alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. listed below of our report dated February
22, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 2001.

     -  Registration Statement No. 333-45323 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
        Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan

     -  Registration Statement No. 333-41921 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
        Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. Amended and Restated Employee Stock
        Purchase Plan

     -  Registration Statement No. 333-78005 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
        Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. Management Incentive Program

     -  Registration Statement No. 333-51851 on Form S-3 pertaining to the Post
        effective Amendment No. 3 on Form S-3 to Form S-1 Registration Statement

     -  Registration Statement No. 333-58072 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
        Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. Amended and Restated Employee Stock
        Purchase Plan


                                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 28, 2002
Exhibit 23

[Letterhead of BDO Seidman, LLP]

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

ITC^DeltaCom, Inc.

Huntsville, Ala.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-101007 and 333-111329 and 333-139202) of
ITC^DeltaCom, Inc. of our report dated March 22, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                    
|--------------------
|/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
|                    
|Atlanta, Georgia    
|March 28, 2007
Order entered August 1 3 , 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 14

- 00431

- CV

HOSSAIN BAGHVARDANI, Appellant

V.

CARMEN WILSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 06562



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s August 11, 2014 motion to extend time to file appellant’s

brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED and appellant’s brief received on August 11, 2014 is

ORDERED filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
2:09-mj-30142-DUTY Doc # 8 Filed 04/20/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 15
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1798

DOROTHY HARRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SPRINT, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

EARL R. STEVENSON,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-01-1792-A)

Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 19, 2002

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dorothy Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Blake Matthew Guy, HUNTON &

WILLIAMS, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Dorothy Harris appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Sprint, Inc., on

her claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp.

2002). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Harris v. Sprint, Inc., No. CA-01-1792-A (E.D. Va. filed June 19,

2002; entered June 20, 2002). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2009 of UTEC, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.





Very truly yours,





/s/ Fortunato VillamagnaFortunato VillamagnaChief Executive OfficerDated: December 14, 2009/s/ Howard BouchHoward BouchChief Financial OfficerDated: December 14, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition at December 31, 1998 Audited
and the Consolidated Statement of Income for the twelve months ended December
31, 1998 Audited and is quualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,828
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,828
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,828
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,869
<OTHER-SE>                                    (38,541)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,828
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,263
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,263)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 159-4 Filed 06/21/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3413
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 159-4 Filed 06/21/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3414
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Charles LAY, Defendant/Appellant. Charles LAY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 61160, 63756.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 7, 1993.

John Klosterman, Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Stacy L. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions, by a jury, of second degree assault, § 565.060, RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of seven years’ imprisonment on the assault count and ten years’ imprisonment on the armed criminal action count. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error on direct appeal are without merit. An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rule 30.25(b).

The judgment of the motion court denying defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00058-CV

RUBEN MARTINEZ 

AND MTZ TRANSPORT CO.,

Appellants

v.

CHARLES CORONADO,

Appellee

From the 21st District Court

Burleson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 29500

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, MTZ Transport Company and Ruben Martinez, filed a motion to 

dismiss their appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellants state that the parties have 

resolved all their issues and no longer wish to pursue the appeal. Dismissal of this 

appeal would not prevent a party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be 

entitled. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
Martinez and MTZ Transport Co. v. Coronado Page 2

JOHN E. NEILL 

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed July 17, 2019

[CV06]
#### Theodore W. GRAVES, Appellant, v. Carolyn L. GRAVES, Respondent.

No. WD 49097.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 24, 1995.

*784Gary M. Steinman, Kansas City, for appellant.

Connie Boysen Stallings, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Theodore W. Graves appeals portions of a decree dissolving his twenty-nine year marriage to Carolyn L. Graves. He claims the trial court erred in imputing income to him and departing from the amount of child support presumed under Rule 88.01 and Form 14, in awarding maintenance to Carolyn in the sum of $300 per month for five years, in ordering him to designate Carolyn as the beneficiary on some of his life insurance policies, and in dividing the marital property.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-05873, 33-76120, 333-05959, 33-76122, 333-05957, 333-18935, 333-18883,
333-18885, 333-30841, 333-30211, 333-31901, 333-31895, 333-43757, 333-60365,
333-91995, 333-84751, 333-40914 and 333-48116 on Forms S-8 and Registration
Statement Nos. 33-94532, 333-09109, 333-50775 and 333-50777 on Forms S-3 of
Spherion Corporation (formerly Interim Services Inc.) of our report dated
February 8, 2001, except for paragraph 5 of the Commitments and Contingencies
footnote, as to which the date is March 7, 2001, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Spherion Corporation for the year ended December 29,
2000.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 16, 2001
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
James L. Lambert, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Dot Hill Systems Corp.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 15, 2004

|/s/JAMES L. LAMBERTJames L. Lambert Chief Executive
Officer |  |  |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 

---

QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRAINTECH, INC., a Nevada corporation, 

 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

v. 

ADIL SHAFI, an individual, 

 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, 

v. 

FREDERICK WEIDINGER, an individual, 

 Counterclaim Defendant. 

_____________________________________/ 

Case No. 09-10454 

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan 

LETTERS ROGATORY

 The People of the United States of America, to the Appropriate Judicial Authority 

in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 

GREETINGS: 

WHEREAS, a certain action is pending in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Michigan, in which BRAINTECH is Plaintiff1

 and Adil Shafi, a resident 

 

1

 Braintech Inc., was dismissed from the case by order dated June 3, 2010, but remains a party to the 

case on the counterclaim of Defendant Shafi. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 53 Filed 10/13/10 Page 1 of 3
2

of the State of Michigan, is a Defendant, and Frederick Weidinger is an additional party 

counterclaim defendant and a resident of the State of Virginia. 

 WHEREAS, it having been made known to us that the testimony of the following 

witness of the Province of British Columbia, Canada, to-wit: Edward White, 416-5 K de 

K Court, New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada V3M 6B6, is necessary for use at 

the trial of the issues in said action and without the testimony of whom justice cannot be 

completely done between the parties; 

WE, THEREFORE REQUEST that in furtherance of justice, you will cause said 

witnesses, to appear before the person authorized to administer oaths at the offices of 

Ellis Business Lawyers, #440-319 West Pender Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 1T3, or some 

other place as agreed by the parties, at a precise time and place by you to be fixed, and 

there to answer, under oaths or affirmations, the questions, document requests and 

interrogatories to be propounded by counsel for the respective parties and said 

questions and answers to be committed and reduced to writing, and thereafter duly 

signed by said witnesses under oath or affirmation, and thereafter return said deposition 

to us under cover, duly closed and sealed, postage prepaid, together with these 

presents, addressed to David J. Weaver, Clerk of the Court, United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Michigan, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette 

Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America 48226, with copies to counsel 

for the parties. 

And we shall be ready and willing to do the same for you in a similar case when 

required. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 53 Filed 10/13/10 Page 2 of 3
3

WITNESS the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts, United States District Court Judge 

for the Eastern District of Michigan, United States of America, on this _13th__ day of 

October, 2010. 

S/Victoria A. Roberts___________ 

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 53 Filed 10/13/10 Page 3 of 3
---

|CERTIFICATION OF                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
      OFFICER
|PURSUANT TO                                                      
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                                          
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                                           
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002                    

I, Richard W. Donaldson, the Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer of Pengram Corporation (the Company), hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2011, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                           

| | By:    | /s/ Richard W. Donaldson       
| | ------ | -------------------------------
| |        |                                
| | Name:  | RICHARD W. DONALDSON           
| |        |                                
| | Title: | Principal Executive Officer and
| |        | Principal Financial Officer    
| |        |                                
| | Date:  | April 19, 2011                 
| |        |                                

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
#### Michael D. COOLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 50773.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 5, 1995.

Rebecca L. Kurz, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMART, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BERREY, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an eviden-tiary hearing.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert NAVE, Appellant.

Nos. WD 48669, WD 50360.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 20, 1996.

Susan L. Hogan, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Blegan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ELLIS, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert Nave appeals his conviction of second degree murder and armed criminal action and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. He accuses the trial court of erroneously denying his motion for a psychiatric examination and his trial counsel of incompetent representation for not filing a timely notice of intent to rely on a mental disease as a defense. We do not find merit in these claims and affirm the judgments of conviction and denial of post-conviction relief. Because we do not discern any *795jurisprudential value in publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). We have issued to the parties a memorandum explaining the basis for our order.
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 Quarterly Report of VB Trade, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Avi Friedman,
principal 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, 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 the
          operation of the Company.


                                   /s/ Avi Friedman
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Avi Friedman
                                   Principal Executive Officer
                                   August 13, 2007

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification
shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether
made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by ss.906 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.