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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
                       INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Raritan Bancorp Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
33-36441) on Form S-8, and the Registration Statement (No. 33-36440) on Form S-8
of Raritan Bancorp Inc. of our report dated January 16, 1998, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Raritan Bancorp Inc. and subsidiary as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996 and the related consolidated statements of income,
changes in shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1997, which report is incorporated by
reference in the 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Raritan Bancorp Inc.


                                        /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                        -------------------------
                                            KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
March 24, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 761 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 761

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 17, 2019.
    Resolved, That the Speaker, in consultation with the minority leader, may 
designate individuals to be admitted to the Hall of the House and the rooms 
leading thereto in order to obtain film footage of the House in session for 
inclusion in the orientation film to be shown to visitors at the Capitol Visitor 
Center.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of HIGH END VENTURES, INC., a Colorado corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Nadir Walji, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C.  1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Nadir Walji

Nadir Walji, President, Chief Executive3 Officer, Secretary/Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and          Principal Accounting Officer



July 10, 2007



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to HIGH END VENTURES, INC. and will be retained by HIGH END VENTURES, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### IROQUOIS OIL & GAS CO. v. HOLLINGSWORTH et al.

Civ. No. 65.

District Court, E. D. Illinois.

March 7, 1940.

Baker, Lesemann, Kagy & Wagner, of East St. Louis, Ill., for plaintiff.

Leal W. Reese, of Taylorville, Ill., and Wham & Wham, of Centraba, Ill., for defendant. ,

LINDLEY, District Judge.

Various defendants have filed motions to dismiss or in the alternative for other relief. Upon due consideration of the argument made and briefs filed, it is ordered that

(1) The complaint be made more certain with reference to the alleged agreement for and the dates and amounts of extra and additional work, including a segregation of the amount demanded for alleged balance due on contract and the amount alleged to be due for extras.

(2) The motion to dismiss is allowed as to the defect urged that plaintiff has not sufficiently set up inadequacy of its legal remedies. The two causes of action may be joined, but it is not the intent of the rules that a suit to set aside conveyances in fraud of creditors may succeed upon any lesser or smaller allegations than previously-

(3) The complaint be made more certain and definite as to the conveyances alleged to be fraudulent.

(4) The complaint be made more definite and certain as to the allegations of time, place and manner of the alleged breach of contract; in disclosing the time when the services were rendered; in the expressions “skidding derrick and digging pits on location of well Number 3”; “profit for drilling remaining 2 wells under drilling contract which plaintiff was prevented from drilling by defendants’ breach of contract at $3,500.00 per well”; “liabilities incurred by rental of equipment by plaintiff for the purpose of carrying out its drilling contract with defendants occasioned by breach of contract by defendants” ; “To tank adjustment”; and “adjustment on casing.”

(5) I am uncertain as to whether plaintiff intends to insist upon a lien or on interest in the oil or gas lease or the land itself by virtue of the contracts and assignments mentioned. If it is so intended, the complaint should be made more definite and specific in that respect.

In all other respects, the motions of defendant will be denied.

*202The plaintiff may have fifteen days in which to elect to file amendment and to file same.
#### PARENTEAU v. SWIFT & CO.

Civil Action No. 937.

District Court, D. Minnesota, Third Division.

March 20, 1946.

George W. Colburn, of Minneapolis, Minn., and John Edmund Burke, of St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff.

Cummins & Cummins, of St. Paul, Minn., and Grannis & Grannis, of South St. Paul, Minn., for defendant

DONOVAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff commenced this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., to recover $9,000,000 for himself and employees similarly situated. It is a companion case to the suit entitled Schempf, Plaintiff, v. Armour & Company, Defendant, D.C., 5 F.R.D. 294.

The complaints in the two cases are identical except as to the parties, employees named and amount of recovery sought *300Preliminary proceedings initiated by defendant were had before United States Commissioner William T. Goddard for the purpose of discovery and production by plaintiff of written authority to act as agent for the employees named in paragraph V of the complaint.

The motions here made by defendant were as follows:

I. (A) To dismiss the above entitled action as to all persons referred to in plaintiff’s complaint as “other employees too numerous to mention but whose names will be disclosed at the trial of this case” as set forth in paragraph V of plaintiff’s complaint;

(B) To dismiss said action against de-' fendant as to all persons designated and referred to in the complaint as “other employees similarly situated” in paragraphs V, VI and XI of plaintiff’s complaint;

(C) To dismiss said action as to all persons whose names are set forth in paragraph V of plaintiff’s complaint, except the following: George A. Forscon, Frank L. Watson, Charles Brisbin, George Schoocle, E. R. Honing, Fay Springer, Thomas Wall-rich, Harry Hemming, Ken Scheppat, Robert Moeschter and Ambrose Synaniet;

II. To strike from the complaint paragraph XX on the grounds and for the reasons that the allegations therein contained are irrelevant and immaterial to any cause of action alleged in plaintiff’s complaint, and that the allegations in said paragraph do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

At the hearing before the United States Commissioner, plaintiff was unable to produce written authority for a large majority of the employees named in the body of the complaint. Plaintiff testified the authorizations for such employees were misplaced or lost. Plaintiff has had since November 23, 1945, the date of the hearing before the Commissioner to find such written authority or obtain new ones for use herein, as provided by the Court’s order.

In accordance with the views expressed by the Court in the Schempf case, all unnamed employees, and those whose names were ordered stricken from the complaint, will be allowed twenty (20) days from the filing date hereof to intervene or have the record show that plaintiff has been designated by them as their agent or representative, to maintain this action in their behalf.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00149-CV

Akiko N. Souza

v.

Laura Jordan and William Jordan

On Appeal from the

131st District Court of Bexar County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2014-CI-06305

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 16, 2015
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyquan L. Rivera, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 822]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joseph D. Valentino, J.), rendered October 16, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him as a juvenile offender, upon a jury verdict, of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]) and assault in the first degree (§ 120.10 [1]) in the shooting of a Rochester police officer. We reject defendant’s contention that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel based solely on an allegedly prejudicial statement that defense counsel made during his opening statement concerning a rumor that the shooting was part of a gang initiation, which defense counsel promptly stated was baseless. “A single error may qualify as ineffective assistance, but only when the error is sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to compromise a defendant’s right to a fair trial” *(People v Caban,*5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; *see People v Atkins,*107 AD3d 1465, 1465 [2013]). Such an error did not occur here. This was a high publicity case, and defendant has not demonstrated “ ‘the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations’ for counsel’s alleged shortcoming[ ]” *(People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). In addition to contending that the above error by itself warrants reversal, defendant also contends that there were other instances of ineffectiveness. We conclude, however, that the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, establish that defendant received meaningful representation *(see generally People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

*1289Contrary to defendant’s further contention, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction and, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). “The fact that no one saw defendant fire the shot that [injured] the victim does not render the evidence legally insufficient, inasmuch as there was ample circumstantial evidence establishing defendant’s identity as the shooter” *(People v Moore*[appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659 [2010], *lv denied*17 NY3d 798 [2011]). Moreover, “[w]here, as here, defendant’s statements could be interpreted as relevant admissions of guilt . . . , there [i]s both direct and circumstantial evidence” of defendant’s guilt *(People v Casper,*42 AD3d 887, 888 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 990 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Finally, we have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that none requires reversal or modification of the judgment. Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Garni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
S7¥-/5

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 10-15-00028-CR

George Riley Williams, Jr. v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

TRIAL COURT:

TRIAL COURT #:

TRIAL COURT JUDGE: Hon. Travis B. Bryan

DISPOSITION: DISMISSED

272nd District Court

14-00978-CRF-272

DATE: March 19, 2015

OFFENSE: Evading Arrest

COUNTY: Brazos

Appellant's MOTION

FOR RE*HEARING IS:

April 22,

DENIED

DATE: 2015

JUDGE:

JUSTICE: Scoggins

PUBLISH:

PC S YES

CLK RECORD:

RPTRECORD:

STATE BR:

APP BR:

3/16/2015

2/23/2015

DNP: YES

SUPP CLKRECORD:

SUPPRPTRECORD:

SUPP BR:

PROSE BR:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

ELECTRONIC RECORD CCA # 'Slt-fr

APPZLLA/JT^ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: ^//y/^)/jr

JUDGE:

Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:.

PUBLISH:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR REHEARING IN MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS:

CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ON ON

JUDGE:
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  By:
    /s/ Joshua G. JamesDate: August 6, 2009
    
    Name:
    Joshua G. JamesTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  By:
    /s/ Michael S. HerringDate: August 6, 2009
    
    Name:
    Michael S. HerringTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) A signed original of each of the written statements above required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Omniture, Inc. and will be retained by Omniture,
Inc. and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 The forgoing certifications are being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an
exhibit to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, and they
shall not be considered filed as part of such report
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    Exhibit 2

                              Articles of Amendment

                        Desert Springs Acquisition Corp.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


<PAGE>

                                                                      FILED COPY

CHANGE OF NAME


                               ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT          951112489 C $25.00
                                      TO THE                  SECRETARY OF STATE
                             ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION        09-13-95     11:26
                                       OF
                          Bartel Financial Group, Inc.

     Pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  the  Colorado   Corporation   Code,  the
undersigned  corporation  adopts the  following  Articles  of  Amendment  to its
Articles of Incorporation:

     First: The name of the Corporation is Bartel Financial Group, Inc.

     Second:  The  following  amendment  to the  Articles of  Incorporation  was
adopted on July 11, 1995, as prescribed by the Colorado Corporation Code, in the
following manner:

[x] Such Amendment was adopted by vote of the shareholders. The number of shares
voted for the amendment was sufficient for approval.

        1. The Name of the Corporation is Desert Springs Acquisition Corp

     Third:  In all other respects,  the Articles as originally  filed remain in
full force and effect as stated.


     We, the undersigned,  being the President and Secretary this Corporation do
make and file these  Articles of  Amendment,  for the  purpose of  Amending  the
Articles of Incorporation as originally filed pursuant the Colorado  Corporation
Code,  and  accordingly  have set our hand  hereunto  this Day in  certification
thereof: August 31, 1995.



/s/ James Bartel                                           /s/ Mitchel Milgaten
James Bartel                                                   Mitchel Milgaten
PRESIDENT                                                             SECRETARY
Entitled to/Con derecho a

Medicare Number/Número de Medicare

Coverage starts/Cobertura empieza 

Name/Nombre

JOHN L SMITH

1EG4-TE5-MK72

HOSPITAL (PART A)

MEDICAL (PART B)

03-01-2016

03-01-2016

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

SAMPLE
#### Susan Angel, Appellant, v Christopher O’Neill, Respondent.

[854 NYS2d 119]

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the hearing court’s finding, largely one of credibility, that the notary signature under the jurat purporting to certify defendant’s acknowledgment of the subject agreement is a forgery *(see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl.,*80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]). Such evidence includes the notary’s testimony that the subject signature is not hers, and the obvious differences between the subject signature and the same notary’s admittedly genuine signature under the jurat certifying plaintiffs acknowledgment. Absent a proper written acknowledgment, the parties’ postnuptial agreement is unenforceable (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [3]; *Matisoff v Dobi,*90 NY2d 127, 137-138 [1997]). It does not avail plaintiff to argue that defendant ratified the agreement through word or conduct *(see id.*at 131, 133-134). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.
Exhibit 11. Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

|                                    | Year EndedJune 30, 2005 | Year EndedJune 30, 2004
|----------------------------------- | ----------------------- | -----------------------
|EQUIVALENT SHARES:                  |                         |                        
|Weighted average shares outstanding | 2,518,764               | 2,543,812              
|                                    |                         |                        
|Total diluted shares                | 2,563,545               | 2,604,910              
|                                    |                         |                        
|Net income                          | $  4,018,634            | $  3,512,179           
|                                    |                         |                        
|Basic earnings per share            | $        1.60           | $        1.38          
|                                    |                         |                        
|Diluted earnings per share          | $        1.57           | $        1.35
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 668 

Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 660) directing certain 

committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing 

House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist 

for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power 

to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of 

America, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 31, 2019 

Mr. COLE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 660) 

directing certain committees to continue their ongoing 

investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for 

the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President 

of the United States of America, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this reso2 lution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

3 XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of 

4 the Whole House on the state of the Union for considerVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:18 Oct 31, 2019 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR668.IH HR668

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 668 IH 

1 ation of the resolution (H. Res. 660) directing certain 

2 committees to continue their ongoing investigations as 

3 part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into 

4 whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Rep5 resentatives to exercise its Constitutional power to im6 peach Donald John Trump, President of the United 

7 States of America, and for other purposes. The first read8 ing of the resolution shall be dispensed with. All points 

9 of order against the resolution and against its consider10 ation are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 

11 resolution and shall not exceed four hours equally divided 

12 and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 

13 of the Committee on Rules. After general debate the reso14 lution shall be considered for amendment under the five15 minute rule. At the conclusion of consideration of the reso16 lution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report 

17 the resolution to the House with such amendments as may 

18 have been adopted. The previous question shall be consid19 ered as ordered on the resolution and amendments thereto 

20 to adoption without intervening motion except one motion 

21 to recommit with or without instructions. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1





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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alamo Energy Corp. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Allan Millmaker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.





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








/s/ Allan MillmakerAllan Millmaker

Chief Executive Officer

September 20, 2010
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, James S. Brown certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Annual Report of WorldWater Corp. on Form 10-KSB for the annual periodended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operation ofWorldWater Corp.
|        | By:    | /s/JAMES S.  BROWN                         |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | James S. Brown                             |
|   | Title: | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

Dated: March 30, 2005

*       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certificationaccompanies this Report on Form 10-KSB pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Suchcertification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act,except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it byreference.

End of Filing

----