirements, review of the requirements 
applicable to small quantities of hazardous materials in transport 
(limited quantities), classification of individual substances, 
requirements for bulk and non-bulk packagings used to transport 
hazardous materials, and infectious substances.
    The public is invited to attend without prior notification.

Documents

    Copies of documents submitted to the twelfth session of the UNSCOE 
may be obtained from RSPA. A listing of these documents is available on 
the Hazardous Materials Information Exchange (HMIX), RSPA's computer 
bulletin board. Documents may be ordered by contacting RSPA's Dockets 
Unit (202-366-5046). For more information on the use of the HMIX 
system, contact the HMIX information center; 1-800-PLANFOR (752-6367); 
in Illinois, 1-800-367-9592; Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 
p.m. Central time. The HMIX may also be accessed via the Internet at 
hmix.dis.anl.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 23, 1996.
Alan I. Roberts,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 96-13531 Filed 5-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-M
Exhibit 32.2

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 Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2011 (the Report), I, Vincent
McNelley, Acting Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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 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.



|               |  |  |  |                                              
|-------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------
|April 15, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Vincent McNelley                         
|               |  |  |  | Vincent McNelley                             
|               |  |  |  | Acting Principal Financial Officer and Acting
|               |  |  |  | Principal Accounting Officer
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 Amended Annual Report of Drucker, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending  December 31, 2002 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Ronald Xiuru Xie,
Chief Executive  Officer,  Acting Chief  Financial  Officer and President of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 USC  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief.


        (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.


                                    DRUCKER, INC.

                                    /s/Ronald Xiuru Xie
                                    --------------------------------
                                    Ronald Xiuru Xie, Chief Executive Officer
                                    Acting Chief Financial Officer and President

Dated:  September 11, 2003
#### Alfred ANDERSON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 62594.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Aug. 10, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 8, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Oct. 26, 1993.

*719Dave Hemingway, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., F. Martin Dajani, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for defendant-respondent.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.-035 motion for post-conviction relief.

On March 18, 1991, pursuant to a plea bargain, movant pled guilty to the charges of sale of cocaine and felony stealing. In accordance with the agreement, the State recommended ten years on the sale charge and seven years for stealing, to run concurrently. In addition, the State agreed to delete the allegations that movant was a prior and persistent drug offender and that he was a Class X offender.

On April 26, 1991, Judge Charles Shaw sentenced movant to nine years on the sale charge and seven years concurrently for stealing. He was not sentenced as either a prior or persistent drug offender, or as a Class X offender.

On appeal, movant alleges the motion court judge should have disqualified himself, even though he was not requested to do so. Mov-ant further alleges that he was not advised the range of punishment, and that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are inadequate.

We have reviewed these allegations, the transcripts of movant’s pleas of guilty and sentencing, the transcript of his Rule 24.035 hearing, and the findings and conclusions of the motion court. Those findings of fact and conclusions of law are fully supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. No precedential value would be served by an opinion.

The motion court’s judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Geostar Mineral Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Andriy Protskiv, Chief Executive Officer and 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:

| | (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| |    

Dated this 19th day of March, 2007.

ANDRIY PROTSKIVAndriy ProtskivChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


































---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEPHEN HALL,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MICHAEL WARREN, et al,

Defendant(s).

/

CASE NO. 08-14709

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET TRIAL DATE

Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion to Set Trial Date. Plaintiff’s counsel seeks to

have the trial in this matter scheduled during the first two weeks of February 2013.

Defendants do not object. The Court being fully advised in the premises,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is granted. A jury trial in this matter is set for

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2012 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on

this date, October 15, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:08-cv-14709-AC-SDP Doc # 73 Filed 10/15/12 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 672
#### Don HAGLER, Petitioner, v. The PROCTOR & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 94r-0746.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 6, 1994.

Rehearing Overruled Nov. 3, 1994.

Neal S. Manne and Jeffrey S. Thompson, Houston, for petitioner.

Louis P. Bickel, Kathleen M. LaValle, P. Michael Jung, Dallas and E. Edward Bruce, Washington, DC, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Don Hagler, a forty year employee of Procter & Gamble (P *&*G), was stopped taking a telephone he believed he owned from the P & G Dallas plant. After an investigation into the incident, the managers of the Dallas P & G plant voted to terminate Hagler for violating P & G’s rule prohibiting theft of company property. The plant manager posted a notice of Hagler’s termination for theft on bulletin boards throughout the plant. The notice remained posted for eight days. Hagler sued Procter & Gamble for libel. The trial court concluded that P & G was entitled to claim qualified privilege in this case, and that finding is not challenged on appeal. The trial court submitted questions regarding the notice’s falsity and P & G’s actual malice in posting the notice to the jury, which found in favor of Hagler. The court of appeals, however, determined that the jury’s finding that P & G acted with actual malice is not supported by factually sufficient evidence. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial. 880 S.W.2d 123.

This court has set forth the legal standard for proving actual malice in a defamation case, stating that actual malice is a term of art which is separate and distinct from traditional common law malice. Actual malice in the defamation context does not include ill will, spite or evil motive, but rather requires “sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion *772that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” *Casso v. Brand,*776 S.W.2d 661, 558 (Tex.1989). Actual malice is not ill will; it is the making of a statement with knowledge that it is false, or with reckless disregard of whether it is true. *Carr v. Brasher,*776 S.W.2d 567, 571 (Tex.1989). In denying the application for writ of error, a majority of the court disapproves the analysis of the court of appeals embodied in the following language:

> [Ajctual malice generally requires a higher level of culpability than mere ill will or animosity. Here the evidence does not rise to the level of ill will, much less to a higher level of culpability.

880 S.W.2d at 128-29. The application for writ of error is denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference, in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-87186, 333-88725, 333-39914, 333-42690, 333-46662, 333-49926 and 333-54250) of Interwoven, Inc., of our report dated January 18, 2001 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Annual Report onForm 10-K. 

 

/s/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

March 25, 2003