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

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in each of the following Registration Statements of Gaiam, Inc. of our report dated April 1, 2013, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Real Goods Solar, Inc. and subsidiaries included in
this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012.



|     |  |                        |  |                                                                                        
|---- |  | ---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Form |  | Registration Statement |  | Description                                                                            
|     |  |                       
|S-3  |  | 333-170681             |  | Shelf Registration Statement                                                           
|     |  |                       
|S-8  |  | 333-37700              |  | Gaiam, Inc. 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan Gaiam, Inc. 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
|     |  |                       
|S-8  |  | 333-89726              |  | Gaiam, Inc. 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan                                              
|     |  |                       
|S-8  |  | 333-161450             |  | Gaiam, Inc. 2009 Long-Term Incentive Plan.                                             



/s/ EKS&H LLLP


April 1, 2013

Denver, Colorado
move FLIP D
IFTalk He3nmr "He3PolFlipOn()"
IFTalk He3nmr "He3AnaFlipOn()"
#### KROUT & SCHNEIDER, INC., Appellant, v. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS TO MANAGEMENT, Appellee.

No. 00-1591.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 16, 2001.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 06-0422

IN THE MA 11ER OF THE PETITION OF JASON M.BURROWS 

### FILL OCT 1 3 2n20 Ao , D E R

Jason A.Burrows has petitioned the Court to waive the three-year test requirement for the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE)for purposes of his application for admission by motion to the State Bar ofMontana. By rule, applicants for admission by motion must provide evidence of the requisite score on an MPRE taken "within three years preceding the date of the application for admission." Rule IV.A.3, RulesofAdmission. Burrowspassed the MPRE in 1997when seeking licensure to practice law in the State ofCalifornia,where he was admitted. Burrows has since practiced law for 22 years "without any ethical or disciplinary issues in any jurisdiction where licensed or where admittedpro hac vice." Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Jason M. Burrows to waive the three-year test requirement for the MPRE for purposes of his current application for admission by motion to the State Bar ofMontana is GRANTED. The Clerk shall mail a copy ofthis order to Petitioner and to the Administrator of the Board ofBar Examiners at the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this 13

day ofOctober,2020. 10/13/2020

Case Number: PR 06-0422

# g-;1 xi ,A.-11,_



# (4 t.'77 4 --Wf.,._
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Effective date:*                         December 16, 2014.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 9, 2014, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 103 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2015-17, CP2015-21.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney,  Federal Requirements.

[FR Doc. 2014-29377 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Stephen D. Cummins, Chief Executive Officer of Oretech, Inc. ("Company"), do
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

         o        the Annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal
                  year ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
                  Exchange Commission ("Report"), fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:  October 13, 2003

 /s/ Stephen D. Cummins
 ----------------------
     Stephen D. Cummins
     Chief Executive Officer
     (Principal Executive Officer)
#### John Hanson *v.*E. W. Lea.

Landlord and Tenant — Improvements by Tenant.

Wliere improvements are made by a tenant who sells out to another, the purchaser succeeds only to the rights of the tenant, and cannot claim possession and ownership by adverse possession as against the lessor.

APPEAL PROM BRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

October 17, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Black was certainly the tenant of Lea. The proof conduces to show that the improvements made by Black were upon the leased premises. Harrison brought out Black’s improvement. He says he knew nothing about Black’s lease, and that he merely paid him for his work; yet it seems that he would be satisfied with nothing short of a *livery of seizin.*He paid Black the thirty dollars upon the premises in controversy, and declined to pay him anywhere else.

*163
      *Throop & Son, for appellant.*

*B. S. Willis, for appellee.*

The conclusion is almost irresistible that Harmon entered under and by virtue of his purchase from Black. Such being the case he stands in no better attitude, as to Lea, than Black would have stood, had he held to the possession until after the expiration of his lease. The facts stated brings the case clearly within the statutory definition of a forcible detainer, which is, that *“A*forcible detainer is the refusal of a tenant to surrender to his landlord the land or tenements demised, after the expiration of his term.” Civil Code of Practice, Sec. 500.

The instructions given on the petition of appellee were authorized by the evidence, and they conform to the law of the case as herein stated.

The instruction asked by appellant was properly refused, if for no other reason, that it assumed as an established fact that Harmon was in the adverse possession of the land when Black entered as the tenant of Lea. The jury should have been allowed to determine that fact from the evidence, and besides, before the instruction could have been given, an adverse possession should have been defined.

We find no error in the record prejudicial to appellant.

Judgment *affirmed.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                 Netegrity, Inc.

                            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 Netegrity, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Barry N. Bycoff, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code, that this Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: May 7, 2004                  /s/ Barry N. Bycoff
                                   ---------------------------
                                   Barry N. Bycoff
                                   President and Chief Executive Officer
                                   (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 31.02

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John M. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of KANA Software, Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the 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;

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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an Annual Report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.

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

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

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





|                    |  |                                         
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|Dated: July 6, 2006 |  | /s/ JOHN M. THOMPSON                    
|                    |  | John M. Thompson Chief Financial Officer
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, * 

* 

vs. * CR. NO. 10-00276-CG-M 

 * 

DOUGLAS GILES RAY * 

 * 

IN RE: THE ANCILLARY PETITION * 

 OF LILLY RAY * 

ORDER

 This matter is before the court on the ancillary proceeding petition of Lilly G. Ray, 

(Doc. 184), and the Government’s response moving to dismiss the petition, or, 

alternatively, requesting that the petition be deemed moot, in light of the Government’s 

filing of a separate civil forfeiture action against the same property in which petitioner 

Lilly G. Ray’s petition claims an interest. 

 The records of this court show that on October 26, 2011, the Government did file a 

separate civil forfeiture action against the real property to which Lilly G. Ray’s petition 

relates, namely, United States v. 10730 Meadow Lane West, Civil Action 1:11-CV00608-CG-M. Therefore, all issues related to the forfeiture of the property, including 

petitioner Lilly G. Ray’s interest in it, may and should be litigated within the civil 

forfeiture action. As a result, based on the records of the court, along with the facts and 

authorities submitted by the Government, the Government’s motion is GRANTED. The 

petition of Lilly G. Ray is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 32.2 (c)(1)(A) for the 

Case 1:10-cr-00276-CG-M Document 188 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 2
2 

above-referenced lawful reason. All further proceedings related to the forfeiture of 10730 

Meadow Lane West, Irvington, Alabama, are to be conducted in the civil forfeiture action. 

 THEREFORE, all further proceedings related to the forfeiture of the real property 

at 10730 Meadow Lane West, Irvington, Alabama, are to be conducted within the civil 

forfeiture action filed against it. 

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of October, 2011.

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 1:10-cr-00276-CG-M Document 188 Filed 10/28/11 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                            5270
<SECURITIES>                                   1850930
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6447
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 64877
<PP&E>                                         4886895
<DEPRECIATION>                                  125992
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8775885
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           452658
<BONDS>                                        1143793
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     7179434
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8775885
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1852405
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1159360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              101425
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 345272
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             345272
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    345272
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    15.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### W. A. Hickman *v.*F. L. Hall, et al.

Appeals — Practice—Duty of Appellant.

An appellant filing a transcript of tlie record, in the clerk’s office of the court of appeals must endorse thereon or on a paper filed therewith the names of all thei parties, appellant and. appellee, and where he fails to do so and only one of the parties to< the action in favor of whom judgment was rendered, is named as appellee, who has only a nominal interest in the controversy, the appeal will be dismissed.

APPEAL PROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

March 23, 1876.

*Roy & Walker, for appellant. Williams & Brown, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

This appeal is prosecuted in the name of W. A. Hickman alone, against F. L. Hall. As repeatedly decided, Hickman and Hall are the only parties to the appeal, and the only persons who can be affected by any decision made by this court upon this appeal.

It is the duty of the appellant or his counsel, upon filing the transcript of a record in the clerk’s office of this court, to endorse thereon or on some paper to be filed therewith, the names of all the parties, appellant and appellee, as the case is desired t0' stand on the docket of the court. Act to Amend Sec. 879, Civil Code, approved March 6, 1868.

Hall was only a nominal party, and the plaintiffs below do not seem to have been prejudiced by the dismissal of the petition as to him, and if they were, the judgment could not be reversed upon an appeal prosecuted by Hickman alone.

The appeal is, therefore, *dismissed.*
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

BAY VIEW CAPITAL CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                   9/30/98         9/30/97
<S>                                                               <C>             <C>
Earnings:                                             
        Earnings before income tax expenses                        30,089          21,794
        Add:                                          
        Interest on advances and other borrowings                  74,334          57,405
        Interest component of rental expense                        1,620             815
                                                                  -------         -------
        Earnings before fixed charges excluding       
         interest on customer deposits                            106,043          80,014
        Interest on customer deposits                             115,105          56,723
                                                                  -------         -------        
        Earnings before fixed charges                             221,148         136,737
                                                                  =======         =======
                                                      
Fixed charges:                                        
        Interest on advances and other borrowings                  74,334          57,405
        Interest component of rental expense                        1,620             815
                                                                  -------         -------
        Fixed charges excluding interest on           
         customer deposits                                         75,954          58,220
        Interest on customer deposits                             115,105          56,723
                                                                  -------         -------
        Total fixed charges                                       191,059         114,943
                                                                  =======         =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges including interest 
 on customer deposits                                                1.16            1.19
                                                      
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges excluding interest             
 on customer deposits                                                1.40            1.37
</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1619 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to require 

schools to provide fluid milk substitutes upon request of a student or 

the parent or guardian of such student, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2023 

Mr. CARTER of Louisiana (for himself and Ms. MACE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 

Act to require schools to provide fluid milk substitutes 

upon request of a student or the parent or guardian 

of such student, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FLUID MILK SUBSTITUTES. 

4 Section 9(a)(2)(B) of the Richard B. Russell Na5 tional School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(2)(B)) is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in clause (i)— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1619 IH

1 (A) by striking ‘‘may’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘shall’’; 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘and meets’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘as determined by the most recent Dietary 

5 Guidelines for Americans published under sec6 tion 301 of the National Nutrition Monitoring 

7 and Related Research Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 

8 5341) or that meets’’; and 

9 (C) by striking ‘‘for students who cannot 

10 consume fluid milk because of a medical or 

11 other special dietary need other than a dis12 ability described in subparagraph (A)(iii)’’; 

13 (2) in clause (ii)— 

14 (A) by striking ‘‘may’’ and inserting 

15 ‘‘shall’’; 

16 (B) by striking ‘‘the school notifies the 

17 State agency’’ and all that follows through ‘‘if 

18 the substitution is’’; 

19 (C) by striking ‘‘by written statement of a 

20 medical authority or’’; 

21 (D) by inserting ‘‘student or a’’ after ‘‘by 

22 a’’; and 

23 (E) by striking ‘‘that identifies the medical 

24 or other special dietary need that restricts the 

25 student’s diet’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1619 IH

1 (3) by striking clause (iii). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS