alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 14.4**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-129945,333-121164, 333-88854,333-100522, 333-51446, 333-09368, and 333-1796 on Form F-4, S-8, F-3, S-8, S-8,S-8, and S-8, respectively, and in Post-Effective Amendment No. 7 toRegistration Statement No. 333-117110 on Form F-3, and in Post-EffectiveAmendment No. 2 on Form S-8 to Form F-4 to Registration Statement No. 333-15409)of our report dated February 1, 2006, with respect to the financial statementsof Harborside at Atlantis Joint Venture Limited, included in the Annual Report(Form 20-F) of Kerzner International Limited for the year ended December 31,2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 
|   | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP     |   |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   | Certified Public  Accountants |
|   |                          |
|   |                          |
|   | Orlando, Florida              |
|   | March 27, 2006                |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACTI, Alexios Komninos, Chief Financial Officer of Seanergy Maritime Corp., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Seanergy Maritime Corp.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors:     a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 7, 2007  /s/ Alexios Komninos  Alexios Komninos   (Principal Financial Officer)  
21
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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. ss. 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Team Nation Holdings
Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

          (i) the accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal
     quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the
     requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
     Act of 1934; and

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


Date: May 20, 2009                        By:    /s/ Dennis R. Duffy
                                                 -------------------
                                                 Dennis R. Duffy
                                                 Chief Executive Officer



This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


<PAGE>
**Exhibit 32.1****DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORP.****OFFICERS’ CERTIFICATE**     Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the UnitedStates Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Dana W. Kammersgard, the Chief Executive Officer of Dot Hill SystemsCorp. (the “Company”), and Preston S. Romm, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each herebycertifies that, to the best of his knowledge:     1. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act; and     2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by thePeriodic Report.**InWitness whereof,**the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 16th day ofMarch, 2006.       /s/ Dana W. Kammersgard   /s/ Preston S. Romm         Dana W. Kammersgard   Preston S. Romm  *Chief Executive Officer*   *Chief Financial Officer*       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “SEC”) or its staff upon request.     This certification “accompanies” the Periodic Report, is not deemed filed with the SEC and isnot to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the PeriodicReport), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Exhibit 14.3  Consent of Independent Auditors   We consent to the incorporation by reference
in the following Registration Statements:  (i)
  
  Form F-3 No. 333-88854(ii)
  
  Form S-8 No. 333-100522(iii)
  
  Form S-8 No. 333-51446(iv)
  
  Form F-4 No. 333-15409(v)
  
  Form S-8 No. 333-9368(vi)
  
  Form S-8 No. 333-1796
   of Kerzner International Limited of our
report dated February 1, 2002, except for Note 9 as to which the date is
January 31, 2003 on the financial statements of Resorts International Hotel,
Inc. for the period from January 1, 2001 to April 24, 2001 appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 20-F of Kerzner International Limited for the year ended
December 31, 2003.   /s/ Ernst & Young LLPPhiladelphia, PennsylvaniaMarch 29, 2004
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment (this
“Amendment”) dated April 17, 2014 amends the Employment Agreement, dated February 6, 2012 (the “Employment Agreement”),
by and between Synthetic Biologics, Inc. (the “Corporation”) and C. Evan Ballantyne (“Executive”). Capitalized
terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings assigned in the Employment Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, Executive
was retained under the Employment Agreement by the Corporation to serve as its Chief Financial Officer; and


 


WHEREAS, in
recognition of Executive’s extraordinary effort and performance, the Corporation desires to amend the Employment Agreement
to increase Executive’s base salary as herein provided.


 


NOW THEREFORE,
for the mutual promises contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:


 


1.Section 3(a)(i) of the Employment
Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the amount of annual base salary therein provided and replacing it with “Three Hundred
Thirty Five Thousand Dollars ($335,000).


 


2. All other terms
of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The Employment Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, constitutes
the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof.


 


3. This Amendment may be executed
in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but both of which together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.


 
	 	SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICS, INC.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Jeffrey Riley
	 	Name:	Jeffrey Riley
	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 
	 	/s/ C. Evan Ballantyne
	 	C. EVAN BALLANTYNE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6528

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOESTILLES DEMARCO BROOKS, a/k/a Rock,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-6738

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOESTILLES DEMARCO BROOKS, a/k/a Rock,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, 

District Judge. (3:02-cr-00092-1; 3:05-cv-00163)

Submitted: October 27, 2011 Decided: November 3, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joestilles DeMarco Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Miller A. Bushong, 

III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Joestilles DeMarco 

Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 

Brooks’ petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) and

denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

These orders are not appealable absent a certificate 

of appealability issued by the district court or a circuit 

judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Brooks has not made the requisite showing as to either 

order. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and 

dismiss these appeals. We dispense with oral argument because 
4

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this Court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Decemb er 11, 2001 Session SUSAN KLAMON

WHITON (LEEDOM) v. ALAN LOUIS WHITON Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County No. 88-109-I Ben W. Hooper, III, Judge

FILED JULY 18, 2002 No. E2000-00467-COA-R3-CV

DISSENTING OP

INION
The majority relied upon Gallaher v. Elam , E2000-02719-COA-R3-CV (January 29, 2002) to hold that Tenn. Com. R. & Regs. 1240-2-4-.03(4) is unconstitution al and vo id. I respec tfully dissentfrom this holding and herein rely on my Dissenting Opinion filed in the Gallaher case. I otherwise concur with the majority.

_________________________ H ERSCHEL P ICKENS F RANKS , J.
#### Henry C. Brown, Respondent, v. Hugh McGuckin, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
#### Randy SHAW, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 69079.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 3, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 29, 1996.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Kurt U. Schaefer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 23 (a)

                               Consent of KPMG LLP


        The Board of Directors
        Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc.


        We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
        Nos. 33-80285 and 33-80287 on Form S-8, and 333-00916 on Form S-3 of
        Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated February 2, 1999,
        relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Southern Financial
        Bancorp as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated
        statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in stockholders'
        equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in
        the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Southern Financial
        Bancorp, Inc.


        KPMG LLP
        Washington, D.C.
        March 30, 1999
#### Frederick W. Murphy and David L. Fultz, Respondents, v. Louis Shapiro, Appellant, Impleaded with Charles L. Apfel, Defendant.

Judgment and order of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Burr, J.T., concurred.
#### Steven A. COX, Jeanne M. Freeman and Patricia M. Mayer, Statutory Trustees of H.W. Freeman Construction Company, Inc., an Administratively Dissolved Missouri Corporation, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. WEST ELM PLACE CORPORATION, A Missouri Corporation, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 70114.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Oct. 29, 1996.

Christopher J. Doskocil, Sunset Hills, for plaintiffs/appellants.

Jerome J. Duff, St. Louis, for defendant/respondent.

*902Before RHODES RUSSELL, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The statutory trustees of H.W. Freeman Company, Ine. appeal from the dismissal of their breach of fiduciary duties suit against West Elm Place Corporation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

An extended opinion would serve no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20421-02

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

NICKOL MAY JACKSON,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On December 22, 2009, the case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of

the parties, Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. The Defendant, along with counsel, appeared

before me on December 22, 2009. In open court I examined the Defendant under oath,

confirmed the Defendant’s consent, and then advised and questioned the Defendant regarding

each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE. Based upon the Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND 1) that

the Defendant is competent to tender a plea, 2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly,

intelligently made, and 3) that the offense(s) to which he pled are supported by an independent

basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense(s). Therefore, I have

ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.

1:09-cr-20421-TLL-CEB Doc # 28 Filed 12/23/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 64
II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the FEDERAL RULES OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, the Defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins.

Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984

(6th Cir. 2005). The parties are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise

others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to this Report and

Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security, 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir.

2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of

any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: December 23, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date,

electronically served on Roy Kranz and Robert Dunn, and served on District Judge Ludington

in the traditional manner.

Date: December 23, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

1:09-cr-20421-TLL-CEB Doc # 28 Filed 12/23/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 65
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

I, Mark Meller, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                       Date:   November 19, 2008

                                       By /s/ Mark Meller
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Mark Meller
                                       Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Chief Financial Officer
#### John J. Fish v. Henrietta Hahn.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Settle order on notice.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37680

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GEORGE LOPEZ CASTILLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 374

Filed: March 1, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

______________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM

George Lopez Castillo pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-

2732(c)(1), and to concealment of evidence, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). In exchange for his guilty 

pleas, the state agreed not to pursue an allegation that Castillo is a persistent violator. The 

district court sentenced Castillo to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of three years, for possession of a controlled substance and a concurrent term of five 

years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for concealment of evidence. The 

district court suspended the sentences and placed Castillo on probation. Castillo thereafter 

violated the terms of his probation by possessing methamphetamine. The district court revoked 

probation and ordered execution of Castillo’s original sentences. Castillo filed an I.C.R. 35 

motion, which the district court denied. Castillo appeals.
2

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, including the new information submitted with Castillo’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Castillo’s 

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.