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


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation 
of our reports dated April 17, 1997 on the consolidated financial statements
(and schedule) of The Quick & Reilly Group, Inc. and subsidiaries incorporated 
by reference (included) in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-63950, 33-64053, and 33-26533) and
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-28345 and 333-10173).



                                                        Arthur Andersen LLP



New York, NY 
May 28, 1997
#### Anna Cacciatore, Individually and as Executrix of Angelo Cacciatore, Deceased, Claimant, *v.*State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 32776.)

Court of Claims,

February 26, 1957.

*Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Douglas L. Manley*of counsel), for defendant.

*George R. Davis*for claimant.

Russell G. Hunt, J.

This is an application by the State to amend the decision, containing findings of fact and conclusions of law and directing the entry of judgment, made and filed herein on December 18, 1956, respecting the computation of interest upon the amount awarded to the claimants in an appropriation case. The judgment has not yet been entered because the Attorney-General has not filed his written approval of title pursuant to rule 28 of the Court of Claims Buies.

The appropriation occurred on June 30, 1953, when the State actually entered upon the claimants’ lands and commenced the work on constructing the State Thruway (Davison on Claims Against the State of New York, p. 399, § 39.14). The map and description of the land taken were filed in the Herkimer County Clerk’s office on October 6, 1953, but, were not served on the claimants until August 31, 1954. The claim was filed in the office of the clerk of this court on September 18,1954.

Interest upon the award was allowed from the vesting date, namely, June 30, 1953, to the entry of judgment. The State contends,- however, that pursuant to *Vescera*v. *State of New York*(3 A D 2d 644) and subdivision 1 of section 19 of the Court of Claims Act, interest may be awarded only from June 30, 1953, for six months to December 30, 1953, and, from September 18, 1954, the date the claim was filed, to the entry of judgment.

The application must be denied. A trial judge has no authority to make a substantial change in his decision contain*842ing findings of fact and conclusions of law and directing the entry of judgment *(President & Directors of Manhattan Co.*v. *Erlandsen,*56 N. Y. S. 2d 136, affd. 266 App. Div. 883, motion for leave to appeal denied 266 App. Div. 924). He has the authority to entertain a motion for a new trial and upon the hearing to amend findings of fact and conclusions of law and to render a new decision (Court of Claims Act, § 9, subd. 8; Civ. Prac. Act, § 549), provided, the application is made within 15 days after the decision is rendered (Rules Civ. Prac, rule 60-a). In this case the notice of motion is dated January 15, 1957, more than 15 days after the decision, hence, the application cannot be treated as a motion for a new trial.

Upon the merits, however, see *La Porte*v. *State of New York*(5 Misc 2d 419).

The claimants’ cross motion is denied for the same reasons.

Submit order.
Order filed June 16, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00838-CR

____________

GEORGIA LOVETT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 5

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2008856

ORDER

Appellant is not represented by counsel. The trial court has previously 

determined that appellant is not indigent for purposes of appointment of counsel on 

appeal. Appellant expressed the desire to continue here appeal and represent herself. 

No brief has been filed. Rule 38.8 provides that we will not dismiss or consider the 

appeal without briefs unless it is shown the appellant no longer desires to prosecute 

her appeal or that she is not indigent and has failed to make necessary arrangements 

for filing a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8. The rule further provides that under 
appropriate circumstances, “the appellate court may consider the appeal without 

briefs, as justice may require.” Tex. R. App. P. 38.8 (b)(4).

A hearing has already been held as required under Rule 38.8. Because the trial 

court has already held one hearing to make the findings required under Rule 38.8, 

and we can find nothing in the rules or case law which requires this court to once 

again send this matter back to the trial court, we decline to do so. 

Therefore, we ORDER appellant to file a brief in this appeal on or before July 

13, 2016. If appellant fails to file her brief as ordered, we will decide this appeal 

upon the record before the court. See Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1994) (affirming conviction on record alone where appellant failed to file a pro 

se brief after being properly admonished); Coleman v. State, 774 S.W.2d 736, 738–

39 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (holding that former rule 

74(l)(2) (now Rule 38.8(b)) permitted an appeal to be considered without briefs “as 

justice may require” when a pro se appellant has not complied with the rules of 

appellate procedure).

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1361 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1361

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
   15-year recovery period for the depreciation of certain leasehold 
  improvements and to modify the depreciation rules relating to such 
 leasehold improvements for purposes of computing earnings and profits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 10, 2007

  Mr. Conrad (for himself and Mr. Kyl) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
   15-year recovery period for the depreciation of certain leasehold 
  improvements and to modify the depreciation rules relating to such 
 leasehold improvements for purposes of computing earnings and profits.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Leasehold Improvement Depreciation 
Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF DEPRECIATION RULES 
              RELATING TO CERTAIN LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS.

    (a) Permanent Extension.--Section 168(e)(3)(E)(iv) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (defining 15-year property) is amended by striking 
``placed in service before January 1, 2008''.
    (b) Depreciation Rules for Certain Leasehold Improvements for 
Purposes of Earnings and Profits.--Paragraph (3) of section 312(k) of 
such Code (relating to exception for tangible property) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Treatment of qualified leasehold improvement 
                property.--In the case of any qualified leasehold 
                improvement property (within the meaning of section 
                168(e)(6)), the adjustment to earnings and profits for 
                depreciation for any taxable year shall be determined 
                under the alternative depreciation method (within the 
                meaning of section 168(g)(2)), except that the recovery 
                period shall be 15 years.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (A) of section 312(k)(3) of 
such Code is amended by striking ``subparagraph (B),'' and inserting 
``subparagraphs (B) and (C),''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the quarterly  report of SportsNuts,  Inc.
      (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
      period  ending  September 30, 2007 as filed with
      the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
      date hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, John D. Thomas, Chief Executive Officer
      of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
                Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of the Securities
                Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated
      as
      of November 9, 2007





By
      /s/ John D. Thomas


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


John
      D. Thomas


Chief
      Executive Officer
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
---------------------------


                             OBJECTSOFT CORPORATION
                              CONTINENTAL PLAZA III
                              433 HACKENSACK AVENUE
                          HACKENSACK, NEW JERSEY 07601

                                                                    May 1, 2000

Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company
2 Broadway
New York, New York 10004
Attention: William Seegraber

                  RE: WARRANT AGREEMENT DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 11, 1996
                      -----------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Seegraber:

         As of the date  hereof,  each of the  Redeemable  Class A Common  Stock
Purchase  Warrants  (the  "Warrants")  of  ObjectSoft  Corporation,  a  Delaware
corporation  (the  "Company")  represents  the right of the  holder  thereof  to
purchase,  at the  Exercise  Price  of  $6.50,  one-sixth  of one  share  of the
Company's Common Stock.  Please be advised that the Company's board of directors
has resolved that it is in the best  interests of the Company to increase to one
share the amount of Common  Stock  which a holder may acquire  upon  exercise of
each Warrant.

         Therefore,  the Company desires to amend the warrant agreement dated as
of November 11, 1996,  between the Company,  Continental  Stock Transfer & Trust
Company  and  Renaissance   Financial   Securities   Corporation  (the  "Warrant
Agreement") by increasing to one full share of Common Stock the amount of Common
Stock which the  registered  holder of each Warrant may purchase at the Exercise
Price upon  exercise of such  Warrant;  provided,  however,  that the  increased
amount  of  shares  will not be  issuable  until  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  declares  effective a  registration  statement  with  respect to the
additional shares issuable as a result of this amendment. Except with respect to
this increase,  the provisions of the Warrant  Agreement shall remain  unaltered
and in full force and effect and the Exercise  Price and the number of shares of
Common Stock issuable upon exercise of each Warrant (as amended hereby) shall be
subject to adjustment as provided in the Warrant Agreement.


<PAGE>


         If the  foregoing  amendment to the Warrant  Agreement is acceptable to
you, please so indicate by having your authorized representative sign and return
to us the enclosed copy of this letter agreement.

                                                 Very truly yours,

                                                 OBJECTSOFT CORPORATION


                                                 By:    /s/ David E.Y. Sarna
                                                    -------------------------
                                                        David E.Y. Sarna
                                                        Chairman

AGREED AND ACCEPTED THIS 1st
DAY OF MAY, 2000:

CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY



By:   /s/  Steven Nelson
   ------------------------
       Name: Steven Nelson
       Title: Chairman


                                      -2-
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 23a

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
First Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc.:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
333-85749) on Form S-8 of First Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated
February 4, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of the First
Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each
of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 1999, which report
appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of the First
Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc.

KPMG LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 9, 2001
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1308 

To prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from allowing the importation of 

certain cattle and beef from Canada until the implementation of country 

of origin labeling requirements. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 3, 2007 

Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. CONRAD, and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from allowing the 

importation of certain cattle and beef from Canada until 

the implementation of country of origin labeling requirements. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION OF CATTLE 

4 FROM CANADA. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law (includ6 ing regulations), the Secretary of Agriculture may not per7 mit the importation from Canada of live Canadian cattle 

8 over 30 months of age, or beef derived from Canadian catVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:50 May 04, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1308.IS S1308

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 1308 IS

1 tle over 30 months of age, until the date of implementation 

2 of subtitle D of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 

3 (7 U.S.C. 1638 et seq.). 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02443-BNB

TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG, 

Applicant,

v.

WARDEN DAVIS, 

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Timothy Doyle Young, is in the custody of the United States Bureau of

Prisons and currently is incarcerated at ADX in Florence, Colorado. Mr. Young, acting

pro se, initiated this action by filing a document titled “Habeas Corpus Ad

Testificandum.” In an order entered on September 22, 2011, Magistrate Judge Boyd N.

Boland found that Mr. Young is asserting conditions of confinement claims rather than

habeas corpus claims.

Magistrate Judge Boland construed the action as filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and

instructed Mr. Young to submit his claims on a Court-approved form used in filing

prisoner complaints. Mr. Young also was instructed to submit to the Court a Prisoner’s

Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and a certified

copy of his inmate trust fund account statement for the six months prior to the filing of

the instant action, if he desired to proceed in forma pauperis. Otherwise, he was

Case 1:11-cv-02443-LTB Document 3 Filed 10/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

directed to pay the $350.00 filing fee prior to proceeding in this action.

Upon review of the document Mr. Young submitted, the Court agrees that Mr.

Young’s claims properly are asserted in a prisoner complaint. Mr. Young now has failed

to comply with the September 22 Order within the time allowed. He has failed to submit

his claims on a Court-approved form used in filing prisoner complaints, and he has

failed to submit a proper 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Motion and Affidavit along with a certified

trust fund account statement for the six months preceding the filing date of this action. 

Therefore, the Complaint and action will be dismissed. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

41(b) for failure to comply with the September 22, 2011 Order and cure deficiencies. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 31st day of October , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02443-LTB Document 3 Filed 10/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 16 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

PERRY B. BEVERAGE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, a Missouri Corporation;

SHELTER GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, a Missouri Corporation;

SHELTER LIFE INSURANCE CO., a

Missouri Corporation; and SHELTER

FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a

Missouri Corporation,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-6104

(D.C. No. 96-CV-471)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, McKAY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. 
-2-

Plaintiff Perry B. Beverage appeals from the district court’s order granting

defendants’ motion for sanctions for not providing discovery to defendants in a

timely manner. The dispute turns on whether Mr. Beverage or his lawyer was

responsible for the delay. The trial court held a hearing at which both Mr.

Beverage and his counsel testified. The trial court determined counsel to be the

more credible witness and imposed the sanctions on Mr. Beverage.

We review the imposition of sanctions for abuse of discretion, see Mobley

v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337, 340 (10th Cir. 1994), and defer to the district court's

evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) (“due regard

shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the

witnesses”). We cannot say the trial court’s credibility determination was clearly

erroneous or that its order imposing sanctions was an abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1308 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1308

To prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from allowing the importation 
  of certain cattle and beef from Canada until the implementation of 
                country of origin labeling requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 3, 2007

   Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Enzi) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from allowing the importation 
  of certain cattle and beef from Canada until the implementation of 
                country of origin labeling requirements.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION OF CATTLE FROM CANADA.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations), 
the Secretary of Agriculture may not permit the importation from Canada 
of live Canadian cattle over 30 months of age, or beef derived from 
Canadian cattle over 30 months of age, until the date of implementation 
of subtitle D of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638 
et seq.).
                                 <all>
```
DISMISS; Opinion issued April 29, 2013

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-01194-CV

JUSTIN SMITH, Appellant

V.

KRISTINA BILBAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-02673-2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright

By letter dated January 23, 2013, the Court informed appellant that we have received 

notice from the District Clerk of Collin County that the clerk’s record has not been filed because 

appellant has not paid the fee for its preparation. We instructed appellant to provide the Court, 

within ten days, written verification that he has paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee 

or written documentation that appellant has been found to be entitled to proceed without payment 

of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to provide the document within the time specified 

may result in dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.

As of today’s date, appellant has not provided the requested documentation. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3 (b) & (c).

121194F.P05

/Carolyn Wright/

CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JUSTIN SMITH, Appellant

No. 05-12-01194-CV V.

KRISTINA BILBAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-02673-2012.

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee, KRISTINA BILBAN, recover her costs of this appeal 

from appellant, JUSTIN SMITH.

Judgment entered April 29, 2013.

/Carolyn Wright/

CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Metropolitan Life

Insurance Company

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00248-JL

Judith A. Hanson, et al.

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

December 10, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. will include a substantive,

meaningful discussion of the parties’ claims and defenses. 

Counsel are expected to be prepared to engage in an open,

cooperative discussion in good faith. Counsel are reminded of

the obligations imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) and (4), and

should be prepared to explain the factual basis underlying any

claims or defenses they have pleaded.

Each party shall be represented at the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference by counsel authorized to bind the party on all

matters.

To the extent that the substance of this order constitutes a

departure from the customary Preliminary Pretrial practice to

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JL Document 23 Filed 12/02/08 Page 1 of 2
2

which counsel are accustomed, the court apologizes for the short

notice, and will bear this in mind at the conference.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: December 2, 2008

cc: William D. Pandolph, Esq.

Jeanne P. Herrick, Esq.

Jackson W. Casey, Esq.

Jonathan A. Lax, Esq.

Patrick M. McAvoy, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JL Document 23 Filed 12/02/08 Page 2 of 2