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

10K


Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective
Amendment No. 4 to the Registration Statement
(Form S-8
No. 2-72410)
pertaining to the UST Inc. Employees Savings Plan, the
Registration Statement
(Form S-8
No. 333-36844)
pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option Plan, Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement
(Form S-8
No. 333-60698)
pertaining to the 2001 Stock Option Plan, the Registration
Statement
(Form S-8
No. 33-59229)
pertaining to the Nonemployee Directors Stock Option Plan,
the Registration Statement
(Form S-4
No. 333-101036)
pertaining to the registration of senior notes due July 15,
2012, and the Registration Statement
(Form S-4
No. 333-85285)
pertaining to the registration of senior notes due June 1,
2009, of our reports dated February 22, 2007 with respect
to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of UST
Inc., UST Inc. managements assessment of the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of
UST Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/ Ernst & Young
LLP

Stamford, Connecticut

February 22, 2007





101
[886 NYS2d 591]

#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Racquel Peters, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Kings County,

October 9, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney,*Brooklyn (Dana Kim of counsel), for plaintiff. *Damien Brown,*Brooklyn, for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Matthew J. D’Emic, J.

*1135In this domestic violence prosecution the People concede that defendant’s statement that she cut her husband as he was beating her during a fight over child support was made in violation of her constitutional rights *(Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436 [1966]). Nevertheless, the People requested a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the statement since they seek to impeach the defendant with her words if she testifies at trial.

Findings of Fact

Police Officer Frank Wolff, the domestic violence officer at the 67th precinct, testified credibly that on December 19, 2007, at about 1:30 in the afternoon, his colleague Detective McLaughlin walked into his office with the defendant. Officer Wolff described Ms. Peters as badly beaten, with a reddened face, lumps on her face and scratches on her neck and down her back. He was so shocked by her battered appearance that he instinctively asked what happened, resulting in defendant’s statement.

Conclusions of Law

There is no doubt that witnesses are expected to testify truthfully, and so, when a defendant takes the stand, she subjects herself to proper cross-examination. Such questioning includes, in many cases, the use of prior statements, even if made in violation of the defendant’s rights. The policies of the exclusionary rule do not bar the use of such statements *(United States v Havens,*446 US 620 [1980]; *Oregon v Hass,*420 US 714 [1975]; *Harris v New York,*401 US 222 [1971]). On the other hand, statements that are untrustworthy or that are involuntary, may not be used, even for impeachment. To allow such use of an involuntary statement is a denial of due process *(Mincey v Arizona,*437 US 385 [1978]) and the People have the burden of proving the voluntariness of the statement beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case Ms. Peters was in obvious distress. She had just suffered a beating and Police Officer Wolffs description leads to the inexorable conclusion that she was in pain. Tellingly, the officer could offer no explanation as to why the prisoner was even brought into his office.

The hearing testimony thus presents a defendant who was under arrest and in a strange office for no reason; who was recently beaten up and in pain, and undergoing the emotional *1136and psychological trauma imputable to all of that. Under the totality of these circumstances, the court finds Ms. Peters’ statement to be involuntary and not the product of a free will and rational intellect. It cannot be used at trial.
S05Y0030.

#### IN THE MATTER OF ANDREI GROMYKO HOWZE.

(606 SE2d 256)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Review Panel of the State Disciplinary Board recommending that respondent Andrei Gromyko Howze be disbarred for his violations of Standard 67 and Rule 9.4 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent to the State Bar’s filing of a Formal Complaint, Howze filed an answer, but failed to specifically address the issues raised in the Formal Complaint and the State Bar moved for summary judgment. On March 9, 2004, the special master granted the State Bar’s motion for summary judgment and filed a report and recommendation finding that Howze violated Standard 67 and Rule 9.4, and recommending disbarment. Although Howze filed a Request for Review and a Request for Oral Argument, no exceptions to the special master’s report were filed and the Review Panel, after denying Howze’s request for oral argument, filed its report. Neither the State Bar nor Howze has timely filed exceptions to the Review Panel’s report; accordingly, this matter is ripe for this Court’s disposition.

We have reviewed the record and find that on September 11, 2000, Howze, who also was admitted to the practice of law in Nebraska, acknowledged receipt of a summons and formal charges filed by the Committee on Inquiry of the Second Disciplinary District of the State of Nebraska and the Nebraska State Bar Association; that he filed an answer admitting each allegation of the formal charges; that the Supreme Court of Nebraska found that Howze failed to properly maintain his trust account, failed to provide an accounting of client funds, and failed to promptly remit client funds; and that on October 20, 2000, the Supreme Court of Nebraska issued an opinion disbarring Howze from the practice of law in the State of Nebraska. *Nebraska State Bar Assn. v. Howze,*618 NW2d 663 (Neb. 2000). We further find that Howze’s conduct in Nebraska, had it been committed in Georgia, would have constituted violations of Standards 4, 61, 63, and 65 (A) of Georgia Bar Rule 4-102 (d). A violation of any of these standards is punishable by disbarment. Based on these findings, we conclude that under Standard 67 and Rule 9.4 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d), Howze’s disbarment in the State of Nebraska is grounds for disbarment in the State of Georgia. Accordingly, Andrei Gromyko Howze hereby is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Georgia. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*800Decided November 22, 2004

Reconsideration denied December 9, 2004.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Kellyn O. McGee, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lorenzo Bailey, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 663]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered on or about September 23, 2011, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Clark, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**




**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 Legacy Reserves LP (the “Partnership”)
      on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
      the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Legacy
      Reserves GP, LLC (the Company”), the general partner of the Partnership,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:




(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
      Partnership.






/s/
                Cary D.
                Brown
            
            
            /s/
                Steven H.
                PruettCary
                D.
                Brown
            
            
            Steven
                H.
                PruettChief
                Executive Officer
              
              August 13,
                2007
            
            
            President,
                Chief Financial Officer and
              Secretary
              August 13,
                2007






A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
        provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
        to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  The
        foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
        Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed
        as part
        of the Report.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1
Form 10-KSB
Cardiff International, Inc.
File No. 000-49709


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

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the
Cardiff International, Inc.(the "Company") Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") for the purpose of complying with
Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code.

      I, Daniel Thompson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify that:

      1.    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

      2.    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cardiff
International, Inc.


Dated: April 18, 2007                   By: /s/ Daniel Thompson
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 07-1384

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

JAMES TAMBONE AND ROBERT HUSSEY,

Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion en banc of this Court issued on March 10, 2010, is

amended as follows:

On page 40, line 1, insert a second "R" in Judge

Torruella's last name to read: "TORRUELLA"
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60144 Conference Calendar

__________________ JOSE LUIS MORGADO-SALGADO, Petitioner,

versus IMMIGRATION and NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals INS No. A29-982-234

- - - - - - - - - - (October 17, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Luis Morgado-Salgado (Morgado) asserts that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion in affirming the order of the Immigration Judge denying his petition to suspend his deportation. Morgado argues that his deportation would result in "extreme hardship." See8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1); Hernandez-Cordero v. I.N.S. , 819 F.2d 558, 560 (5th Cir. 1987)(en banc). The BIA's finding regarding extreme hardship is reviewedNo. 95-60144 -2- under a strict standard for abuse of discretion. HernandezCordero , 819 F.2d at 561-63. Procedurally, review is limited to determination whether the BIA gave any consideration to the relevant factors establishing extreme hardship. Id . at 563. Substantively, we may find that the BIA abused its discretion only in a case in which "the hardship is uniquely extreme, at or closely approaching the outer limits of the most severe hardship the alien could suffer and so severe that any reasonable person would necessarily conclude that the hardship is extreme." Id
. The BIA specifically stated its findings regarding each factor that Morgado asserts was relevant to the suspension of his deportation. The BIA found that Morgado presented evidence that his deportation would be economically detrimental; however, he did not present evidence that his hardship was "uniquely extreme" or one of the most severe hardships that a deported alien would face. The BIA did not abuse its discretion either procedurally or substantively. The petition for review is DENIED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT IN RE: ADOPTION OF Z.T., A MINOR PETITION OF: M.T., BIOLOGICAL FATHER : : : : : No. 512 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 12th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal; and Mother and adoptive Father's request to remand to trial court for an award of counsel fees is DENIED

.
RCM 5.7

RCM 5.7 Work Deductions Revised May 9, 2017 Page 1 of 1

Refer to FOM1, Article 11.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 21, 2015

No. 04-15-00256-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.N.H. AND T.D.H., CHILDREN,

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-01405

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motions for extension of time are granted. Appellant’s brief is timely filed as 

of June 29, 2015.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Buckeye GP Holdings L.P. (“BGH”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Vance E. Powers, Acting ChiefFinancial Officer of MainLine ManagementLLC, the general partner of BGH, hereby certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
|                       | MAINLINE  MANAGEMENT LLC, as general partner of BGH |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                                |
| Date:  August 6, 2008 | /s/ VANCE E.  POWERS                                |
|                       | Vance E. Powers                                     |
|                       | *Acting  Chief Financial Officer*                   |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 719 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 719

     Supporting the goals and ideals of National Rural Health Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 20, 2019

  Ms. Finkenauer (for herself, Mr. O'Halleran, Mr. Cole, Mr. Smith of 
 Nebraska, Ms. Torres Small of New Mexico, Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, 
 Mr. Latta, Ms. Sewell of Alabama, Mr. Kind, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. LaHood, 
Mr. Loebsack, and Mrs. Axne) submitted the following resolution; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Supporting the goals and ideals of National Rural Health Day.

Whereas 60,000,000 hard-working individuals in the United States live in rural 
        communities;
Whereas rural individuals in the United States are increasingly facing barriers 
        to accessing the health care services they need;
Whereas rural health facilities in the United States have faced systemic 
        challenges, including low reimbursements, physician workforce shortages, 
        and difficulty accessing certain technologies like telehealth;
Whereas these challenges have contributed to 119 rural hospital closures since 
        2010;
Whereas these challenges have made it more difficult for all rural health care 
        facilities to keep their doors open and serve patients;
Whereas National Rural Health Day was established to emphasize the importance of 
        rural areas of the United States and recognize the efforts and 
        contributions to address the unique challenges in rural health care;
Whereas the National Organization of State Offices of Rural Health has 
        recognized National Rural Health Day the third Thursday of each November 
        since 2010; and
Whereas National Rural Health Day will be celebrated this year on November 21, 
        2019: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of National Rural Health 
        Day;
            (2) celebrates rural health care providers and the millions 
        of individuals in the United States they serve; and
            (3) expresses commitment to advancing policy to improve 
        health care accessibility and affordability in rural areas of 
        the United States.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Brian F. Beane, Respondent, v Kathy Curtis, Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.)

[977 NYS2d 418]

McCarthy, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Madison County (DiStefano, J.), entered September 20, 2012, which, among other things, dismissed respondent’s application, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for modification of a prior order of custody.

The parties are the parents of one child (born in 2001). A 2010 Family Court order awarded sole custody of the child to petitioner (hereinafter the father) and provided respondent (hereinafter the mother) with visitation every other weekend, every Wednesday evening, half of all holidays and two nonconsecutive weeks during the summer. In 2012, the father commenced a proceeding seeking modification of the custody order to the extent that the mother no longer have unsupervised visitation with the child. Shortly thereafter, the mother commenced a modification proceeding seeking custody of the child. Following a hearing, Family Court determined that neither party established that there had been any change in circumstances warranting modification of the prior custody order and dismissed the petitions. The mother now appeals.

“An existing custody order will be modified only if there is a showing of a change in circumstances revealing a real need for the modification in order to ensure the best interests of the child[ ]” *(Matter of John O. v Michele O.,*103 AD3d 939, 941 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Here, the proof fell short of establishing any such change in circumstances *(see Matter of Bronson v Bronson,*63 AD3d 1205, 1206-1207 [2009]; *Matter of Sparling v Robinson,*35 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2006]; *Matter of Meyer v Lerche,*24 AD3d 976, 977 [2005]). Although there was proof that the father interfered with the mother’s visitation and communication with the child — conduct which is not to be condoned — the proof further established that the child is doing well in school, is involved in extracurricular activities, has a stable home environment with the father and his wife and has been able to maintain a good relationship with both of his parents and his brother and sister. Accordingly, we find no error in Family Court’s dismissal of the petitions *(see Matter of John O. v Michele O.,*103 AD3d at 941; *Matter of Bronson v Bronson,*63 AD3d at 1206-1207; *Matter of Meyer v Lerche,*24 AD3d at 977).

Rose, J.E, Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
#### LOCKE v. UNITED STATES.

No. 58.

District Court, W. D. Michigan, S. D.

Oct. 18, 1940.

Linsey, Shivel, Phelps & Vander Wal, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for plaintiff.

Joseph F. Deeb, U. S. Atty., of Grand Rapids, Mich., for defendant.

RAYMOND, District Judge.

This matter is before the court upon motion of plaintiff to amend the judgment of July 22, 1940, by striking the provision granting taxable costs to defendant. The substantial ground of the motion is that it is inequitable that costs should be paid to defendant.

Prior to the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the right of the United States, when it was the prevailing party in a law action, to recover costs was well established, even though costs could not be recovered against the United States in the reverse situation. See Kittredge v. Race et al., 92 U.S. 116, 23 L.Ed. 488; United States v. Verdier, 164 U.S. 213, 17 S.Ct. 42, 41 L.Ed. 407; Pine River Logging Co. v. United States, 186 U.S. 279, 22 S.Ct. 920, 46 L.Ed. 1164; Grant Bros. Const. Co. v. United States, 232 U.S. 647, 34 S.Ct. 452, 58 L.Ed. 776; In re Peterson, 253 U.S. 300, 40 S.Ct. 543, 64 L.Ed. 919; United States v. Worley, 281 U.S. 339, 50 S.Ct. 291, 74 L.Ed. 887; United States v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., D.C., 235 F. 951; 14 Am.Jur., Costs, sec. 33.

This principle has been modified by the provisions of Rule 54(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorizes the court to direct to the contrary. Such a direction should be made, however, only in those cases where there are equitable considerations sufficiently strong to overcome the general rule. Careful consideration of the record in the present case convinces the court that such equitable considerations on behalf of plaintiff are not present here. An order will be entered denying the motion.
Order entered July 17, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00813-CV

IN RE TEXAS HEALTH RESOURCES AND TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Relators

Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 15-02252

ORDER

Before the Court is relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. The Court requests that real 

parties in interest and respondent file their responses to the petition, if any, on or before July 28, 

2015.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE