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

                                                                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 of Zoltek Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Zsolt Rumy, 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, 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 Company.

Date:  May 10, 2006                           By:     /s/ ZSOLT RUMY
       ------------                              --------------------------
                                                        Zsolt Rumy
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 21.1


         Listed below are the subsidiaries of the Registrant, along with the
total number of active subsidiaries directly or indirectly owned by each as of
December 31, 2005. Ownership is 100% unless indicated otherwise.

                                                          U.S.      Non-U.S.

Caspian Services Group Limited, BVI                                    0

Caspian Geophysic Ltd. BVI                                             2
         TatArka, LLP, Kazakhstan
         Kazmorgeophysica CJSC, Kazakhstan(1)

Caspian Real Estate Ltd., BVI                                          3
         CJSC Bauta, Kazakhstan(2)
         Bautino Development Company, Kazakhstan(2)
         Balykshi LLP, Kazakhstan

(1) Caspian Geophysics Ltd. owns a 51% equity interest in Kazmorgeophyisica
CJSC.
(2) Caspian Real Estate Ltd. owns a 56% equity interest in CJSC Bauta and a 50%
equity interest in Bautino Development Company LLP.


























* 56% owned subsidiary of Caspian.
#### Post *v.*Shirley.

A plea in bar to a suit on a sealed note for the payment of money, stating the note to have been given for certain real estate, and setting forth several representations made by the plaintiff respecting the property, which, it is alleged, were false and fraudulent, — is insufficient if it do not aver a re-conveyance of the property or that which is equivalent.

*Friday, November*27.

ERROR to the *Allen*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

This was an action of debt against *Post*on two sealed notes for the payment of money. Pleas, 1. That the notes were obtained by fraud, &c., (not setting out the facts;) 2. That the notes were obtained by fraud, &c., (setting out the facts.) Issue was joined upon the first plea; general demurrer to the second, and the demurrer sustained. The parties went to trial on the first plea. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff .

The only error assigned is, that the demurrer should have been overruled. The plea demurred to states, that the notes were given in consideration of the sale by the plaintiff to the defendant of certain town lots, (describing them,) and to secure the purchase-money for the same; and for no other or different consideration whatever. It further sets forth several representations made by the plaintiff respecting the lots, which representations are alleged to be false and fraudulent. This plea may be fairly understood to mean, that the .lots had been . conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendant. Considering that to be the case, the plea must be bad at all events, for not averring a reconveyance of the lots, or that which is equivalent. The defendant cannot expect to keep the lots, and also avoid the payment.

*431*H.*Cooper, for the plaintiff.

*T. Johnson,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed, with 6 *per cent.*damages and costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial informaion extracted from the June 30,
1998 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,356
<SECURITIES>                                 4,394,719
<RECEIVABLES>                                  658,869
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,645
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,446
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,058,745
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,687,913
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     65,805
<COMMON>                                           220
<OTHER-SE>                                     304,807
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,058,745
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               152,360
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,415
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   841
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             130,132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,972
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,972
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,972
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.69
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

## **Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

##  

TheBoard of Directors

AetherSystems, Inc.:

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.333-91369, 333-52220 and 333-52222) on Form S-8 and the registration statements(Nos. 333-48898, 333-56154, 333-64264, and 333-74428) on Form S-3 of AetherSystems, Inc. of our report dated March 15, 2005 with respect to theconsolidated balance sheets of Aether Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as ofDecember 31, 2003 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations and comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows foreach of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, and ourreport dated April 11, 2005 with respect to management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004 Annual Reporton Form 10-K/A of Aether Systems, Inc.

 
| /s/  KPMG LLP        |   |
|----------------------|--------|
|                 |
|                 |
| Baltimore,  Maryland |
| April  11, 2005      |

 

----
# Sitemap

## May 06, 2019

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2019
- 05
- May 06, 2019

            - It’s a Match! NASA Langley Thrives on Contributions of Small Businesses
            - NASA’s First Planetary Defense Technology Demonstration to Collide with Asteroid in 2022
            - For InSight, Dust Cleanings Will Yield New Science
            - Liftoff of SpaceX’s CRS-17 Dragon Cargo Craft
            - 30 Years Ago: Magellan off to Map Venus
            - Beyond the Metal: Investigating Soft Robots at NASA Langley
            - NASA’s First Planetary Defense Technology Demonstration to Collide with Asteroid in 2022
Exhibit 31.3
I, John A. Betts, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Centrue Financial Corporation; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b)  [intentionally omitted]  c)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: May 12, 2005 /s/ John A. Betts   John A. Betts   Corporate Controller
# The Attorney General of Texas

MARKWHITE AttorneyGeneral March 16, 1979

supemscmlnsuildinp P.O. ear,m Honorable Jerome Chapman Au&n. TX. 78711 Texas Department of Human 512,47S-25ol Resources John H. Reagan Building Austin, Texas 78701 101 cumwce. Suite 200 m(P.TX. 79202 tWl42.9944 Dear Mr. Chapman: Opinion No.NW-5
Re: Whether the Department of Human Resources and a county which jointly operate an infant adoption program may charge fees.

You have requested our opinion regarding the collection of adoption fees which are assessed in the infant adoption program. operated jointly by the Texas Department of-Human Resources land the Bell County Welfare Board. Child Welfare Boards are appointed by the county commissioners courts for’ the purpose of. improving the health, education and welfare of children in the state. V.T.C.S. art 6954 S4. The local boards are entities of the Department of Human Resou~rces “for the purposes of providing coordinated state and local public welfare services for $hildren and their families and coordinated utilization of federal, state, and local funds for these servicesw Id. S4(c). The Department of Human Resources has the duty to “[aldmhtfir or supervise all child welfare service, except as otherwise provided for by law.” V.T.C.S. art. 695c, S4f2). Adopting parents have been charged a fee amounting to 7%of their ,ineome. The proceeds of the fees are used generally to underwrite the expenses of the adoption program. There is no statutory authority for either the Department of Human Resources or Bell County to collect payments from adopting parents, whether such payments are characterized as a fee or reimbursement of government oosts. In the absence of specific statutory authorization, the state or county may not amess fees. Nueces County’v. Currington, 162 S.W.2d 667 (Ten. 1942); McCaUa v. City of Rockdale, 246 S.W. 654 (Tex. 1922);Attorney General Opinions Ii-1302 (1978);H-1052, H-990 (1977);H-702, H-647 (1975); H-443 (1974); WW-l482 (1962): V-l236 (1951);V-744 (1948); V.T.C.S. art. 5139ez, 59 (adoption investigation fee permitted in Orange County).

p. 14Honorable Jerome Chapman - Page Two (MN-5)

SUMMARY
Neither BeII County nor the Texas Department of Human Resources has authority to assess adoption fees.

MARK WHITE Attorney General ofTexas
JOHN W.FAINTER, JR. First Assistant Attorney General
TEDL.HARTLEY Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared by David B.Brooks AsdistantAttorney’General
APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEE
C. Rob& Heath, Chairman David B.Brooks Rick GiIpin William GReid DavidYoung

. Bruce Youngblood

p- 15
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26688]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ11-2-000]


East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Filing

October 15, 2010.
    Take notice that on October 8, 2010, East Kentucky Power 
Cooperative, Inc. submitted its tariff filing per 35.25(e): Baseline 
Non-Jurisdictional Tariff Filing to be effective 10/8/2010.
    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. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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#40060512030f2e2c292e25133530302f323400262532236e272f36"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d99f9c8b9a96b7b5b0b7bc8aaca9a9b6abad99bfbcabbaf7beb6af">[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 October 29, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-26688 Filed 10-21-10; 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>
#### Jackie SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEXAS CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL; Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-21167.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 11, 2003.

Victor Raul Rodriguez, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas Howard Wilson, Merritt Banning Chastain, III, Vinson & Elkins, Houston, TX, Andrew George Jubinsky, Timothy A. Daniels, Figari, Davenport & Graves, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Jackie Smith appeals the district court’s order that granted Texas Children’s Hospital’s motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution. Smith asserts that the delay was not the result of her conduct, was not intentional, and did not cause the defendants prejudice. Smith argues that the delay was due to confusion caused by Texas Children’s Hospital’s procedural maneuvers and the inability to locate the record and determine the status of the case. Smith asserts that the district court did not issue a warning prior to the dismissal and that the dismissal with prejudice is a harsh result.

This court reviews a Fed. R. Crv. P. 41(b) dismissal for an abuse of discretion. *Dorsey v. Scott Wetzel Servs.,*84 F.3d 170, 171 (5th Cir.1996). A Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) dismissal may be affirmed “only upon a showing of a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, ... and where lesser sanctions would not serve the best interest of justice.” *Id.*

A stay was ordered in the proceedings pending resolution of Texas Children’s Hospital’s appeal in No. H-94-2723. The opinion dismissing that appeal was issued in June 1999. The instant case, however, remained inactive until April 2002.

*423Smith does not allege that she did not receive notice of this court’s 1999 opinion dismissing Texas Children’s Hospital’s appeal in No. H-94-2723. Smith has been represented by the same attorney in this matter since 1994. Smith has not shown that she attempted to prosecute her case diligently from June 1999 to April 2002. Accordingly, the district court’s order dismissing the action is AFFIRMED. Texas Children’s Hospital’s motion to strike affidavit is GRANTED; the requests for costs and fees are DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# All Experiments Report
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20330

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MELVIN MARQUISE STEWART,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-507-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In accordance with an agreement that preserved his right to appeal the 

denial of his motion to suppress, Melvin Marquise Stewart pleaded guilty to 

being a felon in possession of a firearm. In the motion, Stewart moved to 

suppress a firearm and ammunition found in the car he was driving, arguing 

that police officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him under the 

circumstances. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 31, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-20330 Document: 00515293477 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2020
No. 19-20330

2

When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we review 

factual findings for clear error and the ultimate constitutionality of law 

enforcement’s action de novo. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 

(1996); United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 2010). In addition to 

deferring to the district court’s factual findings made on the basis of live 

testimony, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

prevailing party. United States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir. 2005).

The totality of the circumstances, see United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 

266, 273 (2002), surrounding the stop indicate that the officers had a

“reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity [was] underfoot” when 

they stopped Stewart for questioning. United States v. Jordan, 232 F.3d 447, 

448 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)). Stewart was 

observed carrying a gun in a convenience store in a high crime area in the 

middle of the night. See United States v. Hill, 752 F.3d 1029, 1035 (5th Cir. 

2014). In addition, the officers detected the smell of marijuana in the area of 

Stewart’s car, and the smell grew stronger as they approached the vehicle and 

he exited it. See United States v. Casteneda, 951 F.2d 44, 47-49 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Accordingly, the officers were justified in detaining Stewart and further 

investigating the gun and marijuana odor. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 30. In light 

of this ruling, we do not address Stewart’s related argument that the gun and 

ammunition found in his car should be suppressed as the result of an illegal 

seizure. 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 19-20330 Document: 00515293477 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2020
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BRISTOL BOROUGH,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (BURNETT),

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 240 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of September, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KEVIN SOUFFRANT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 642 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of February, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.