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

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-138124, No. 333-126586 and
No. 333-122676 on Form S-8 and Registration Statements No. 333-124091 and No. 333-117944 on Form S-3 of
our reports dated March 7, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements of iPCS, Inc. and Subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of iPCS, Inc.'s internal control over
financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of iPCS, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Davenport,
Iowa
March 7, 2008

---



QuickLinks
EX-10.39



 Exhibit 10.39 

 
 



 
 July 5, 1994 
 Mr. Jeffrey T. Becker 
 [home address] 

Dear Jeffrey: 
 On behalf of Aetna
Life & Casualty and the Valuation and Analysis Department, I am pleased to offer you the position of Investment Officer. The specifics of the offer are as follows: 

 

	1.	Starting Date: July 25, 1994. 

  

	2.	Base Salary: Your base salary will be $82,500 per annum payable biweekly. This will be reviewed on the basis of your performance during our annual salary review process
in April, 1995 and each year thereafter as long as you are employed by Aetna. The Company may also from time to time review and adjust salaries to reflect appropriate compensation for each position. 


 

	3.	Vacation: You will accrue vacation days in accordance with Company guidelines then in effect to a maximum of 15 days per year. As agreed, you may take one week’s
vacation in August, 1994. You will also have 1 discretionary day in 1994 and 3 per year thereafter. 

  

	4.	Sign-On Bonus: A one-time payment of $12,500 (gross) will be made as soon as possible after you begin work at Aetna in recognition of your career move.


  

	5.	Annual Bonus Pools: You will be eligible for consideration for awards under the Unit Bonus Pool and One Aetna Bonus Pool programs beginning with the 1994 performance
year (payable in 1995) as long as the plans are in effect. Each year thereafter, while you are employed by Aetna, you will be eligible for consideration for additional awards under the plans while they remain in effect. 


 

	6.	Contingencies: The offer is dependent upon (1) successful completion of a drug test prior to the scheduled start date of your new job; and (2) receipt
of documents which show that you are legally entitled to work in the United States. 

 Please read the enclosed booklet,
“Benefits Handbook” carefully in order to fully understand the terms and conditions of the plans mentioned above. 
 We are delighted
to extend this offer to you and look forward to your acceptance. We hope this employment relationship will be mutually enjoyable and lasting. Of course, you may terminate your employment at any time, as may Aetna. 

  








 Mr. Jeffrey Becker 
 July 5, 1994 
 Page 2 
 Please acknowledge your acceptance of this offer by initialing the enclosed copy of this letter and returning it to me. I would greatly appreciate your response within 7 (seven) days after receipt of this
letter. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the terms of our offer, please do not hesitate to call me. 
 Sincerely, 

/s/ Louanne D. Hayes 
 Louanne D. Hayes

 Enclosures 
  

			
		
		 	/s/ Jeffrey T. Becker
		 	Accepted

 /dgz 
 cc:
Robert Reeves 
       IG4M/275-4187
S07A1355.

#### ALLEN v. YOST.

(655 SE2d 580)

Decided January 8, 2008.

*Moore, Clarke, DuVall & Rodgers, Kim M. Minix,*for appellant.

*Hodges, Erwin, Hedrick & Coleman, Franklin T. Coleman IV, Maurice L. King, Jr., Collier & Gamble, Edward R. Collier,*for appellees.

HUNSTEIN, Presiding Justice.

Appellant Carolyn C. Allen contested the results of the November 8,2005 election forWard 5 of the City Council of Dawson, Georgia. More detailed facts surrounding the contested election are set forth in a prior appeal, in which this Court reversed the trial court’s initial dismissal of the case. *Allen v. Yost,*281 Ga. 102 (636 SE2d 517) (2006).

Following remand, the trial court, after conducting two evidentiary hearings, denied Allen’s petition on February 23, 2007. Allen filed a timely notice of appeal, and the appeal was docketed in this Court on May 23, 2007. Oral argument was scheduled for September 11, 2007. Despite the approaching expiration of her opponent’s term of office with the next election scheduled for November 6, 2007, Allen did not move to expedite this Court’s consideration of her appeal. Allen eventually, on September 7, 2007, moved for supersedeas, seeking a stay of the Ward 5 November 6, 2007 election to prevent her appeal from becoming moot. That motion was denied, and the November 6 election has now taken place.

“We take this opportunity to re-emphasize that the party seeking review of an election has the obligation to exercise the mechanisms available to produce a timely result.” *Kendall v. Delaney,*282 Ga. 482, 483 (651 SE2d 685) (2007). BecauseAllen only belatedly sought a stay of the November 6,2007 election and never sought to expedite review in this Court, and because the term of office for the seat Allen had sought has now expired, see Ga. L. 1970, p. 3121, § 2.2, Allen’s appeal is moot. See *McCreary v. Martin,*281 Ga. 668, 670 (642 SE2d 80) (2007) (election challenge dismissed as moot where party “did not timely exercise his statutory right to seek a stay of [the] election or to petition this Court for expedition in entertaining his appeal”). As such, the appeal must be dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
EX-10.20



 Exhibit 10.20 
 Amendment No. 2 to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement 

with Thomas H. Madden 
 This Amendment No. 2 to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of December 15, 2008, as amended (the “Agreement”) by and between Affinia Group Inc. (the
“Company”) and Thomas H. Madden (“Executive”) is made this 29th day of August 2012. Capitalized terms used herein without definition have the meanings assigned to such terms under the Agreement. 

The Company and Executive have determined that it is in their best interests to amend the Agreement to provide for an automatic extension
of the Employment Term upon the occurrence of a Change of Control. In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and the continued employment of Executive by the Company, the parties agree as follows: 

1. Term of Employment. Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add a new proviso at the end of the last sentence of
Section 1 to read as follows: 
 “; provided further that, upon the occurrence of a Change of Control (as defined in
the Affinia Group Holdings Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan) during the Employment Term, the Employment Term shall be automatically extended until the first December 31 following the 18 month anniversary of the Change of Control date.”

 2. Except as expressly amended hereby, the terms of the Agreement shall be and remain unchanged and the Agreement as amended
hereby shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Executive have caused this Amendment to be
duly executed. 
  

			
	AFFINIA GROUP INC.
	
	 /s/ Terry R. McCormack

	By:	 	Terry R. McCormack
		 	Chief Executive Officer
	
	 /s/ Thomas H. Madden

	Thomas H. Madden
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the fiscal quarter ended July 29, 2006 of Stein Mart, Inc. (the Form 10-Q), I, Michael D. Fisher, President and Chief Executive 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:



|1. | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: September 6, 2006 |  | /s/ Michael D. Fisher                
|                        |  | Michael D. Fisher                    
|                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
Certificate of Establishment and Designationof Class R-2E Shares

for

American High-Income Trust

 

 

The trustees, constituting at least amajority of the trustees of American High-Income Trust, a Delaware statutory trust (the “Trust”), have establishedand designated pursuant to Section 2.6 of the Amended and Restated Agreement and Declaration of Trust of the Trust dated December5, 2012, (the “Declaration”), a Class of shares of the Trust to be known as Class R-2E Shares (the “DesignatedClass”).

1. 	Rights, Preferences and Characteristics.The Designated Class shall have the relative rights, preferences and characteristics described in the Declaration and the Trust’sthen currently effective registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Registration Statement”),relating to the Designated Class . Any rights, preferences, qualifications, limitations and restrictions with respect to Classesgenerally that are set forth in the Declaration shall apply to the Designated Class unless otherwise specified in the RegistrationStatement, in which case those specified in the Registration Statement shall control.

2.	Authorization of Officers. The trusteeshave authorized and directed the officers of the Trust to take or cause to be taken any and all actions, to execute and deliverany and all certificates, instructions, requests or other instruments, make such payments and to do any and all things that intheir discretion may be necessary or advisable to effect the matters referenced herein and as may be necessary or advisable forthe conduct of the business of the Trust.

 

3.	Incorporation of Defined Terms.Capitalized terms which are not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to those terms in the Declaration.

 

AMERICAN HIGH-INCOME TRUST
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 4, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-31008

Summary Calendar

 

RODNEY WAYNE MACON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE MILLUS; RICHARD L. STALDER; KERRY MCBRIDE,

 DefendantsAppellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CV-1577

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

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rodney Wayne Macon, Texas prisoner #093953, appealsfrom the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). This court reviews such a dismissal under the same de novo standard as is

employed in reviewing dismissals under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d

732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). Under this standard, this court must assume that all of the plaintiff’s
-2-

factual allegations are true. The district court’s dismissal may be upheld only if it appears that no

relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations.

See Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998).

Macon alleges that his due process rights were violated due to a disciplinary conviction that

resulted in a sentence of extended lockdown and isolated confinement for ten days. His disciplinary

punishment does not implicate a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. See Sandin v.

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84, 486-87 (1995).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The district court’s dismissal of

Macon’s lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted counts as a “strike”

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Macon is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three “strikes” under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger ofserious physical injury.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.
DENMARK BANCSHARES, INC.

EXHIBIT (32.1)

CERTIFICATIONS



Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. '
1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Denmark Bancshares, Inc. ("DBI"), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DBI for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of DBI.



|/s/ Darrell R. Lemmens              
|------------------------------------
|Darrell R. Lemmens,                 
|Principal Executive Officer,        
|Chairman of the Board, and President



|/s/ Dennis J. Heim           
|-----------------------------
|Dennis J. Heim               
|Vice President and Treasurer,
|Principal Financial and      
|Accounting Officer           
|                             
|Date:  April 20, 2005
d1367887_ex4-38.htm


Exhibit 4.38







TERMINATION AGREEMENT







This TERMINATION AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is dated as of 1st day January 2013 and entered into by and between:








	
(1) 

	
DRYSHIPS INC. a company organized and existing under the laws of Marshall Islands with registered address at Trust Company Complex, Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro, Marshall Islands MH96960 (the “Dryships”); and













	
(2) 

	
CARDIFF MARINE INC., a company organized and existing under the laws of Liberia having its registered office at 80 Broad Street, Monrovia, Liberia (the “Cardiff”)












(collectively referred to as “Parties”, and individually as “Party”)












WHEREAS:








	
A.  

	
Dryships and Cardiff have entered into a Global Services Agreement dated 1st December 2010 (the “Global Services Agreement”) pursuant to which Cardiff was engaged to act as consultant on matters of chartering and sale and purchase transactions for the offshore drilling units operated by the majority owned subsidiary of Dryships, Ocean Rig UDW Inc.








	
B.  

	
In consideration of above services, Cardiff is entitled to receive from Dryships 1% fee in connection with chartering arrangements and 0.75% in connection with sale and purchase activities.








	
C.  

	
Pursuant to Clause 9.2 of the Global Services Agreement, the Global Services Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual agreement by the Parties.








	
D.  

	
In above context, the Parties have mutually agreed to terminate the Global Services Agreement.












NOW THEREFORE the Parties hereto agree as follows:








	
1.  

	
THAT the Global Services Agreement shall be terminated and shall be no longer in force and effect with effect as of 1st January 2013 (the “Effective Date”).













	
2.  

	
THAT from the Effective Date the Parties hereby mutually release and discharge each other from and against any and all costs, damages, liabilities, and/or claims whatsoever which either of the Parties hereto now has or may hereafter have, against the other Party hereto, by reason of, or in connection with the Global Services Agreement and/or the termination of the Global Services Agreement pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.







(Signature page to follow.)







                                                                                 



	
For and on behalf of   


DRYSHIPS INC.


 


 


 


/s/ Ziad Nakhleh


Name:   Ziad Nakhleh


Title:     Chief Financial Officer

	
For and on behalf of


CARDIFF MARINE INC.


 


 


 


 /s/ Haris Alivizatos


Name:  Haris Alivizatos


Title:    Legal Representative
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 957

To enhance investor confidence by providing investors with easy online access 

to complete information about securities firms and their brokers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2003

Mr. RENZI (for himself, Mr. OXLEY, and Mr. BAKER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL

To enhance investor confidence by providing investors with 

easy online access to complete information about securities firms and their brokers.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Broker Accountability 

5 through Enhanced Transparency Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. METHOD OF MAINTAINING REGISTRATION, DIS7 CIPLINARY, AND OTHER DATA. 

8 Subsection (i) of section 15A of the Securities Ex9 change Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o–3(i)) is amended to 

10 read as follows: 
2

•HR 957 IH 

1 ‘‘(i) OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN REGISTRATION, DIS2 CIPLINARY AND OTHER DATA.—

3 ‘‘(1) MAINTENANCE OF SYSTEM TO RESPOND

4 TO INQUIRIES.—A registered securities association 

5 shall— 

6 ‘‘(A) establish and maintain a system for 

7 collecting and retaining registration informa8 tion, including disciplinary actions, on its mem9 bers and their associated persons; 

10 ‘‘(B) establish and maintain a toll-free 

11 telephone listing, and a readily accessible elec12 tronic or other process, to receive and promptly 

13 respond to inquiries regarding—

14 ‘‘(i) registration information, includ15 ing disciplinary actions, on its members 

16 and their associated persons; and 

17 ‘‘(ii) registration information that has 

18 been reported to the association by any 

19 registered national securities exchange in20 volving its members and their associated 

21 persons; and 

22 ‘‘(C) establish rules governing the process 

23 for making inquiries and the type and scope of 

24 information to be provided in response to such 

25 inquiries. 
3

•HR 957 IH 

1 ‘‘(2) RECOVERY OF COSTS.—Such association 

2 may charge persons, other than individual investors, 

3 reasonable fees for responses to such inquiries. 

4 ‘‘(3) PROCESS FOR DISPUTED INFORMATION.—

5 Such an association shall adopt rules addressing the 

6 process for disputing the accuracy of information re7 ported under this subsection. 

8 ‘‘(4) LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.—Such an asso9 ciation, or exchange reporting information to such 

10 an association, shall not have any liability to any 

11 person for any actions taken or omitted under this 

12 subsection.’’. 

13 SEC. 3. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR FILING DEPOSI14 TORIES. 

15 Section 203A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 

16 (15 U.S.C. 80b-3a) is amended by adding at the end the 

17 following: 

18 ‘‘(f) LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.—An entity des19 ignated by the Commission under subsection (d)(1) shall 

20 not have any liability to any person for any action taken 

21 or omitted under this section.’’.

Æ
REPORT ofINDEPENDENT
ACCOUNTANTS


To the Shareowners and Board of Trustees
  Idaho Tax-Exempt Fund
  We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of the
  Idaho Tax-Exempt Fund, a series of shares of the Saturna Investment Trust,
including
  the schedules of investments as of November 30, 2001, and the related
statements
  of operations for the year then ended, the changes in net assets for each of
  the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for the five years then

  ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the
responsibility
  of the Trusts management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion
  on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

  We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America.
  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable
  assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are
  free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
  evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
  Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of November 30,
  2001, by correspondence with the custodian. Our audit also includes assessing
  the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management,
  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe

  that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 
  In our opinion the financial statements and financial highlights referred to
  above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of
Idaho
  Tax-Exempt Fund as of November 30, 2001, the results of its operations for the

  year then ended, the changes in net assets for each of the two years then
ended,
  and the financial highlights for each of the five years then ended, in
conformity
  with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

/s/ signature 
   Tait, Weller & Baker

December 13, 2001
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monroe James EZELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-30061.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 31, 2012.

Nicholas W. Brown, Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Kyana Stephens, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Monroe James Ezell appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ezell contends that the district court erred by lengthening his sentence based on his need for rehabilitation. Because Ezell failed to raise this objection at sentencing, we review for plain error. *See United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010). The court did not plainly err because the record reflects that it did not lengthen the sentence based on Ezell’s rehabilitative needs. *See Tapia v. United States,*— U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2392, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011) (“A court commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or the benefits of specific treatment or training programs.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.