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

                                                                   Exhibit 23.2



The Board of Directors
Evoke Communications, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-
44348) on Form S-8 of Evoke Communications, Inc. of our reports dated February
20, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Evoke Communications,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000,
and the related schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 2000 Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Evoke Communications, Inc.

KPMG LLP


Boulder, Colorado
March 29, 2001
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 27, 2018

s0723 

# Order

Clerk July 27, 2018

156184

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 156184

COA: 338956

Grand Traverse CC:

09

- 010913

- FC

CHARLES ELMER KOVARY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 14, 2017 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, b ecause the defendant’s motion

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,919
<SECURITIES>                                     2,767
<RECEIVABLES>                                       19
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,072
<PP&E>                                           2,950
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,015
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              803
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,573
<OTHER-SE>                                     (50,172)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,312
<SALES>                                             14
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    14
<CGS>                                               28
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,339
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (197)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,156)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,156)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.22)



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6632

VANCE KINGSBURY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL GAINES,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-03-93-7)

Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vance Kingsbury, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel M. Cisin, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Washington, D.C.; Julie C. Dudley,

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Vance Kingsbury seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see

Madley v. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1309-10 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Kingsbury has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument, because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
### §3728. Setoff against judgment

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall withhold paying that part of a judgment against the United States Government presented to the Secretary that is equal to a debt the plaintiff owes the Government.

(b) The Secretary shall—

(1) discharge the debt if the plaintiff agrees to the setoff and discharges a part of the judgment equal to the debt; or

(2)(A) withhold payment of an additional amount the Secretary decides will cover legal costs of bringing a civil action for the debt if the plaintiff denies the debt or does not agree to the setoff; and

(B) have a civil action brought if one has not already been brought.

(c) If the Government loses a civil action to recover a debt or recovers less than the amount the Secretary withholds under this section, the Secretary shall pay the plaintiff the balance and interest of 6 percent for the time the money is withheld.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 977; Pub. L. 104–316, title II, §202(p), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3844.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3728(a) | 31:227(1st sentence words before semicolon). | Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 149, 18 Stat. 481; restated Mar. 3, 1933, ch. 212, §13, 47 Stat. 1516. |
| 3728(b) | 31:227(1st sentence words after semicolon, 2d, 3d sentences). | |
| 3728(c) | 31:227(last sentence). | |

In the section, the words "of the United States" are omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (a), the words "final . . . recovered . . . duly allowed by legal authority", "for payment", and "in any manner, whether as principal or surety" are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (b)(1), the words "due from the plaintiff to the United States" are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (b)(2)(A), the words "of such judgment", "be sufficient to", and "charges and" are omitted as surplus. The words "of bringing a civil action" are substituted for "in prosecuting the debt" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code. The words "of the United States to final judgment" and "to the United States" are omitted as surplus.

Subsection (b)(2)(B) is substituted for 31:227(3d sentence) for consistency and to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (c), the words "for debt and costs", "thereon", and "from the plaintiff" are omitted as surplus.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–316, §202(p)(1), (2), substituted "Secretary of the Treasury" for "Comptroller General" before "shall withhold" and "Secretary" for "Comptroller General" after "presented to the".

Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 104–316, §202(p)(2), substituted "Secretary" for "Comptroller General" wherever appearing.
# AVS

Quality Management System QPM# AIR-ANM-030-F4 Revision 1
Title: Domestic Change Worksheet 

### Date: December 17,2008 

# Record ofContacts 

# AO;O-01'37- FDMS Docket No. FAA-~110
With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Person Contacted Date ;\TA ,JoeWhite 5/8/0') Boeing Richard Brooks 1126/09

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DDWNLOADED Check the Master Lisllo Verify ThaI This is the Correct Revision Before Use
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.51

                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT

         This Termination Agreement (the "Agreement") is executed 27 November,
2003 between the following two parties.

PARTY A:          Shanghai Huitong Information Co., Ltd.
ADDRESS:          No.50, Lane 690, Hongkou District, Shanghai

PARTY B:          Li Dong
ADDRESS:          No.50 Lane 690 Changzhi East Road Hongkou District, Shanghai

         1 WHEREAS, Party A and Party B signed a loan agreement (the "Loan
Agreement")in January 16th, 2002.

         2 WHEREAS, Party A and Party B intent to terminate the Loan Agreement.

         NOW THEREFORE, both parties agree as follows:

1.       Party A and Party B agree to terminate the Loan Agreement and the Loan
         Agreement shall terminate automatically upon this Agreement coming into
         effect.

2.       Rights and obligations of Party A and Party B under the Loan Agreement
         shall terminate upon the termination of such contract.

3.       This Agreement shall be effective as of the date of execution.

4.       This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of People's Republic of
         China.

5.       This Agreement is executed in Chinese and English in duplicate, and in
         case of conflicts, the Chinese version shall prevail.

PARTY A: SHANGHAI HUITONG INFORMATION CO., LTD.

Representative: /s/ Jun Wu

PARTY B: /s/ Li Dong

                                       1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6445

JUMA A. WHITFIELD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

J. GARMAN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District

Judge. (CA-02-612-3)

Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 28, 2003

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juma A. Whitfield, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Because the appeal is late, we lack jurisdiction to

determine whether Whitfield has established grounds for a

certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

2

PER CURIAM:

Juma A. Whitfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

February 3, 2003. Giving Whitfield the benefit of Houston v. Lack,

487 U.S. 266 (1988), his notice of appeal was filed on March 12,

2003. Because Whitfield failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.* 

We deny Whitfield’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
3

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WILLIE JAY YOUNG,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-385

[April 23, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Charles A. Schwab, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 562013CF000798A.

Willie Jay Young, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, MAY and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Carolyn M. Slavin, as Administratrix of the Estate of John L. Slavin, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. Erie Railroad Company, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Johnston, Acting P. J., Sneed and MacCrate, JJ., concur; Adel and Wenzel, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.
### §6132. Assistants to Senate Majority and Minority Leaders for Floor Operations; establishment of positions; appointment; compensation

Effective October 1, 1983, there is established within the Offices of the Majority and Minority Leaders the positions of Assistant to the Majority Leader for Floor Operations and Assistant to the Minority Leader for Floor Operations, respectively. Individuals appointed to such positions by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader, respectively, shall receive compensation at a rate fixed by the appropriate Leader not to exceed the maximum annual rate of gross compensation of the Assistant Secretary of the Senate.

(Pub. L. 98–51, title I, §101(a), July 14, 1983, 97 Stat. 265.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 61h–5 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is from the Congressional Operations Appropriation Act, 1984, which is title I of the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1984.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Increases in Compensation

Increases in compensation for Senate officers and employees under authority of Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91–656), see Salary Directives of President pro tempore of the Senate, set out as notes under section 4571 of this title.
EXHIBIT 32.1



                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

         Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code),  each
of the undersigned officers of Tag-It Pacific, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"),  do hereby  certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company
on Form 10-K for the  fiscal  year  ended  December  31,  2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-K Report") that:

(1)      the 10-K 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 10-K Report fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

Date:  March 31, 2005                       /S/ COLIN DYNE
                                            --------------------------
                                               Colin Dyne
                                               Chief Executive Officer


Date:  March 31, 2005                       /S/ RONDA FERGUSON
                                            --------------------------
                                               Ronda Ferguson
                                               Chief Financial Officer
§ 1215.6 Written decision. ( a ) The hearing official shall issue a written opinion no later than 60 days after the hearing.
( b ) The written opinion will include: A statement of the facts presented to demonstrate the nature and origin of the alleged debt; the hearing official's analysis, findings and conclusions; the amount and validity of the debt, and the repayment schedule.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 6, 2014

No. 04-14-00755-CV

IN RE Oscar BUSTOS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On October 30, 2014, relator filed a motion for stay pending a ruling on his petition for 

writ of mandamus. Relator’s request for temporary relief is GRANTED IN PART. The portions 

of the trial court’s oral ruling issued on October 23, 2014 obligating relator to pay child support 

and a portion of the amicus attorney’s fees are TEMPORARILY STAYED until further order of 

this court. Because a stay of the portion of the trial court’s order obligating relator to pay a 

portion of the fees associated with supervised visitation with his children might preclude 

relator’s visitation with his children during the pendency of this proceeding, we do not stay that 

provision at this time.

It is so ORDERED on November 6th, 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2007CI07181, styled In the Interest of E.B. and O.S.B. II, Minor Children, 

pending in the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Antonia Arteaga presiding.
#### § 162.45a Summary forfeiture of Schedule I and Schedule II controlled substances.

The Controlled Substances Act (84 Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.*) provides that all controlled substances in Schedule I and Schedule II (as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802(6) and 812) that are possessed, transferred, sold or offered for sale in violation of the Act will be deemed contraband, seized and summarily forfeited to the United States (21 U.S.C. 881(f)). The Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 *et seq.*) incorporates by reference this contraband forfeiture provision of 21 U.S.C. 881. See 21 U.S.C. 965. Accordingly, in the case of a seizure of Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substances, the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer or his designee will contact the appropriate Drug Enforcement Administration official responsible for issuing permits authorizing the importation of such substances (see 21 CFR part 1312). If upon inquiry the Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures Officer or his designee is notified that no permit for lawful importation has been issued, he will declare the seized substances contraband and forfeited pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 881(f). Inasmuch as such substances are Schedule I and Schedule II controlled substances, the notice procedures set forth in § 162.45 are inapplicable. When seized controlled substances are required as evidence in a court proceeding, they will be preserved to the extent and in the quantities necessary for that purpose.

[T.D. 00-37, 65 FR 33254, May 23, 2000]
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Security Trust Company of Rochester, as Executor of Virgil M. Palmer, Deceased, Respondent. Harold B. Palmer et al., Appellants; Erna M. Palmer et al., Respondents.

Memorandum: We think that the provisions of the Pennsylvania statute (Divorce *793Act of 1815, § 9; Purdon’s Pa. Stat., tit. 48, § 169) which prohibits a defendant, who has been divorced on the grounds of adultery, from contracting a marriage with the corespondent, are applicable only to a case in which the name or identity of the corespondent appears in the findings, judgment, or the evidence of the divorce proceedings *(Matter of Beegle,*64 Pa. Superior Ct. 180). That is also the law in Louisiana, one of the few States that has a similar statutory prohibition against such marriages *(Matter of Knupfer,*174 La. 1048). We find no reported case in either State which extends the prohibition of the statute to include a person not so named or identified in the divorce proceedings, consequently the subject matter of the examination is not material to the issue in this proceeding and the order vacating the notice of examination must be affirmed. All concur. (Three orders: [1] vacating notice of examination before trial; [2] denying objeetants’ [appellants’] motion for reargument and ratifying the previous decision and order; and [3] settling the record on appeal and excluding therefrom a certified copy of duplicate marriage certificate and application for marriage license. The proceeding is for the judicial settlement of the account of the executor of decedent.) Present- — -Taylor, P. J., MeCum, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ. [192 Mise. 385, on motion for reargument 193 Misc. 411.]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20765 Conference Calendar

PATRICK E. ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEP’T OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INST’L DIV.; DR. ROMEO YAP, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 94-CV-2648

- - - - - - - - - - February 20, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Patrick E. Robinson (#350300), appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. He has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The motion for leave to appeal IFP is GRANTED. Because the balance in Robinson’s prison trust account, at the time he filed his notice of appeal was only $.08, no initial partial filing fee is required. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). Robinson shall make monthly payments of twenty percent of theNo. 96-20765 - 2 - preceding month’s income credited to his account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of Robinson is directed to forward payments from his prisoner account to the clerk of the district court each time the amount in his account exceeds $10 until the filing fee of $105 is paid. See id. Robinson argues that the district court erred in dismissing his § 1983 action. We have reviewed the record and Robinson’s brief and find no error in the reasoning of the district court.
See Robinson v. Collins , No. H-94-2648 (S.D. Tex. July 29, 1996) (unpublished). We decline to consider several issues raised by Robinson for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (the plain error standard), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995). Robinson’s appeal is without arguable merit and, thus, frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Robinson is cautioned that any future frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. Robinson is cautioned further to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
IFP GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.