alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.03


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
report dated April 23, 1997 (except for Note 5 as to which the date is June 27,
1997 and Note 14 as to which the date is January 16, 1998), with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Station Casinos, Inc. as of March 31, 1997
and 1996 and for each of the three years in the period ended March 31, 1997
(and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this
registration statement.


                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Las Vegas, Nevada
May 28, 1998
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 15
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C.  20549
Attn.:  Document Control

Re:  Oryx Energy Company Form 10-Q

We are aware that our report dated November 2, 1998 on our review of the interim
condensed consolidated balance sheet of Oryx Energy Company and its Subsidiaries
as of September 30, 1998, the related condensed consolidated statements of
income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 1998 and 1997, and the
related condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the nine months
ended September 30, 1998 and 1997, included in this Form 10-Q, is incorporated
by reference in the following registration statements:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                              Registration No.
                                                                                              ----------------

<S>                                                                                               <C>
On Form S-3 for:

      Oryx Energy Company $500,000,000 Debt
          Securities; Preferred Stock; and Common Stock                                           33-45611

      Oryx Energy Company $600,000,000 Debt Securities                                            33-33361

      Oryx Energy Company 7,259,394 shares of
          Common Stock                                                                            33-36799

      Oryx Energy Company $500,000,000 Debt Securities;
          Preferred Stock; and Common Stock                                                      333-33373

On Form S-8 for:

      Oryx Energy Company 1992 Long-Term Incentive Plan                                           33-42695

      Oryx Energy Company Long-Term Incentive Plan                                                33-25032

      Oryx Energy Company Capital Accumulation Plan                                               33-24918

      Oryx Energy Company Equity and Deferred
          Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors                                           333-03075

      Oryx Energy Company Executive Variable Incentive
          Plan                                                                                   333-03089

      Oryx Energy Company 1997 Long-Term Incentive Plan                                          333-26563

</TABLE>
Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should not
be considered a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by us
within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

                                       /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Dallas, Texas
November 2, 1998
#### State *v.*Kincannon.

Opinion delivered January 14, 1929.

*E. W. Applegate,*Attorney General, and *John L. Garter,*Assistant, for appellant.

Humphreys, J.

Appellee was acquitted in the circuit court of Mississippi County, Osceola District, on *850appeal from a judgment of conviction in the court of a justice of the peace in said county, upon a charge for violating § 4775 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest, which inhibits and makes it a misdemeanor for any person to catch or otherwise take any fish from any of the waters of the State without first procuring an annual license to do so. The case was tried in the circuit court upon the following agreed statement of facts:

“Whereas, Dan Kincannon, a resident of the Osceola District of Mississippi County, Arkansas, has heretofore been arrested upon a charge of violating the game and fish law of the State of Arkansas; and whereas the isaid Dan Kincannon has been fishing for the market with a hoop-net upon the waters of the Mississippi River without license; and whereas he was convicted of this crime in the justice of the peace court before Gr. L. Waddell, a .justice of the peace for Monroe Township, Mississippi County, Arkansas; and whereas this case is before this court upon appeal; it is therefore agreed between the parties hereto that the defendant, Dan Kin-cannon, has been fishing upon the waters of the Mississippi River for market purposes, and has been using a hoop-net, and has not procured a license as set out in § 4775 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest.”

The trial court took the view that § 4775 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest was repealed by act No. 423 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 1923, and that, after the repeal, it was not necessary for a person fishing upon the waters of the State for market with a hoop-net or nets to have a license. The interpretation of the later act by the trial court was incorrect. Section 1 of the later act, standing alone, would have the effect of repealing § 4775 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest, but, when read in connection with the other sections of the act, it is manifest that the Legislature only intended to repeal § 4775 of Crawford *&*Moses’ Digest so far as it related to Marion County. Section 4 of the act limits all other provisions of the act to Marion County only.

*851" On account of the error indicated the judgment of acquittal is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Hart, C. J.,

concurs in construction of act, hut dissents on ground that the venue was not proved.

Justices Smith and Mehaffy dissent.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YESICA VENEGAS RODRIGUEZ,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73224

Agency No. A078-084-847

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 9, 2011** 

Pasadena, California

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

Yesica Venegas Rodriguez petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of her

motion to reopen due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We remand to the BIA to consider the effect, if any,

of Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2009), which was decided

FILED

JUN 16 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

after the BIA’s decision. Additionally, if appropriate, the BIA may consider

whether Rodriguez was prejudiced by her prior counsel’s performance and any

other relevant issues.

PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Innovative Solutions and Support, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each ofthe undersigned officers of the Company, certify, 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 therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

| By:            |   | /s/ GEOFFREY S. M. HEDRICK |
|----------------|--------|----------------------------|
|           |   | GEOFFREY S. M. HEDRICK     |
|           |   | CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND  |
|           |   | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER    |
|           |   |                       |
|           |   |                       |
| August 4, 2006 |
|           |   |                       |
|           |   |                       |
|           |   | /s/ JAMES J. REILLY        |
|           |   | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER    |
|           |   |                       |
|           |   |                       |
| August 4, 2006 |

 

 

----
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 Ecolocap Solutions Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Michel St-Pierre, 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 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated this 15th day of April, 2014.






MICHEL ST-PIERREMichel St-PierreChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.0

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 Annual Report of SI Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the twelve
month period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of the Company as of and for the period covered
by this Report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Rheo A. BrouillardRheo A. BrouillardPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 30, 2006By:

/s/ Brian J. HullBrian J. HullExecutive Vice President, Treasurer andChief Financial OfficerMarch 30, 2006
9824.

#### Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company *et al. v.*Hixon, administratrix.

Broyles, P. J.

1. This was an action for the negligent homicide of the plaintiff’s husband, an employee of the defendant railroad company, *106and was'brought under the Federal employer’s liability act. There was consequently no presumption of negligence against the defendant. The evidence introduced, viewed' in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, d'id not authorize a finding that the defendant was guilty of any of the several acts of negligence specified in the amended petition. The verdict in favor of the plaintiff was therefore contrary to law and the evidence, and the court erred in overruling the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

Decided November 23, 1918.

Action for damages; from Taliaferro superior court—Judge Walker. May 22, 1918.

*Samuel H. Sibley,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. H. Cohen, J. P. Stephens, A. G. Golucke,*contra.

2. The ruling in the preceding note being controlling in the case, a discussion of the remaining assignments of error is unnecessary.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.*
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JACOB MATHLEY

No. 20 CR 585 

Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF UNOPPOSED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING DISCOVERY

Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d) and 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), the United States 

of America, by JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR., United States Attorney for the Northern 

District of Illinois, moves for the entry of an unopposed protective order, and in 

support thereof states as follows: 

1. The complaint in this case charges defendant with possession of child 

pornography, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2252A(a)(5)(B).

2. There is no district judge assigned to the case yet as the deadline for 

indictment has been extended to November 2, 2020. Nevertheless, the government 

would like to produce early discovery to defense counsel.

3. The discovery to be provided by the government in this case includes 

sensitive information, whose unrestricted dissemination could adversely affect law 

enforcement interests and the privacy interests of third parties.

4. The government has discussed the proposed protective order with 

counsel for defendant, who does not oppose the entry of the proposed order. 

Case: 1:20-cr-00585 Document #: 27 Filed: 10/06/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:65
2

WHEREFORE, the government respectfully moves this Court to enter the 

proposed protective order.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR. 

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Angel M. Krull

ANGEL M. KRULL

Assistant U.S. Attorney

219 South Dearborn St., Rm. 500

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 399-9915

Dated: October 6, 2020

Case: 1:20-cr-00585 Document #: 27 Filed: 10/06/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:66
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Marek Kreczmer, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Northwestern Mineral
    Ventures Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
    information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.  The registrant's other certifying officers 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 registrant 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 registrant,
        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; and

    b.  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
        over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
        annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
        materially affect the registrant's internal control over financial
        reporting;

Date: June 29, 2006       /s/ Marek Kreczmer
                         ----------------------------------
                         Marek Kreczmer
                         President and Chief Executive Officer
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 30346 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
MICHAEL SHORT, also known as Nate , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:96

- CR

- 232

- 1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Short, federal prisoner # 22355

- 034, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant
to Amendment s 591 and 607 . He contends that the district court erroneously determined that Amendment 591 did not apply because he was not convicted of an offense referenced in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2. In addition, Short asserts that

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 25, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-30346 Document: 00514007168 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2017No. 16

- 30346

2 the district court did not follow the correct procedure in calculating his original advisory guidelines range. We review for abuse of discretion a distric t court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Amendment s 591 and 607 did not have the effect of lowering Short’s guidelines range. T herefore, Short was not eligible f or a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826

- 27 (2010); United States v. Anderson , 591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Wilson , 267 F. App’x 317, 318 (5th Cir. 2008). Further, Short’s claims re garding the validity of his original sentence are not cognizable in a § 3582 (c)(2) motion. See United States v. Hernandez , 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Short’s motion. See Dillon , 560 U.S. at 826

- 27. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-30346 Document: 00514007168 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2017
Opinion filed July 25, 2019

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-19-00073-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF K.A.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 326th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 9110-CX

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the 

parental rights of K.A.S.’s mother and father. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§ 161.001(b) (West Supp. 2018). The mother filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a 

supporting brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record 

and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the 

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable 

grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. 
2

App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). 

In light of a holding by the Texas Supreme Court, however, an Anders motion to 

withdraw “may be premature” if filed in the court of appeals under the circumstances 

presented in this case. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). The court in 

P.M. stated that “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition 

for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27–28. 

Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and the 

motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed Appellant of her right to review the 

record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. In compliance with Kelly v. 

State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant 

with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record. We conclude that Appellant’s 

counsel has satisfied his duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. 

We note that Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders

brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree that the appeal is 

frivolous. However, in light of P.M., we must deny the motion to withdraw that was 

filed by the mother’s court-appointed counsel. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. 

Accordingly, we deny the motion for withdrawal of counsel, and we affirm 

the trial court’s order of termination. 

PER CURIAM

July 25, 2019

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating.

 1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>                                                           5 

        
<S>                                                       <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                  12-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         FEB-28-1992 
<PERIOD-START>                                            MAR-01-1991 
<PERIOD-END>                                              FEB-28-1992 
<CASH>                                                              0 
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    0 
<PP&E>                                                              0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      0 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         768,912 
<BONDS>                                                             0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                                         0 
<COMMON>                                                       50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                  1,141,299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                (768,912)
<SALES>                                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    0 
<CGS>                                                               0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                    0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                                        0      
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0 

         

</TABLE>