alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 15.1
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  1.
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-102605) pertaining to the Employee Stock Option Plan,
 2.
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-126889) pertaining to the Employee Stock Option
Plan and the 2004 Employee Stock Option Plan, and
 3.
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-142809) pertaining to the 2004 Employee Stock Option
Plan and the 2005 Employee Stock Option Plan
  /s/ Ernst & Young
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
CERTIFICATION
I, Joseph V. Green, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended June 30, 2004 of Winston Hotels, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theCompany and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theCompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 6, 2004   /s/ Joseph V. Green   Joseph V. Green Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29

                              AMENDMENT TO THE ESCO
                  TECHNOLOGIES INC. 2001 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

         WHEREAS, ESCO Technologies Inc. adopted the ESCO Technologies Inc. 2001
Stock Incentive Plan ("Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company retained the right to amend the Plan pursuant to
Section 13 thereof; and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan:

         NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of August 7, 2003 the Plan is amended as
follows:

         1. The following sentence is added at the end of Section 4:

The Committee may delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to grant
Stock Options of up to 5,000 shares of stock each (and 50,000 per fiscal year in
the aggregate) to employees who are not reporting persons under Section 16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or covered employees (as defined in section
162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code).

         2. The first sentence of Section 7.(b) is amended to read as follows:

The purchase price is to be paid in full upon the exercise of the Stock Option,
either (i) in cash, (ii) by the tender to the Company of shares of the Common
Stock of the Company, owned by the optionee for at least six (6) months, having
a fair market value equal to the cash exercise price of the Stock Option being
exercised, with the fair market value of such stock to be determined in such
appropriate manner as may be provided for by the Committee or as may be required
in order to comply with, or to conform to the requirements of, any applicable
laws or regulations, (iii) by any combination of the payment methods specified
in clauses (i) and (ii) hereof, or (iv) such other methods determined by the
Committee; provided that, no shares of Common Stock may be tendered in exercise
of an Incentive Stock Option if such shares were acquired by the optionee
through the exercise of an Incentive Stock Option unless (i) such shares have
been held by the optionee for at least one year and (ii) at least two years have
elapsed since such prior Incentive Stock Option was granted.

         3. The following sentence is added after the first sentence of Section
7(f):

The Committee may delegate to such employee or employees as it deems appropriate
its authority to extend a Stock Option beyond termination of employment, so long
as the optionees whose options have been extended are not reporting persons
under Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or covered employees (as
defined in section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code).

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing amendment was adopted on the
7th day of August, 2003.
#### P. W. Gallagher & Co. v. G. L. Porter.

(No. 1651.)

March 8, 1884.

Appeal from Gonzales County.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 119. *Appeal bond in county court; insufficient when.*In this case, the appeal bond is conditioned that the appellants “shall prosecute their said appeal to effect, and shall pay off and satisfy the judgment which may be rendered against them on such appeal.” *Held:*This condition is not sufficient to make the bond valid under article 1400 of the Revised Statutes, because it does nob bind the obligors to pay all the costs which have accrued in the court below, or which may accrue in the appellate court. It is not sufficient as a *supersedeas*bond, because' it does not bind the obligors to pay all such damages as. the appellate court may award against the appellant. [R. S. art. 1404; W. & W. Con. Rep. § 165; Reid v. Fernandez, 52 Tex. 379.]

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Globus International Resources Corp. as at and for the
year ended September 30, 1999 is qualified in its entirety by refernce to such
fiancial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           34137
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4199065
<ALLOWANCES>                                    520000
<INVENTORY>                                    1170644
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5645511
<PP&E>                                          124213
<DEPRECIATION>                                   88803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5852519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3065107
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          7772
<OTHER-SE>                                     2779640
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5852519
<SALES>                                       11972814
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              11972814
<CGS>                                         11599832
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   781785
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                100000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              375631
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (598863)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      9466
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (608329)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (608329)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)


</TABLE>
#### G., H. & S. A. R. R. Co. v. H. J. Ware.

(No. 3055.)

Appeal from Kinney County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

*(Transferred from Austin. J*

§ 357. *Gertiorari; several suits cannot be joined in; consolidation of suits.*Appellee obtained eight several judgments by default against appellant, in as many separate suits in justice’s court. The judgments aggregated $213.16, exclusive of interest and costs. Three of them exceeded $20 each in amount, and the other five were each for less than $20. Appellant removed all these causes to the county court by *certiorari,*embracing them all in the same petition and bond. The *certiorari*proceeding was dismissed in the county court upon the ground that the joinder of the several suits in the proceeding by *certiorari*was not permissible. *Held:*The *certiorari*proceeding was properly dismissed. It has never been the practice to join two or more suits in the same *certiorari*proceeding, and it was never contem-' plated by the statute that it might be done. A *certiorari.*is but another mode of appeal, and it certainly would not be contended that several causes could properly be joined in one appeal bond. Even, if such a practice were permissible in any case, it would not be in a case like this, where the causes, or some of them, which are sought to be joined are not within the jurisdiction of the county court. In five of the cases neither the amount of judgment, nor the amount in controversy, exceeded $20, and the judgments in these cases were therefore final and conclusive. [Const, art. Y, sec. 16; E. S. art. 1165.] In these five cases, appeals to the county court could not have been entertained for the want of jurisdiction. If the county court could not take jurisdiction of them on appeal, neither could it on *certiorari.*Could the county court, by *certiorari,*consolidate the suits so as to bring them within its appellate jurisdiction? We *313think not. It is only the court in which causes are pending that may consolidate them. It is not within the power of one court to consolidate causes pending in another. [R. S. art. 1450.] To permit a proceeding like this Would be to allow a court to acquire indirectly a jurisdiction which it could not acquire directly; to acquire a jurisdiction by *certiorari*which it could not acquire by appeal. It would also result in conferring upon the court of appeals a jurisdiction which the law does not confer. Thus, by means of this proceeding, if sustained, the county court would exercise appellate jurisdiction over a cause in which neither the judgment nor amount in controversy exceeded $20, and the court' of appeals would exercise its appellate jurisdiction over a cause in which neither the judgment of the county court, nor the amount in controversy, exceeded $100. Such a result would be in violation of the constitution and the law, which define and confer the jurisdiction of the courts.

October 22, 1884.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 21
**Subsidiaries of Registrant**
Set forth below is a list of subsidiaries of American Real Estate Holdings Limited Partnership. All othersubsidiaries, if considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute asignificant subsidiary.   **Entity** **Jurisdiction of Formation****American Entertainment Properties Corp.** Delaware   **American Casino & Entertainment Properties LLC** Delaware   **American Casino & Entertainment Properties Finance Corp.** Delaware   **AREP Oil & Gas LLC** Delaware   **AREP Sands Holding LLC** Delaware   **Aretex LLC** Delaware   **Arizona Charlie’s, LLC** Nevada   **Bayswater Development LLC** Delaware   **The Bayswater Group LLC** Delaware   **Charlie’s Holding LLC** Delaware   **Fresca, LLC** Nevada   **Mid River LLC** Delaware   **National Energy Group, Inc.** Delaware   **National Offshore LP** Delaware   **National Onshore LP** Delaware   **New Seabury Properties, L.L.C.** Delaware   **Stratosphere Corporation** Delaware   **Stratosphere Gaming Corp.** Delaware   **Vero Beach Acquisition LLC** Delaware
#### Keith Allen PORTIE and Melissa Portie v. FLAVIN REALTY, INC., et al.

No. 2010-CC-2551.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Moseley, Scott; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2007-6006; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-01224.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (File Nos.333-30122 and 333-43958) and on Form S-3 (FileNo. 333-58726) of webMethods, Inc. of our report dated May 28, 2004 relating tothe Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedules, which appear inthis Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading“Selected Financial Data” which appears in this Form 10-K.
**/S/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP**
McLean, Virginia
EX-10.2






Exhibit No. 10.2




FORM OF WAIVER

Fidelity Southern Corporation

Senior Executive Officer Waiver



In consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s participation in the
United states Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily
waive any claim against the United States or my employer for any changes to my compensation or
benefits that are required to comply with the regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury
as published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008.



I acknowledge that this regulation may require modification of the compensation, bonus, incentive
and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements (including so-called “golden
parachute” agreements) that I have with my employer or in which I participate as they relate to the
period the United States holds any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the
TARP Capital Purchase Program.



This waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any state related
to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation, including without limitation a claim
for any compensation or other payments I would otherwise receive, any challenge to the process by
which this regulation was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of these
regulations on my employment relationship.




	 	 	 
	Date:
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 

	 	Name: [OFFICER NAME]

Title: [OFFICER TITLE]
#### JASPER CONTRACTORS, INC. v. E-CLAIM.COM, LLC, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Edgeweb Hosting, Inc. and XYZ Insurance Company.

No. 2011-CC-2126.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re E-Claim.com LLC; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedí*931al Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 591,-789; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0978.

Granted. Remanded to court of appeal for briefing, argument, and full opinion.
#### CITY OF BATON ROUGE and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. JAY’S DONUTS, INC.

No. 2012-C-0554.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re City of Baton Rouge et al.; Parish of East Baton Rouge; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 588,811; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011-CA-1005.

Denied.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Winston Hotels, Inc.
(the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert
W. Winston, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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, as amended; 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/ Robert W. Winston III
|       |  |                          
|Name:  |  | Robert W. Winston, III   
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer  
|       |  |                          
|Date:  |  | November 12, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1632 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1632

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the annual report 
               required on veterans' reemployment rights.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 2007

  Mr. Reichert (for himself and Mr. Walz of Minnesota) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the annual report 
               required on veterans' reemployment rights.

    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 ``Improving Veterans' Reemployment Act 
of 2007''.

SEC. 2. VETERANS' REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS REPORT IMPROVEMENT.

    (a) Additional Report Requirements.--Section 4332 of title 38, 
United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The Secretary shall'' and inserting ``(a) 
        Report Required.--The Secretary shall'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (6) as 
        paragraphs (5) through (7), respectively, and inserting after 
        paragraph (3) the following new paragraph (4):
            ``(4) The number of cases reviewed by the Secretary of 
        Defense under the National Committee for Employer Support of 
        the Guard and Reserve of the Department of Defense during the 
        fiscal year for which the report is made.''.
            (3) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, by striking ``or 
        (3)'' and inserting ``(3), or (4)'';
            (4) by redesignating paragraph (7), as so redesignated, as 
        paragraph (8), and inserting after paragraph (6) the following 
        new paragraph (7):
            ``(7) An indication of which of the cases reported on 
        pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) are disability-
        related.''.
            (5) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
    ``(b) Uniform Categorization of Data.--The Secretary shall 
coordinate with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs, the Attorney General, and the Special Counsel to ensure that 
the information required to be submitted as part of the report under 
subsection (a) is categorized in a uniform way.
    ``(c) Provision of Information.--The Secretary shall provide the 
information contained in the report required under subsection (a) to 
the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the 
Attorney General, and the Special Counsel.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to a report submitted after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
|                                    |                                                                                                                     |                                      |
|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                                    | **SOUTH                JERSEY GAS COMPANY**                                                                              |
|                               |                                                                                                                |                                 |
| Date: March                7, 2006 | By:                                                                                                            | /s/ David                A. Kindlick |
|                                    | David A. Kindlick                                                                                                        |
|                                    | Title:   Senior                Vice                President & Chief Financial                Officer |
#### STATE ex rel. Sylvester BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2559.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Brown, Sylvester; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caldwell, 37th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 76,216; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-045-KH.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATE
      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 Targeted Genetics Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H.
      Stewart Parker, 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 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.





Dated:
                August 6, 2008
            /s/H.
                Stewart ParkerH.
                Stewart Parker
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer