alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23
                                 ==========




Staley, Okada & Partners                   Suite 400 - 889 West Pender Street
Chartered Accountants                            Vancouver, BC Canada V6C 3B2
                                                             Tel 604 694-6070
                                                             Fax 604 585-8377
                                                         info@staleyokada.com
                                                          www.staleyokada.com


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                   ----------------------------------



We hereby consent to the use in the Rotoblock Corporation Form 10-KSB of our
report dated July 11, 2005, accompanying the consolidated financial statements
of Rotoblock Corporation for the year ended April 30, 2005.





                                           /s/ Staley, Okada & Partners
Vancouver, B.C., Canada                        STALEY, OKADA & PARTNERS
August 9, 2005                                  CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>
Ex-3(i)(b)

       FILED # C15993-97
         JAN 24 2001
       IN THE OFFICE OF
         DEAN HELLER
DEAN HELLER SECRETARY OF STATE


            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                         (After Issuance of Stock)


                        EASTPORT RED'S INCORPORATED
            -----------------------------------------------------
                            Name of Corporation

     I, the undersigned President and Secretary of Eastport Red's
Incorporated, do hereby certify:

     That the Board of Directors and Majority Shareholders of Eastport Red's
Incorporated consented in writing on the 21st day of December, 2000 and
adopted a resolution to amend the articles of incorporation of Eastport Red's
Incorporated as follows:

     Article First - is hereby amended as follows:

     FIRST.  The name of the Company shall be Wallin Engines Corporation.


     I further certify that the number of shares of the corporation
outstanding and entitled to vote on an amendment to the Articles of
Incorporation is 19,900,000; that the said change(s) and amendment have been
consented to and approved by a majority vote of the stockholders holding at
least a majority of each class of stock outstanding and entitled to vote
thereon.

     This Certificate of Amendment shall be effective on January 22, 2001 or
upon filing of this Certificate of Amendment with the Nevada Secretary of
State, whichever is later.

                                           /S/ MICHAEL LINN
                                       _______________________________________
                                         Michael Linn, President and Secretary


State of _________  )
                    ) ss.
County of ________  )

     On the 21ST day of DECEMBER, 2000, personally appeared before me, a
Notary Public, MICHAEL LINN, who acknowledged that she executed the above
instrument.

S                                           /S/ TAMMY GEHRING
E                                         __________________________________
A                                         Notary Public
L

                                                                            23
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

IN RE: TIKTOK, INC., CONSUMER PRIVACY 

LITIGATION

This Document Relates to All Cases

MDL No. 2948

Master Docket No. 20-cv-4699

Judge John Z. Lee

Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

I, Philip L. Fraietta, hereby withdraw my motion for admission pro hac vice (Dkt. 71). 

The motion was filed inadvertently and is not necessary pursuant to CMO-1, Paragraph 5. I 

apologize for this oversight.

Dated: September 14, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Philip L. Fraietta

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.

Philip L. Fraietta

888 Seventh Avenue

New York, NY 10019

Tel: (646) 837-7150 

Fax: (212) 989-9163

E-Mail: pfraietta@bursor.com

Counsel for Plaintiff, by and through his father and 

legal guardian Bartosz Grabowski, and the Putative 

Class

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 74 Filed: 09/14/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1598
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 14, 2020, I served the above and foregoing by causing 

a true and accurate copy of such paper to be filed and served on all counsel of record via the 

Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system.

/s/ Philip L. Fraietta

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 74 Filed: 09/14/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1599
Exhibit 99.2

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 Quarterly Report of DDi Capital Corp.  (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Bruce D. McMaster, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| 1.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  
 
2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

Date: November 13, 2002

By:

/s/ BRUCE D. McMASTER

 
 
 
 
 
 
**Bruce D. McMaster Chief Executive Officer**

 
  |
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40336 Conference Calendar

ARNOLD AYALA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHEILA R. ALFORD ET AL., Defendants, MICHAEL J. MCCAULEY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:94-CV-172

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Arnold Ayala, #440313, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that excessive force had been used against him by corrections officers. Following a bench trial, the magistrate judge concluded that the use of forceNo. 96-40336 - 2 - was appropriate and dismissed Ayala’s complaint with prejudice.

If the factfinder's account of the evidence is plausible, this court may not reverse it; if two views of the evidence are permissible, "the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous." Anderson v. City of Bessemer City , 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985). This court will not disturb credibility determinations on appeal. See Williams v. Fab-Con, Inc. , 990 F.2d 228, 230 (5th Cir. 1993) (this court defers to the district court if factual determinations are based upon credibility determinations). Ayala has not demonstrated that the magistrate judge’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous. See Odom v. Frank , 3 F.3d 839, 843 (5th Cir. 1993). The magistrate judge did not err by dismissing Ayala’s complaint.
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001049537
<NAME> GE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            46,064
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                         332
<MORTGAGE>                                       8,430
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  61,358
<CASH>                                             136
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               1,383
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           3,208
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,827
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 57,622
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                838
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   2,410
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                              658
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                    702
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,748
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,827
<PREMIUMS>                                       4,096
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              2,716
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  78
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   1,746
<BENEFITS>                                       4,136
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        891
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                49
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    889
<INCOME-TAX>                                       315
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                570
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       570
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0330 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRADLEY MEFFORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until September 30, 2020 to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court August 25 2020

08/25/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0330
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 &ourt an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this &ourt’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 8.6.&§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

Johnson v. Guevara, et al 20 CV 4156

Representative for Deceased Defendants William Erickson, John Healy and Ernest Halvorsen

Josh M. Engquist

The Sotos Law Firm

141 W. Jackson, Suite 1240A

Chicago, Illinois 60604

06242849 630-735-3300

jengquist@jsotoslaw.com

12/23/2021

✔

✔

✔

✔

Josh M. Engquist

Geri Lynn Yanow, Special

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 139 Filed: 12/23/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2277
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                              JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                      21,453
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               10,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                                2,770
<INVENTORY>                                                 5,572
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            48,986
<PP&E>                                                      32,117
<DEPRECIATION>                                              7,994
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              74,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       34,941
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                    294,693
<OTHER-SE>                                                  (257,755)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                74,783
<SALES>                                                     47,155
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            47,155
<CGS>                                                       43,092
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               74,587
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            2
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         (2)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (27,434)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         (27,434)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                                (27,434)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               (0.60)


</TABLE>
Exhibit B

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52-2 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:120
Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52-2 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:121
Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52-2 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:122
Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52-2 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:123
Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52-2 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:124
Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52-2 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:125
Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52-2 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:126
Continuing Education Units

VERIFICATION OF ATTENDANCE FORM

Certification Number: ________________

 attended the following professional educational activity. 

(NAME)

Title: Federal Information Security Educators (FISSEA) Winter Forum

Date(s): February 14, 2024 CEU Hours Earned: 3 hours 

Sponsor(s): National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Explanation of Event: The FISSEA Forums are quarterly meetings to provide opportunities for policy and 

programmatic updates, the exchange of best practices, and discussion and engagement among members of the 

Federal Information Security Educators (FISSEA) community. Webinar attendees will hear presentations from:

• Lesley Fair, Senior Attorney, Federal Trade Commission 

• Katie Shuck, Lead Cyber Intelligence Analyst, South Dakota Fusion Center 

• Wes Quigley, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigations

• Rachel Yurkovich, Management and Program Analyst, Federal Bureau of Investigations

• Lisa Plaggemier, Executive Director, National Cybersecurity Alliance

Location: Virtual Webinar; www.nist.gov/fissea 

Name of Meeting Host: Marian Merritt, Deputy Director of NICE 

 

Contact Information:

nist.gov/nice 

nice@nist.gov

The Continuing Education Units form is provided as a courtesy. It is the responsibility of the 

attendee to complete and submit with their certifying authority.
#### Higgins *vs.*Bailey.

It is improper ón a motion for the appointment of a receiver, in partnership cases, for the court to undertake to determine what is partnership property as between the partners and third persons. If any such dispute arises with reference to any particular property, the proper course to determine it is by an action, either against or' in favor of the receiver.

(Before Jones, J., at Special Term,

December, 1867.)

Motion for the appointment of a receiver of a partnership.

Jones, J.

The propriety of appointing a receiver of the partnership effects is not disputed. The defendant, (one of the partners,) however, claims that the lease, fixtures and furniture of the coal-yard belong to his father, and should not be included in the receivership.

I think it improper on a motion for the appointment of a receiver, in partnership cases, for the court to undertake to determine what is partnership property as between the partners and third persons. If any such dispute should arise with reference to any particular property, the proper course to determine it is by an action, either against or in favor of the receiver.

A receiver must be appointed of all the partnership property and effects of the firm of-. The receiver to give security in the penal sum of $8000, with one surety; the surety to justify in $14,000. And it must be referred to Geó. W. Stevens to nominate a fit and suitable .person to be receiver, and take from him the above required security. The parties, plaintiff and defendant, must appear before said referee, and under his direction pay, set over, deliver and assign to the receiver all partnership property and effects, and all evidences of debt *614belonging thereto, and all books, papers and documents relating thereto or connected therewith.

Upon this reference the question as to the lease and fixtures and furniture may arise, when a proper disposition of it will undoubtedly be made by the referee, and any decision he may make, on the subject, can be reviewed by the court.
Exhibit
      32.2




Certification
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001.




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Delek Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Leonard Sternheim,
      Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001,
      that:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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


Dated:
                February 23, 2007
              
              /s/
                Leonard SternheimLeonard
                  Sternheim,
                Chief
                  Accounting Officer
10102.

#### Williams *et al. v.*McKnight, for use, etc.

Decided April 22, 1919.

Complaint; from Catoosa superior court—Judge Tarver. July 13, 1918.

*William E. Mann, W. Gordon Mann,*for plaintiffs in error.

*M. L. Harris,*.contra.

Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial contains no special grounds. There is evidence to support the verdict, and the motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
10192.

#### THOMPSON *v.*THE STATE.

Decided January 9, 1919.

The evidence being insufficient to support the verdict, it is contrary to law-, and the court below erred in overruling the motion íor a new trial. '

Indictment for larceny after trust; from Whitfield superior court—Judge Tarver. June 29,-1918.

W. *E. Mann, W. Gordon Mann,*for plaintiff in error.

*Joseph M. Lang, solicitor-general,*contra.

Stephens, J.

The plaintiff in error, Thompson, was indicted in Whitfield superior court for the offense of larceny after trust. The indictment alleged that the defendant, Thompson, was entrusted by C. L. King with certain merchandise described in the indictment, “for the purpose of selling said merchandise,” the proceeds of said sale to be paid over to C. L. King, the owner thereof, and that the said Thompson did then and there wrongfully and fraudulently convert said merchandise to his own use, and did appropriate the proceeds of said merchandise to his own use without the consent of said 0. L. King, etc. The evidence upon which the conviction was obtained was as follows: The sole witness for the State, 0. L. King, the prosecutor, testified that Charley Thompson, the defendant, “bought” a bill of goods from *160him, to the amount of $39.28, and was "to pay” for them “some every week;” that the defendant made three or four payments of five or six dollars each, as shown by certain bills exhibited to the witness, and that the defendant was to sell the goods for whatever he could make on them after paying the prosecutor the cost. The State introduced certain' bills or statements showing an account between the prosecutor and • the defendant, running for several months, some of them marked paid and some bearing credits by the payment of money. The defendant made a statement in which he stated that he operated a store and had been trading with, and buying goods from, the prosecutor for a number- of years, on a running account, and-was to pay the prosecutor for the goods as much .as he could every two weeks. This he did until ho became financially embarrassed. The evidence for the State and the statement of the defendant are in perfect harmony. It is undisputedly shown that a running account had existed between the prosecutor and the defendant for some time, and that the defendant, along at different times, made payments on this account. The evidence utterly fails to make out a case of larceny after trust, and this court will not allow a conviction upon such evidence to stand.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*