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

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


Consent of Independent Accountants



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8
(File No. 333-07951), Form S-8 (File No. 333-27285), Form S-8
(File No. 333-47748), Form S-8
(File No. 333-59364), Form S-8 (File No. 333-70205), Form S-8
(File No. 333-70207), Form S-8
(File No. 333-70209), Form S-8 (File No. 333-76032), Form S-8
(File No. 333-76301), Form S-8
(File No. 333-76303), Form S-8 (File No. 333-76305), Form S-8
(File No. 333-76307), Form S-8
(File No. 333-76309), Form S-8 (File No. 333-76311), Form S-8
(File No. 333-76313), Form S-8
(File No. 333-76315), Form S-8 (File No. 333-76317) of Alabama National
BanCorporation of our report dated January 17, 2002, relating to the financial
statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Birmingham, Alabama
March 19, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of ATEL Cash Distribution Fund VI, L.P., (the Partnership) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dean L. Cash, President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, 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 results of operations of the Partnership.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 12, 2008                                                                   
|                                                                                       
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                                                                       
|Dean L. Cash                                                                           
|President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC (General Partner)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and
will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Crump, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 98]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal does not foreclose review of the contention that defendant was denied effective representation of counsel *(see, People v Polanco*[appeal No. 1], 216 AD2d 957, *lv denied*86 NY2d 800; *People v Ferguson,*192 AD2d 800, *lv denied*82 NY2d 717). We conclude, however, that the contention lacks merit. Defense counsel made appropriate pretrial motions, successfully moved for suppression of defendant’s first statement to the police and secured a sentencing commitment for less than the maximum sentence *(see, People v Hough,*186 AD2d 1056, 1057, *lv denied*81 NY2d 762). Defendant’s disagreement with counsel’s decisions with respect to the presentation of evidence or cross-examination of witnesses at the *Huntley*hearing is insufficient to establish ineffective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Flores,*84 NY2d 184, 187). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Fallon, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of CFO Pursuant to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350,  As Adopted Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of AIMCO Properties, L.P. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul J. McAuliffe, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.

|/s/PAUL J. MCAULIFFEPaul J. McAuliffe
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of AIMCO-GP, Inc. (equivalent of chief financial officer of AIMCO Properties, L.P.)
March 15, 2004 |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

This
certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---

QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of Peter Richardson et al., Appellants, v Ronald Yingling, as Town of Vernon Enforcement Officer, et al., Respondents.

[858 NYS2d 645]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Anthony F. Shaheen, J.), entered April 16, 2007 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
**Exhibit 13.1****906 CERTIFICATION**     The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the annual report onForm 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying withRule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) andSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.     RafaelMateo A., the Chief Executive Officer and Manuel Irarrázaval A., the ChiefFinancial Officer of Empresa Nacional de Electricidad S.A. (“Endesa Chile”), each certifies that,to the best of his knowledge: 1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theExchange Act; and  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Endesa Chile.     Date: May14, 2007/s/ Rafael Mateo A.   Name:  Rafael Mateo A.   Chief Executive Officer           /s/ Manuel Irarrázaval A.   Name:  A Manuel Irarrázaval A.  Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3299

___________________________

Kimberly Adams, Ph.D.

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

City of Little Rock, A Public Body Corporate and Politic

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central

 ____________

 Submitted: August 5, 2024

Filed: August 8, 2024

 [Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kimberly Adams sued her former employer, the City of Little Rock (the City),

asserting employment sex discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following a jury trial at which Adams requested

an award of $390,000 damages, the jury found that her sex was a motivating factor

in the City’s decision to fire her, but the City would have fired her anyway. The jury
awarded no damages, and the district court1

 declined to grant injunctive, equitable,

or declaratory relief. 

Adams filed a motion seeking $49,687.50 in attorney’s fees and $862.00 in

costs. The district court awarded Adams no attorney’s fees on her § 1983 claim,

finding she was not a prevailing party because she failed to prove that sex was the

but-for cause of her firing. However, exercising its discretion under 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(g)(2)(B), the court awarded Adams $11,817.75 in attorney’s fees and

$258.00 in costs despite her “extremely limited success.” The City appeals, arguing

Adams was not a prevailing party and should be awarded no attorney’s fees and costs

under Title VII. 

The district court had discretion under § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) to award attorney’s

fees to a Title VII plaintiff who proves a violation under § 200e-2(m) but is not a

prevailing party because the employer proved it would have taken the same action

absent the impermissible motive. See Norbeck v. Basin Elec. Power Coop., 215 F.3d

848, 852 (8th Cir. 2000). However, “[i]n a civil rights suit for damages,” when the

jury makes an award of no damages, or only nominal damages in a § 1983 action, “the

only reasonable fee is usually no fee at all.” Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 115

(1992). We would likely conclude that this is such a case except for a unique factor

the district court found dispositive:

[A]s Dr. Adams points out, this case would have likely resolved by way

of summary judgment if the City had filed such a motion. 

Unfortunately, the City blew the deadline by months, essentially

requiring an unnecessary trial and thus the unnecessary expenditure of

time and resources by Plaintiff’s counsel. 

1The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

-2-
We conclude the district court properly considered this factor and did not abuse

its substantial discretion in granting Adams a substantially reduced award of

attorney’s fees and costs. Accordingly, the Order of the district court dated

September 15, 2023 is affirmed. 

______________________________

-3-
#### Kim H. Martusewicz, Appellant, v Tina Martusewicz (Duque), Respondent.

[667 NYS2d 326]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We reject plaintiffs contention that Supreme Court’s amendment of the judgment of divorce is inconsistent with this Court’s prior decision and order modifying the original judgment of divorce *(Martusewicz v Martusewicz,*217 AD2d 926, *lv denied sub nom. Martusewicz v Duque,*88 NY2d 801). The amendment incorporates this Court’s prior direction that the judgment be modified to grant plaintiff alternating bi-weekly visitation with the children during their summer recess from school. We further conclude that the imposition of sanctions for frivolous conduct is not warranted at this time. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Parker, J.—Visitation.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Fallon, JJ.
EXHIBIT 99.1

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 Annual Report of Polymer Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 28, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James L. Schaeffer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|               |  | /s/JAMES L. SCHAEFFERJames L. Schaeffer Chief Executive
Officer
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|April 14, 2003 |  |                                                                

---

QuickLinks
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6480

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. SEAN RONDELL BUNDY, a/k/a Bun Rock, a/k/a Humps , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00226

- JKB

- 1; 1:14

- cv - 00221

- JKB )

Submitted : September 30, 2019 Decided: October 16, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Sean Rondell Bundy, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sean Rondell Bundy seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating th at reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bundy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bundy’s motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade quately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<PAGE>

Exhibit 13.1




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



The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form 20-F filed
by Central Minera Corp. (the "Issuer") for the year ended June 30, 2004, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly
present, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



                                                CENTRAL MINERA CORP.

                                                "Michael Cytrynbaum"

November 26, 2004                               Michael Cytrynbaum
                                                President
Exhibit 23


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  333-53289) of ITEX  Corporation of our report dated September 24, 2002,
with respect to the  financial  statements of ITEX  Corporation  included in the
Annual  Report  (Form  10-KSB and Form  10-KSB/A-1)  for the year ended July 31,
2002.



/S/ EHRHARDT KEEFE STEINER & HOTTMAN PC

Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC

November 22, 2002
Denver, Colorado
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Entheos Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on the Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Derek Cooper, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(i)        the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(ii)       The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein. 

 

|                  |   | **ENTHEOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.** |
|-----------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
| ** **            |   |                           |   |   |
| Date: August 14, 2009 |   | By:                            |   | /s/ Derek Cooper |
|                  |   |                           |   | Derek CooperPresident, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director |

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

          - [F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No. 9-17]

                    The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations                           ( print page 46530)                        (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:                

## Thursday, October 19, 2017:

10:00 a.m.—Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against Iraq.

# Status:

Open.

All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.

Brian M. Simkin,

Chief Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2017-21613 Filed 10-3-17; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 4410-BA-P
* 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 18, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50799

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM RAFAEL RIVERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CR-564-7

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent William Rafael Rivera on

appeal has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rivera

has filed a response. Our independent review of the brief,

Rivera’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue

for appeal. The record is insufficiently developed to allow

consideration of Rivera’s claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th

Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is
No. 05-50799

-2-

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial data extracted from the
     consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations
     and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such schedules
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                          0
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   551,648
<ALLOWANCES>                    145,928
<INVENTORY>                     237,549
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                820,126
<PP&E>                          503,434
<DEPRECIATION>                  450,705
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,628,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           2,961,519
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     2,426,000
<COMMON>                        4,196,933
<OTHER-SE>                      (8,408,505)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,628,075
<SALES>                         1,053,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,053,803
<CGS>                           595,399
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,193,925
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                44,527
<LOSS-PROVISION>                (184,649)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              39,457
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (184,649)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (184,649)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.09)



</TABLE>