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



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration
statement on Form S-8 of our report dated February 13, 1997, on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of Community Pacific Broadcasting Company L.P.
as of December 31, 1996 and for the year then ended.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
August 31, 1998
#### Alexander Johnson and Richard Scott *v.*Thos. W. Means, etc.

Action — Consolidation.

A party can not complain that his action for forcible entry and ■ detainer was consolidated with his suit to reform his patent to the land.

APPEAL FROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT.

December 17, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

This was not a proceeding to quiet title to real estate, as is insisted on by appellants’ counsel. Appellees prayed for a reformation of the calls in their patent and for judgment for the recovery of the possession of that portion of their lands held and occupied by appellant, Johnson.

The proof establishes very clearly that appellees and those through whom! they claim title, had actually held occupied and claimed as their own, the land in controversy for more than fifteen years before the entry by Scott and his vendees. It is also shown that Scott pointed out to a party to whom he sold lands many years ago, the line now claimed by appellees to be the true one and recognized it as such.

His attempt to obtain title ánd possession through the county court entry and patent was palpably and manifestly a scheme resorted to for the purpose' of securing title to lands known to him to be the property of others.

*222
      *Rodman, for appellants.*

*Dulin, for appellees.*

The judgment of the court below ousting his vendee from the possession thus improperly obtained was right, and it is affirmed.

Nor can Johnson complain that his proceeding under the writ of forcible entry and detainer was consolidated with the equity suit. He was allowed his costs up to the time of the consolidation. A judgment under it ejecting appellees’ tenant would have been a mere farce as the writ of possession awarded in the equity suit would have immediately taken from him the possession thus secured.

Judgment *affirmed.*
10559.

#### Cauthen *v.*The State.

Decided July 23, 1919.

Bloodworth, J.

1. “The newly discovered evidence was merely impeaching in its character, and does not constitute sufficient cause for a new trial.” *McCrory*v. *State,*11 *Ga. App.*788 (7) (76 S. E. 163); *Moreland*v. *State,*134 *Ga.*268 (2) (67 S. E. 804).

2. The ground that the court failed to charge “the law of confessions” is without merit, “since it is well settled that even if the evidence authorizes a charge on the law of confessions, the failure to instruct the jury on that subject, in the absence of an appropriate ivritten request so to do, is not cause for a new trial.” *McArthur*v. *State,*19 *Ga. App.*747 (2) (92 S. E. 234), and cases cited.

3. As the State introduced a confession—direct evidence—as well as circumstantial evidence, the court did not err, in the absence of a timely written request, in failing to charge the jury the law of circumstantial evidence as embodied in the Penal Code, § 1010. *Horton*v. *State,*21 *Ga. App.*120 (2), 121, and cases cited (93 S. E. 1012).

4. The other grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit; there is evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and this court cannot interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

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

*141Indictment for manufacture of liquor; from Pike superior court -Judge Searcy. April 8, 1919.

*Erante L. Adams,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. M. Owen, solicitor-general,*contra.
EXHIBIT 99.2


                           CERTIFICATION OF CONTROLLER

I, Anthony E. Applebaum, Controller of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

              (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant, to
which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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


Dated:  June 19, 2003

                                                 /s/ANTHONY E. APPLEBAUM
                                                 -------------------------
                                                 Anthony E. Applebaum
                                                 Controller
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration
statement on Form S-8 of our report dated February 8, 1997, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of Benchmark Communications Radio Limited
Partnership as of December 31, 1995 and 1996, and for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 1996.

PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS LLP

/s/ Price Waterhouse Coopers LLP


Dallas, Texas
July 6, 1998
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0189. MARVIN B. SMITH, III, et al. v. HSBC BANK U.S.A. N.A.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. Following

an adverse ruling in that court, defendants Marvin B. Smith, III, and Sharon Smith

appealed to the superior court, which entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The

defendants then appealed directly to this Court, and the appeal was dismissed based

upon the Smiths’ failure to follow the discretionary appeal procedure. See Case

Number A17A0663, dismissed Dec. 13, 2016. 

The Smiths subsequently filed a motion to set aside in the superior court,

challenging the validity of the underlying judgment. On September 5, 2017, the

superior court entered an order denying the motion. The Smiths filed an application

for discretionary appeal from this ruling on October 4, 2017.

1 We, however, lack

jurisdiction.

Generally, an application for discretionary appeal may be filed within 30 days

of entry of the order or judgment sought to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). 

The underlying subject matter of an appeal, however, controls over the relief sought

in determining the proper appellate procedure. See Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 467-

468 (448 SE2d 192) (1994). The underlying subject matter here is a dispossessory

judgment. Under OCGA § 44-7-56, an appeal from a dispossessory judgment must

be filed within seven days of the date the judgment was entered. See Ray M. Wright,

Inc. v. Jones, 239 Ga. App. 521, 522-523 (521 SE2d 456) (1999). 

1 The Smiths directed their application to the Supreme Court, which

transferred it to this Court.

December 14, 2017
Here, the Smiths filed their application 29 days after the superior court’s order

was entered. Accordingly, the application is untimely and is therefore DISMISSED

for lack of jurisdiction.

2

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

2 We do not address whether the application is also barred by the law of the

case rule. See OCGA § 9-11-60 (h) (rulings by an appellate court are binding as

the law of the case and may not be set aside); Williams v. State, 335 Ga. App. 468,

469 (1) (781 SE2d 791) (2016) (appellate court’s dismissal of appeal effectively

affirmed the lower court’s ruling and became the law of the case).

12/14/2017
#### Prencsil, Appellant, *v.*Golaska et al., Appellees.

(No. 21521

— Decided December 5, 1949.)

*Mr. Lody Euml,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Gull & Cull,*for appellees.

Guernsey, P. J.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County in an action wherein the appellant, James Prencsil, was plaintiff and the appellees, James Golaska, and others, were defendants.

The action is one instituted to recover a commission under a written contract entered into between Prencsil and Golaska, whereby Golaska employed Prencsil as a real estate broker for a stipulated commission to procure a purchaser for and sell certain real estate owned by Golaska, upon the terms set forth in the contract. The sale of the real estate was not effected and the claim for commission is based on the alleged refusal of Golaska to sell the real estate upon the terms prescribed in the contract to a purchaser procured by Prencsil.

On the trial in the Common Pleas Court, the court granted defendants’ motion to arrest the taking of *466testimony and to enter judgment in favor of the defendants, which was done. That is the judgment from which this appeal was taken.

In order that a real estate broker may recover a commission from his principal for the sale of real estate, where the sale is not consummated, it is necessary that the broker procure not only a purchaser able, ready and willing to complete the purchase, but also the execution by the proposed purchaser of an enforcible contract for the purchase of such realty; or that he bring the vendor and proposed purchaser together so that the vendor may procure such a contract. *Patton*v. *Alessi,*42 Ohio App., 91, 180 N. E., 387; *Hrovat*v. *Krall,*28 Ohio App., 46, 162 N. E., 437; *Harris*v. *Manhattan Real Estate Co.,*1 Ohio Law Abs., 616; *Mattingly*v. *Pennie, Admr.,*105 Cal., 514, 39 P., 200.

To be enforcible, such a contract is required by the statute of frauds to be in writing.

In the instant case, it conclusively appears that the plaintiff did not procure the execution of an enforcible contract on the part of the proposed purchaser, the agreement of the purchaser not being in writing; and the plaintiff did not bring the vendor and the proposed purchaser together so that the vendor might have procured such a contract. Consequently the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any commission under the contract entered into between him and the defendant Golaska.

The judgment of the Common Pleas Court is therefore affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Middleton and Doyle, JJ., concur.

Guernsey, P. J., and Middleton, J., of the Third Appellate District, and Doyle, J., of the Ninth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the Eighth Appellate District.
High- priority recommendation:

Universal Zero Trust

is now possible

The federal government should support

and prioritize the creation of a 

Universal Name System

Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com
Opportunity: 

Universal Zero Trust

“ Never trust, always verify ”

globally and automatically

Automated pairwise cryptographic security

between any two persons and/or non-person entities, with no human in the middle

Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com
Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com

Universal Challenge

The web’s domain- centric architecture puts 

privileged insiders in the middle

which precludes zero trust
Universal Challenge:

Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com
Enabling Technology 

Confidential Computing

Protect data in use even from system administrator

Enable attestation of hardware and software integrity

AGENT

or 

TWIN

VERIFIER

Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com
Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com
Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com
Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com
Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com
Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com
Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com
Universal Name System

Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com
Universal Zero Trust

Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com
Globally Decentralized

Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com
Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com
Thank you

Presentation to the NIST IoT Advisory Board – August 22, 2023 – Manu Fontaine – manu@hushmesh.com
Exhibit 99.1



    Certifications Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

                   CERTIFICATE OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

        This  Certificate is being  delivered  pursuant to the  requirements  of
Section  1350 of  Chapter  63 (Mail  Fraud)  of Title 18  (Crimes  and  Criminal
Procedures)  of the United  States Code and shall not be relied on by any person
for any other purpose.

        The  undersigned,  who  are  the  Co-Chief  Executive  Officers  of  Cox
Technologies, Inc. ("Company") hereby certifies as follows:

        The  Annual  Report  of  Form  10-K  of the  Company  ("Report"),  which
accompanies  this  Certificate,  fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  and all  information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  7-29-03        /s/ Brian D. Fletcher           /s/ Kurt C. Reid
       ---------    ------------------------------    --------------------------
                      Brian D. Fletcher               Kurt C. Reid
                      Co-Chief Executive Officer      Co-Chief Executive Officer



                                      A-5
Letter Agreement




 Exhibit 10.4 
  
 November 3, 2005 
  
 Mr. Joseph A. Roccaforte, Jr. 
 Chairman and CEO 
 First Responder Systems and Technology Inc. 
 8000 GSRI Avenue 
 Building 3000 
 Baton Rouge, LA 70820 
  

	 	Re:	Bridge Loan Agreement, May 20, 2005 

  
 Dear Mr. Roccaforte: 
  
 This is in reference to the Bridge Loan Agreement dated May 20, 2005 between First Responder Systems and Technology, LLC (now First Responder Systems
and Technology Inc., as successor by merger, hereinafter referred to as “First Responder”) and Business Resource Capital Specialty BIDCO, Inc., Source Business and Industrial Development Company, L.L.C., and Gulf Coast Business and
Industrial Development Corporation (collectively, “Lenders”). The purpose of this letter is to amend the terms of the Bridge Loan Agreement. 
  
 Under Section 7.1(p) an event of default occurred when First Responder did not raise a minimum of $3 million in debt or equity within 150 days of the
closing of the Bridge Loan (October 17, 2005). The undersigned Lenders and First Responder hereby agree to waive the event of default and, in accordance with Section 11.9 of the Bridge Loan Agreement and Section 7.3 of the related
Intercreditor Agreement, hereby agree to amend Section 7.1(p) of the Bridge Loan Agreement to read as follows: 
  
 (p) Capital Injection. The Company does not receive a capital injection of debt or equity in a minimum amount of $3,000,000.00 by
December 31, 2005. 








 The undersigned Lenders further consent to substitution of First Responder Systems and Technology Inc.
for First Responder Systems and Technology, LLC as the party of record in the Bridge Loan Agreement and the Intercreditor Agreement. 
  

			
	 Sincerely,

	
	Business Resource Capital Specialty BIDCO, Inc. on its own behalf and as Administrative Agent
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Ted J. Ledet

	 	 	 Ted J. Ledet, Program Manager

	
	Source Business and Industrial Development Company, L.L.C.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Louis K. Greenblatt 

	 	 	 Louis K. Greenblatt, President

	
	Gulf Coast Business and Industrial Development Corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Cornelius A. Lewis 

	 	 	 Cornelius A. Lewis, President



  
 Consented to: 

 
 First Responder Systems and Technology Inc. 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Jos. A. Roccaforte, Jr.

	 	 	 Joseph A. Roccaforte, Jr., Chairman and CEO


  

 -2-
Case: 1:20-cr-00585 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/27/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:74
Case: 1:20-cr-00585 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/27/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:75
Case: 1:20-cr-00585 Document #: 32 Filed: 10/27/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:76
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

Nos. 04-20-00395-CR & No. 04-20-00397-CR

EX PARTE Juan HERNANDEZ

From the County Court at Law No. 13, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 641471 & 641472

Honorable Rosie S. Gonzalez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK 

OF JURISDICTION.

SIGNED November 18, 2020.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                     CONSENT OF LANE GORMAN TRUBITT, L.L.P.
 
     We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to
the use of our report dated February 7, 1997, with respect to the financial
statements of Clark/Bardes, Inc. included in the Registration Statement (Form
S-1) of Clark/Bardes, Inc. for the registration of its Common Stock.
 
                                            /s/ LANE GORMAN TREELITT, L.L.P.
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                LANE GORMAN TREELITT, L.L.P.
 
Dallas, Texas
   
July 27, 1998
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1906** 

RONNIE CLARKE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. PETERSBURG CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:13

- cv - 00333

- REP )

Submitted : November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013

Before WYNN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ronnie Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary D. Cohen, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronnie Cl arke appeals the dist rict court’ s order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Clarke filed the motion along with a complaint alleging that Defendant retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e t o 2000e

– 17 (West 2003 & Supp. 201 3 ). Clarke has also moved to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly , although we grant Clarke’s in forma pauperis application, we affirm the district co urt’s order. Clarke v. Petersburg City Pub. Schs. , No. 3:13

- cv - 00333

- REP (E.D. Va. June 20, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not a id the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants



American Realty Trust, Inc.
  Dallas, Texas

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting a part of this Registration Statement of our report dated March 6,
1998, relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of
Continental Mortgage and Equity Trust appearing in the Trust's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997.





                                                 /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

Dallas, Texas
May 13, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 30, 1997

</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         859,457
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  484,355
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,343,812
<PP&E>                                      16,365,883
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,249,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,460,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,460,264
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,460,264
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               885,170
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  503,561
<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>                                   373,192
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>