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








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We have
issued our report dated March 30, 2009, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of MAXXAM Inc. on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008.  We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
MAXXAM Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-54479, effective July 8, 1994 and File
No. 333-101903, effective December 17, 2002).








GRANT
THORNTON LLP





Houston,
Texas


March 30,
2009
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


[X]  Please mark your 
     votes as in this 
     example.         
     




   FOR         AGAINST        ABSTAIN
  [  ]           [  ]            [  ]


1. Approval of an amendment to the Company's Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of Aurora Common Stock
from 50,000,000 to 300,000,000:

2. Approval of an amendment to the Company's Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation to change the name of the Company to "The Cerplex Group, Inc.":

SIGNATURE(S)                                                     DATE         
            ---------------------------------------------------       --------

NOTE: (Joint owners must EACH sign. Please sign EXACTLY as your name(s)
appear(s) on this card. When signing as attorney, trustee, executor,
administrator, guardian or corporate officer, please give your FULL title.)

PLEASE SIGN, DATE AND MAIL TODAY.


                                       

                            AURORA ELECTRONICS, INC.

 BOARD OF DIRECTORS PROXY FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS TO BE HELD AT
                     10:00 A.M., TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1998 AT
             THE CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS OF THE CERPLEX GROUP, INC.,
                   1382 BELL AVENUE, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92780


                  The undersigned stockholder of Aurora Electronics, Inc. (the
"Company") hereby appoints George L. McTavish, as proxy, with full power of
substitution, to vote the shares of the undersigned at the above- stated Special
Meeting and at any adjournment(s) thereof on the proposals set forth on the
reverse side.

                  THIS PROXY IS SOLICITED ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AND WILL BE VOTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS MADE ON THE REVERSE
SIDE. IF A CHOICE IS NOT INDICATED WITH RESPECT TO ITEMS (1) AND (2), THIS PROXY
WILL BE VOTED "FOR" SUCH ITEMS. THIS PROXY IS REVOCABLE AT ANY TIME BEFORE IT IS
EXERCISED.

                  Receipt herewith of the Company's Notice of Meeting and Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus, dated March 27, 1998, is hereby acknowledged.

                                                                    ===========
                                                                    SEE REVERSE
                                                                       SIDE
                                                                    ===========
IV

House Calendar No. 227

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 500

[Report No. 105–624]

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3267) to direct the Secretary

of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct

a feasibility study and construct a project to reclaim the Salton Sea.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 14, 1998

Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3267) to

direct the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the

Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study

and construct a project to reclaim the Salton Sea.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of

3 order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3267) to

4 direct the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the

5 Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study and

6 construct a project to reclaim the Salton Sea. The bill
2

HRES 500 RH

1 shall be considered as read for amendment. In lieu of the

2 amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources

3 now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of

4 a substitute printed in the report of the Committee on

5 Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as

6 adopted. The previous question shall be considered as or7 dered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amend8 ment thereto to final passage without intervening motion

9 except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended,

10 equally divided and controlled by the chairman and rank11 ing minority member of the Committee on Resources; (2)

12 a further amendment printed in the Congressional Record

13 pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII, if offered by Rep14 resentative Miller of California or his designee, which may

15 be considered notwithstanding the adoption of the amend16 ment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report

17 of the Committee on Rules, shall be considered as read,

18 and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally di19 vided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent;

20 and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instruc21 tions.

House Calendar No. 227

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 500

[Report No. 105–624]

RESOLUTION

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R.

reclaim the Salton Sea.duct a feasibility study and construct a project toing through the Bureau of Reclamation, to con3267) to direct the Secretary of the Interior, actJULY 14, 1998

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
* 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. 98-30506 Summary Calendar

JOHN J. GARRICK and MARYANN GARRICK, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus DALE THIBODEAUX; SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT ACADIA PARISH; JOHN WILSON; TOWN OF CHURCH POINT; KEN GOSS, and FLOYD LYONS, Defendants-Appellees.

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

USDC No. 96-CV-1894

- - - - - - - - - - February 22, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John and Maryann Garrick appeal the summary judgment in favor of all defendants on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. In ruling on a summary-judgment motion, a court must review the facts drawing all inferences most favorable to the party opposing the motion. See Newell v. Oxford Management, Inc. , 912 F.2d 793, 795 (5th Cir. 1990). The district court held that under the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994), GarrickNo. 98-30506 -2- was precluded from raising his § 1983 claims. Under Heck , a § 1983 plaintiff cannot recover damages for an unconstitutional conviction or for “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” until he has shown that the conviction or sentence has been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” 512 U.S. at 486-487. Otherwise, such a claim for damages is not cognizable under § 1983 and must be dismissed. Id. at 484-486; see Stephenson v. Reno , 28 F.3d 26, 27 (5th Cir. 1994). John Garrick had been convicted on his plea of nolo contendere of remaining after being forbidden, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, and battery on a police officer. No evidence or allegation of a reversal or dismissal of the convictions is in the record. The allegations against the defendants under § 1983 include assault, battery, unlawful arrest, racial discrimination, and excessive and unjustified force. These allegations would directly call into question the validity of the convictions for resisting arrest and battery of a police officer. Therefore, even after all inferences most favorable to the plaintiffs are considered, the defendants have carried their burden of showing that Garrick’s claims are barred under Heck , and the Garricks have failed to produce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v.No. 98-30506 -3- Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986). The summary judgment granted by the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
#### J. K. Poynter, etc., *v.*Seymour Harding.

Ejectment — Title of Plaintiff.

To entitle plaintiff in ejectment to recover be must connect himself with t)be commonwealth by an unbroken chain of paper title, or show title by adverse possession.

Ejectment — Title—Evidence.

Tbe evidence was 'held not to show title in plaintiff.

APPEAL FROM GREENUP 'CIRCUIT COURT.

January 30, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The proceeding against the McAllisters was abandoned when their demurrer was sustained. The suit from that time forward, although prosecuted on the equity side of the docket, must be regarded as an action in ejectment. Conceding the petition to be good, the answer raises the issue as to whether the title and the right of possession to the land described was in appellee.

To recover, it was necessary either that he should connect himself with the commonwealth by an unbroken chain of paper title, or else establish such an actual adverse possession on the part of himself and those under whom he claims as to invest him with the legal title to the land. No other paper title is shown than the deed from McAllister, executed in 1864.

As to the matter of possession, the evidence conduces to show that Poynter, and those from whom he purchased, were all the while asserting claim to the land, and exercising over it something like the same kind of ownership and control that was being exercised by the McAllisters.

*407Pkister, *for appellants.*

*Dulin, for appellee.*

The preponderance of the evidence is rather in favor of the conclusion that Gill entered on the land, and held as the tenant of Poynter. The land was certainly held adversely to the McAllisters in 1864, when the conveyance was made to Harding, and he virtually concedes that fact in his petition.

It seems to us that Harding not only failed to show title in himself, but that the plea of champerty is sustained by the proof.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to dismiss appellee’s petition.
<PAGE>                                                        Exhibit 11






                    MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION
                  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                        (Dollars in Millions)

Years Ended December 31               1995          1994          1993
                                     ------        ------        ------
PRIMARY
  Weighted average shares
      outstanding                 113,529,238   118,301,352   117,770,733
                                  ===========   ===========   ===========


  Net earnings (loss):

  Earnings (loss) from continuing
      operations                        ($416)         $598          $359
  Discontinued operations, net of
      income taxes                                                     37
                                  -----------   -----------   -----------
                                        ($416)         $598          $396
                                  ===========   ===========   ===========


  Earnings (loss) per share:

      Continuing operations            ($3.66)        $5.05         $3.06
      Discontinued operations,
         net of income taxes                                          .31
                                  -----------   -----------   -----------
                                       ($3.66)        $5.05         $3.37
                                  ===========   ===========   ===========




Earnings per share computations are based upon the weighted average common
shares outstanding during the year. Common stock equivalents (options) are
not material. The computation of fully diluted earnings (loss) per share is
the same as the primary computation.
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT



 EXHIBIT 4.1 
  
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF 
 COMPUTER SOFTWARE INNOVATIONS, INC.

  
 (Pursuant to Section 242 of Title 8, Chapter 1

 of the Delaware Code of 1974, as Amended) 
  
 Computer Software Innovations, Inc. (hereinafter called the “Corporation”), organized and existing under and by
virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, (the “GCLD”), does hereby certify as follows: 
  
 FIRST. Effective Date. 
  
 The amendments herein contained shall become effective as of the date of filing in accordance with Section 103 of the GCLD. 
  
 SECOND. Article Fourth. 
  
 Article Fourth shall be amended by the addition of the following sentence at
the end of paragraph (c) of said Article Fourth: 
  
 Without
limiting the foregoing, such terms and conditions of any rights, options and warrants approved by the Board of Directors may provide that any or all of such terms and conditions may be waived or amended only with the consent of the holders of a
designated percentage of a designated class or classes of capital stock of the Corporation (or a designated group or groups of holders within such class or classes, including but not limited to disinterested holders), and the applicable terms and
conditions of any such rights, options or warrants so conditioned may not be waived or amended absent such consent. 
  
 THIRD. This Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation herein certified has been duly adopted by the Board of Directors and the holders of the
Corporation’s Common Stock, being all of the stockholders entitled to vote thereon, in accordance with Section 242 of the GCLD. This Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation was adopted and approved by a written consent of the holders
of a majority of the outstanding shares of the Corporation’s Common Stock in accordance with Section 228 of the GCLD. 
  
 SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused its corporate seal to be affixed hereto and the
Certificate of Amendment to be signed by the President and attested by the Secretary this 7th day of November, 2005. 
  

			
	 COMPUTER SOFTWARE INNOVATIONS, INC.,

	A Delaware Corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Nancy K. Hedrick


	Name:	 	Nancy K. Hedrick
	Its:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer


  

			
	 Attested:

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Beverly N. Hawkins


	Name:	 	Beverly N. Hawkins
	Its:	 	Secretary
EX-10.2



 






Exhibit 10.2




AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO

TO THE ASSURANT

EXECUTIVE PENSION AND 401(k) PLAN




     THIS AMENDMENT to the Assurant Executive Pension and 401(k) Plan, as amended, renamed and
restated effective as of January 1, 2001 (the “Plan”), is adopted by the Assurant, Inc. Benefit
Plans Committee (the “Committee”).



W I T N E S S E T H:




     WHEREAS, Assurant, Inc. (the “Company”) currently maintains the Plan;



     WHEREAS, the Committee wishes to amend the Plan to remove employer stock as a deemed
investment in which participants may allocate all or a portion of their accounts under the Plan;
and



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 9 of the Plan, the Committee reserves the right to amend the
Plan.



     NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the dates set forth herein, the Committee hereby amends the
Plan to read as follows:



1.




     Effective as of January 1, 2005, the first sentence of Section 4.05 is revised to read as
follows:




“Amounts credited to a Participant’s Account will be invested in the Vanguard Prime Money
Market Fund (or such other investment fund as may be selected by the Investment Committee)
until such time as the Participant requests that such amounts be re-allocated to such other
investment fund(s) as may be made available to Participants under the Plan from time to
time.”



2.




     Effective as of September 9, 2005, the third sentence of Section 8.04 is revised to read as
follows:




“The Investment Committee also will have the power and responsibility to appoint and/or
remove any outside investment advisor.”



3.




     Effective as of September 9, 2005, Article 13 is deleted.



 









 





* * * * *




     Except as amended herein, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Committee has adopted this Amendment to the Plan on the date shown
below, but effective as of the dates set forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	ASSURANT, INC.
	 	 	 	 	BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date	 	 	 	By	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	Name
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	Title
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 





- 2 -
EXHIBIT 10.129







BASE SALARIES OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT





As of February 25, 2005, the following are the base salaries (on an annual basis) of the named executive officers (as defined in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K) of Mechanical Technology Incorporated:

|Steven N. Fischer                                                     | $  180,000
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------
|Chairman, Mechanical Technology Incorporated                          |           
|Dr. William P. Acker                                                  | $  250,000
|Chief Executive Officer, MTI MicroFuel Cells Inc.                     |           
|Dale W. Church                                                        | $  240,000
|President, MTI Government Systems                                     |           
|Dr. Shimshon Gottesfeld                                               | $  250,000
|Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, MTI MicroFuel Cells Inc. |           
|Alan Soucy                                                            | $  300,000
|President and Chief Operating Officer, MTI MicroFuel Cells Inc.       |
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 407 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 407

 To repeal the sunset of the provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax 
                   Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2003

  Mr. Bonner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the sunset of the provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax 
                   Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SUNSET OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF 
              RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001.

    Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 
of 2001 (Public Law 107-16) is hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
The Board of Directors
Chancellor Media Corporation
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement
on Form S-8 of Chancellor Media Corporation of our report dated February 10,
1998, except for Notes 2(b) paragraphs 1 and 3-5 as to which the date is
February 20, 1998 and 9(a) as to which the date is March 13, 1998, on our audit
of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of
Chancellor Media Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and for
the year ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the Form 10-K dated
March 30, 1998 filed by Chancellor Media Corporation.
 
                                            COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
 
Dallas, Texas
May 18, 1998
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

 v. ) Criminal Action No. 15-152-05 (RMC)

)

BRIAN BRYANT (5), ) 

)

 Defendant. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

On February 17, 2017, a jury found Defendant Brian Bryant guilty of several 

charges, including conspiracy and aggravated identity theft. Following the jury’s verdict, the 

Court heard argument concerning the detention of Brian Bryant and his codefendants pending 

sentencing. See Tr. of 2/17/17 Hearing (Tr.) [Dkt. 218]. The Court determined that Brian 

Bryant should be detained. Id. 12:19-13:6. Brian Bryant now moves for release pending his 

sentencing, see Def.’s Mot. for Release Pending Sentencing (Mot.) [Dkt. 249], which the 

Government opposes, see Gov’t’s Opp’n [Dkt. 250]. Upon consideration of the parties’ motions, 

the Court denies Brian Bryant’s motion. 

18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) (2012) provides that the Court 

shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense 

and who is awaiting imposition or execution of sentence . . . be 

detained, unless the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing 

evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the 

safety of any other person or the community if released . . . .

To overcome the presumption that the Court “shall” detain defendants pending sentencing, Mr. 

Bryant must provide “clear and convincing” evidence that he is not likely to flee or pose a 

danger to the community. 
 

To meet this burden, Brian Bryant points to his strong ties to the local community, 

his history of complying with his prior terms of release, and his information that a cooperating 

witness does not believe Brian Bryant poses a threat to her. See Mot. at 1-2. This information 

does not rise to the level necessary to establish “clear and convincing evidence” that Mr. Bryant 

is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the community. Mr. Bryant’s ties to the community, and 

behavior while on supervised release, were as true on February 17, 2017 as they are today. Mr. 

Bryant still faces a considerable prison sentence which serves as a strong incentive to flee. 

Further, as the Court ruled in February, “there is this concern also about the safety and situation 

of [the cooperating witness] with the potential for threats for a boiling up of anger now that the 

verdicts have been reached and declared.” Tr. 12:22-25. That concern still exists, even if the 

cooperating witness does not currently feel threatened. In short, Mr. Bryant’s arguments do not 

constitute sufficiently new or material information to convince the Court to reconsider its earlier 

ruling, and the risks that existed in February exist just as strongly today. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby 

ORDERED that Defendant Brian Bryant’s Motion for Release from Custody 

Pending Sentencing [Dkt. 249] be DENIED. 

Date: October 19, 2017 /s/ 

 ROSEMARY M. COLLYER 

United States District Judge
Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 42 Filed: 01/06/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:465

Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 42 Filed: 01/06/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:466

Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 42 Filed: 01/06/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:467