alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX - 23.1 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No 333-135585 on Form S-8 of our report dated January 11, 2011, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Cleartronic, Inc. and Subsidiary as of September 30, 2010 and 2009 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for the years then ended, included in the 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cleartronic, Inc. and Subsidiary.

 

\s\ Kramer Weisman and Associates, LLP

Davie, FL

January 11, 2011
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, theundersigned officer of Shermen WSC Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) herebycertifies that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                           |   | By:                                             |   /s/ John E. Toffolon, Jr. |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Name: John E. Toffolon, Jr.           |
|                      |   | Title:   Chief Financial Officer |
| Date: March 28, 2008 |   |                                            |                                       |
|                           |        |                                                 |                                            |  |

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separatedisclosure document.

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.8

                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO
             ANHEUSER-BUSCH GLOBAL EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

WHEREAS, Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. (the "Company") is the sponsor of
         a certain employee stock purchase plan, known as the
         Anheuser-Busch Global Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan"),
         designed to permit employees of Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
         and its subsidiaries who are not resident in the United States
         and are not eligible to participate in the Company's
         tax-qualified 401(k) plans to purchase Company stock; and

WHEREAS, the Company reserved to itself the right to amend the Plan by
         action of its Vice President, Employee Benefits in Section 18 of
         the Plan; and

WHEREAS, the following amendment to the Plan was approved by the Company's
         Vice President, Employee Benefits, on April 1, 2003, effective
         immediately.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by deleting paragraph (a) from
         Section 3 and substituting the following therefor:

    3.  Participation.
        -------------

         a)  From the Effective Date of the Plan through March 31, 2003,
             an Eligible Employee shall become eligible to become a
             Participant as of March 1 following his or her first day of
             employment; provided that all Eligible Employees on the
             regular payroll for a particular location on the fifteenth
             (15th) day of the calendar month preceding inception of the
             Plan in that location shall be eligible to become
             Participants at inception of the Plan in that location. From
             and after April 1, 2003, an Eligible Employee shall become
             eligible to become a Participant as of March 1 coincident
             with or following his or her first day of employment.

The remaining provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument on behalf
of the Company this 20th day of February, 2004, effective as of April 1,
2003.

                       ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, INC.

                       By: /s/ John T. Farrell
                          ---------------------------------
                          John T. Farrell
                          Vice President, Employee Benefits
Filed pursuant to
                                                                  Rule 424(b)(2)
                                                     Registration No. 33-59791

                                 $500,000,000
                                    CITICORP
                       Medium-Term Senior Notes, Series E
                   Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E
               Due From 9 Months to 50 Years From Date of Issue

Pricing  Supplement,  dated February 21, 1996
     (To Prospectus  Supplement,  dated August 7, 1995,
     to Prospectus, dated August 7, 1995).

                              DESCRIPTION OF NOTES

      The terms of the Notes set forth in this Pricing Supplement supplement and
modify,  to  the  extent  applicable,  the  description  of  general  terms  and
provisions of Citicorp's  Medium-Term  Subordinated Notes, Series E set forth in
the accompanying  Prospectus and Prospectus  Supplement.  Capitalized  terms not
defined  herein  shall  have  the  meanings   assigned  to  such  terms  in  the
accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement.

SUMMARY OF TERMS:

Title of Notes:               6.40% Subordinated Notes Due February 15, 2008
                              (the "Notes").

Aggregate
  Principal Amount:           $2,572,000.00.

Price to Public:              100.00%.

Issue Date:                   February 26, 1996.

Stated Maturity Date:         February 15, 2008.

Interest Rate:                6.40%.

Interest Payment Dates:       Monthly, on the 15th day of each month and at
                              Stated Maturity.

Regular Record Dates:         The first day of the month in which each Interest
                              Payment Date occurs.

Sinking Fund:                 None.

Redemption:                   The Notes are subject to redemption, in whole but
                              not in part, at the option of Citicorp, on not
                              more than 60 or less than 30 days' notice, on any
                              Interest Payment Date, on or after February 15,
                              2001, at a redemption price of 100% of their
                              principal amount plus accrued and unpaid interest
                              to the redemption date.

Selling Agent:                J.W. Korth & Co.

Agent's Commission:           2.00%.

Minimum Denomination:         $1,000.

CUSIP Number:                 17303 MEV 7.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.5


        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code


     I, Thomas M. O'Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the
best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Power LLC on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 PSEG
Power LLC.


                                          /s/ Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                          PSEG Power LLC
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          May 1, 2006
#### Ohio Electric Power Co., on Behalf of Village of Oberlin, *v.*Morris, Chairman, et al.

(No. 24219

Decided June 21, 1933.)

*Messrs. Tracy, Chapman S Welles*and *Messrs. Fauver é Fauver,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Andrews, Hadden & Burton*and *Mr. C. R. Summers,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Allen, Bevis and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Stephenson and Jones, JJ., not participating.
#### Helen Kolody, Respondent, v Supermarkets General Corporation, Doing Business as Pathmark, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), entered April 21, 1989, as denied, in part, its motion to strike the plaintiff’s notice of discovery and inspection dated January 11, 1989, and directed it to provide the plaintiff with evidence of subsequent accidents which occurred at the same location within a three-year period from the date of the plaintiff’s accident.

*277Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the provision thereof directing the defendant to provide evidence to the plaintiff of subsequent accidents is deleted, and the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s notice of discovery and inspection is granted in its entirety.

While the plaintiff alleged in her verified complaint that she sustained injuries after falling in one of the defendant’s stores due to the presence of a "dangerous condition”, she identified this dangerous condition in her verified bill of particulars solely as a "[s]mashed strawberry negligently, carelessly and recklessly allowed to be left on [the] aisle floor”. Discovery of evidence of subsequent similar accidents, while material in cases where a defect is alleged in the design or creation of a product or structure *(see, e.g., Brown v Daisy Mfg. Co.,*129 AD2d 995; *Alexson Mechanical Contr. v Honeywell, Inc.,*101 AD2d 796; *Klatz v Armor Elevator Co.,*93 AD2d 633; *Carnibucci v Marlin Firearms Co.,*51 AD2d 1067), is irrelevant and inappropriate in cases such as the one before us where no inherent defect is alleged. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion should have been granted in its entirety. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT  32.6**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18****of the United States Code**

I,  E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C., to  the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Energy  Holdings L.L.C. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the “Periodic  Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in  the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial  condition and results of operations of the PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.

 

|   |   |   |                                                                             |
|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ E. James Ferland                                                             |
|   |   |   |                                                                                  |
|   |   |   | E. James FerlandPSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.Chief Executive OfficerAugust 1, 2003 |

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-30179. D.C. No. CR-00-02089-FVS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 29, 2003.

*694Before LEAVY, HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Jose Angel Contreras appeals his jury-trial conviction and 121-month sentence for distributing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We affirm Contreras’ conviction, and vacate the restitution aspect of his sentence.

The first issue presented is whether Contreras’ conviction should be reversed because the district court erroneously admitted evidence of Contreras’ juvenile adjudication as impeachment evidence, in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 609(d). Because defense counsel failed to make a contemporaneous objection when the prior was introduced, we review the decision to admit the evidence for plain error. *See United States v. Houser,*804 F.2d 565, 570 (9th Cir.1986). The government concedes error,1 but argues that the error did not affect Contreras’ substantial rights, given the strength of the evidence indicating his guilt and the fact that a prior adult felony conviction was properly admitted for impeachment purposes. We agree. *See United States v. Whitmore,*24 F.3d 32, 34-35 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (stating that in order for a forfeited error to be reversible on appeal, the defendant must show that the error prejudiced the outcome of the district court proceedings).

Contreras also contends that the district court’s judgment and commitment order improperly includes a order of restitution that was not part of the oral pronouncement of the sentence. Restitution was not ordered at the sentencing hearing, nor was it mentioned in the presentence report or the government’s sentencing memorandum. Because the oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written judgment, *see United States v. Allen,*157 F.3d 661, 668 (9th Cir.1998), we vacate the judgment and remand. The district court shall, in conformity with the oral pronouncement, issue a new judgment order that does not include an order of restitution. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2106.

AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. *See*Fed.R.Evid. 609(d) (providing that "[ejvidence of juvenile adjudications is generally not admissible!, except the court may] in a criminal case allow evidence of a juvenile adjudication of a witness other than the accused”).
#### Nicholas B. Post, Appellant, v Xerox Corporation, Respondent.

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: From the evidence before it, Supreme Court was entitled to find that Xerox properly refused to pay plaintiff benefits under the voluntary reduction in force agreement. Plaintiff, as an employee of Xerox, was responsible for *909the maintenance of all of the Xerox facilities in Monroe County and the supervision of more than 600 employees. As such, he was bound at all times to exercise the utmost good faith in the performance of his duties for his employer. When he applied for the voluntary reduction in force (VRIF) benefits, plaintiff knew that Xerox would not approve the application if it had known the facts concerning his prior unethical conduct, yet he concealed those facts. Under the circumstances, he had a duty to speak and "the distinction between concealment and affirmative misrepresentation faded into legal insignificance” *(Hadden v Consolidated Edison Co.,*45 NY2d 466, 470; *see also, Donovan v Aeolian Co.,*270 NY 267, 271; *Matter of First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v Estate of Sherman,*250 App Div 339, 345; 60 NY Jur 2d, Fraud and Deceit, §§ 94, 95).

Because plaintiff deliberately concealed material facts at the time the VRIF agreement was entered into, when he had a duty to speak, Xerox was entitled to rescission of the agreement. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wesley, J.—breach of contract.) Present— Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted), Max A. Coon, Chief Executive Officer of Maxco, Inc. (the
Company), and Vincent Shunsky the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
each hereby certifies that, to the best of their knowledge:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2002 (the Periodic Report), to which this Certification is
attached as Exhibit 99.1 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company
for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

DATED: November 25, 2002

|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Max A. CoonMax A. Coon
Chief Executive Officer        
|                                                          
|/s/ Vincent ShunskyVincent Shunsky
Chief Financial Officer

23
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS STATEMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET, STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH FLOW, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000077242
<NAME> PG ENERGY INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                  250,940,000
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  4,581,000
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                      43,819,000
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                    36,686,000
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             336,026,000
<COMMON>                                    33,142,000
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                   32,678,000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         38,773,000
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             104,593,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          640,000
<PREFERRED>                                 15,877,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                        83,266,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                           3,500,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>               36,287,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                       80,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>              91,783,000
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              336,026,000
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                  113,168,000
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         5,590,000
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  94,610,000
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 100,200,000
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                     12,968,000
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             152,000
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>              13,120,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     4,650,000
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,470,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    671,000
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                7,799,000
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                    4,837,000
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                      28,458,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.60
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant
to Section 906

Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned officers of Rand Capital Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 (the Form10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 2, 2012

/s/ Allen F. GrumAllen F. Grum, President
(Chief Executive Officer)


Dated: May 2, 2012



/s/ Daniel P. PenberthyDaniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer (Chief Financial Officer)
#### SEWELL v. W. HORACE WILLIAMS CO. et al.

No. 2483.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 24, 1943.

For former opinion, see 12 So.2d 33.

Cook, Lee, Clark & Egan, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Wm. C. Boone, of Leesville, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

In their application for rehearing, and their brief in support thereof, counsel for the defendants take exception to a statement contained in the opinion rendered herein to the effect that they had admitted that the accident alleged by plaintiff, and which gave rise to his demand for compensation, had happened. It is true that the admission referred to was a qualified one and the opinion should have so shown. Inasmuch as we were satisfied, however, that plaintiff had satisfactorily proven that he had sustained the injury complained of as a result of that accident, the fact that the admission was made only “for the sake of argument” did not make any difference in the conclusions and results reached by us.

Plaintiff’s testimony about the actual happening of the accident was corroborated by that of two witnesses who were working with him on the truck at the time, and in fact it is not contradicted nor is it disputed save for the insinuation made by counsel for the defendants that he is a malingerer and apparently was not telling the truth:

Further than that, the evidence shows that immediately following the accident, plaintiff was taken to the employer’s hospital and that for eight weeks thereafter he was given treatment at the instance of his employer. As further shown also by an averment in a plea of prematurity filed on behalf of the defendants, he was paid compensation for a period of eight weeks and that payments were then discontinued, not because he did not have any accidental injury, but for the reason that he refused to submit to a form of treatment which could only be administered or given under an anaesthetic. We think therefore that we were justified in proceeding with a discussion of the other issues in the case on the basis that the accident had happened even *476though the admission as made by counsel was a qualified one.

All the other points raised in the application are disposed of in the opinion handed down, and as we find no reason to change our views in any manner, the rehearing applied for will be refused.
#### J. S. HOWARD, Ethel R. Howard, and J. M. Mann, Appellants, v. C. A. ROBERTS, as Administrator of the Estate of Mrs. M. E. Roberts, Deceased, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.

July 17, 1936.

Joe Hill Williams, of Lake Butler, for appellants.

Knight & Knight, of Starke, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The pleadings, briefs, and ultimate questions presented in this case are in all material respects parallel and similar to those presented in J. S. Howard and his wife, Ethel R. Howard, v. C. A. Roberts (Fla.) 169 So. 486, filed this date. The judgment below is accordingly affirmed on authority of -the last-entitled cause.

Affirmed.

ELLIS, P. J., and TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and BROWN and DAVIS, JJ., concur in the opinion and judgment.