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














CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











The Board of Directors


PhotoMedex, Inc. and Subsidiaries:





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 31, 2011, relating to the 2010 consolidated financial statements which appears in this Form 10-K, in the following documents: in the registration statement (No. 333-164089) on Form S-1; in the registration statements (Nos. 333-58450, 333-72580, 333-91926, 333-106605, 333-120921 (and amendment 1), 333-125980, 333-132654 and 333-139031) on Form S-3; in the registration statements (Nos. 333-100609 and 333-121864) on Form S-4; and in the registration statements (Nos. 333-30298, 333-114181, 333-124034, 333-132655, 333-132656, 333-146558, and 333-159224) on Form S-8 of PhotoMedex, Inc.


/s/ EisnerAmper LLP


Edison, New Jersey


March 31, 2011









E - 23.1
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7107-7108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01631]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Roger 
J. LaPant, Jr., Civil Action Number 2:16-cv-01498-KJM-DB, was lodged 
with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
California on January 19, 2021.
    This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the 
United States against Defendant Roger J. LaPant, Jr., pursuant to 
Sections 301 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 1344, 
to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the 
Defendant for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants 
without a permit into waters of the United States. The proposed Consent 
Decree resolves these allegations by requiring the Defendant to pay a 
civil penalty, effectuate compensatory mitigation, and be subject to 
other injunctive relief.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Andrew Doyle, 
United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, Environmental Defense Section, Post Office Box 7611, 
Washington, DC 20044, [email protected], and refer to 
United States v. Roger J. LaPant, Jr., DJ # 90-5-1-1-20800.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically at 
http://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. In addition, the proposed 
Consent Decree may be obtained from the Clerk's Office, United States 
District Court for the Eastern District of California, 501 I Street, 
Room 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. However, the Clerk's Office continues 
to restrict public access due to the ongoing Coronavirus/COVID-19 
emergency. Please visit http://

[[Page 7108]]

www.caed.uscourts.gov or call 1-866-884-5525 for more information.

Cherie Rogers,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-01631 Filed 1-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
1815.306 Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals. (NASA supplements paragraphs (c), (d), and (e)) ( c ) ( 2 ) A total of no more than three proposals shall be a working goal in establishing the competitive range. Field installations may establish procedures for approval of competitive range determinations commensurate with the complexity or dollar value of an acquisition.
( e ) ( 1 ) In no case shall the contacting officer relax or amend RFP requirements for any offeror without amending the RFP and permitting the other offerors an opportunity to propose against the relaxed requirements.
[63 FR 9954, Feb. 27, 1998, as amended at 63 FR 44408, Aug. 19, 1998; 69 FR 21764, Apr. 22, 2004]
The Office of the Director (OD) in OSERS Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) ensures the effective implementation of OSEP's legislative mission, advises the Assistant Secretary on federal educational policy related to individuals with disabilities, and provides leadership in addressing problems of American education for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities through the activities of OSEP and within the context of the policies of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, the Department of Education, and the Congress.

The Office of the Director is responsible for providing leadership to the policy development, management, and resource allocation activities of OSEP. The Office of the Director ensures coordination between the formula and discretionary grant programs administered by OSEP. The Office of the Director serves as the primary communication link between OSEP and constituencies such as parents, professional groups, and organizations of individuals with disabilities. As such, it is responsible for communicating the Administration's priorities and initiatives in early intervention and the education of infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities, responding to constituency concerns and needs, and providing leadership for development of national consensus on the issues facing special education.

**OD Staff**

### OSEP Navigation

About OSEP | People and OfficesPrograms and Projects | Grants and FundingLegislation and Policy | Publications and ProductsResearch and Statistics | National Studies | MonitoringContact and Feedback
#### 225.870-6 Termination procedures.

When contract termination is necessary, follow the procedures at 249.7000.

[71 FR 27645, May 12, 2006]
**Exhibit 32.1**

**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 Amendment to Annual Report of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Xiao Ping Zhang, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1)     The 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

| Dated this   15th day of June, 2006 | /s/ Xiao   Ping Zhang     |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                                |                           |
|                                | Xiao Ping Zhang           |
|                                | Chief   Executive Officer |
Case: 1:12-cv-04226 Document #: 10 Filed: 07/05/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:132
Case: 1:12-cv-04226 Document #: 10 Filed: 07/05/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:133
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 35 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.J.Res.35

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Providing for the appointment of Michael Govan as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy of the 
Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other 
than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the expiration of the 
term of Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson of New York on May 5, 2017, is filled 
by the appointment of Michael Govan of California. The appointment is 
for a term of 6 years, beginning on May 6, 2017, or the date of the 
enactment of this joint resolution, whichever occurs later.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1365 ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC. and GUIDANT SALES CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. and MEDTRONIC USA, INC., Defendants-Appellants. ON MOTION Before MAYER, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges

. PROST, Circuit Judge

. O R D E R Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. et al. (ACS) move to dismiss Medtronic Vascular, Inc. et al.’s (Medtronic) appeal as premature. M edtronic opposes. ACS replies. ACS brought suit against Medtronic in t he United States District Court for the District of Delaware for patent infringement. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc. , No. 98-CV-80 (May 3, 2007). A jury found that Medtronic infringed ACS’s patents and that t he patents were not invalid. The district court entered “judgment” in favor of ACS, and Medtronic appeal s. Pending at the district court are, inter alia, ACS's request for damages and its claim for injunctive relief. ACS asserts that the appeal is prematur e because the district court has not yet adjudicated its request for an injunction and thus the district cour t’s “judgment” is notfinal except for an accounting pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2). ACS cites the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Stamicarbon, N.V. v. E scambia Chemical Corp. , 430 F.2d 920, 930 (5th Cir. 1970) for the proposition that a case is not final except for an accounting if an unadjudicated request for injunctive relief re mains pending before the district court. Medtronic contends that ACS has not yet f iled a motion for a permanent injunction and thus the request is not properly before the district court. As such, Medtronic argues that the present appeal is not prematur e and should not be dismissed. We agree with ACS that Medtronic’s appeal is premature because ACS's request for permanent injunctive relief in its compla int remains pending and thus the case is not final except for an accounting. See PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc. , 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (although appeal was prematur e under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2) because request for injunctive relief had not been deci ded, appeal was treated as timely when district court decided claim for inj unctive relief during pendency of appeal); Nystrom v. Trex Co. , 339 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“If a case is not fully adjudicated as to all claims for all parties and there is no ex press determination that there is no just reason for delay or express direction for entry of judgment as to fewer than all of the parties or claims, there is no final decis ion under 28 U.S.C. § 1295 (a)(1) and therefore no jurisdiction”). Thus, Medtronic’s appeal is premature and must be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) ACS’s motion to dismiss is granted.

2007-1365 22007-1365 3 (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

August 1, 2007 /s/ Sharon Prost Date Sharon Prost Circuit Judge cc: J. Michael Jakes, Esq. George M. Sirilla, Esq.
s17

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 1, 2007
2103.570 Misleading, Deceptive, or Unfair Advertising. ( a ) OPM, or the Contractor with the approval of OPM, makes available to Federal employees a booklet describing the provisions of the FEGLI Program, which includes information about eligibility, enrollment, and general procedures. The booklet, along with valid election documents, serves as certification of the employee's coverage under the FEGLI Program. Any marketing/advertising directed specifically at Federal employees and life insurance contacts with Federal employees for the purpose of selling FEGLI Program coverage must be approved by OPM in advance.
( b ) The Contractor is prohibited from making incomplete and/or incorrect comparisons or using disparaging or minimizing techniques to compare its other products or services to those of the FEGLI Program. The Contractor agrees that any advertising material authorized and released by the Contractor which mentions the FEGLI Program will be truthful and not misleading and will present an accurate statement of FEGLI Program benefits. The Contractor will use reasonable efforts to assure that agents selling its other products are aware of and abide by this prohibition.
( c ) The contractor's failure to conform to the requirements of this subpart shall be considered by OPM in the determination of the service charge prenegotiation objective.
[58 FR 40373, July 28, 1993, as amended at 70 FR 41150, July 18, 2005]
#### 2132.607 Tax credit.

FAR 32.607 has no practical application to FEGLI Program contracts. The statutory provisions at 5 U.S.C. 8707 and 8708 authorize joint enrollee and Government contributions to the Employees' Life Insurance Fund. Because the Fund is comprised of contributions by enrollees as well as the Government, contractors may not offset debts to the Fund by a tax credit that is solely a Government obligation.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ CEDRIC GREENE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Defendant - Appellee. No. 17-4056 (D.C. No. 2:17-CV-00175-BSJ) (D. Utah)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , BALDOCK , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Cedric Greene, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint against the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct (“the Board”). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. In February 2017, Greene filed a comp laint with the Boar d against a state court judge who had previously dismissed Greene’s civil laws uit. Greene then sued the Board in U.S. District Court for the Di strict of Utah, challenging its decision.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 26, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 The district court appropriate ly dismissed for lack of s ubject matter jurisdiction. Greene does not argue that diversity jurisd iction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). His only asserted basis for federal question jurisdiction is 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which is a criminal statute that does not confer jurisdiction in this ci vil lawsuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Clements v. Chapman, 189 F. App’x 688, 690, 692 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (section 1001 does not pr ovide for private cause of action). AFFIRMED

.
Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . A P
- 7 6 , 5 8 1

E X P A R T E R I C A R D O A R T U R O H E R R E R A , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . 9 3
- C R
- 1 5 5 3
- D I N T H E 1 0 3 J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T R D F R O M C A M E R O N C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicte d o f aggravated robber y and sentenc ed to six ty y ear s’ imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Herrera v. State , No. 13-96-011- CR (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi, November 6, 1997). Applicant contends, i nter alia , that his appellate counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance beca use counse l failed to advise him of his rig ht to file petition for discre tionary revie w pro se. Appellate counsel did advise Applicant when the Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction,2

and advised him of his rig ht to petition this Court for di s cr eti onary revie w. Howeve r, appellate counsel did not advise Applicant of his rig ht to do so pro se , and Applicant alleg es t h at the only

rea son he did not pursue discr etionary revie w was tha t he could not af ford to re tain counsel. The trial court rec ommends that relief be denied, citing lang uag e from this Court’s opinion in Ex parte W

ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), indicating that the appellate attorney ’s actions in tha

t case , of mailing the applicant a copy of the court of appea ls’ opinion a nd informing him that he did not believe that a petition for discretionar y revie w would have merit, wer e sufficie nt to protec t the applicant’ s rig ht to file a petition for discretionar y revie w if he so desired. We dis agr ee , b ec ause as we also stated i n Ex parte W ilson , appellate counsel has an obli g ation to inform a defe ndant of the fac t tha t he can pursue discretionar y revie w “on his own.” Id. at 27. We find, there fore , that Applicant is entitled to the o p p o rt u n i t y to file an out-of-time petition for discretionar

y revie w of the judgme nt of the Thirteenth Court of Appea ls in Cause No. 13-96-011- CR that aff irmed his conviction in Cause No. 93-CR-1553-D from the 103rd J udicial District Court of Cameron County

. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionar y revie w with the Thirteenth Court of Appe als within 30 day s of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues. Applicant' s rema ining claims are dismiss ed. See Ex parte Torres , 9 4 3 S.W .2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

Deliver ed: J une 22, 2011 Do not publish
Exhibit 23(a)

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
  Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-116478, 333-116478-01, 333-116478-02,
  333-85716, 333-85716-01, 333-85716-02, 333-106200 and 106200-01), the Registration
  Statements on Form S-3D (Nos. 333-102845 and 333-48781), and the Registration
  Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-02003, 333-112453, 333-110372, and 333-95967)
  of PPL Corporation of our report dated February 25, 2005 relating to the consolidated
  financial statements, financial statement schedule, management's assessment
  of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness
  of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.





/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  March 1, 2005
222.7300 Scope of subpart. This subpart— ( a ) Implements Section 390 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Pub. L. 105-85); and
( b ) Applies to contracts for base operations support on Guam that— ( 1 ) Are awarded as a result of a competition conducted under OMB Circular A-76; and
( 2 ) Are entered into or modified on or after November 18, 1997.
[72 FR 20764, Apr. 26, 2007]
Exhibit
32.1
 
 **SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION**
 
 I,
Jeffrey F. O'Donnell, Chief Executive Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:
 
 (1) the
accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and
 
 (2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  PHOTOMEDEX,
INC.
 
 
 Dated:
March 15, 2005        By: /s/
Jeffrey F. O'Donnell
 Jeffrey
F. O'Donnell
 Chief
Executive Officer
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (“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 PhotoMedex, Inc. and will be retained by PhotoMedex, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
   E-32.1
NO. 07-00-0419-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

MARCH 30, 2001

______________________________

ALLEN EUGENE MOTE, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF RANDALL COUNTY;

NO. 57,403-L; HONORABLE JOHN T. FORBIS, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Appellant Allen Eugene Mote was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of record

of fraudulent court and sentenced on August 10, 2000, to confinement in the Randall

County Jail for 180 days and a fine of $500, probated for two years. A pro se notice of

appeal was filed on September 11, 2000. 
2

We have received a portion of the reporter’s record, but have not received the

clerk’s record in this matter. We have been notified by letter dated March 16, 2001, from

the court clerk that appellant has failed to pay for preparation of the record or to make

satisfactory arrangements with the clerk for doing so. Because we have responsibility to

avoid further delay and protect the parties’ rights, we abate this appeal and remand to the

Randall County Court at Law for a hearing. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(a)(2). 

Upon remand, the judge of the trial court shall immediately cause notice to be given

of and conduct a hearing to determine:

1. Whether appellant has abandoned his appeal.

2. If appellant has not abandoned his appeal, the court shall determine if

appellant is indigent, and if so, whether counsel should be appointed to

represent him.

3. If appellant is not indigent, whether he has failed to make the necessary

arrangements for prosecuting his appeal, and if he has not done so, what

orders, if any, are necessary to ensure those arrangements are made. 

4. If it be determined that an attorney should be appointed to represent

appellant, the name, address, and State Bar of Texas identification number

of the attorney appointed. 

5. If any other orders are necessary to ensure the diligent and proper

pursuit of this appeal. 

In support of its determination, the trial court shall prepare and file written findings

of fact and conclusions of law and cause them to be included in a supplemental clerk’s

record. The hearing proceedings shall be transcribed and included in a supplemental
3

reporter’s record. Those supplemental records shall be submitted to the clerk of this court

no later than May 1, 2001. 

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.