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

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Form S-8 (No 333-27555)  pertaining to the 1997 Stock  Incentive Plan of Journal
Register  Company of our report  dated  January 27,  2004,  with  respect to the
consolidated  financial  statements  and  schedule of Journal  Register  Company
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Journal  Register  Company for the
year ended December 28, 2003.




                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


MetroPark, New Jersey
March 9, 2004
BLOCK MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC.
                   ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 1997-1

                 MASTER SERVICER ANNUAL OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

                                 March 31, 1998


      Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.16 of that certain agreement dated
as of December  31,  1996,  by and between  BLOCK  MORTGAGE  FINANCE,  INC.,  as
Depositor,  BLOCK  FINANCIAL  CORPORATION,  as Seller and Master  Servicer,  and
BANKERS TRUST COMPANY OF  CALIFORNIA,  N.A., as Trustee (the "PSA"),  I, Bret G.
Wilson, Vice President of the Master Servicer, hereby certify as follows:

      (i) a review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar  year  and of  performance  under  the  PSA  has  been  made  under  my
supervision;

      (ii) to the best of my  individual  knowledge  based on such  review,  the
Master  Servicer has  fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under the PSA for such
year; and

      (iii)the Master Servicer's  short-term commercial paper rating is A1 (S&P)
and P-1 (Moody's).

Capitalized  terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
set forth in the PSA.

MASTER SERVICER

BLOCK FINANCIAL CORPORATION


/s/  Bret G. Wilson
----------------------------
By:   Bret G. Wilson
      Vice President
#### Drilling & Service, Inc. *v.*Cato Enterprises, Inc.

[No. 19,571.

Filed June 17, 1963.]

*Steve C. Bach,*of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.

*Clements & McClellan*and *K. Richard Hawley,*of Mt. Vernon, for appellee.

Carson, P. J.

This case comes to us on appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Posey County, Indiana.

In the judgment the court found for the appellant, plaintiffs below, upon an account sued on in the amount of $945.07. The issues were formed, on the plaintiff’s complaint and the defendant’s answer under Rule 1-8 of the Supreme Court of Indiana. The *669appellee, as defendant below, filed a counter claim for breach of implied warranty on which the issues were formed by the plaintiff’s answer to the counter claim under Rule 1-3, *swpra.*The court rendered judgment on the counter claim in the amount of $926.62. The court then entered final judgment for the difference between the two awards resulting in a judgment in favor of the appellant in the amount of $18.45 and costs.

In the appellant’s brief, questions are presented with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence, but the manner in which these questions are presented calls for us to weigh the evidence which, under the law, we are not permitted to do. The trial court is in a more favorable position to correctly weigh the evidence.

The appellant filed a motion for new trial setting-out five grounds in support thereof. The real issue before us is presented by specification number five, which raises the question as to the admissibility of certain evidence of damage. In the counter claim filed by the appellee defendant we find the following allegation :

> *“2.*The defendant further states that it purchased said bit in consideration of the implied warranty and that said bit would do the work for which such bits are normally used.

> “3. That said bit was defective and there was a breach of said warranty as when said bit was used it broke and fell apart, causing damage to the defendant in the sum of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00), for which it prays judgment.”

Under the above allegations the court, over the objection of the appellant permitted the appellee to introduce evidence of expenses to which the appellee *670had been put in removing the broken bit from the drill hole.

The general rule of law on damages for breach of implied warranty allows recovery not only for the difference in value of the warranted article as delivered and its subsequent value after its failure to operate as it should, but also includes all such consequential damages as are the direct, immediate, and probable result of the breach. *Schaefer, etc.*v. *Fiedler*(1945), 116 Ind. App. 226, 63 N. E. 2d 310.

We believe that the trial court having before it the evidence of the plaintiff on its complaint and the defendant on its counter claim properly applied the legal test set out in the case of *Schaefer, etc.*v. *Fiedler, supra,*and the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cooper and Ryan, JJ., concur.

Clements, J., not participating.

Note. — Reported in 191 N. E. 2d 114.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1306 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1306

  To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of 
 certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial 
                                 names.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2007

 Mr. Wexler (for himself, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Ackerman, Ms. Berkley, Mrs. 
Blackburn, Mr. Boyd of Florida, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Cannon, Mr. 
 Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Klein of Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, 
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, 
  Mr. Payne, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Rothman, and Mr. 
   Barrow) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of 
 certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial 
                                 names.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION.

    Section 211 of the Department of Commerce and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(b) of division A 
of Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-88) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
                    (A) by striking ``by a designated national''; and
                    (B) by inserting before the period ``that was used 
                in connection with a business or assets that were 
                confiscated unless the original owner of the mark, 
                trade name, or commercial name, or the bonafide 
                successor-in-interest has expressly consented'';
            (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``by a designated 
        national or its successor-in-interest'';
            (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e);
            (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
    ``(d) Subsections (a)(2) and (b) of this section shall apply only 
if the person or entity asserting the rights knew or had reason to know 
at the time when the person or entity acquired the rights asserted that 
the mark, trade name, or commercial name was the same as or 
substantially similar to a mark, trade name, or commercial name that 
was used in connection with a business or assets that were 
confiscated.''; and
            (5) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by striking ``In 
        this section:'' and all that follows through ``(2) The term'' 
        and inserting ``In this section, the term''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC,

Respondent

v.

RODGER LINDSAY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 383 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED with respect to the issue raised, and as presented, by the Petitioner:

Whether the Superior Court erred in determining that a homeowner was 

not the prevailing party because a residential mortgage foreclosure action 

does not “arise under Act 6” where the homeowner raised defenses to a 

mortgage foreclosure under Act 6 and the lender then discontinued the 

mortgage foreclosure action?
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1676 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the program of the Secretary of Housing 

and Urban Development for loan guarantees for Indian 

housing. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

HR 1676 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Native American Home 

3 Ownership Opportunity Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE AMERICAN HOUS5 ING. 

6 Section 184(i) of the Housing and Community Devel7 opment Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1715z–13a(i)) is amended 

8 as follows: 

9 (1) OUTSTANDING AGGREGATE LIMITATION.— 

10 In paragraph (5)(C), by striking ‘‘fiscal years 1997 

11 through 2007’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2008 

12 through 2012’’. 

13 (2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In 

14 paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘fiscal years 1997 

15 through 2007’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2008 

16 through 2012’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 24, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
<PAGE>



                                                                      Exhibit 32


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


            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 the undersigned officer of Aquis
Communications Group, Inc., (the "Company"), does hereby certify to such
officer's knowledge that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
         2003 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
         in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.





Date:    November 14, 2003
                                             /s/ Brian M. Bobeck
                                         -------------------------------
                                         Name:  Brian M. Bobeck
                                         Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                         Aquis Communications Group, Inc.


                                             /s/ D. Brian Plunkett
                                         -------------------------------
                                         Name:  D. Brian Plunkett
                                         Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                         Aquis Communications Group, Inc.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Aquis Communications Group, Inc. and will be retained by Aquis
Communications Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and
is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 21
                          Subsidiaries of Registrant


NSTAR (Merger of BEC Energy and Commonwealth Energy Systems)
 BEC Energy
  Boston Edison Company*
   Harbor Electric Energy Company
   BEC Funding LLC*
  BETG
   Boston Edison Services
   NorthWind Boston LLC

 Commonwealth Energy System
  Commonwealth Electric Company*
  Cambridge Electric Light Company*
  Canal Electric Company*
  Commonwealth Gas Company*
  COM/Energy Steam Company
  Hopkinton LNG Corp.
  Advanced Energy Systems, Inc. (MATEP)
  COM/Energy Services Company
  COM/Energy Acushnet Realty
  COM/Energy Cambridge Realty
  COM/Energy Freetown Realty
  COM/Energy Research Park Realty
  Darvel Realty Trust
  Energy Investment Services, Inc.

NSTAR Communications
NSTAR Services Corporation
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-78285, 333-85559 and 333-87272) andin the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-78285), of NSTAR of our report dated February 17, 2006 relating to the financial statements, the financial statement schedules, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

February 17, 2006
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6668

CHARLES HOYE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN CLARK, U.S. Marshal (Acting); JOHN R. LONG, Chief Probation Officer; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-03-1029-A; CA-03-1361-A) Submitted: October 6, 2004 Decided: October 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Hoye, Appellant Pro Se. Anita Claire Snyder, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court construed Hoye’s motion as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), the motion was filed more than ten days after entry of the judgment denying § 2241 relief. Thus, the motion should have been construed as one under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). SeeIn re Burnley , 988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir. 1992). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Charles Hoye, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider * the court’s denial of relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hoye v. Clark , Nos. CA-03-1029-A; CA-03-1361-A (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 2, 2004 & entered Feb. 3, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
[J-44-2024]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: NOMINATION PETITION OF 

JOSEPH J. VODVARKA FOR UNITED 

STATES SENATOR OBJECTION OF: 

ANDREW RITTER, JR., ASHLEY BOOP, 

AND RICHARD TEMS

APPEAL OF: JOSEPH J. VODVARKA

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 10 WAP 2024

Appeal from the Order entered 

March 8, 2023 of the Commonwealth 

Court at No. 85 MD 2024.

SUBMITTED: March 21, 2024

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of March, 2024, the order of the Commonwealth Court 

is AFFIRMED. Objectors’ application for counsel fees and costs under Pa.R.A.P. 2744 

is DENIED.
856 A.2d 33

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Barry John MUCH, Respondent.

No. 948 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 29, 2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2004, upon consideration of the contention of respondent-attorney that he is suffering from disabling conditions which make it impossible for him to prepare an adequate defense to disciplinary charges brought against him in connection with Disciplinary Board File No. C2-04-162, it is hereby

ORDERED that Barry John Much is immediately transferred to inactive status pursuant to Rule 301(e), Pa.R.D.E., for an indefinite period and until further Order of the Court. Respondent shall comply with Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. All pending disciplinary proceedings against the respondent-attorney shall meanwhile be held in abeyance, except for the perpetuation of testimony.
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1678 

AN ACT 

To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and 

foreign programs and centers for the treatment of victims of torture, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1678 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Torture Victims Relief 

3 Reauthorization Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DOMES5 TIC TREATMENT CENTERS FOR VICTIMS OF 

6 TORTURE. 

7 Section 5(b)(1) of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 

8 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Of 

10 the amounts authorized to be appropriated for the 

11 Department of Health and Human Services for fis12 cal years 2008 and 2009, there are authorized to be 

13 appropriated to carry out subsection (a) 

14 $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 and 

15 2009.’’. 

16 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOR17 EIGN TREATMENT CENTERS FOR VICTIMS OF 

18 TORTURE. 

19 Section 4(b)(1) of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 

20 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended to read as follows: 

21 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Of 

22 the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 

23 years 2008 and 2009 pursuant to chapter 1 of part 

24 I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, there are 

25 authorized to be appropriated to the President to 
3 

•HR 1678 EH

1 carry out section 130 of such Act $12,000,000 for 

2 each of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009.’’. 

3 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE 

4 UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTION TO THE 

5 UNITED NATIONS VOLUNTARY FUND FOR 

6 VICTIMS OF TORTURE. 

7 Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fis8 cal years 2008 and 2009 pursuant to chapter 3 of part 

9 I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, there are author10 ized to be appropriated to the President for a voluntary 

11 contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for 

12 Victims of Torture $12,000,000 for each of the fiscal 

13 years 2008 and 2009. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 25, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1678 

AN ACT 

To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 

other purposes. for the treatment of victims of torture, and for for domestic and foreign programs and centers to authorize appropriations to provide assistance
#### G., C. & S. F. R’y Co. v. C. C. France.

(No. 3289.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 701. *Venue; railroad corporation may he sued, where; ease stated.*France instituted this suit to recover dam*615ages for the destruction of his hay and grass by fire communicated from one of appellant’s engines. Pending the suit, he died, and his surviving widow and child, his only heirs, made themselves parties plaintiffs, and prosecuted the suit to judgment, recovering judgment for $250 and costs. Plaintiffs resided in Ellis county, and the land upon which the fire occurred was in Ellis county. The suit was brought in Dallas county. Appellant pleaded to the jurisdiction of the county court of Dallas county. *Held:*The court did not err in overruling the plea to the jurisdiction. Suits against a railroad corporation may be brought in any county through or into which the railroad of such corporation extends or is operated. [R. S. art. 1198, subd. 21.] Appellant’s railroad extended into and was operated in Dallas county, and this gave the courts of that county jurisdiction over said corporation.

May 13, 1885.

§ 702. *Plea questioning right of 'plaintiff to sue must be verified.*An answer setting up that the plaintiff has not legal capacity to sue, or is not entitled to recover in the capacity in which he sues, cannot be considered unless verified by affidavit. [R. S. art. 1264.] There is no such plea in this case, and hence the right of the surviving widow and only child of the original plaintiff, deceased, to continue the prosecution of this suit, in the capacity of sole heirs of the deceased, has not been questioned in a manner authorizing its consideration.-

§ 703. *Negligence; charge of court need not define; leaving combustibles on railroad right of way.*Negligence is a question of fact for the jury to determine, and, ordinarily, it is not necessary that it should be defined in the charge of the court. When a railroad company suffers combustible materials to remain upon its right of way, it is guilty of negligence, and is responsible for the injuries resulting thereby.

Affirmed.
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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of South
Jersey Gas Company (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Edward J. Graham, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
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 Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/
      Edward J. GrahamName:  Edward
      J. GrahamTitle:  Chief
      Executive OfficerMarch
      1, 2010