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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
              ---------------------------------------------------


Vitafort International Corporation
Los Angeles, California

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 No. 33-300435, No. 33-307989, No. 33-317763, No. 33-331479, No. 33-
335067 and No. 333-56043 of Vitafort International Corporation of our report
dated April 15, 1999 relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Vitafort
International Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit),
and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the December 31,
1998, annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Vitafort International Corporation and
Subsidiaries.


                                       BDO Seidman, LLP


Los Angeles, California
May 24, 1999
#### William J. Allen vs. Commonwealth.

March 27, 2006.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

Appeal from order of single justice. *Practice, Criminal,*Postconviction relief.

*William J. Allen,*pro se.

*Timothy J. Cruz,*District Attorney, *& Carolyn A. Burbine,*Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

William J.

Allen was convicted of armed robbery while masked and felony-murder in the first degree as a joint venturer in the robbery, and we affirmed the conviction of felony-murder. *Commonwealth*v. Allen, 430 Mass. 252, 252 n.1, 259 (1999). Acting pro se, Allen subsequently filed in the Superior Court a motion for a new trial, a motion requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law, and other motions, all of which were denied. Allen then filed a petition, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, in the county court, essentially seeking review of at least some of the Superior Court judge’s orders.

Although Allen’s petition refers to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, he requests relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. As we have said, however, relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary, and a single justice does not err or otherwise abuse his discretion in denying relief where adequate alternative remedies exist. *Lykus*v. *Commonwealth,*432 Mass. 160, 161-162 (2000). Because we have already accorded Allen plenary review on his direct appeal, he “is required to follow the specific provisions of § 33E for appealing from a Superior Court judge’s denial of a motion seeking postconviction relief,” including petitioning “a single justice for permission to appeal.” *Id.*at 162. Where the mechanism of G. L. c. 278, § 33E, was available, the single justice did not err in denying relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. *Id.*at 161.

While the single justice properly denied the petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, it is unclear whether Allen may also have intended that his petition be treated as a gatekeeper petition, pursuant to § 33E. For that reason, we remand the case to the county court for reconsideration of the matter as a petition under that statute. “[T]he decision of the single justice, acting as a gatekeeper pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, [will be] ‘final and unreviewable.’ ” *Commonwealth*v. *Herbert,*445 Mass. 1018, 1018 (2005), quoting *Commonwealth*v. *Perez,*442 Mass. 1019, 1019 (2004).

*So ordered.*

The case was submitted on briefs.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

March 29, 2002


We have received a written representation from Arthur Andersen LLP that their
audit of JMAR Technologies, Inc.'s consolidated financial statements included
in the 2001 Form 10-K was subject to their quality control system for the U.S.
accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there
was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audit,
and availability of national office consultation to conduct the relevant
portions of the audit.

Very truly yours,


JMAR Technologies, Inc.

/s/ Dennis E. Valentine
------------------------
Dennis E. Valentine
Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 12.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, EnricoCavatorta, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 20-F, as amended by this Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A, ofLuxottica Group S.p.A.;

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

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

4.             The company’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

(a)  Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b)  Evaluated theeffectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c)  Disclosed inthis report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The company’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

(a)  All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)  Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
|        | By:    | /s/ ENRICO CAVATORTA    |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Enrico Cavatorta        |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

Dated: August 2, 2006

----
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

The undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of
chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of SRI/Surgical Express, Inc. (SRI), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SRI on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008
(the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of SRI.



|                      |  |     |  |                                               
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Wallace D. Ruiz                           
|                      |  |     |  | Wallace D. Ruiz                               
|                      |  |     |  | Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

      We have issued our report dated November 5, 2004, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements of Winton Financial Corporation which are
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30,
2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in
Winton's Form S-8 (333-34177) regarding the Stock Option and Incentive Plan,
Winton's Form S-8 (333-85966) regarding the 1999 Stock Option and Incentive Plan
and Winton's Form S-8 (333-98843) regarding Winton's 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan.

/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
December 29, 2004
#### UNITED STATES v. WELLS et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 8, 1896.)

Customs Duties — OuAssiercATroN—Ghease and Oil.

Grease and oils, commonly used in soap making, wire drawing, or for stuffing or dressing leather, and which are fit only for such uses, were entitled to free entry under paragraph 599 of the act of October 1, 1800, though they might he scientifically classed under some of the duty schedules. Accordingly, *held,*that "Japanese fish oil,” fit only for such uses, was duty free under this paragraph, and not classifiable, under paragraph 46, as “whale and other fish oil.” Jlagone v. Heller, 14 Sup. Ct. 18, 150 U. S. 70, applied.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

This is an appeal from a decision of the circuit court for the Southern district of New York, filed January 9, 1896, reversing a decision of the hoard of United States general appraisers, which had affirmed the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New York. The importation was of certain fish oil, known in the trade as “Japanese fish oil.”

Max J. Koehler, for the United States.

Edward Hartley, for appellee.

Before LACOMBE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.

PEE CURIAM.

The collector exacted duty under the provisions of paragraph 46 of the act of October 1, 1890, which reads as follows :

> “46. Seal, herring, whale and other fish oil, not specially provided for in this act, eight cents per gallon.”

The importers protested, claiming that the merchandise was free of duty, under paragraph 599 of the same act, which provides as follows :

> “599. Grease, and oils, suc-h as are commonly used in soap-making or in wire-drawing, or for stuffing or dressing leather and which are fit only for such uses, not specially provided for in this act.”

The decision of the supreme court in Magone v. Heller, 150 U. S. 70, 14 Sup. Ct. 18, is controlling in this case. It is entirely plain that it was the intention of congress that any oil which was commonly used in the arts for the purposes designated in paragraph 599, and was fit only for such uses, should come into this country free of duty, although it might he scientifically classed as one kind of an article; the name of which appears in some of the duty schedules, or is spoken of in commerce by that name. The manufacturing use must prevail over the scientific or commercial nomenclature. The evidence abundantly proves that Japanese fish oil, such as was imported in this case, was commonly used for the purposes named in paragraph 599, and is fit only for such uses. The board of general appraisers, it is true, find that such oil is used “possibly for other purposes’"; but, as there is no evidence found in the record to sustain this finding, it must be assumed that it is a mere guess of the board, as the language used in the finding sufficiently indi*412cates. The witnesses who dealt in the article, and were familiar with its uses, all testified that they knew of no other purpose that it has ever been used for.

The decision of the circuit court is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2767 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2767

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 8 West Silver Street in Westfield, Massachusetts, as the ``William 
                    T. Trant Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. WILLIAM T. TRANT POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 8 West Silver Street in Westfield, Massachusetts, shall be 
known and designated as the ``William T. Trant Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``William T. 
Trant Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 13, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2767

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 8 West Silver Street in Westfield, Massachusetts, as the ``William 
                    T. Trant Post Office Building''.
```
**Exhibit 12.1**
**COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**           **Three Months Ended March 31,**   **2005**  **2004**   (in thousands) **Fixed Charges:**        Gross interest expense $5,424  $4,228 Interest portion of rent expense  50   42           5,474   4,270          **Earnings:**        Income before taxes  56,713   62,646 Plus: fixed charges  5,474   4,270 Less: capitalized interest  1,990   1,941          $60,197  $64,975          **Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges**  11.0x  15.2x                       **For the Years Ended December 31,**   **2004**  **2003**  **2002**  **2001**  **2000**   (in thousands) **Fixed Charges:**                    Gross interest expense $17,813  $15,642  $15,373  $15,034  $25,100 Interest portion of rent expense  157   129   122   46   40                    17,970   15,771   15,495   15,080   25,140                      **Earnings:**                    Income before taxes  259,416   205,999   109,586   189,404   127,743 Plus: fixed charges  17,970   15,771   15,495   15,080   25,140 Less: capitalized interest  8,358   7,300   7,975   12,042   13,739                   $269,028  $214,470  $117,106  $192,442  $139,144                      **Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges**  15.0x  13.6x  7.6x  12.8x  5.5x
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00743-CR

Jack Patton, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LLANO COUNTY, 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR 5320, HONORABLE V. MURRAY JORDAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Jack Patton seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for official misconduct.

Sentence was imposed on August 28, 2003. There was a timely motion for new trial. The deadline

for perfecting appeal was therefore November 26, 2003. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2). Notice of

appeal was filed on December 8, 2003. No extension of time for filing notice of appeal was

requested, as required in criminal cases. Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; see Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208

(Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Pickens

v. State, 105 S.W.3d 746, 748 n.2 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.). Under the circumstances, we

lack jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for

want of jurisdiction. 
2

The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: January 23, 2004

Do Not Publish
exv10w1









Exhibit 10.1




	 	 	 
	Name and Title	 	Stock Option Awards
	Thomas B. King
President and Chief Executive Officer

	 	213,143
	James V. Cassella, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President, Research and Development

	 	104,258
	August J. Moretti
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Secretary

	 	75,746
	Michael J. Simms
Senior Vice President, Operations and Quality

	 	61,076
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001017358
<NAME>                        SPRINT SPECTRUM FINANCE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,497
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,597)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2585 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2585

  To require that fees for services provided by the Internal Revenue 
       Service be deposited in the Treasury as general receipts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 2011

  Mr. Olson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require that fees for services provided by the Internal Revenue 
       Service be deposited in the Treasury as general receipts.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Instituting Responsible Spending 
Act'' or as the ``IRS Act''.

SEC. 2. DEPOSIT OF IRS USER FEES AS GENERAL RECEIPTS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 3 
under the heading ``Administrative Provisions--Internal Revenue 
Service'' of title I of Public Law 103-329), any fees for services 
provided by the Internal Revenue Service shall be deposited in the 
Treasury as general receipts.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF REVENUES & EXPENSES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                          18,372
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,989
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,448
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,323
<PP&E>                                          13,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,425
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,070
<BONDS>                                            116
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           182
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,041
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,998
<SALES>                                        136,361
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               136,361
<CGS>                                           66,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,740
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  83
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,757
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,476
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,281
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,281
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
        

</TABLE>
Letter regarding retention bonus for Sudhakar Ramakrishna



 Exhibit 10.51 

 

 

 February 14, 2011 

Mr. Sudhakar Ramakrishna 
 Executive Vice
President and General Manager, Unified Communications 
 Solutions and Chief Development Officer 

Polycom, Inc. 
 4750 Willow Road 

Pleasanton, CA 94588 
 Dear Sudhakar:

 The purpose of this letter is to memorialize your retention bonus, as approved by the Compensation Committee in November 2010, in connection
with your employment with Polycom. As approved, you will receive a one-time cash bonus of $80,000, which will be paid at a rate of $20,000 per quarter through fiscal year 2011, subject to your continued employment with Polycom through the end of
each applicable quarter. 
 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. 

 

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/    ASHLEY D.
GOLDSMITH        
	Ashley D. Goldsmith
	Executive Vice President, Human Resources