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

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-151801, No. 333-120320, No. 333-157112, No. 333-163117) of Tower Group, Inc. of our report dated March 4, 2013 relating to the consolidated financialstatements, financial statement schedules, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers. LLP 

New York, New York 

March 12, 2013 

 
66
H. Res. 117

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 23, 1997.

Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on

Wednesday, April 23, 1997, or on Thursday, April 24, 1997,

for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend

the rules. The object of any motion to suspend the rules shall

be announced from the floor at least one hour prior to its

consideration. The Speaker or his designee shall consult with

the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any

matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution.

Attest:

Clerk.
| Exhibit 99.4 **SASCO Series 2004-7****Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distributions to****Certificateholders****for January 1, 2004 to December 31. 2004****Ending Principal****Class****Principal****Interest****Balance**R-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1-A1 51,571,894.20 17,074,458.95 412,254,105.80 2-A1 2,438,838.27 1,336,400.08 35,139,161.73 3-A1 3,930,421.69 1,859,198.32 48,062,578.31 AP 125,989.76 0.00 1,981,517.24 AX 0.00 40,632.32 1,052,860.64 B1 155,632.14 539,252.09 14,057,367.86 B2 41,292.40 143,074.64 3,729,707.60 B3 25,403.96 88,022.57 2,294,596.04 B4 22,228.46 77,019.75 2,007,771.54 B5 15,877.48 55,014.10 1,434,122.52 B6 9,575.70 33,179.02 864,919.41 PAX 0.00 13,242.25 347,669.53 R 100.00 1,111.41 0.00 E 0.00 0.00 0.00 P 0.00 117,480.43 0.00 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 15.1
 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

 

 

To the Board of DirectorsHomeland Precious Metals Corp.

 

We have issued an audit report dated September 26, 2005 for the year ended March 31, 2005  for Homeland Precious Metals Corp. included in the Registration Statement Form 20-F.  We consent  to the use of our auditors report in the aforementioned registration statement and to the  reference to our firm under the heading "Experts."

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 /s/ Robison, Hill & Co.Certified Public Accountants

Salt Lake City, UtahSeptember 26, 2005
CERTIFICATION

I, Lyndon West, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Index Oil & Gas Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, 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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
controls over financial reporting.





Date: April 10, 2006

                                     /s/ Lyndon West
                                     ---------------
                                     Lyndon West
                                     Chief Executive Officer
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel, are you 

a 

 Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-02918 Document #: 32 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:80
9457.

#### Hunt *v.*Chambers & Samples.

Decided April 10, 1918.

Motion for new trial; from city court of Hall county—Judge Wheeler. November 34, 1917.

*Ed. Quillian,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. N. Davie, Boyd Sloan,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

Where a motion for a new trial has been made, and, after several subsequent terms of the court have elapsed, counsel for the movant submits to the court what purports to be a correct brief of the evidence, and its correctness is denied by counsel for the other party, and counsel for both parties are unable to agree upon a brief of the evidence, and the court, by reason of the long delay of counsel for the movant in the presentation of the brief of evidence, is unable to remember what the evidence was, there is no error in refusal of the court to approve the brief of evidence, or in dismissal of the motion for a new trial. *Martin*v. *Mendel,*10 *Ga. App.*417 (73 S. E. 620); *Scoggins*v. *Knox,*143 *Ga.*599 (85 S. E. 753).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., eoneur.*
H. Res. 217

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

September 24, 1997.

Whereas the United States and the Republic of Austria have

enjoyed close and friendly relations since the inception of

the Republic of Austria;

Whereas 1997 marks the 50th anniversary of the Marshall

Plan which was critically important to the reconstruction

of the Republic of Austria and to the establishment of

friendly ties between the Republic of Austria and the

United States;

Whereas on September 26, 1945, a conference of representatives of the nine Federal states of the Republic of Austria

was held in Vienna that laid the foundation for the provisional Austrian Government and the early elections in

November 1945; and

Whereas a number of States have already proclaimed September 26, 1997, as ‘‘Austrian-American Day’’: Now,

therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) declares that the warm and cordial relations between the people of the United States and the Republic

of Austria should grow stronger; and
2

•HRES 217 EH

(2) acknowledges the important contributions to the

United States by Americans of Austrian heritage.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### John Moss *v.*Joseph M. Moss.

Process — -Lost Summons — How Proven — Entry on Docket.

The entry on the common law docket is competent evidence of the service of the summons on the defendant.

Replevin Bond — Proof of Existence.

The recitals in an execution that it was issued on a replevin bond is not evidence of the existence of such bond, which bond is a quasi judgment. ’

APPEAL PROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT.

December 17, 1867.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

Although the clerk states in the transcript of the record of Tilford against Moss, etc., that the summons has been misplaced and is not on file, on the trial of the action no evidence was offered to show that the summons has been issued and executed on the defendants and had, in fact, been lost, such evidence would have been competent after laying the proper foundation for its admission. Nor was there any evidence whatever that the judgment had been replevied; the bond was not produced and its absence not accounted for; the recital in the execution is not evidence of the existence of such bond.

*465
      *Bradley, for appellee.*

*Dunlap, for appellant.*

It has so often been held by this court that sales of real estate made by sheriffs where the judgments to uphold the executions were not produced that it is a useless waste of time to refer to authorities.

Here the replevin bond, if it had been offered on the trial, would have been sufficient to sustain the execution and sale, but it was not produced, and no evidence offered that such bond ever existed. Whether or not the evidence accompanying the brief of appellee’s counsel would have supplied the failure in the evidence we cannot now decide, as that evidence was not offered on the trial, and the question is not before the court. The entry on the common law docket would be admissible to- show whether or not the summons had been served. Sec. 383, Civ. Code.

As, therefore, there is no replevin bond which is a quasi judgment offered in evidence to uphold the execution in favor of Tilford, and without such evidence the sheriff exceeded his authority in selling more land than was required to satisfy the executions in his hands sustained by judgments, the ruling of the court below was erroneous. Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the - cause remanded with directions to award a new trial and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
* 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. 03-41429

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN CARLOS CANDANOZA-RUIZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-03-CR-393-ALL

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Carlos Candanoza-Ruiz appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)

by entering the United States, without permission, following both

his conviction for an aggravated felony and subsequent

deportation. 

For the first time on appeal, Candanoza argues that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it treats a prior

conviction for a felony or aggravated felony as a sentencing

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-41429

-2-

factor and not as an element of the offense. He asks us to

vacate his conviction and sentence, reform the judgment to

reflect a conviction only under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and remand

his case for resentencing. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. Candanoza acknowledges that his argument is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, but he asserts that the decision

has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466,

490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further

review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). 

AFFIRMED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"Smart Skies","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"qrBcIez9RI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/smart-skies\/\">Smart Skies<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/smart-skies\/embed\/#?secret=qrBcIez9RI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Smart Skies” — NASA\" data-secret=\"qrBcIez9RI\" 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\/2023\/05\/smart-skies-graphic.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":464}
#### Tessie Guinta, Respondent, *v.*Yoost Photo Play Theatre Company, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 21, 1926.

Trial —• power of trial judge to grant or deny motion to set aside verdict of jury exhausted when once exercised — error to entertain motion for reargument of application to set aside verdict.

It was error for the trial court to entertain a motion for the reargument of its denial of a motion to set aside the verdict in the action herein, since, while it has power to grant or deny such a motion in the first instance, such power is exhausted when that authority is once exercised.

Appeal by defendant from two orders of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District, entered in favor of the plaintiff.

*Alfred W. Andrews [James Gibson Ewell*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Abram S. Jaffer,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

The trial judge has the power to grant or deny a motion upon legal grounds to set aside a jury’s verdict. But when that authority is once exercised his statutory powers are exhausted. *(Colwell*v. *N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 57*Misc. 623; *Duran*v. *Chelsea Exchange Bank,*123 id. 158; *Conolly*v. *Jolly,*86 id. 42.) It was, therefore, error for the court to entertain the motion for a reargument of its denial of the motion to set aside the verdict which error requires a reversal of the order. The order appealed from is reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and verdict reinstated.

All concur; present, Guy, Wagner and Lydon, JJ.
* 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. 97-11431

FLEMING COMPANIES INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant

versus DAVID’S SUPERMARKETS, INC, ET AL Defendants WILLIAM D. SIMS, JR Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(5:97-CV-58)
November 3, 1998 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * AFFIRMED. See Local Rule 47.6.
Exhibit 32   SECTION 1350 APD ANTIQUITIES, INC. SECTION 1350
             CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the periodic report of APD ANTIQUITIES, INC.,
a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the
period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, CINDY K. SWANK, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350
of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge: (1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated. This Certification has not been, and shall not be
deemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: April 12, 2007



                               By: /s/Cindy K. Swank
                                  --------------------
                                      Cindy K. Swank


In connection with the periodic report of APD ANTUQUITIES, INC.,
a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the
period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, EDWARD WONG WAH ON,
Secretary of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the
United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated. This Certification has not been, and shall not be
deemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: April 12, 2007                By:  /s/ Edward Wong Wah On
                                             -------------------
                                             Edward Wong Wah On
H. Res. 305

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

November 6, 1997.

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI

for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee

on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is

waived with respect to any resolution reported from that committee before November 10, 1997, providing for consideration

or disposition of any of the following:

(1) A bill or joint resolution making general appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998,

any amendment thereto, any conference report thereon,

or any amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.

(2) A bill or joint resolution that includes provisions

making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1998,

any amendment thereto, any conference report thereon,

or any amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.

SEC. 2. It shall be in order at any time before November

10, 1997, for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend
2

•HRES 305 EH

the rules, provided that the object of any such motion is announced from the floor at least one hour before the motion

is offered. In scheduling the consideration of legislation under

this authority, the Speaker or his designee shall consult with

the minority leader or his designee.

SEC. 3. During the remainder of the first session of the

One Hundred Fifth Congress—

(1) notwithstanding clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, a resolution noticed as a question of the privileges of the

House during the period from November 4, 1997,

through the adoption of this resolution shall have precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn

only at a time designated by the Speaker; and

(2) the Speaker may not recognize a Member other

than the majority leader or the minority leader to offer

from the floor, or to announce an intention to offer, a

resolution as a question of the privileges of the House.

Attest:

Clerk.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

      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 Citizens Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, William V. Humphreys, President and 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: (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 result of
operations of the Company.

/s/ William V. Humphreys
-------------------------------
William V. Humphreys
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 11, 2003