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



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                        -------------------------------



THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS
SAMSONITE CORPORATION:



We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-05467, 333-19281, and 333-20775) of Samsonite Corporation of our
report dated March 18, 1997 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Samsonite Corporation and subsidiaries as of January 31, 1997 and 1996, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended January 31, 1997,
which report appears in the January 31, 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Samsonite Corporation.



                                                      KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Denver, Colorado
April 10, 1997
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7118

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL ANTHONY KENNEDY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:05-cr-00815-HMH) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 26, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Kennedy, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Kennedy seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kennedy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3858

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent, for unemployment

compensation purposes, service performed by a person committed to

a penal institution from being treated as employment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 18, 1996

Mr. THOMAS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent,

for unemployment compensation purposes, service performed by a person committed to a penal institution

from being treated as employment.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SERVICES PER4 FORMED BY INMATES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 3306 of

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining employment)

7 is amended—
2

•HR 3858 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph

2 (19),

3 (2) by striking the period at the end of para4 graph (20) and inserting ‘‘; or’’, and

5 (3) by adding at the end the following new

6 paragraph:

7 ‘‘(21) service performed by a person committed

8 to a penal institution.’’

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

10 this section shall apply with respect to service performed

11 on or after March 26, 1996.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the March
31, 1997 financial statements contained in this Form 10-K as is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      10,471,918
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,447,085
<ALLOWANCES>                                   751,378
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      98,534,409
<DEPRECIATION>                              28,767,392
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             542,339,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    311,786,596
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       87,820,734
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   275,769,414
<OTHER-SE>                               (161,079,224)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               542,339,515
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            36,326,816
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,966,463
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            17,600,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,968,726
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          40,805,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (97,298,207)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (15,000,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (82,298,207)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (82,298,207)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.01
 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 1st Home
Buy & Sell Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Martha Jimenez, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.
   /s/ Martha
Jimenez
 Martha
Jimenez
 Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
  Dated:
February 18, 2009
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written 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.
 
  1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration 

Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on July 3, 2008, Cambridge Isotope Lab, 50 Frontage Road, Andover, Massachusetts 01810, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of Morphine (9300), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II. 

The company plans to utilize small quantities of the listed controlled substance in the preparation of analytical standards. 

Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substance, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). 

Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than October 6, 2008. 

Dated: July 29, 2008. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator,  Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. E8-17962 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
V

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3913

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel WESTERN ATLANTIC.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 29, 1996

Mr. BURTON of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

WESTERN ATLANTIC.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of

5 June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106

6 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transpor7 tation may issue a certificate of documentation with ap8 propriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise
2

•H 3913 IH

1 trade for the vessel WESTERN ATLANTIC (Panama

2 identification number 10484–80–CEO).

Æ
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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Jameson Inns, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Thomas W. KitchinThomas W. Kitchin,Chief Executive OfficerMay 1, 2006/s/ Craig R. KitchinCraig R. Kitchin,President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 1, 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMIE A. ROYSTON,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 09-12132

Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

-v- Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

COMMISSIONER

OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE

JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed the instant action seeking Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. This

matter is currently before the Court on Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s Report and

Recommendation (Docket #33), wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion

for Summary Judgment be granted, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied, and that

the case be remanded to Defendant for further proceedings, as set forth in the Report and

Recommendation. Defendant timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

After a thorough review of the court file, the parties’ respective motions, the Report and

Recommendation, and the Defendant’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court

will adopt the Report and Recommendation and enter it as the findings and conclusions of this

Court. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is

DENIED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. In addition, the Court

hereby REMANDS this matter to Defendant for the purposes of: (1) discussing Dr. Seilish Babu’s

September 2007 findings and stating the reasons for either rejecting or accepting Dr. Babu’s opinion;

and (2) amending the hypothetical question to the Vocational Expert to reflect Plaintiff’s postural

and environmental limitations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 24, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on May 24, 2010.

S/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290
#### Terry Lynn FORD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. A14-89-082-CR, A14-89-083-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

Nov. 30, 1989.

Gerald B. Scheve, Houston, for appellant.

Linda A. West, Houston, for appellee.

Before J. CURTISS BROWN, C.J., and JUNELL and DRAUGHN, JJ.

OPINION

DRAUGHN, Justice.

Appellant Terry Lynn Ford was charged in separate indictments for (1) burglary of a motor vehicle, and (2) aggravated assault on a peace officer. The causes were joined, and appellant and his co-defendant were tried together. A jury found appellant guilty of both offenses, he pled true to an enhancement paragraph, and the jury assessed punishment at twenty (20) years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections and a fine of $10,000.00 per each offense. In his sole point of error, appellant cites Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 3.02(b) (Vernon 1974) as requiring written notice thirty (30) days prior to trial when the State elects to join offenses which are based on separate charging instruments. We reverse.

Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 3.02 (1974) provides in pertinent part:

> (a) A defendant may be prosecuted in a single criminal action for all offenses arising out of the same criminal episode.

> (b) When a single criminal action is based on more than one charging instrument within the jurisdiction of the trial court, the state shall file written notice of the action not less than 30 days prior to the trial.

Further, Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 3.04(a) (Vernon 1974) states:

> Whenever two or more offenses have been consolidated for trial under Section 3.02 of this code, the defendant shall have a right to a severance of the offense.

The record reflects the following pretrial discussion:

> [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I am asking that the State elect on which they want to go on, whether aggravated assault on a police officer or burglary of a motor vehicle.

> [PROSECUTOR]: I intend to go on both cases on both defendants. It’s all one chain of facts. The aggravated assault *912occurred at the location or just down the street from the location where it’s alleged to have occurred, where the burglary of a motor vehicle is alleged to have occurred, and I intend to go on both cases.

> [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I would ask for a ruling?

> THE COURT: He elected to go on all of them.

> [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: We object to that.

> THE COURT: Overruled.

We find that appellant’s objection was sufficient to apprise the judge that he did not desire to have the offenses joined in a common trial. *See Rice v. State,*646 S.W.2d 638, 635 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, pet. ref’d). No express request for a severance was made, but severance is the only remedy for an unlawful consolidation. *Id.*Section 3.04(a) of the penal code is a mandatory statute, thus the trial court must grant the request. Failure to do so when the court is sufficiently apprised of the defendant’s objection results in reversi ble error. *See Waythe v. State,*533 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Tex. Crim.App.1976); *Overton v. State,*552 S.W.2d 849, 850 (Tex. Crim.App.1977).

We reverse and remand.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-20187

D-1 RODRICK WILSON,

Defendant.

/

ORDER ADOPTING PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND DECLARING

DEFENDANT COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL

On February 11, 2010, the court conducted a hearing on the record to determine

whether Defendant Rodrick Wilson is competent to stand trial in the above-captioned

case. Defendant had been examined by a licensed psychologist, Charles R. Clark,

Ph.D. Clark submitted an eleven-page psychological evaluation of Defendant, which

the court finds to be thorough and dispositive, and the receipt of which both counsel

stipulated. Counsel for Defense agreed with Dr. Clark’s evaluation. The court finds that

Defendant Wilson is able to understand the nature and consequences of the

proceedings against him, and that he is able to assist properly in his defense. 18 U.S.C.

§ 4241.

IT IS ORDERED that Clark’s Psychological Evaluation is adopted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is DECLARED competent to stand

trial.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 12, 2010

Case 2:09-cr-20187-RHC-DAS ECF No. 39, PageID.78 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 2
February 12, 2010:S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-20187.Wilson.Order.Finding.Defendant.Wilson.Competent.wpd

2

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

on this date, February 12, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

Case 2:09-cr-20187-RHC-DAS ECF No. 39, PageID.79 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Andre BUCKINGHAM, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 67486.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 13, 1996.

*870Raymond J. Capelovitch, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Christine M. Kocot, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury for one count of first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced him as a prior offender to a prison term of twenty years. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error 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 pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM HELMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN GUEST, KATHLEEN SOLOMON,

COUNTY OF OSCODA, KEVIN GRACE,

DAVE STENZEL, ED POKRZYWNICKI,

and RONALD NIGHTINGALE,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-cv-11697

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

ORDER

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on_November 17, 2010.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

On September 7, 2010, Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub issued an Opinion and

Order [Dkt. #77] granting in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. In

that Order, Magistrate Judge Majzoub granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint with

respect to his claims against several Defendants in their individual capacities, including

Michigan State Police Detective Ronald Nightingale. On September 16, 2010, Plaintiff

filed a document entitled “Objection and Appeal of Magistrate’s Order and Opinion,”

agreeing with the Order, but seeking clarification as to whether he could maintain a claim

for damages against Detective Nightingale in his individual capacity. The Court received
2

no response to this “Objection.”

Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s Order noted that a claim for damages against Detective

Nightingale in his official capacity would be futile because he is a state official. See

Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, Revenue Div., 987 F.2d 376, 381 (6th Cir. 1993). The

Order, however, specifically permitted Plaintiff to assert individual capacity claims against

Detective Nightingale, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint asserts such claims, including a

claim for damages. The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiff’s objection is moot.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection and Appeal of Magistrate’s Order and

Opinion is REJECTED AS MOOT.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Adam Purnell 

William Helmer, #140677

Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility

1727 West Bluewater Highway

Ionia, MI 48846
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003



In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Jameson Inns, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    THOMAS W. KITCHINThomas W. Kitchin, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer April 29, 2004/S/    CRAIG R.
KITCHINCraig R. Kitchin President and Chief Financial Officer April 29, 2004


















A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required Section 906, has been provided to Jameson Inns, Inc. and will be retained by Jameson Inns, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.