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

                                                                      Exhibit 15

                 Awareness Letter of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu


December 15, 2000

The Board of Directors
Peak International Limited
Units 3-7, 37/F Wharf Cable Tower
9 Hoi Shing Road
Tsuen Wan
New Territories
Hong Kong

Dear Sirs,

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim consolidated
financial statements of Peak International Limited for the quarter ended June
30, 2000 and September 30, 2000, as indicated in our reports dated August 4,
2000 and October 23, 2000, respectively; because we did not perform an audit, we
expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our reports referred to above, which were included in your
quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2000 and September
30, 2000, are being used in this Registration Statement.

We also are aware that the aforementioned reports, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, are not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Exhibit 32.2



                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                       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 Zond-PanAero Windsystem Partners I
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Mary H.Cilia, Chief Financial Officer of Zond Windsystems
Management LLC, as General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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
      Partnership for the three months ended March 31, 2004.


Date:     May 14, 2004
                                 /s/ MARY H. CILIA
                                 ------------------------------
                                 Mary H. Cilia
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                 Zond Windsystems Management LLC, as General
                                 Partner of Zond-PanAero Windsystem Partners I
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Techwell, Inc. (the "Company") for the annual period
ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Mark Voll, Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge,
that:



/s/ MARK VOLL Mark Voll Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 23, 2010


---
CHARLA NICOLE BREWER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-3976 and 1D15-3982

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 15, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

Michael Flowers, Judge.

Glenn M. Swiatek, Shalimar, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., WETHERELL and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Rajesh K. Soin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of MTC Technologies, 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: April 29, 2008   
|                       
|/s/ Rajesh K. Soin     
|Rajesh K. Soin         
|Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Marion Pearl SPEAR, Appellant.

No. KCD 26532.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District.

Dec. 3, 1973.

John J. Phillips, Phillips, Rice & Mc-Elligott, Independence, for appellant.

Before DIXON, C. J., and PRITCH-ARD and SOMERVILLE, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant was charged with speeding, and after conviction in the Magistrate Court, appealed to the circuit court. On December 18, a jury having been waived, the court heard evidence. At the conclusion of the evidence, the following statement appears:

> “The Court believes the State has sustained the burden of proof beyond a reasonable, doubt that the defendant did exceed the speed limit of 70 miles an hour. The Court will fix the fine of the defendant at $10.00 and costs. That will be the judgment of the Court.”

Three days later, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

We are again confronted with a record which requires that we dismiss an appeal because no final judgment has been entered. It has been repeatedly held that a trial court sitting as a jury and rendering a verdict or upon a jury verdict may not impose sentence and judgment until the time for the filing of a motion for new trial has expired. State v. Grant, 380 S.W.2d 799, 803[4] (Mo. 1964); State v. Summers, 477 S.W.2d 721, 722 (Mo.App.1972); State v. Jaeger, 394 S.W.2d 347, 354 (Mo.1965); State v. Nichols, 474 S.W.2d 54, 55 (Mo.App.1971); State v. Myers, 467 S.W.2d 577 (Mo.App.1971).

In this case, it appears that no motion for new trial was ever filed. We note nonetheless that the language of the court set forth above is prospective “it will be the judgment.” Likewise, there is no formal verdict of guilty, although the court indicated such would be his finding. Thus, this case is like State v. Ezell, 470 S.W.2d 162, 163 (Mo.App.1971), and the defendant’s right to file a motion for new trial *53and reinstate his appeal would be in question if a verdict had, in fact, been rendered. Rule 27.20, V.A.M.R. We shall, therefore, as was done in that case, set aside the submission, dismiss the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to enter a verdict, receive and rule upon a motion for new trial, if any be filed, and make an entry of final judgment in accordance with Rule 27.20.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-K AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      24,219,035
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,237,523
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                  0
<PP&E>                                       8,736,940
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,299,204
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                  29,734,733
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0
<LONG-TERM>                                 15,234,847
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,500,402
<COMMON>                                       271,167
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,558,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,299,204
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                    0
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           485,355
<COMMISSIONS>                              149,194,901
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0
<FEE-REVENUE>                               28,386,151
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             724,595
<COMPENSATION>                              19,284,536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,057,582
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   5,057,582
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,007,749
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1





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




I, Jay O. Wright, certify to the best
of my knowledge based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
MobilePro Corp. for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”),
that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in
the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of MobilePro Corp. for the periods covered by the
Form 10-Q.




Dated:
                                  February 17, 2009
                                  
                                  By:
                                  /s/ Jay O. WrightJay
      O. Wright, Chief Executive Officer




I, Donald L. Paliwoda, certify to the
best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
MobilePro Corp. for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”),
that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in
the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of MobilePro Corp. for the periods covered by the
Form 10-Q.





Dated:
                                  February 17, 2009
                                  
                                  By:
                                  /s/ Donald L.
    PaliwodaDonald
      L. Paliwoda, Chief Accounting
                                    Officer
#### SODERLUND v. KUCH

No. 311P01

Case below: 143 N.C. App. 361

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 19 July 2001.
**Exhibit 12.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, James Ratcliffe, Chairman of Ineos Group Holdings plc, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Ineos Group Holdings plc; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant, as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand we have:
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis annual report is being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisannual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the periodcovered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and (c) disclosed in this annual report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
(a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summariseand report financial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
**Date: April 30, 2004**
/s/ James Ratcliffe
James Ratcliffe
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

I, Eugene B. Witkowicz, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Corporate Secretary of TierOne Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:

      (1)   The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
            December 31, 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(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.

Date: March 5, 2004               By: /s/ Eugene B. Witkowicz
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     Eugene B. Witkowicz, Executive Vice
                                     President and Chief Financial Officer

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to TierOne Corporation and will be retained
by TierOne Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James Edward LOVELL, Appellant.

No. KCD26115.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District.

Dec. 4, 1972.

*275Christopher Dye, The Legal Aid and Defender, Society of Greater Kansas City, Kansas City, for appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Richard S. Paden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, C. J., PRITCH-ARD and WASSERSTROM, JJ., and J. DONALD MURPHY, Special Judge.

SHANGLER, Chief Judge.

The defendant James Edward Lovell was convicted of burglary in the second degree and burglarious stealing and was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment. The criminal conduct alleged by information against the defendant Lovell, both as to the unlawful entry of premises and the theft of property kept therein, was also identically charged against another, Billy Wayne Lee.

In an opinion adopted concurrently,1 we have set aside the conviction of Billy Wayne Lee because the information charging the offenses against him did not allege the ownership of the premises unlawfully entered, an essential element of the crime of burglary, and therefore the information was insufficient in law. The defendant Lovell asserts the same deficiency, and we are bound to set aside his convictions, as well, on the authority of the Lee case and the precedents cited therein.

This disposition makes it unnecessary to review the other grounds of error alleged on appeal. Accordingly, we remand this cause for such further proceedings as the State may appropriately take.

1

. State of Missouri v. Lee, Mo.App., 488 S.W.2d 272.
Exhibit (10)(b)



List of Subsidiaries





Name of SubsidiaryJurisdiction of IncorporationPercentage &Type of Securities Owned or Controlled by CompanyVoting Securities HeldNon-Voting SecuritiesDia Consult LimitedRepublic of Tanzania, Africa100% (common)n/aItetemia Mining Company Limited(1)Republic of Tanzania, Africa90% (common)n/aLunguya Mining Company Ltd.(2)Republic of Tanzania, Africa60% (commonn/aKabahelele Mining Company Limited(3)Republic of Tanzania, Africa80% (common)n/aTancan Mining Company Limited (Tancan)Republic of Tanzania, Africa100% (common)n/aTanzania American International Development Corporation 2000 LimitedRepublic of Tanzania, Africa100% (common)n/a


(1)

The remaining 10% interest is held by Stamico.

(2)

The remaining 40% interest is held by Northern Mining Consulting Ltd.

(3)

The remaining 20% interest is held by Bungu Minerals Ltd.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1

                         [CROWE & DUNLEVY LETTERHEAD]

                                  May 26, 2000



Canaan Energy Corporation
119 N. Robinson, Suite 600
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Gentlemen:

     We have acted as counsel to Canaan Energy Corporation ("Company") in
connection with that certain Registration Statement, File No. 333-30322, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2000, under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended ("Act") for 3,830,000 shares of common stock,
par value $0.10 per share ("Common Stock") of the Company to be issued and sold
in connection with the proposed Plan of Combination, as amended, among the
Company, Indian Oil Company, Canaan Securities, Inc., certain affiliated
partnerships of the Company and various other parties.

     We have examined and are familiar with originals or copies, the
authenticity of which has been established to our satisfaction, of all such
documents, corporate records and other instruments as we have deemed necessary
to express the opinion hereinafter set forth.  Based on the foregoing comment,
it is our opinion that the 5,000,000 authorized but unissued shares of Common
Stock of the Company to be issued in the manner described in the Registration
Statement, including the 3,830,000 shares which are being registered thereunder,
will, upon issuance thereof in exchange for the consideration described in the
Plan of Combination, as amended, be validly issued, fully paid and non-
assessable.

     We consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the above mentioned
Registration Statement and for the use of our name in such Registration
Statement and the Prospectus/Proxy included therein under the heading "Legal
Matters".

                              Respectfully submitted,

                              CROWE & DUNLEVY,
                              A Professional Corporation

                              By:/s/ Reeder E. Ratliff
                                 ---------------------
                                     Reeder E. Ratliff
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT HOLMES.

July 23, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
#### KENTUCKY STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT COMPANY, Inc. and Dallas Layne, Individually, Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 19, 1971.

Henry H. Harned, Director, Leslie Whit-mer, Asst. Director, Ky. State Bar Assn., Frankfort, for complainant.

Jean L. Auxier, Pikeville, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to RCA 3.470 (now RCA 3.-460) the Kentucky State Bar Association filed a motion for rule against Commercial Credit Company, Inc., and Dallas Layne, *116individually, asserting that each of them had violated KRS 30.010, which denounces the unauthorized practice of law. Layne is not a licensed attorney at law.

It appears that a complaint was filed in Pike Justice Court, Division I, captioned: “Dallas Layne, Mgr. Commercial Credit (illegible) Inc., Plaintiff vs. Alton Maynard, Defendant.” The pleading was on a printed form, having blank spaces for use as the situation required. The first portion of the complaint recited:

> “The plaintiff Dallas Layne states that the defendant Alton Maynard is indebted to his co. in the sum of $304.50.”

Although the proceedings were instituted against “Commercial Credit Company, Inc.” and Layne, it was noted of record that the correct corporate name was “Commercial Credit Plan, Inc.” However, no effort was made to obtain service upon the latter corporation; hence, no adjudicative action can be taken against that corporation in this proceeding.

Layne was guilty of unauthorized practice of law in purporting to act for “his co.” There is no suggestion that the debt sued on was due to Layne personally. In view of the response filed by Layne, there was no need to refer the proceeding to a circuit judge as prescribed by RCA 3.-470 (now RCA 3.460).

There is no merit in Layne’s claim that the penalty provided in KRS 30.990 for violation of KRS 30.010 is exclusive. See Hobson v. Kentucky Trust Company of Louisville, 303 Ky. 493, 197 S.W.2d 454.

The court adopts the recommendation of the governing authority of the Kentucky State Bar Association, and hereby orders that Dallas Layne be, and he is now fined in the sum of $50 for unauthorized practice of law. It is further ordered that the complainant recover of Dallas Layne the costs of the proceeding.

All concur.
#### ALFIERO PALESTRONI v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF PARAMUS AND WILLIAM MONTAGUE, BUILDING INSPECTOR OF PARAMUS AND ARTHUR AND MARGARET HIRSCHBERG.

February 11, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.