alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ANDREWS v. CRUMP

No. 376P01

Case below: 144 N.C. App. 68

Petition by defendants (Crump & Hughes) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 2001.
Exhibit  23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC  ACCOUNTANTS





We hereby consent to the incorporation
    by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.  333-46008,
    333-66434, and 333-113692) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan, Form
    S-8 (No. 333-117003) pertaining to the Findwhat.com 2004 Stock Incentive
    Plan and the EMI Replacement Option Plan, Form S-3 (Nos. 333-110067, 333-102436,
    333-76144, 333-115245, 333-115247, and 333-118823), and Form SB-2 (No. 333-47240)
    and related prospectuses of our reports dated March 3, 2006, with respect
    to the consolidated financial statements and managements assessment
    of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the
    effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of MIVA, Inc.,
    included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
    2005.





|               |  | /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
|-------------- |  | --------------------
|               |  |                     
|Miami, Florida |  |                     
|March 10, 2006 |  |                     




---
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We have issued our report dated February 8, 2002, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and included in the Annual Report of Findwhat.com and
Subsidiary on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2001. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
Statement of Findwhat.com and Subsidiary on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-46008,
effective date September 18, 2000 and SEC File No. 333-66434, effective date
August 1, 2001) and on Form S-3 (SEC File No. 333-76144, effective date December
31, 2001 and SEC File No. 333-47240, effective date May 3, 2001).


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

New York, New York
March 21, 2002
#### ALEXANDER S. RICE AND LOUIS HOOD, EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF FLORENCE R. STRAUSS, DECEASED, ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. CITY OF NEWARK, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.

Submitted October 2, 1944

Decided January 8, 1945.

Before Justices Case, Bobine and Porter.

For the prosecutors, *Louis Hood*and *Hannoch & Lasser (Louis Hood, Herbert J. Hannoch*and *Morris Weinstein,*of counsel).

For the defendant, *Philip J. Schotland,*corporation counsel of the city of Newark *(Joseph A. Ward,*of counsel).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.

The writ brings before us for review an ordinance designated as the “Airport Zoning Ordinance of the City of Newark.” The prosecutors own property previously zoned for factories and heavy industries, consisting of a parcel of twenty-five acres and another parcel of between twelve and thirteen acres, and assessed for taxation by the City of Newark at valuations of $97,400 and $64,000, respectively. By the provisions of the ordinance in question the height and kind of structures on the property of prosecutors is so restricted as to render its use for industrial purposes useless.

Prosecutor argues that the ordinance is illegal for constitutional and statutory reasons.

The ordinance was also attacked in the case of *Yara Engineering Corp.*v. *Newark,*at this term, 132 *N. J. L.*370. An opinion is being filed herewith in that case, setting aside the ordinance for reasons therein expressed.
Exhibit 21

**VOICE MOBILITY INTERNATIONAL INC.**

List of Subsidiaries

 
| **Name of Subsidiary**        | **Jurisdiction of****Incorporation or****Organization** | **Percentage Share****Ownership** |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| Voice Mobility Inc.           | Canada                                                  | 100%                              |
| Voice Mobility Canada Limited | Canada                                                  | 100%                              |
| VM Sub Limited                | Canada                                                  | 100%                              |
| Voice Mobility (US) Inc.      | Nevada                                                  | 100%                              |

 

 

 

 

CW1125654.1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30277 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALVARO GERMAN SALGADO CABALLERO, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 89-CR-452-5-A

- - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alvara German Salgado Caballero, federal inmate # 21378-034, appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion purportedly filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(2). Caballero argues that his sentence was improperly enhanced because the Government did not comply with 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1). Caballero argues for the first time that the district court should have reduced his offense level for being a minor participant. As the district court noted, § 3742(a)(2) does not authorizeNo. 98-30277 -2-

the relief that Caballero seeks. 18 U.S.C. § 3742; see United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994) (the “provisions for modification of a sentence under § 3742 are available to a defendant only upon direct appeal of a sentence or conviction”). Caballero’s arguments sound under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; however, as Caballero has filed at least one prior motion for § 2255 relief and has not obtained this court’s authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, the district court did not err by failing to construe his claims under § 2255. The district court properly dismissed Caballero’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. The district court’s denial of the motion is
AFFIRMED.
| Parent                            |   | Subsidiary                         |   | PercentageofOwnership |   | State ofIncorporationorOrganization |
|-----------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
| MutualFirst Financial, Inc.       |   | MutualBank                         |   | 100%                  |   | United States                       |
|                              |   | MFBC Statutory Trust I             |   | 100%                  |   | Indiana                             |
|                              |   |                               |   |                  |   |                                |
| MutualBank                        |   | Mutual Federal Investment Company  |   | 100%                  |   | Nevada                              |
|                              |   | Mishawaka Financial Services, Inc. |   | 100%                  |   | Indiana                             |
|                              |   |                               |   |                  |   |                                |
| Mutual Federal Investment Company |   | Mutual Federal REIT, Inc.          |   | 100%                  |   | Maryland                            |

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Anthony Greicius","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/anthony-greicius-116962jpl-nasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Is Testing a New Robotic Arm That Really Knows How to Chill Out","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"N6QN4n76C6\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/jpl\/nasa-is-testing-a-new-robotic-arm-that-really-knows-how-to-chill-out\/\">NASA Is Testing a New Robotic Arm That Really Knows How to Chill Out<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/jpl\/nasa-is-testing-a-new-robotic-arm-that-really-knows-how-to-chill-out\/embed\/#?secret=N6QN4n76C6\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Is Testing a New Robotic Arm That Really Knows How to Chill Out” — NASA\" data-secret=\"N6QN4n76C6\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/1-pia25316-1041.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
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

In connection with the Annual Report of OurPets Company (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 0f 2002, that:



| | (1) | I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 of OurPets Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | The financial statements, and other financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/S/    SCOTT R. MENDES 
|BY SCOTT R. MENDES     
|Chief Financial Officer

Dated: March 31, 2009

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained in that statute, and not
for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OurPets Company and will be retained by OurPets Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATON
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to


§
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Quarterly Report of Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending
December 31, 2008, (the ”Report”), I, William P. Hales, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, 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.
















/s/ William P. Hales


William
P. Hales


President
and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)














February
13, 2009





























A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and will be retained by Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00275-CV

Adriana P. PEREZ,

Appellant

v.

WEBB COUNTY,

Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CVT000305 D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.

It is ORDERED that appellant, Adriana P. Perez, recover her costs of this appeal from 

appellee, Webb County.

SIGNED June 3, 2015.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

 April 29, 2024 

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics 

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA Employees at the Venturi 

Astrolab and Axiom Space Reception on April 30, 2024 

On April 30, 2024, Venturi Astrolab and Axiom Space will hold a reception at Dirty Habit, 

555 8th St., NW, Washington, DC, at 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The event is to celebrate 

Astrolab and Axiom’s efforts to provide commercial space services on the lunar surface 

and support NASA’s Artemis Program. 

Approximately 200 people are expected to attend the event. Attendees will have a diversity 

of views or interests and will include personnel from congressional staffers, state and local 

officials, academia, industry representatives, administration personnel, media, and space 

investors. The estimated cost of the event, including all food and beverages, is 

approximately $50 per person. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to 

exchange information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the 

requirements of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2). 

NASA employees who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests of 

the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance for themselves and a guest (if 

invited) to the event. In those circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance 

outweighs any concern that the individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly 

influenced in the performance of their duties. However, NASA employees in non-career 

positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under Executive Order 13989, may 

only attend the event if they reimburse the sponsor the value of the event. 

Additionally, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting 

the interests of Astrolab and/or Axiom, such as procurement duties, program management, 

or negotiating or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate 

determination from their local ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the 

invitation. 

 

Adam F. Greenstone
A Print using a 8.5” x 11

 paper and there printer settings:

 1) Double sided

 2) Portrait

 3) Flip-up (not over)

B Have fun coloring the page.

C Fold along the solid lines in numerical order.

 Fold in the direction of the arrow.

D Cut along the dotted lines to adjust 

 the aileron or control roll.

E Let it go!

1

8

4

7

NP-2020-10-075-LaRC
2

3

4

56
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northwest Bancorporation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randall L. Fewel, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (a) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Northwest Bancorporation, Inc. and will be retained by Northwest Bancorporation, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



By

/s/    RANDALL L.
FEWELRandall L. Fewel, President and Chief Executive Officer




Date: November 10, 2003
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11


                     HAMILTON BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
                       CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                 (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended
                                                              March 31,
                                                      -------------------------
                                                         1997           1996
                                                      ----------     ----------
<S>                                                   <C>            <C>       
Primary
Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding                            5,716,915      5,205,030

Common equivalent shares
  outstanding - options                                  236,613        225,000
                                                      ----------     ----------

Total common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding                        5,953,528      5,430,030

Net income                                            $    2,822     $    2,517

Primary earnings per share                            $     0.47     $     0.46

Fully diluted:

Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding                            5,716,915      5,205,030

Common equivalent shares
  outstanding - options                                  236,613        225,000
                                                      ----------     ----------

Total common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding                        5,953,528      5,430,030

Net income                                            $    2,822     $    2,517

Fully diluted earnings per share                      $     0.47     $     0.46
</TABLE>



                                       25
EXHIBIT 10.12

AMENDED SCHEDULE TO EXHIBIT 10.11

The persons listed on the table below have, as of the date indicated, each entered into an agreement with the Company that is substantially identical to the Form
of Indemnification Agreement previously filed and referenced in Exhibit 10.11, except (i) with respect to the position held, the gender and the name and address of the indemnitee and
(ii) Section 7.5 thereof is only included in agreements entered into with directors.

INDEMNITEE

POSITION

EFFECTIVE DATEJoe R. Davis

Chief Executive Officer and Director

May 1, 1994Larry J. Alexander

Director

May 30, 1995Brady F. Carruth

Director

May 1, 1994Gary L. Forbes

Director

May 1, 1994James H. Limmer

Director

May 1, 1994Hugh N. West

Director

May 1, 1994


---



QuickLinks
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FREDERICK FLEISHER.

July 2, 1984.

Petition for certification 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-11450

Conference Calendar

 

MICHAEL D. RODGERS, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DALLAS METROCARE SERVICES INC.; JAN STEVENSON;

ROBERT SPENCER; JEFFREY B. RENNER; JOYCE WHEELER;

RICK MATHEWS; ALL OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS OFFENDERS 

PROGRAM STAFF; MARYANNE ROMANO, Director,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:01-CV-1165-L

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

October 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael D. Rodgers, Sr., appeals from the district court's

order granting summary judgment to the defendants based on res

judicata in his civil rights suit. Rodgers alleged in his suit

that the defendants violated his civil rights, violated his

rights as stated in the Patients Handbook, subjected him to

racial profiling, unlawfully denied him medical services, and
No. 01-11450

-2-

discriminated against him because of his medical condition. 

Prior to filing his federal action, Rodgers had filed in state

court a nearly identical action against the same defendants, for

whom the state court granted summary judgment. 

Afforded liberal construction, Rodgers argues on appeal that

he lacked a fair opportunity to litigate in state court and that

the district court erred in applying res judicata. Under Texas

law, res judicata requires proof of the following elements: 1) a

prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent

jurisdiction; 2) identity of parties or those in privity with

them; and 3) a second action based on the same claims that were

raised or could have been raised in the first action. See

Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex.

1996). After a de novo review, we conclude from the record that

res judicata properly applies to this case and that the district

court did not err.

AFFIRMED.