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



EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We have issued our report dated March 28, 2008, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Carrington Laboratories, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Carrington Laboratories, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-148822, File No. 333-118303, File No. 333-118304, File No. 333-89760, File No. 333-69372, File No. 33-64403, File No. 33-64405, File No. 33-64407, File No. 33-55920, File No. 33-50430, File No. 33-42002, File No. 33-36041, File No. 333-17177 and File No. 33-22849), Form S-3 (File No. 333-131735, File No. 33-60833 and File No. 33-57360) and Form S-1 (File No. 333-145909).



/s/ WEAVER AND TIDWELL, L.L.P.

Dallas, Texas 
March 28, 2008
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: 5Federal Reserve Bank of: RichmondFilings received during the week ending September 18, 2010FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
H. Res. 953 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 12, 2008. 

Whereas it was through the brave and noble efforts of the 

Nation’s forefathers that the United States first gained 

freedom and became a sovereign nation; 

Whereas there are more than 1,354,000 active component 

and more than 1,100,000 reserve component members of 

the Armed Forces serving the Nation in support and defense of the values and freedom that all Americans cherish; 

Whereas the members of the Armed Forces deserve the utmost respect and admiration of their fellow Americans 

for putting their lives in danger for the sake of the freedoms enjoyed by all Americans; 

Whereas the families of members of the Armed Forces make 

sacrifices commensurate with the men and women of the 

Armed Forces; 

Whereas members of the Armed Forces are defending freedom and democracy around the globe and are playing a 

vital role in protecting the safety and security of all 

Americans; 

Whereas the Nation officially celebrates and honors the accomplishments and sacrifices of veterans, patriots, and 
2 

•HRES 953 EH 

leaders who fought for freedom, this resolution pays tribute to those who currently serve in the Armed Forces; 

Whereas all Americans should participate in a moment of silence to support our troops and their families; and 

Whereas March 26th, 2008, is designated as ‘‘National Support Our Troops Day’’: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that all Americans should participate in a moment of 

silence to reflect upon the service and sacrifice of members 

of the United States Armed Forces both at home and abroad, 

and their families. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### OGELVIE v. AVEX, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Industrial Tower and

Wireless, LLC

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00122-JL

Town of Epping

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on

June 17, 2008.

The defendant will amend ¶ 15 of its Answer to clearly

indicate its position. A motion for leave is not required; a

single-page pleading will suffice. Based on the parties

discussion during the conference, ¶ 10 of the Complaint is now

admitted by the defendant.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: June 17, 2008

cc: Lawrence M. Edelman, Esq.

Robert M. Derosier, Esq.

John T. Ratigan, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00122-JL Document 12 Filed 06/17/08 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01756-DME-MJW

MARCUS L. FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOOLSTON, Vocational Instructor, and

LIKEN, Education Department,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s two Motions for Leave to Amend the

Records (Docket Nos. 44 and 45) are denied for the reasons stated in the defendants’

Response (Docket No. 52). Plaintiff shall not continue to file documents with the court

unless he is directed to do so by the court or unless they are an exhibit to a motion. 

The court cannot act as a repository for the plaintiff’s documents. It is further

ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Revised Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 34 (Docket No. 36) is denied without prejudice for the

reasons stated in the defendants’ Response (Docket No. 51).

Date: January 3, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-01756-DME-MJW Document 53 Filed 01/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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: 1Federal Reserve Bank of: BostonFilings received during the week ending April 20, 2019FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodGREENFIELD CO-OPERATIVE BANK                                                                                            * BranchApplication by Greenfield Co-operative Bank, Greenfield, Massachusetts, to establish a branch at 487 Newton Street, South Hadley, Massachusetts, pursuant to section 208.6 of Regulation H.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not applicableSTATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY                                                                                     * BranchApplication by State Street Bank and Trust Company, Boston, Massachusetts, to establish a branch at 525 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, New Jersey, pursuant to Section 208.6 of Regulation H.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not applicable
<PAGE>   1
                                 EXHIBIT 23.1

                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Central Bancorporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-26352, 33-50360, and 33- 82682) on Form S-8 of Central Bancorporation of our
report dated January 20, 1995, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of
Central Bancorporation and subsidiary as of December 31, 1994 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
the year then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 1995 annual report
on Form 10-KSB of Central Bancorporation.

Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for certain
investments in debt and equity securities.


/s/  KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP
---------------------------

Seattle, Washington
March 11, 1996
15

A.10. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Size of LoaPercent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 t

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,999 $24,999 $49,999 $99,999 $249,999 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 285,178 17,699 35,044 42,186 44,802 41,07Number of loans 8,353 3,452 2,434 1,296 689 31Weighted average maturity (months)1 47.37 12.87 13.53 32.10 27.67 57.8

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 22.10 8.59 8.51 20.34 16.40 34.6

Weighted average risk rating3 2.33 2.45 2.40 2.35 1.91 2.2

Weighted average interest rate4 8.51 9.19 9.13 9.15 8.64 8.1

 Standard error5 .22 .17 .14 .17 .27 .1

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 9.26 9.69 9.72 9.75 9.42 8.5 25th percentile 7.76 8.50 8.50 8.45 7.93 7.7 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 8.65 9.17 8.77 9.44 8.14 8.1 Other livestock 9.19 9.55 9.47 9.26 9.58 8.6 Other current operating expenses7 9.03 9.09 9.20 9.40 8.45 8.7

 Farm machinery and equipment 8.29 9.62 8.99 8.80 9.60 7.5 Farm real estate 7.92 7.68 8.01 8.02 7.94 7.8 Other8 7.44 9.42 n.a. n.a. 8.98 n.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 43.49 38.87 34.51 35.75 24.18 42.3 Under commitment 61.53 56.52 51.39 51.11 44.14 33.7 Callable 24.47 19.73 20.26 31.86 25.60 33.5 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.45 3.23 8.34 12.66 11.32 10.9 Other livestock 6.45 8.23 4.98 7.76 12.93 14.9 Other current operating expenses7 41.85 66.08 70.71 51.30 51.56 26.0

 Farm machinery and equipment 21.15 10.75 13.95 17.94 4.41 20.1 Farm real estate 7.06 2.09 2.02 10.33 7.21 27.9 Other8 17.04 9.62 n.a. n.a. 12.57 n.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 38.02 3.46 8.24 20.88 32.06 41.1 Other 61.01 87.80 88.21 79.12 67.94 58.8 Note. Most small and mid-sized farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had less than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
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: 11Federal Reserve Bank of: DallasFilings received during the week ending December 1, 2012FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodAMERICAN STATE BANK                                                                                                     * 18C
#### Peter Letterese & Associates, Inc., Appellant, v Daniel Dashman, Respondent.

[744 NYS2d 897]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant breached his fiduciary obligation to the plaintiff, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated December 1, 2000, as granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, to impose sanctions and costs against it and its attorney, and to enjoin it and/or its agents from commencing any further actions against the defendant with respect to the claims in this action and a prior related action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant did not breach his fiduciary duty to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the defendant breached an ethical obligation arising as a result of the parties’ prior attorney-client relationship and/or imposed under a prior release and settlement agreement that resolved several prior actions between the parties pending in various state and *449federal courts. However, the settlement required the defendant to report to the plaintiff any attempt by a third party to “compel” disclosure of specified information, and it is uncontroverted that the breaches alleged herein involved mere inquiries, unaccompanied by any compulsion. Furthermore, insofar as the complaint alleged a breach of the attorney-client relationship, any such claims are barred by the release. We note, however, that the Supreme Court erred insofar as it relied upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel, as the dismissal of the earlier action did not necessarily decide the issues raised herein.

The Supreme Court also correctly assessed sanctions and costs against the plaintiff and his attorney, as this action, much like the related action that the Supreme Court previously dismissed *(see Letterese v Dashman,*289 AD2d 378), is frivolous.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit.

We note that since this is a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court should have directed the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant did not breach his fiduciary duty to the plaintiff *(see Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 334, *appeal dismissed*371 US 74, *cert denied*371 US 901). Santucci, J.P., Altman, Florio and S. Miller, JJ., concur.
17

A.12. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, May 3-7, 2010Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rateVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,106,110 56,530 58,449 376,828 357,909 161,941 2,89Number of loans 17,824 674 1,656 7,896 4,195 1,201 4Weighted average maturity (months)1 20.10 15.12 21.62 18.25 23.73 14.70 4.2

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 5.71 5.93 6.60 4.19 2.54 10.05 1.7

Weighted average risk rating3 3.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n.

Weighted average interest rate 4 4.89 4.04 5.48 4.65 4.88 5.18 2.9

 Standard error5 .25 .44 .13 .23 .40 .53 .9

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 6.25 5.26 6.18 5.75 6.40 7.00 3.5 25th percentile 3.43 2.78 5.06 3.42 3.43 3.43 1.3 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.23 4.45 4.70 4.93 4.49 n.a. 4.9 Other livestock n.a. 7.37 5.07 4.99 3.72 n.a. 7.0 Other current operating expenses7 5.24 5.47 5.03 4.98 4.43 3.55 5.9

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.89 6.11 5.62 4.11 7.22 n.a. 6.7 Farm real estate 5.00 5.52 6.09 6.18 6.96 n.a. 5.1 Other8 2.85 5.98 3.32 4.84 3.96 2.73 5.7

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 82.25 80.12 65.02 85.88 89.97 72.46 50.1 Under commitment 79.43 92.72 78.37 81.57 87.94 83.57 58.8 Callable 19.96 13.85 34.15 27.74 10.49 21.56 n. Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 5.46 3.21 5.95 4.49 4.21 1.42 n. Other livestock 5.28 n.a. .18 3.06 6.50 14.49 n. Other current operating expenses7 42.01 28.52 79.66 53.72 29.93 29.49 28.3 Farm machinery and equipment 6.84 9.10 1.89 7.25 5.07 14.22 n. Farm real estate 6.52 1.28 3.09 4.80 1.85 21.41 n. Other8 33.89 57.88 9.23 26.69 52.44 18.97 71.6

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 12.98 1.89 15.09 8.86 10.41 20.75 10.9 Other 84.90 93.21 77.59 87.92 88.89 79.24 69.5 Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, William M. Bambarger, Jr., certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Integral Systems, Inc.;
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: December 31, 2008      
|                             
|/s/ WILLIAM M. BAMBARGER, JR.
|William M. Bambarger, Jr.    
|Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

|   | 1. | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended                September 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C.                78m                or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| BY:  | /s/                Steven Strasser                  |
|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|      | Steven                Strasser                      |
|      | Chairman                and Chief Executive Officer |

----
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

___________________________

No. 13-10093

Non-Argument Calendar

___________________________

Docket No. 7:11-cv-00144-HL

THEODORE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_______________________________

(September 5, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 13-10093 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 Page: 1 of 3 
2

PER CURIAM:

Theodore Williams appeals from the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment in favor of his employer, Cleaver-Brooks, on his race discrimination and 

retaliation claims, which were both brought under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 

The case relied mainly on a cat’s paw theory: that plaintiff’s supervisor 

manipulated the ultimate decision maker. The district court properly granted 

summary judgment on Williams’s race discrimination claim because he failed to 

show either direct evidence of intentional discrimination or a convincing mosaic of 

circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer discrimination. The 

evidence in this case was insufficient to allow a finding that the decision maker 

was not really independent, but was just a cat’s paw. For background, see 

Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 979 n.21 (11th Cir. 2008) (history of decision 

maker acting contrary to subordinate recommendations). 

On Williams’s retaliation claim, we will assume the district court erred in 

partially disregarding Williams’s affidavit under the sham affidavit theory.*

 Even 

upon consideration of this affidavit, Williams failed to establish a retaliation claim 

because Cleaver-Brooks provided a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason (acts the 

employer saw as policy violations) for his termination, which Williams failed to 

 * This Court “may affirm the district court’s judgment on any ground that appears in the record, 

whether or not that ground was relied upon or even considered by the [district court].” Thomas 

v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007)

Case: 13-10093 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
3

rebut. See Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261, 1277 (11th Cir. 2008)

(burden is on plaintiff to show that the employer’s proffered reasons were pretext 

for prohibited, retaliatory conduct).

“An employer may fire an employee for a good reason, a bad reason, a 

reason based on erroneous facts, or for no reason at all, as long as its action is not 

for a discriminatory reason.” Silvera v. Orange Cnty. Sch. Bd., 244 F.3d 1253, 

1262 (11th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-10093 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 Page: 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------

                            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 on Form 10-QSB of Cragar
Industries, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Michael L. Hartzmark, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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


/s/ Michael L. Hartzmark
----------------------------
Michael L. Hartzmark
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer
November 14, 2002
### M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO

. 2 of HIDALGO COUNTY, GREE TINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 5th day of February, 2015 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Martin Almazan and Iras ema Salinas, Appellant s ,
v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee for Rali 2007QS3 by and through its servicer

in

- fact, GMAC Mortgage, LLC Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13

- 14

- 00712

- CV (Tr.Ct.No. CL

- 12

- 2446

- B)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Co sts of the appeal are adjudged against

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 5, 2015.


WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and executed.
WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 21st day of April, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
Amendment to Shared Services Agreement



 Exhibit 10.102 
  
 AMENDMENT TO SHARED SERVICES AGREEMENT 
  
 This Amendment dated as of January 1, 2004 by and between Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (“Nexstar”) and Mission Broadcasting, Inc.
(“Mission”) is made to that certain Shared Services Agreement dated as of June 1, 1999 by and between Mission (formerly known as Mission Broadcasting of Wichita Falls, Inc.) and Nexstar Broadcasting of Wichita Falls, L.P. 
  
 WHEREAS, Mission is the licensee of television broadcast station KJTL,
Wichita Falls, Texas and low power television station KJBO-LP, Wichita Falls, Texas; 
  
 WHEREAS, Nexstar, as successor to Nexstar Broadcasting of Wichita Falls, L.P., is the licensee of television broadcast station KFDX-TV, Wichita Falls, Texas; 
  
 WHEREAS, Mission and Nexstar entered into the Agreement for their mutual
benefit; 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the
foregoing, Nexstar and Mission hereby amend the Agreement as follows: 
  
 1. Nexstar has assumed all of Nexstar Broadcasting of Wichita Falls, L.P.’s rights and obligations under the Agreement. 
  
 2. Paragraph 4(g) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in its place: “4(g) Services Fee. In consideration for
the services to be provided to the Stations by Nexstar personnel as described in Sections 4(a) through 4(f), Mission will pay Nexstar the fee (the “Services Fee”) described in this Section 4(g). 
  
 (i) Base Amount. Subject to the remaining provisions of this
Section 4(g), the base amount of the Services Fee will be Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000) per month. 
  
 (ii) Payment Terms. The Services Fee will be payable monthly, in arrears, from and after the month during which this Agreement is
executed, and will be prorated on a daily basis for the first and last months during which the sharing arrangements described in Sections 4(a) through 4(f) are in effect. 
  
 3. These revised payment terms are effective as of the date hereof. 
  
 4. As so amended, all sections and provisions of the Agreement are hereby
ratified in full. 
  









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment as of the date first written above.

  

			
	 NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ G. Robert Thompson

	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	 G. Robert Thompson

	 Title:
	 	 Chief Financial Officer



  

			
	 MISSION BROADCASTING, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ David S. Smith

	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	 David S. Smith

	 Title:
	 	 President