alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-164289) and related Prospectus and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-169816) of Westway Group, Inc. of our report dated March 15, 2010 withrespect to the combined carve-out statements of income and cash flows of the bulk liquid storage and liquid feed supplements businesses (Westway Group) of ED&F Man group for the period from November 1, 2008 to May 28, 2009, included inthis Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Westway Group, Inc. for the year ended in December 31, 2010. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New Orleans, Louisiana 

March31, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In
connection with the Annual Report of Tapslide, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steve Grubner, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  May 13, 2009

| | /s/ Steve Grubner
Steve Grubner,
Chief Financial Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------

---
#### Jose GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. S. W. MURTISHAW et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 7180.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 1, 1948.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1948.

R. D. Watkins, of Minden, for appellants.

Campbell & Campbell, of Minden, for appellee.

HARDY, Judge.

This is an action for damages resulting from injuries sustained by plaintiff while riding as a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by one Jess Hamblen. This suit is one of three arising from a collision which involved two passenger automobiles and a gravel truck. The defendants in this case are S. W. Murtishaw and his liability insurer, Great American Indemnity Company.

By a stipulation between counsel for the several parties the three suits were consolidated for the purpose of trial and appeal and are styled on the docket of this Court as follows: No. 7178, Foster v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., 35 So.2d 265; No. 7179, Smythe v. Great American Indemnity Co., La.App., 35 So. 2d 267; No. 7180, Gutierrez v. Murtishaw et al.

The bulk of the record in these cases is made up in the Smythe suit, No. 7179 on the docket of this Court, which record, by agreement, is intended to serve in the consolidated cases.

After trial of the consolidated cases there was judgment in this case in favor of the plaintiff, Jose Gutierrez, and against the defendants, S. W. Murtishaw and Great American Indemnity Company, in the full sum of $4,000, with legal interest thereon from December 24, 1945, until paid, together with all costs, from which judgment the named defendants have appealed, which appeal has been answered by plaintiff, who prays for an increase in the amount of the judgment to the sum of $10,000. The plaintiff further obtained orders of appeal from that part of the judgment of the District Court which denied plaintiff’s demands against Chester G. Smythe.

The opinion of this Court detailing the statement of facts and the reasons for the judgment of this Court is set forth in the Smythe case.

For the reasons assigned in the opinion this day rendered in the suit of Smythe v. Great American Indemnity Co. et al., No. 7179 on the docket of this Court, the judg*267ment appealed from is reversed, annulled and set aside, and there is now judgment in favor of plaintiff, Jose Gutierrez, and against the defendants, S. W. Murtishaw, Great American Indemnity Company and Chester G. Smythe, in solido, in the full sum of $4,000, with legal interest thereon from December 24, 1945, until paid, together with all costs of both Courts.
Exhibit 10.6  FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE STANLEY,
INC. 2006
OMNIBUS INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN  Pursuant to the powers
reserved by the Board of Directors of Stanley, Inc. under this Section 7(a) of
the Stanley, Inc. 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan, (the 2006
Plan), the 2006 Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the date
hereof:  FIRST AND
ONLY CHANGE  Section 2 of the
2006 Plan is amended to include the following:  Award Agreement means any
written agreement, contract or other instrument or document, including any
document delivered electronically or posted on the Companys intranet,
evidencing any Award, which may, but need not, require execution or
acknowledgment by a Participant.  The Plan, as amended
above, is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.
<PAGE>                                                       Exhibit 12 (a)
                              J. C. Penney Company, Inc.
                            and Consolidated Subsidiaries

         Computation of Ratios of Available Income to Combined Fixed Charges
                       and Preferred Stock Dividend Requirement






                                                52 weeks              52 weeks
                                                  ended                 ended
                                                 July 29,              July 31,
     ($ Millions)                                  2000                  1999
                                                _________             _________

     Income from continuing operations          $     10              $     911
        (before income taxes, before
        capitalized interest, but after
        preferred stock dividend)

     Fixed charges

     Interest (including capitalized
     interest) on:

        Operating leases                             272                    225
        Short term debt                               78                    123
        Long term debt                               504                    556
        Capital leases                                 2                      2
        Other, net                                     -                     (5)
                                                _________             __________

     Total fixed charges                             856                    901

     Preferred stock dividend, before taxes           35                     36
                                                _________             __________
     Combined fixed charges and preferred
        stock dividend requirement                   891                    937
                                                _________             __________

     Total available income                     $    901              $   1,848
                                                =========             ==========
     Ratio of available income to combined
        fixed charges and preferred stock
        dividend requirement                         1.0                    2.0
                                                =========             ==========




     The Company believes that, due to the seasonal nature of its business,
     ratios for a period of time other than a 52 week period are inappropriate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME, CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF CASH FLOWS, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,380,030
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     13,794
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         434,873
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        18,108
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  81,931
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,928,736
<COMMON>                                       278,282
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            424,704
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 702,986
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           527,039
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 700
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  28,325
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 669,686
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,928,736
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      387,148
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            23,344
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     317,052
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     340,396
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         46,752
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 580
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  47,332
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         9,842
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,490
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   37,490
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        16,082
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        8,927
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         (5,336)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 Quarterly Report (the "Report") of Powell
Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Don R. Madison, Vice President 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 the Report fairly represents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.



Date: March 4, 2003                  /s/ DON R. MADISON
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     Don R. Madison
                                     Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 10618 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
RODDY WRIGHT , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:12

- CR

- 183

- 1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Roddy Wright has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Wright has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Wright ’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 4, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-10618 Document: 00512586318 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/04/2014No. 13

- 10618

not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop

t he record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell , 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as we ll as Wright ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Wright’s motion for the appointment of
counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner , 158 F.3d 901, 902

- 03 (5th Cir. 1998).

2 Case: 13-10618 Document: 00512586318 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/04/2014
EX-34 (e)

[LOGO] ERNST & YOUNG

Ernst & Young LLP
Suite 3000
801 Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50309-2764

Phone: (515) 243-2727
www.ey.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors
Principal Global Investors

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Assertion On Compliance With Regulation AB Criteria for Wells Fargo
Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, that Principal Global Investors,
LLC (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial
mortgage backed securities platform as of and for the year ended December 31,
2006, except for 1122 (d)(1)(ii)-(iii), 1122 (d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122 (d)(4)(ix),
and 1122 (d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform covered by
this report. See Attachment A of Management's Assertion On Compliance With
Regulation AB Criteria for Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master
Servicer for the asset backed transactions covered by this platform. Management
is responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than
all of the individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the
platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the
Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected
transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the
servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether
errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may
have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company
during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2006, for the Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 19, 2007


A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
#### LYNCH v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF MIAMI et al.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

June 4, 1954.

Anderson & Nadeau, Miami, for appellant.

DeCostas, Maer & Floyd, Miami, for ap-pellee Housing Authority of *City*of Miami.

J. W. Watson, Jr., Miami, for appellee City of Miami.

Hudson & Cason, Miami, for appellee Dade County.

SEBRING, Justice.

The order appealed from, which denied equitable relief upon appellant’s bill controverting the validity of legislative findings and provisions contained in Chapter 421, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., should be affirmed upon authority of Marvin v. Housing Authority of Jacksonville, 133 Fla. 590, 183 So. 145; Lott v. City of Orlando, 142 Fla. 338, 196 So. 313; Higbee v. Housing Authority of Jacksonville, 143 Fla. 560, 197 So. 479; and Bryan v. City of Miami, Fla., 66 So.2d 308.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and MATHEWS, J., concur.

TERRELL, J., concurs specially.

TERRELL, Justice

(concurring specially).

I am in agreement with appellant’s philosophy of this case but it seems to me that we are concluded by the cases cited by Mr. Justice SEBRING.
#### Lewis Edwin BOUNDS v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS’ INSURANCE COMPANY.*

No. 4643.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Feb. 5, 1934.

Phanor Breazeale, of Natchitoches, and Poster, Hall, Barret & Smith, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Stephens & Gahagan, of Coushatta, for ap-pellee.

*

Rehearing denied March 2, 1934.

DREW, Judge.

This is a companion suit to No. 4642, Pate v. American Employers’ Ins. Co., 152 So. 363, decided this day by this court. The two were consolidated for the purpose of trial. The only difference in the pleadings is that plaintiff herein alleged he was a guest of the plaintiff in suit No. 4642. The only difference this could make would apply only if the defendant, or, in this case, the bus driver, was guilty of negligence.

We have found in case No. 4642, decided to-day, that the bus driver was free from any negligence. Therefore, for the reasons assigned in the case of Pate v. American Employers’ Insurance Company, No. 4642, this day decided by us, the judgment of the lower court in this case is reversed, and plaintiff’s demands rejected, at his costs.
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-092-CR

JUAN GARCIA APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Introduction

Appellant Juan Garcia appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated

(DWI), a third degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (Vernon

2003), § 49.09(b)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2008). In his sole point, he contends that

the trial court erred by not admonishing him of the correct range of punishment

before he pled guilty. We affirm.
2... Garcia’s indictment contained a paragraph alleging that he had two

previous DWI convictions.

2

Background Facts

A Tarrant County grand jury indicted Garcia for DWI.2 Garcia waived a

jury trial, waived his constitutional rights, and entered an open guilty plea. The

trial court found Garcia guilty, convicted him, and sentenced him to ten years’

confinement (probated) and a $1,500 fine. Garcia filed his notice of this

appeal.

Article 26.13 Admonishment

In his only point, Garcia asserts that his conviction should be reversed

because the trial court failed to admonish him as to the correct range of

punishment under article 26.13 of the code of criminal procedure, and his plea

was therefore allegedly involuntary. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.

26.13(a)(1) (Vernon 2009). Specifically, Garcia contends that the trial court

failed to inform him that the range of punishment included a possible fine not

to exceed $10,000.

Article 26.13 requires a trial court, prior to accepting a guilty plea, to

notify a defendant of various facts and conditions related to the plea. See id.;

Bessey v. State, 239 S.W.3d 809, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The trial

court’s failure to comply with such requirements may be raised for the first time
3

on appeal. See Bessey, 239 S.W.3d at 812–13 (characterizing admonishments

under article 26.13 as a “waivable-only right,” meaning that it “cannot be

forfeited and may be raised for the first time on appeal unless it is expressly

waived”).

We conclude that the trial court did not err because it did admonish

Garcia under article 26.13(a)(1) in a document titled, “Written Plea

Admonishments” (WPA). In the WPA, the box for “Third Degree Felony” is

checked and the range of punishment is described as two to ten years’

confinement and additionally “a fine not to exceed $10,000.” Garcia and his

counsel both signed the WPA, and his counsel affirmed that he had “fully

reviewed and explained the above and foregoing court admonishments . . . to

[Garcia].” 

Thus, we hold that the trial court properly admonished Garcia about his

range of punishment, and because Garcia does not allege that his plea was

involuntary for any other reason, we overrule his only point.
4

Conclusion

Having overruled Garcia’s sole point, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

TERRIE LIVINGSTON

JUSTICE

PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: July 16, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ERIC BRANCH,

Defendant Below, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § No. 530, 2014 § § § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware, § in and for New Castle County § Cr. ID 0904024547A § §

Submitted: December 2, 2014 Decided: December 4, 2014

O R D E R

This 4 th day of December 2014, it appears to the Court that , on November

17, 2014, the Clerk issued a notice to appellant to show cause why this appeal

should not be dismissed for his failure to diligent ly prosecute the appeal by not

filing his opening brief and appendix in this matte r. The appellant has failed to

respond to the notice to show cause within the requ ired ten-day period; therefore,

dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to S upreme

Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Randy J. Holland Justice