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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 33-70628, 33-75184, 333-28135, 333-42424 and 333-108208) of
Calton, Inc. of our report dated February 6, 2004, except for Note 1.B. as to
which date is February 4, 2005, relating to the financial statements for the
year ended November 30, 2003 and 2002 which appears in this Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended November 30, 2003.



                                           /s/ Aidman, Piser & Company, P.A.



Tampa, Florida
April 15, 2005
207 La. 1082.

#### STATE v. STANLEY.

No. 37808.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 30, 1945.

Rehearing Denied June 5, 1945.

*658Thomas Arthur Edwards, of Lake Charles, for defendant-appellant.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Cul-ligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Griffin T. Hawkins, Dist. Atty., Preston L. Savoy, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Frank M. Brame, Atty. for City of Sulphur, all of Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellee.

ROGERS, Justice.

This is an appeal by N. G. Stanley from his conviction and sentence on a charge of disturbing the peace by being drunk on the streets of the Town of Sulphur. The trial which resulted in defendant’s conviction and sentence was held de novo in the district court on appeal from defendant’s conviction and sentence in the mayor’s court in the Town of Sulphur.

The appeal presents for consideration the identical questions which were reviewed and disposed of by this Court under a writ of certiorari and rule nisi issued upon defendant’s application in the proceeding entitled Town of Sulphur v. N. G. Stanley, La.Sup., 22 So.2d 655, No. 37,788 of the docket of the Court. Neither the constitutionality nor the legality of the ordinance or the penalty imposed upon the defendant was questioned in the mayor’s court or attacked in the district court. In the trial, which was held de novo in the district court, defendant’s guilt or innocence was the sole question presented for consideration and decision. The proceeding in the mayor’s court was not an issue on the trial in the district court and any alleged political prejudice existing against defendant in the mayor’s court was irrelevant and immaterial, since the entire case was heard and disposed of anew by the judge of the district court.

The Town of Sulphur has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this Court is without jurisdiction for the reason that the sentence imposed is only for thirty days imprisonment in jail and no question of the legality or constitutionality of the penalty imposed is involved in the case, and on the further ground that defendant, having appealed from his conviction and sentence in the mayor’s court to the district court, is not entitled to a second appeal to this Court.

In cases of this kind the appellate jurisdiction is vested in the district court and not in this Court. Constitution of 1921, Article 7, sections 10 and 36. Defendant, therefore, is without right to prosecute the appeal to this Court from the decision of the district court rendered in the trial de novo on appeal from the mayor’s court. State v. Delia, 206 La. 574, 19 So.2d 257.

For the reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                              FORM OF CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 AND 15d-14
              UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Linda Contreras, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of National  Healthcare
Technology, Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of 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;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. As the registrant's  certifying officer I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and I have:

      (a)  designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to ensure that
      material   information   relating  to  the   registrant,   including   its
      consolidated  subsidiaries,  is made  known to us by others  within  those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
      being prepared; and

      (b) evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
      and procedures and presented my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure  controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by
      the report; and

      (c)  disclosed  in this  report any changes in the  registrant's  internal
      control over  financial  reporting that occurred  during the  registrant's
      most recent  fiscal  quarter (the small  business  issuer's  fourth fiscal
      quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,  or
      is  reasonably  likely to materially  affect,  the  registrant's  internal
      control over financial reporting;

5. As the  registrant's  certifying  officer I have disclosed,  based on my most
recent  evaluation,  to the registrant's  auditors and the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a) all material  weaknesses,  as well as significant  deficiencies in the
      design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's  ability to record,
      process, summarize, and report financial information, have been disclosed;
      and

      (b) any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
      employees  who  have  a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
      controls.


Date:   August 17, 2007

/s/ Linda Contreras
----------------------------------
Name: Linda Contreras
Title: Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.0


                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 Bizcom U.S.A., Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hanan
Klein, Chief Executive Officer, President, Principal Executive, Financial and
Accounting Officer, Secretary and Chairman of the Board of Directors, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (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: June 22, 2005

                                             /s/ Hanan Klein
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Hanan Klein
                                             Chief Executive Officer, President,
                                             Principal Executive, Financial and
                                             Accounting Officer, Secretary and
                                             Chairman of the Board of Directors
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frederick Clark, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 490]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 15, 1993 *(People v Clark,*191 AD2d 576), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered July 25, 1989.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Ritter, J.P., Altman, Feuerstein and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
Company.  A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Streicher Mobile Fueling,
Inc. and will be retained by Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  /s/ Richard E.
Gathright Richard E. Gathright President and Chief Executive Officer May
18, 2005   /s/MichaelS.Shore Michael S. Shore Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer May
18, 2005  33
----

----

| Name of Subsidiary                                                 |         | Jurisdiction of Incorporation  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|-------------------------------------|
|                                                                    |         |
| Shuffle Master International, Inc.                                      | Nevada       |
| Shuffle Master Australia Pty Ltd.                                  | Australia    |
| Gaming Products Pty., Ltd.                                              | Australia    |
| VIP Gaming Solutions Pty Limited                                   | Australia    |
| Shuffle Master Australasia Holdings Pty Ltd                        | Australia    |
| Shuffle Master Australasia Pty Ltd                                 | Australia    |
| Shuffle Master Holding GmbH                                             | Austria      |
| Shuffle Master Management-Services GmbH                                 | Austria      |
| Shuffle Master GmbH                                                     | Austria      |
| Shuffle Master Holding GmbH & Co Financing Consulting-KEG | Austria      |
| Shuffle Master GmbH & Co KG (dba CARD)               | Austria      |
| Shuffle Up Productions, Inc.                                            | Delaware     |
| CARD Casinos Austria Research and Development Limited*                  | New Zealand  |
| Shuffle Master Asia Limited                                             | Macau        |
| Stargames Pty Ltd (subsidiaries listed below)                           | Australia    |
| CARD Shuffle Master Investments (Proprietary) Limited                   | South Africa |

| Name of Subsidiary                          |        | Jurisdiction of Incorporation  |
|--------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------|
| Stargames Group Management Pty Limited**         | Australia   |
| Stargames Holdings Pty Limited                   | Australia   |
| Stargames Australia Pty Limited**                | Australia   |
| Stargames Investments Pty Limited**              | Australia   |
| Stargames Corporation Pty Limited                | Australia   |
| Precise Craft Pty Limited**                      | Australia   |
| Stargames Property Pty Limited                   | Australia   |
| Australasian Gaming Industries Pty Limited**     | Australia   |
| Stargames Assets Pty Limited                     | Australia   |
| Stargames Corporation (NZ) Pty Limited | New Zealand |
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that thisperiodic report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained inthis periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Golf Trust of America, Inc.

 
| Date: November 14, 2006 | /s/ W. BRADLEY BLAIR, II                            |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                    | W. Bradley Blair, II                                |
|                    | *President and Chief Executive Officer*             |
|                    |                                                |
| Date: November 14, 2006 | /s/ SCOTT D. PETERS                                 |
|                    | Scott D. Peters                                     |
|                    | *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* |

 

 

----
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Mollie Rosenkrantz, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

November 14, 1956.

*Herman L. Brutten*for respondents.

*Mortimer J. Levie*and *Samuel Schacter*for petitioner.

Maximilian Moss, S.

This is a motion by the respondents, in a discovery proceeding to vacate an order made on September 24, 1956, which required them to submit to an inquiry under section 205 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, claiming the allegations of the petition are insufficient. The movants claim that the petition upon which the order is based is founded upon no proof, that the proceeding is not available for a fishing expedition and that no proof was submitted as to particular property which belongs to the estate.

A proceeding brought under section 205 of the Surrogate’s Court Act is in its nature inquisitorial and “ a fishing expedition ” which may be instituted on information and belief of “ any facts tending to show either possession of ”, or, “ knowledge or information ” concerning property which should be delivered to the estate representative. This proceeding is considered as “an examination before trial ” to elicit information upon which to found a demonstration for ultimate recovery of assets. *(Matter of*Kevill, 166 Misc. 230, 233; *Matter of Kuster,*152 N. Y. S. 2d 742.) The motion to vacate is denied. Settle order on notice.
Exhibit 99.1

ITEM 7-CERTIFICATION

                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 filing of  HomeLife  Inc.'s (the  "Company")  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending  February 28, 2003 with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Andrew Cimerman,
the President and 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:

     (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.


                                        /s/ Andrew Cimerman
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Andrew Cimerman
                                        President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer
Date:  May 20, 2003


               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 filing of  HomeLife  Inc.'s (the  "Company")  Quarterly
Report  on  Form  10-Q  for the  period  ending  February  28,  2003 , with  the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Marie
M. May,  the 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.


                                        /s/ Marie M. May
                                        --------------------------
                                        Marie M. May
                                        Chief Financial Officer
Date:  May 20, 2003
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATIONSprincipal executive and financial officers

I,
James E. Alexander, certify that:

1.    I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Isonics Corporation;

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;

3.    Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The
small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:



5.    The
small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors;



March 16,
2004

|/s/ James E. AlexanderJames E. Alexander
Chief Executive Officer and President |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

---

I,
John V. Sakys, certify that:

1.    I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Isonics Corporation;

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;

3.    Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The
small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:



5.    The
small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors;



March 16,
2004

|/s/ John V. SakysJohn V. Sakys
Chief Financial and Accounting Officer |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
#### Edward L. WEAVER; Deborah A. Weaver, LEGAL GUARDIANS FOR Morgan E. WEAVER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE CO., Defendant, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 01-4345, 02-3036.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 6, 2003.

*532Before MERRITT and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges, and DUPLANTIER, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Adrian G. Duplantier, United States District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge.

Appellees Edward and Deborah Weaver, both citizens of Ohio, filed this action in the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of their ward, Morgan Weaver, against the defendant insurance companies, neither of which is a citizen of Ohio. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment concerning the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage available to Morgan Weaver through Deborah Weaver’s employer’s commercial insurance policies pursuant to the rule in *Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire & Ins. Co.,*85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116, 1119-20 (1999)(permitting employees to sue employer’s commercial insurance carrier to recover underinsured motorist benefits). The district court, relying on *Kormanik v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,*208 F.Supp.2d 824 (N.D.Ohio 2001), found that the Appellees *Scott-Pontzer*complaint was a direct action within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), and therefore the district court dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This appeal followed.

*Kormanik*is no longer good law in this circuit. A panel of this court has recently held that *Scott-Pontzer*actions are *not*direct actions within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). *see Lee-Lipstreu v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos.,*329 F.3d 898 (6th Cir.2003), and where the ordinary requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 diversity are met, federal courts retain subject matter jurisdiction over *Scott-Pontzer*actions. See *id.*at 900. In the case before us here, there is no dispute that the ordinary requirements of diversity have been met.

Accordingly, the decision of the district court is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this decision.