alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No.
33-20529, 33-31623, 33-48091 and 33-61803 on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1987
Stock Option Plan, the 1988 Stock Option Plan, the 1991 Stock Option Plan and
the 1995 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, respectively, of One Price
Clothing Stores, Inc. (the "Company") of our report dated May 16, 2003
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of One Price Clothing Stores, Inc.
for the year ended February 1, 2003, such report containing an explanatory
paragraph concerning substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue
as a going concern.


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Greenville, South Carolina
May 22, 2003
#### Michael Melnitzky, Appellant, v HSBC Bank USA, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 128]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered May 18, 2005, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff is enjoined from commencing any further litigation in the courts of the State of New York arising from or related to his prior matrimonial action, including the manner in which the inventory of the contents of the safe deposit boxes was conducted or his right to the contents therein, without prior leave of Supreme Court of the applicable county. The Clerks of Supreme Court, New York and Bronx counties, and the Clerk of this Court, are directed to accept no filings from this plaintiff as to such matters without prior leave of their respective courts.

Plaintiff raises the identical issues raised and determined against him in the matrimonial action, specifically, the manner in which the inventory of the safe deposit boxes was conducted, and the respective rights of plaintiff and his ex-wife to the contents therein. Although plaintiff couches his complaint in terms of defendant bank’s breach of fiduciary duties as bailee, fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting conversion, *483the gravamen of the action is that defendant bank, contrary to an order in the matrimonial action excluding plaintiffs attendance at the opening and inventorying of the boxes but permitting him to send a representative in his stead, improperly denied admittance to the representative. However, any complaint plaintiff has regarding the opening and inventorying of the boxes was or could have been raised in the matrimonial action, and are therefore barred *(see Melnitzky v North Fork Sav. Bank,*17 AD3d 170 [2005]; *Melnitzky v Apple Bank for Sav.,*19 AD3d 252 [2005]). Indeed, the affidavit of plaintiffs representative submitted in opposition to the motion was sworn to in 1998, i.e., during the pendency of the matrimonial action. We would add that the cause of action for conversion is time-barred (CPLR 214 [3]) and that the cause of action for prima facie tort fails to allege special damages *(see Curiano v Suozzi,*63 NY2d 113, 117 [1984]). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs other arguments. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announce the aforementioned meeting:
      ( print page 30606)    
*Time and Date:*                         12:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m., July 23, 2009 (Closed).                    

*Place:*                         Teleconference.                    

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                    

*Matters To Be Discussed:*                         The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of “Translating Research To Protect Health Through Health Promotion, Prevention, and Preparedness, Panel E, FOA CD09-001, initial review.”                    

*Contact Person for More Information:*                         Maurine Goodman, M.A., M.P.H., Scientific Review Administrator, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop D72, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone (404) 639-4737.                    

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Dated: June 18, 2009.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E9-15095 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Exhibit 32
                                                       ----------

                    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 Diversified  Historic
Investors IV on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,  2004
as  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Spencer Wertheimer,  President  and
Treasurer of the Company's managing partner, EPK, Inc.,  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 the Report fairly presents, in
all  material  respects, the financial condition and  results  of
operations of the Company.




Date: August 28, 2006                          /s/ Spencer Wertheimer
      ---------------                          ----------------------
                                        Name:  Spencer Wertheimer
                                       Title:  President (principal
                                               executive officer,
                                               principal financial
                                               officer) of the
                                               registrant's managing
                                               partner, EPK, Inc.

<PAGE>
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-14-00680-CV

Elizabeth Copeland 

v.

Barry Copeland

NO. 2012-39055 IN THE 311TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

SUPP CLK RECORD

RPT RECORD

MT FEE

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING

RPT RECORD

CLK RECORD

MT FEE

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$1,162.00

$170.00

$10.00

$175.00

$20.00

$162.50

$177.00

$10.00

03/25/2015

03/18/2015

03/13/2015

03/09/2015

02/04/2015

12/24/2014

12/24/2014

12/04/2014

11/03/2014

10/27/2014

10/06/2014

10/06/2014

10/01/2014

10/01/2014

09/09/2014

08/29/2014

08/15/2014

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

NOT PAID

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

E-PAID

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT
The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$1,976.50.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this July 17, 2015.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Anthony F. Bova, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Atlantis Plastics, 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 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: 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. Date: March 30, 2005
    
    
    
    /s/ Anthony F. BovaAnthony F. BovaPresident and Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ERIC L.L. LEANER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 67 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of July, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                       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 CastlePoint Holdings, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), we, Michael H. Lee, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Joel
S. Weiner, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Michael H. Lee
------------------
Michael H. Lee
Chief Executive Officer

November 13, 2007



/s/ Joel S. Weiner
------------------
Joel S. Weiner
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

November 13, 2007

                                       39
### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T A ugus t 1, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 16549 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 0 2 4 0 - CR - DLG U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s F R E D D Y D E J E S U S , D e f e n d an t- A p p e llan t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 1, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , P R Y O R an dC O X , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D avi d J. Joff

e, coun se l for F re dd y D eJ es us i n thi s di re ctcr i m i nal appeal , has2

m ov ed t o w i thd raw fr om further r epre se nt at i on of appel l antand fi l ed a bri ef pur s ua ntt o A nde r s v. C a l i f orni a , 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 493 (1 9 6 7 ). O u r in d ep en d en t rev iew o f th e e n ti re re co rd re v ea ls th at co u n se l’ s a s s e s s m e ntof

the r e l a t i ve m e r i tof

the appe a l i s c orr e c t . B e c aus e i nde pe nde nt ex am in atio n o f th e e n ti re re co rd re v ea ls n o ar g u ab le issu es o f m er it , co u n se l’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and D eJ es us’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence ar e AF F I RME D.
#### Missouri Pac. R. Co. *v.*Texas & P. Ry. Co., (Tandy, Intervenor.)1

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana.*

January *2,*1888.)

Railroad Companies—Negligence—Fires.

In an action against a railroad company for damages by fire from its locomotives, the only evidence offered by the company was the affidavits of their master mechanic as to the condition of certain locomotives at the time, as to stack-nets, ash-pans, etc. The evidence did not disclose whether these were the engines by which'the fire was caused. *Held,*that a finding by the master of damages for claimant was proper.

*361In Equity. On exceptions to master’s report.

G. E. Tandy filed a claim in intervention against the receivers of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company for damage by fire ignited by one of the locomotives of the company to some mixed sedge and mesquite grass on his land, at the rate of $1.25 per acre. The master allowed the claimant one dollar per acre. The receivers excepted to the master’s report, on the grounds that they were not .liable for damages, and that the amount allowed was excessive.

*W. W. Howe,*for receivers.

1

 Reported by Charles B. Stafford, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.

Pardee, J.,

*(orally.)*The only evidence offered by the receivers to rebut the presumption of negligence in causing the fire complained of by intervenor consists of the affidavits of their master mechanic at Long-view Junction, a place 200 miles distant from the fire, that on various days from August 6th to Augnst 11th, inclusive, engines 653, 662, and 663 were inspected at Longview, and stack-nets, ash-pans, and dampers were in good condition. The evidence does not disclose whether the fire of August 8th complained of was caused by fire from either or all of said numbered engines. The master’s finding as to amount of damage is less than that fixed by the evidence. However, only the intervenor testified as to such amount, and the master seems to have discounted his evidence 20 per cent.

Let the exceptions be overruled, and the report be confirmed.
J-A02021-15

2015 PA Super 152

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ALWASI YONG

Appellant No. 1972 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 12, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002313-2012

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and WECHT, J.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 16, 2015

I respectfully concur. In my opinion, we need not expound on the 

collective knowledge doctrine in the instant case where no other officer, 

involved in the narcotics’ surveillance at 3202 Fairhill Street, had requested 

or authorized that Officer Gibson arrest Yong. See Commonwealth v. 

Kenney, 297 A.2d 794 (Pa. 1972) (warrantless arrest upheld where 

arresting officer relies upon instruction to arrest from another officer who 

possessed required knowledge supporting probable cause). Accordingly, this 

case is resolved by determining whether Officer Gibson had probable cause 

to arrest Yong, or, simply, “whether the facts and circumstances within the 

knowledge of [Officer Gibson] at the time of the arrest, and of which he has 

reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a man of 

reasonable caution in the belief that [Yong] has committed or is committing 

a crime.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 2 A.3d 611, 616 (Pa. Super. 

2010). 
J-A02021-15

- 2 -

As the majority correctly recognizes, “there is nothing in the . . . 

record to suggest that . . . Officer Gibson received information, which, 

coupled with facts that he personally observed, provided probable cause to 

arrest Yong.” Majority Opinion, at 12. Accordingly, the trial court erred in 

denying Yong’s pretrial motion to suppress physical evidence uncovered as a 

result of his unlawful arrest and subsequent search of his person.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6934

ANTHONY LEON HOOVER,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

and

CHARLES MARSHALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE; ALVIN W. KELLER, JR.; ROBERT C. 

LEWIS; FAYE E. DANIELS; ROY COOPER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:11-ct-03068-F)

Submitted: November 18, 2011 Decided: November 22, 2011

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Leon Hoover, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Leon Hoover appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint as frivolous. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Hoover v. Perdue, No. 5:11-ct-03068-F (E.D.N.C. July 11, 

2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
# Cover

The attached tables show Railroad Retirement Act annuitants age 18 or over, and active railroademployees by Congressional District.  Annuitant counts are individuals in current-payment statusin July 2020.  Active employee counts are the total number of employees covered by the Railroad Retirement and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts during calendar year 2019.The first list is in district order by State.  The second is ordered by the total number of clients (annuitants and workers) from highest to lowest.  Approximately 1 percent of the addressesdid not match or were missing and were excluded from this report.

# State Order

Page &P of &N	September 2020

# Size Order

Page &P of &N	September 2020
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

JACQUES BILL JOSEPH , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2488

[ December 20, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Samantha Schosberg

- Feuer , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2016

- CF

- 009101

- AXX

- MB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Sen ior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

W ARNER , C IKLIN and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Healthcare Trust of America, Inc., or the Company, for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, or the Report, I, Robert A. Milligan, 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:


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


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





By:/s/ Robert A. MilliganRobert A. MilliganChief Financial Officer


Date: August 2, 2016








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. and will be retained by Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.