alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1



NANO CHEMICAL SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, James Ray, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Nano Chemical
Systems Holdings, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof:



|1. | Fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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





|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ James RayJames Ray               
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|October 14, 2005
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE NACACIO AMU, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-40; CA-03-601) Submitted: September 9, 2004 Decided: September 16, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Nacacio Amu, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jose Nacacio Amu seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to amend his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Amu seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Amu’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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

I, Arne Dunhem, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
MobilePro Corp. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter
ended June 30, 2003 (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
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.



Dated: August 19, 2003



                  /s/ Arne Dunhem
                  --------------------
           Name:  Arne Dunhem
           Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
                  (Principal executive and financial officer)
Exhibit 32




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL


OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO





SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of National Investment Managers Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      August 13, 2010
            /s/ Steven J. RossSteven
      J. RossChief
      Executive OfficerDated:
      August 13, 2010
            /s/ Christopher W.
LarkinChristopher
      W. LarkinChief
      Financial Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JAMES T. ROBERTS, III, )

DOC #H39350 )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4305

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed March 20, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; William Sites, Judge.

Henry G. Gyden, Esq., of Gyden Law 

Group, Tampa, for Appellant.

James T. Roberts, III, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Blain A. Goff, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

Order 

September 15, 2010 

141053-4 

VICKI L. ZUNICH, Individually, as Next 

Friend for CHARLES ZUNICH, a Minor, as 

Next Friend for MATTHEW ZUNICH, a 

Minor, and as Personal Representative of the 

Estate of STEVEN J. ZUNICH, Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 141053 

 COA: 297456 

Midland CC: 02-005382-NH 

MIDMICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTERMIDLAND, JEFFREY S. NEWMAN, M.D., 

FAMILY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES OF 

MIDLAND, P.C., a/k/a FAMILY PRACTICE 

ASSOCIATES OF MIDLAND, P.C., 

KENNETH M. MACKINNON, M.D., 

JAMES H. FRYE, M.D., MIDMICHIGAN 

HEALTH, and FAITH D. FUENTES, M.D., 

Jointly and Severally, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

VICKI L. ZUNICH, Individually, as Next 

Friend for CHARLES ZUNICH, a Minor, as 

Next Friend for MATTHEW ZUNICH, a 

Minor, and as Personal Representative of the 

Estate of STEVEN J. ZUNICH, Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 141054 

 COA: 297457 

Midland CC: 03-005843-NH 

FAMILY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES OF 

MIDLAND, P.C., 

 Defendant-Appellee, 

JERRY L. FERRELL, M.D., and ROBERTA L. 

CORBAT, 

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 15, 2010 

y0908 

 

2

 On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal prior to decision by the Court of 

Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court before consideration by the Court 

of Appeals.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 52938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21469]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-1810-001]


E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company; Notice of Filing

August 20, 2010.
    Take notice that on August 20, 2010, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and 
Company, filed clarification and an amendment to its July 19, 2010 
petition for market-based rate authorization and request for waivers 
and blanket authorizations.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f9bfbcabbab6979590979caa8c8989968b8db99f9c8b9ad79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8acccfd8c9c5e4e6e3e4efd9fffafae5f8fecaeceff8e9a4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 30, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21469 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTER  ENDING  SEPTEMBER  30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFRENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      1,610,358
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,263,324
<ALLOWANCES>                                    3,100
<INVENTORY>                                 5,347,506
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            9,459,853
<PP&E>                                     15,258,801
<DEPRECIATION>                              4,282,755
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             21,909,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       6,186,528
<BONDS>                                     5,114,846
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                    9,178,645
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,550,400)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               21,909,900
<SALES>                                    53,624,091
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           53,624,091
<CGS>                                      27,969,050
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              39,711,721
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           14,617,326
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            343,931
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,048,887)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (398,577)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (650,310)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (650,310)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)





</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

LOGO

2 December 2010

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20549

Commissioners:

We have read the statements made by Gold Fields Limited (copy attached), which we understand will be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, pursuant to Item 16F(a)(1)(i)-(iii) of Form 20-F, as part of the Annual report on Form 20-F of Gold Fields Limited for the year ended June 30, 2010, dated December 2, 2010. We agree with the statements concerning our
Firm in such Form 20-F.

Very truly yours,

|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                 
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers, Inc.                                 
|PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc
Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa





PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc,2
Eglin Road, Sunninghill 2157, Private Bag X36, Sunninghill 2157, South Africa

Reg. no. 1998/012055/21, T: +27 (11) 797 4000, F: +27
(11) 797 5800, www.pwc.com/za

Executive: S P Kana (Chief Executive Officer) T P Blandin de Chalain D J Fölscher G M Khumalo I S
Sehoole S Subramoney F Tonelli

Resident Director in Charge: E R Mackeown

The Companys principal place of business is at 2 Eglin Road, Sunninghill where a list of directors names is available for inspection.

PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc is an authorised financial services provider.

VAT reg.no. 4950174682.



---

Statements made by Gold Fields Limited, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant
to Item 16F(a)(i)-(iii) of Form 20-F, as part of the Annual report on Form 20-F of Gold Fields Limited for the year ended June 30, 2010:

On June 25, 2010, Gold Fields dismissed PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., or PwC, as its independent registered public accounting firm. Gold Fields Audit Committee and Board of Directors
participated in and approved the decision to change its independent registered public accounting firm. Such dismissal will become effective upon completion by PwC of its procedures on the consolidated financial statements of Gold Fields as of and
for the year ended June 30, 2010 and the filing of the related Form 20-F.

The reports of PwC on the consolidated financial
statements for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2009 and 2010 contained no adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion and, were not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principle.

During the two fiscal years ended June 30, 2009 and 2010, there have been no disagreements with PwC on any matter of accounting
principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or auditing scope or procedure, which disagreements, if not resolved to the satisfaction of PwC, would have caused PwC to make reference thereto in their reports on Gold Fields
consolidated financial statements for such fiscal years.

During the two fiscal years ended June 30, 2009 and 2010, there were
no reportable events as that term is defined in Item 16F(a)(1)(v) of Form 20-F.
J. 

a protected property or liberty interest."); see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 

U.S. 472, 486 (1995) ("[D]iscipline in segregated confinement [does] not 

present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might 

conceivably create a liberty interest."); Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973 

(9th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that a prisoner does not have a property or 

liberty interest in prison employment under the due process clause). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

, J. 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge 

Edwan Thurmond 

Attorney GenerallCarson City 

Carson City Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 2 

NEVADA 

CO 1947A aggEOu
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 240 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the per-fiscal year calculation of days of certain active duty or active service used to reduce 

the minimum age at which a member of a reserve component of the 

uniformed services may retire for non-regular service. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2013 

Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. BEGICH, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, 

Mr. WYDEN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. BAUCUS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the perfiscal year calculation of days of certain active duty 

or active service used to reduce the minimum age at 

which a member of a reserve component of the uniformed 

services may retire for non-regular service. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reserve Retirement 

5 Deployment Credit Correction Act’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 240 IS

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF PER-FISCAL YEAR CALCULATION 

2 OF DAYS OF CERTAIN ACTIVE DUTY OR AC3 TIVE SERVICE TO REDUCE ELIGIBILITY AGE 

4 FOR RETIREMENT FOR NON-REGULAR SERV5 ICE. 

6 (a) ACCUMULATION OF 90-DAY PERIODS OF SERV7 ICE WITHIN ANY TWO CONSECUTIVE FISCAL YEARS.— 

8 Section 12731(f)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, 

9 is amended by striking ‘‘in any fiscal year’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘in any two consecutive fiscal years’’. 

11 (b) RETROACTIVE EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amend12 ment made by subsection (a) shall take effect as of Janu13 ary 28, 2008, and as if included in the National Defense 

14 Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110– 

15 181) as enacted. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 99(c)

 

 

 

	Certificate as to Compliance
 

	I, Steven H. Smith, Servicing Officer of Household Finance Corporation (the "Master Servicer"), DO HEREBY CERTIFY, in accordance with Section 4.10 of the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 9, 2001 among Household Automotive Trust 2001-3, as Issuer, Household Auto Receivables Corporation, as Seller, the Master Servicer and Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association, as Indenture Trustee (the "Master Sale and Servicing Agreement"), that:

	1.  A review of the activities of the Master Servicer from January 1 through December 31, 2003 (the "Year") and of its performance under the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

	2.  To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its material obligations under the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout the Year.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate this 25th day of March, 2004.

 

						/s/ Steven H. Smith		 
					Steven H. Smith

					Servicing Officer

 

 

AUTO 2001-3
1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United Stat es District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2075

___________ Tiran Rodez Casteel, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Bill McCarthy; Polk County Jail; * Prison Health Services; * [UNPUBLISHED] Johnson Diversey Inc.; Mercy * Hospital Medical Center; Solvay * Pharmaceuticals Inc., * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: September 1, 2010 Filed: September 7, 2010

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Tiran Casteel appeals the district court’s 1 preservice dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging numerous constitutional violations. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that dismissal was proper. SeeCooper v. Schriro , 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review); Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 834-2- (1994) (to prevail on Eighth Amendment claim, prisoner is required to show that challenged condition presented substantial risk of serious harm and that prison officials acted with deliberate indiffe rence toward that risk); see also Shade v. City of Farmington , 309 F.3d 1054, 1058 n.6 (8th Cir. 2002) (arguments not briefed are considered abandoned on appeal). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### STATE v. JENKINS

No. 81P01

Case below: 141 N.C. App. 351

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 March 2001.
May 22, 1979

79-34 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ACTING

CHIEF, ORGANIZED CRIME AND

RACKETEERING SECTION, CRIMINAL

DIVISION

Office of Legal Counsel—Limitation on Opinion

Function

This confirms the advice we gave orally concerning your May 18 memorandum concerning a requested Office of Legal Counsel opinion. You 

state that a Federal district judge has asked for our opinion on an issue 

that has arisen in connection with a pending grand jury investigation. That 

issue is whether the Department of Justice has the authority to investigate 

possible violations of title 18, involving pension plans covered by the 

Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. As I 

indicated orally to you previously, it would not be appropriate in this circumstance for us to render a legal opinion.

The Attorney General has delegated certain responsibilities to the Office 

of Legal Counsel, including the preparation of his formal opinions and 

advice to Government agencies. 28 CFR § 0.25. That delegation does not 

authorize us to provide legal advice at the request of the judicial branch. 

Moreover, the opinion function of the Attorney General himself is limited 

by statute to the provision of advice to the President, the heads of executive departments, and the Secretaries of military departments. 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 511-513.

In addition to those restrictions on our opinion function, we note that 

this Department has, as a matter of policy, consistently refrained from 

opining on questions presented to the courts for resolution. The Attorney 

General has stated, for example:

[T]his Department has uniformly refused to consider any questions that have been committed to judicial review. To do so might 

bring this Department into conflict with a Judicial tribunal, and 

this has been held to be an adequate reason for a refusal to give an 

official opinion. [24 Op. A tt’y Gen. 59, 60 (1902).]

215
Similar statements appear in numerous other opinions of the Attorneys 

General. See, e.g., 41 Op. A tt’y Gen. 266, 273 (1956); 38 Op. A tt’y Gen. 

149, 150 (1934); 37 Op. A tt’y Gen. 34, 42 (1932). Since the question you 

have asked us is pending before the court, we do not believe it would be 

appropriate for us to respond to the request.

J o h n M . H a r m o n

Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

216
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

t1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143745 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143745 

 COA: 296862 

Wayne CC: 09-014023-FC 

LORING MARTEZ-ORLANDO WALKER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 28, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.