alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.1  CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-51744, No. 33-65239,
No. 333-12189, No. 333-62187, No. 333-84219, No. 333-38884, No. 333-68760 and
No. 333-68762) pertaining to the 1991 Stock Option Plan of MSC.Software Corporation, the MSC.Software Corporation 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1998 Stock Option Plan of
MSC.Software Corporation, the Executive Bonus Plan of MSC.Software Corporation, the 2000 Executive Cash or Stock Bonus Plan, the Advanced Enterprise Solutions Stock Option Program of MSC.Software
Corporation and the 2001 Stock Option Plan of MSC.Software Corporation and to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3
No. 333-89317 and No. 333-86809) of MSC.Software Corporation and the related Prospectuses to the Registration Statement (Form S-3
No. 333-89319) and the related Prospectus of our report dated February 28, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of MSC.Software Corporation included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

| |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
| |  | ---------------------

Los
Angeles, California
March 29, 2002

---

QuickLinks
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 8Federal Reserve Bank of: St. LouisFilings received during the week ending June 5, 2010FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 979 

Recommending that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers and 

Joshua Bolten, Chief of Staff, White House, in contempt of Congress 

for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Committee 

on the Judiciary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2008 

Mr. CONYERS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Recommending that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, Chief of Staff, White 

House, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply 

with subpoenas duly issued by the Committee on the 

Judiciary. 

1 Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, 

2 the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify 

3 the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing 

4 the refusal of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers 

5 to appear before the Subcommittee on Commercial and 

6 Administrative Law as directed by subpoena, to the 

7 United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

HRES 979 IH 

1 the end that Ms. Miers be proceeded against in the man2 ner and form provided by law; and be it further 

3 Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, 

4 the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify 

5 the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing 

6 the refusal of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers 

7 to testify before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Ad8 ministrative Law as directed by subpoena, to the United 

9 States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end 

10 that Ms. Miers be proceeded against in the manner and 

11 form provided by law; and be it further 

12 Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, 

13 the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify 

14 the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing 

15 the refusal of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers 

16 to produce documents to the Subcommittee on Commercial 

17 and Administrative Law as directed by subpoena, to the 

18 United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to 

19 the end that Ms. Miers be proceeded against in the man20 ner and form provided by law; and be it further 

21 Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, 

22 the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify 

23 the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing 

24 the refusal of White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten 

25 to produce documents to the Committee on the Judiciary 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
3 

HRES 979 IH 

1 as directed by subpoena, to the United States Attorney 

2 for the District of Columbia, to the end that Mr. Bolten 

3 be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by 

4 law. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of M Power Entertainment, Inc. and
Subsidiaries(FKA GK Intelligent Systems, Inc.)(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB
for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary F. Kimmons, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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

/s/ Gary F. Kimmons
____________________________________
Gary F. Kimmons
Chief Executive Officer
August 22, 2005
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 30, 2016

NO. 03

- 15

- 00668

- CR

Charles Newman Smith, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PU RYEAR, PEMBERTON, AN D FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction r en d ered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the r ecord and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in

the judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

. Because

appellant is i ndigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
| *Release Date: February 15, 2007* |
|-----------------------------------|
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 3Federal Reserve Bank of: PhiladelphiaFilings received during the week ending January 3, 2015FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
#### Scott E. Hall, Appellant, v Eugene McManus et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 439]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated August 29, 2001, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, while a guest at the defendants’ home, stepped into a depression in the lawn, injuring his ankle. He brought this action seeking to recover damages for his injuries.

“To impose liability upon the defendants, there must be evidence tending to show the existence of a dangerous or defective condition and that the defendants either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time” *(Bonilla v Starrett City at Spring Cr.,*270 AD2d 377). The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evi*381dence demonstrating the absence of any issue of fact concerning the creation of the condition or actual or constructive notice of it *(see Lustgarten v Oceanside Union Free School Dist.,*277 AD2d 430). Since the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in his opposition to the motion, the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1997...... 65.8 66.4 73.2 67.8 49.9 64.3 60.1 58.0 68.0 67.0 1998...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 2003...... 74.3 68.7 59.6 74.6 69.5 86.5 67.6 65.1 63.0 82.1 2004...... 74.3 67.2 47.5 73.4 71.2 91.3 65.8 63.7 63.1 79.9 2005...... 77.1 62.7 71.4 73.0 83.9 90.6 67.6 62.9 65.4 83.2 2006...... 75.3 56.9 68.0 70.4 84.1 91.8 68.7 66.1 65.5 79.8 2007...... 69.6 62.0 62.0 63.5 68.8 88.1 64.3 63.3 66.1 72.0 2008...... 75.9 69.0 71.2 72.1 59.2 90.2 66.2 63.3 68.7 79.7 2005: Q2... 82.7 64.7 78.6 74.9 89.7 95.4 65.8 64.4 69.5 88.9  Q3... 75.3 70.0 70.5 63.3 89.1 88.4 68.5 66.5 61.5 81.4  Q4... 75.4 59.7 65.2 81.5 72.6 87.9 70.3 60.5 66.7 81.1 2006: Q1... 70.5 59.1 71.1 65.7 76.4 90.9 63.9 64.5 62.7 74.0  Q2... 75.9 68.7 69.8 66.0 85.6 90.8 68.8 64.4 70.3 79.4  Q3... 78.3 43.0 64.3 81.2 78.5 96.6 76.9 72.9 62.9 83.5  Q4... 76.6 62.7 67.4 74.9 91.4 87.1 65.4 62.3 65.3 82.9 2007: Q1... 64.6 71.8 68.1 55.8 50.0 87.4 62.6 64.9 70.9 62.9  Q2... 71.4 55.6 75.2 65.5 70.8 90.0 63.9 65.3 71.3 73.3  Q3... 74.8 41.5 75.5 71.7 70.2 89.8 66.2 64.0 61.1 82.8  Q4... 69.1 65.5 43.5 64.6 77.1 86.1 64.6 59.1 61.3 73.1 2008: Q1... 68.7 71.7 48.9 62.6 47.5 91.4 56.9 53.5 64.3 71.5  Q2... 74.7 70.5 56.6 72.5 69.0 86.7 65.2 68.7 71.2 76.9  Q3... 82.1 57.8 81.5 82.6 54.6 91.3 70.2 63.9 70.8 87.7  Q4... 79.4 70.4 86.3 73.8 58.9 91.2 71.7 66.9 68.4 84.5  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael ARCHER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4102.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 3, 2002.

Before KEITH, KRUPANSKY, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-Appellant Michael Archer appeals his conviction of conspiring to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. After the jury found him guilty. Archer was sentenced to 216 months in prison, based in part on the district court’s finding that Archer was responsible for 94 grams of methamphetamine. While this appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). In *Apprendi,*the Court held that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. On appeal, Archer argues that his sentence is unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi,*because it was based on a quantity of drugs that was not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

This Circuit has held that *Apprendi*is not violated when a district court determines a drug quantity under a preponderance standard and then sentences the defendant accordingly, as long as the resulting sentence does not exceed the maximum sentence that could have been imposed absent a quantity determination. *See United States v. Stafford,*258 F.3d 465 (6th Cir.2001); *United States v. Garcia,*252 F.3d 838, 843 (6th Cir.2001).

In this case, Archer was found guilty of conspiring to manufacture and possess *50with intent to distribute an unspecified quantity of methamphetamine. Accordingly, he faced a statutory maximum sentence of twenty years under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). He was ultimately sentenced to 216 months in prison, based in part on the district court’s finding that Archer was responsible for more than 70 grams of methamphetamine. Because Archer could have been sentenced to up to 240 months in prison for an unspecified quantity of methamphetamine, his sentence, although based in part on a determination of drug quantity under a preponderance standard, does not violate *Apprendi.*Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         228,258
<SECURITIES>                                 4,748,862
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,125,209
<PP&E>                                         133,033
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,258,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          191,072
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           29,725
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,037,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,258,242
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               112,660
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              94,002
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (765,022)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (765,822)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (765,822)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.44)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Rohan McM., Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 428]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated January 10, 2005, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated November 29, 2004, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the second degree (two counts), forcible touching, sexual abuse in the third degree (two counts), and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated November 29, 2004.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency *(see Matter of Troy J.,*22 AD3d 581 [2005]; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the second degree (two counts), forcible touching, sexual abuse in the third degree (two counts), and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.

Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the Family Court, which saw and *558heard the witnesses. Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal, and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see Matter of Nicholas M.,*11 AD3d 545 [2004]; *Matter of Benjamin J.,*10 AD3d 608 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]). Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This document contains summary financial information extracted from the attached
quarterly  report  on Form  10-Q for the  period  ended  March  31,  1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         862
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  63,011
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,268
<INVENTORY>                                    66,254
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,391
<PP&E>                                         37,774
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,401
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 301,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          77,214
<BONDS>                                        141,057
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       143
<OTHER-SE>                                     42,637
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   301,944
<SALES>                                        203,953
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               203,953
<CGS>                                          155,318
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  177,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,307
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,662
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                20,845
<INCOME-TAX>                                   8,406
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            12,439
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                545
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   11,894
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.82

        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.03

DataMEG Corp. Secures Financing Commitment

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2001 7:05 AM
 - Internet Wire

CHARLOTTE, NC, Dec 21, 2001 (INTERNET WIRE via COMTEX) -- DataMEG
Corp. (DTMG) announced today that they have secured the $2.5 MM
financing commitment that was offered them, per their press release
dated December 10, 2001.

Andrew Benson, President DataMEG Corp. stated, " This financing is an
important first step in providing North Electric Company, Inc. with
adequate funding necessary to insure that their technology and product
development plans are successfully completed. We look to develop other
relationships within the investment banking community to further the
capitalization of the business and meet our strategic business
development goals." Except for the historical information contained
herein, this press release contains forward-looking statements within
the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. These
forward-looking statements may be identified by reference to a future
period by use of forward-looking terminology such as ``expect,''
``anticipate,'' ``could,'' "would," "will," and ``may'' and other
words of similar nature. There are certain important factors and risks
that could cause results to differ materially from those anticipated
by the statements herein. Such factors and risks include the
successful completion of the CAS technology development, the
successful completion of projects underway at North Electric Company
and the business conditions and growth in related areas of
telecommunications, wireless and digital transmission areas, and in
the economy in general. Competitive factors include the rapid pace of
alternative technology advancements and the Company's ability to gain
market acceptance of its evolving products. Other risks may be
detailed from time to time in our filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Neither DataMEG Corp. nor its subsidiaries
undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking
statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or
otherwise.

CONTACT:           Ron Dove
                   Company Contact
                   DataMEG Corp
                   704-849-7690