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 the Registration Statement on Form S-8 dated March 6. 2009, File No. 333-157748 of NT MEDIA CORP. OF CALIFORNIA, INC. of our report dated April 15, 2011 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NT MEDIA CORP. OF CALIFORNIA, INC. for the year ended December 31, 2010.




/s/ Goldman Kurland and Mohidin, LLP


Goldman Kurland and Mohidin, LLP


Encino, California


April 15.2011


CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS AND ADVISORS16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 880   Encino, CA 91436Tel 818-784-9000   Fax 818-784-9010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                            (3,536)
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                    130,000
<ALLOWANCES>                     (22,000)
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 111,536
<INVENTORY>                            0
<PP&E>                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                         0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   123,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            732,782
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                          48,182
<OTHER-SE>                       479,454
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     123,943
<SALES>                        1,001,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               1,001,300
<CGS>                            760,236
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    760,236
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 621,285
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                14,675
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (386,357)
<INCOME-TAX>                         800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (387,157)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                    (387,157)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (.07)
        

</TABLE>
**UNITEDSTATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION**

**Washington****, D.C.****  20549**

** **

**FORM10-K**

** **

(Mark One)

[X]   ANNUALREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

     

For thefiscal year ended December 31, 2008

** **

or

** **

[ ]   TRANSITIONREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

     

For thetransition period from _________to _________

** **

Commission file number0-10273

** **

**CONSOLIDATED CAPITALPROPERTIES III**

(Exactname of registrant as specified in its charter)

** **

** **

55Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina 29602

(Addressof principal executive offices)

** **

Registrant's telephonenumber, including area code (864) 239-1000

** **

Securities registeredpursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

** **

None

** **

Securities registeredpursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

** **

Unitsof Limited Partnership Interest

(Titleof class)

** **

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of theSecurities Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)of the Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days. Yes [X] No [ ]

 

Indicate by check mark ifdisclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (229.405 of this chapter) is notcontained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of theregistrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statementsincorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to thisForm 10-K. [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of“large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company”in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).Yes [ ] No [X]

 

State the aggregate marketvalue of the voting and non-voting partnership interests held by non-affiliatescomputed by reference to the price at which the partnership interests were lastsold, or the average bid and asked prices of such partnership interests as ofthe last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscalquarter.  No market exists for the limited partnership interests of theRegistrant, and, therefore, no aggregate market value can bedetermined.

**DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE**

**None**
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Search Financial Services, Inc.
(F.K.A. Search Capital Group, Inc.)
Dallas, Texas

        We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form 10-K of
our report dated May 23, 1997, relating to the consolidated financial
statements of Search Financial Services, Inc. for the year ended March 31,
1997, appearing in the Company's Form S-4 filed June 25, 1997.





                                                    BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
                                                    --------------------------
                                                    BDO SEIDMAN, LLP


Dallas, Texas
June 30, 1997
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Brian P. Carney, certify that:
1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jo-Ann Stores,Inc. (the “registrant”); 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period coveredby this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’ssecond fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: September 9, 2004 /s/ Brian P. Carney  By: Brian P. Carney Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer
#### 19.1402 Applicability.

The procedures in this subpart apply to all Federal agencies that employ one or more contracting officers.
#### 1407.102 Policy.

DOI has implemented its acquisition planning system in 404 DM. This system meets the criteria prescribed in FAR Subpart 7.1, 375 DM, OCIO Program Management, and 376 DM, Automated Data Processing. Each of these addresses strategic planning for OCIO and planning for acquisition of federal information processing resources.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                          SUBSIDIARIES OF ULTRAK, INC.
 
          1. Ultrak Operating, L.P., a Texas limited partnership
 
          2. Ultrak GP, Inc., a Delaware corporation
 
          3. Ultrak LP, Inc., a Delaware corporation
 
          4. BLC & Associates, Inc., a California corporation
 
          5. Dental Vision Direct, Inc., a Texas corporation
 
          6. Diamond Electronics, Inc., an Ohio corporation
 
          7. JAK Pacific Video Warranty and Repair Service, Inc., a
             California corporation
 
          8. Ultrak Holdings Limited, a United Kingdom private limited
             liability company
 
          9. Groupe Bisset, S.A., a French corporation
 
         10. MAXPRO Systems Pty. Ltd., an Australian corporation
 
         11. VideV GmbH, a Germany corporation
 
         12. Monitor Dynamics, Inc., a California corporation
 
         13. Intervision Express Limited, a United Kingdom private
             limited liability company
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

December 23, 2013

p1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2013

147528

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147528

COA: 311007

Genesee CC: 93

- 049675

- FC

MICHAEL MARX BLAIR,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 3, 2013 order of

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

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
#### In the Matter of James B. Downey et al., Respondents, against Edward J. Burke, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term denying motion by Edward J. Burke to vacate the order to take his testimony pursuant to section 295 of the Civil Practice Act.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Unless specifically stated otherwise, all information on the U.S. Department of Education's (ED's) website at www.ed.gov is in the public domain, and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without ED's permission. This statement does not pertain to information at web sites other than www.ed.gov, whether funded by ED or not.

Some photographs in www.ed.gov's major banners and navigation headings are commercially licensed and cannot be reproduced, published or otherwise used.

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40776 Summary Calendar

JESSE WARE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; RAYMOND THOMPSON, Warden, Powledge Unit; T. L. WOMACK, Warden, Powledge Unit; J. D. WHITTEN, Major, Powledge Unit; J. TESLAR, Lieutenant, Powledge Unit; K. KUYKENDALL, DR.; JAMES W. BRANCH, M.D.; MERIENE MOSER, Nurse, University of Texas Medical Branch, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; R. DUJAY, Nurse, University of Texas Medical Branch, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; D. YONTS, Correctional Officer, Powledge Unit; JEREMY CRUTCHER, Correctional Officer, Powledge Unit, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:97-CV-757

- - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1999 Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jesse Ware, a Texas prisoner (# 395442), appeals from the dismissal of his in forma pauperis civil rights complaint asNo. 98-40776 - 2 - frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), following a hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). Ware asserted that after he fell in the medical ward in October 1996 and January 1997, correctional employees, including two nurses, were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by failing to provide him proper treatment. Although the district court may have improperly discredited some of Ware’s allegations and Spears -hearing testimony by relying on Ware’s extensive medical records, see Williams v.
Luna , 909 F.2d 121, 124 (5th Cir. 1990), any such error was harmless. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 61; Norton v. Dimazana , 122 F.3d286, 293. Ware’s assertions about the aggravation of preexisting injuries caused by the falls have been and remain too speculative to support his claims that defendants were deliberately indifferent, and the records generally show that Ware has received frequent and intensive medical treatment since his parole was revoked in 1995. See Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976). Neither the medical records nor Ware’s own allegations support a conclusion that any defendant knew that Ware “face[d] a substantial risk of serious harm and disregard[ed] that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). The district court’s dismissal of the complaint was not an abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33-34 (1992). All pending motions are DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
#### § 935.163 Unexploded ordnance material.

Any person who discovers any unexploded ordnance material on Wake Island shall refrain from tampering with it and shall immediately report its site to the Commander.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 4, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21

- 1828 Lower Tribunal No. 10

- 5191 SP

________________ 

### The Responsive Auto Insurance Company , Appellant,

vs. 

### Oasis Diagnostic Center, etc., et al. , Appellee s

.

An Appeal from the C ounty Court for Miami

- Dade County, Milena Abreu , Judge. The Vaccaro Law Firm , P.A., and Charles L. Vaccaro (Davie) , for appellant. Berger & Hicks , P.A., and Martin I. Berger and Zachary A. Hicks ; Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula, W. Aaron Daniel and William D. Mueller , for appellee Sunset Radiology, Inc.

Before EMAS, SCALES and LINDSEY , JJ. PER CURIAM.2 The Responsive Auto Insurance Company, defendant below, appeals several orders of the trial court involving defendants Oasis Diagnostic Center and Sunset Radiology, Inc. As to Oasis Diagnostic, we dismiss the appeal as one taken from nonfinal, nonappealable orders. See Lidsky Vaccaro & Montes, P.A. v. Morejon , 813 So. 2d 146, 149 (Fla. 3 d DCA 2002) (noting “ the law is settled that an order which merely grants a motion for summary judgment and does not otherwise contain the traditional words of finality is not a final order subject to appellate review. An order granting only summary judgme nt merely establishes an entitlement to a judgment, but is not itself a judgment. ”) (internal citations omitted). As to those final orders on appeal involving Sunset Radiology , we find

no error and affirm. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510( c ) (previous version of the rule, applicable here, provided: “ The motion must state with particularity the grounds upon which it is based and the substantial matters of law to be argued and must specifically identify any affidavits, answers to interrogatori es, admissions, depositions, and other materials as would be admissible in evidence (“summary judgment evidence”) on which the movant relies. The movant must serve the motion at least 20 days before the time fixed for the hearing, and must also serve at th at time a copy of any summary3 judgment evidence on which the movant relies that has not already been filed with the court. The adverse party must identify, by notice served pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516 at least 5 days prior
to the day of the hearing if service by mail is authorized, or delivered, electronically filed, or sent by e

- mail no later than 5:00 p.m. 2 business days prior to the day of the hearing, any summary judgment evidence on which the adverse party relies ”); Hunt v. SCI Funeral S erv s. o f Fla

. , LLC , 307 So. 3d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)

. S ee also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979). Dismissed in part, affirmed in part.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Carter, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 790]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Barry M. Donalty, A.J.), entered February 17, 2006. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.).*Although defendant was presumptively determined to be a level one risk based upon the score of the risk assessment instrument (RAI), the Board of Examiners recommended that he be designated a level three risk for the reasons set forth in the case summary attached to the RAI. Contrary to the contention of defendant, Supreme Court’s determination that he is a level two risk is supported by clear and convincing evidence *(see*§ 168-n [3]), including the evidence concerning his psychiatric history and his reluctance to *1185participate in sex offender treatment *(see People v Vasquez,*37 AD3d 193 [2007]; *People v Williams, 24*AD3d 894, 895 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 710 [2006]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the unsigned case summary does not constitute reliable hearsay *(see People v Smith,*17 AD3d 1045 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 705 [2005]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
Dan Madzelan Office of Postsecondary Education

Glenn Cummings Office Vocational and Adult Education

Steve Finley Office of General Counsel

Stephen Curtis Community College of Philadelphia - President

Barmak Nassirian American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers/ 

NACCAU 

Bernard McCree Pennsylvania Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators

Jackie Curtis Herzing University

Mike Woods New Zealand Embassy

John C. Cavanaugh Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education

Richard Dumaresq Pennsylvania Association of Private School Administrators

Susan Saxton Laureate Education

Nancy Broff ITT Education Services, Inc.

Harris Miller Career College Association

Timothy Moscato Apollo Group

Steven Isaac Education Dynamics

Elaine Neely Kaplan Higher Education

Christopher Lambert Accrediting Commission of Career Schools & College of Technology

Mark Pelish Corinthian Colleges

Rob MacArthur Alternative Research Services

Tom Netting American Association of Community Colleges

Jillian Estes Attorney - James, Hoyer, Newcomer, Smiljanich & Yanchunis

David Urena Community Legal Services of Philadelphia

Lauck Walton Westwood College

Theodore Levitt Miami Dade College

Department of Education - Public Hearing

Philadelphia, PA - June 22, 2009

U.S. Department of Education Panel

Presenters

Office of Postsecondary Education 1 of 2
Presenters

Harrison Wadsworth International Education Council

Pauline Abernathy The Institute for College Access

Deanne Loonin National Consumer Law Center

Yvonne Oberhollenzer Australian Education International

Tom Netting Higher Education Allied Health Leaders (HEAL) Coalition

Albert Gray Accreditation Council for Independent Colleges and Schools

Irv Ackelsberg Langer, Grogan & Diver, PC

Michael Golden Solutions for Progress

Mary Catherine Scarborough British Council

Bob Collins Apollo Group

Office of Postsecondary Education 2 of 2
# Sheet1

# Sheet2

# Sheet3

# Compatibility Report