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

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-137397, 333-119271, 333-118090, 333-52512, 333-92173, 333-77321 and 333-14241) of ADPT Corporation of our report dated March 3, 2011 relating tothe consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

San Jose, California 

March 3, 2011
Editorial Note on Part 457
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

§ 457.300 Basis, scope, and applicability. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* This subpart interprets and implements— ( 1 ) Section 2102 of the Act, which relates to eligibility standards and methodologies, coordination with other health insurance programs, and outreach and enrollment efforts to identify and enroll children who are eligible to participate in other public health insurance programs;
( 2 ) Section 2105(c)(6)(B) of the Act, which relates to the prohibition against expenditures for child health assistance provided to children eligible for coverage under other Federal health care programs other than programs operated or financed by the Indian Health Service; and
( 3 ) Section 2110(b) of the Act, which provides a definition of targeted low-income child.
( 4 ) Section 2107(e)(1)(O) of the Affordable Care Act, which relates to coordination of CHIP with the Exchanges and the State Medicaid agency.
( 5 ) Section 2107(e)(1)(F) of the Affordable Care Act, which relates to income determined based on modified adjusted gross income.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart sets forth the requirements relating to eligibility standards and to screening, application and enrollment procedures.
( c ) *Applicability.* The requirements of this subpart apply to child health assistance provided under a separate child health program. Regulations relating to eligibility, screening, applications and enrollment that are applicable to a Medicaid expansion program are found at §§ 435.4, 435.229, 435.905 through 435.908, 435.1102, 435.940 through 435.958, 435.1200, 436.3, 436.229, and 436.1102 of this chapter.
[65 FR 33622, May 24, 2000, as amended at 77 FR 17214, Mar. 23, 2012]
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, William B. Horne, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of Digicorp;

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

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining  disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

      (a)  designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures,  or caused such
disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to
ensure that material  information  relating to the small business issuer is made
known to us by others,  particularly  during the period in which this  report is
being prepared;

      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's  disclosure
controls and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c)  disclosed  in this report any change in the small  business  issuer's
internal  control  over  financial  reporting  that  occurred  during  the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially  affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based  on  our  most  recent  evaluation  of  internal  control  over  financial
reporting,  to the small business  issuer's  auditors and the audit committee of
the small  business  issuer's  board of  directors  (or persons  performing  the
equivalent functions);

      (a) all significant  deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely to  adversely  affect  the small  business  issuer's  ability  to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
employees who have a significant  role in the small business  issuer's  internal
control over financial reporting.

November 14, 2005

By: /s/ William B. Horne
---------------------------
William B. Horne
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
§ 426.560 Effect of the Board's decision. ( a ) *Valid under the reasonableness standard.* If the Board finds that the provision (or provisions) of an NCD named in the complaint is (are) valid under the reasonableness standard, the aggrieved party may challenge the final agency action in Federal court.
( b ) *Not valid under the reasonableness standard.* If the Board finds that the provision (or provisions) of an NCD named in the complaint is (are) invalid under the reasonableness standard, then CMS instructs its contractor, M + C organization, or other Medicare managed care organization to provide the following— ( 1 ) *Individual claim review.* ( i ) If the aggrieved party's claim/appeal(s) was previously denied, the contractor, an M + C organization, or another Medicare managed care organization must reopen the claim of the party who challenged the LCD and adjudicate the claim without using the provision(s) of the NCD that the Board found invalid.
( ii ) If a revised NCD is issued, contractors, M + C organizations, and other Medicare managed care organizations must use the revised NCD in reviewing claim/appeal submissions or request for services delivered or services performed on or after the effective date of the revised NCD.
( iii ) If the aggrieved party who sought review has not yet submitted a claim, the contractor must adjudicate the claim without using the provision(s) of the NCD that the Board found invalid.
( iv ) In either case, the claim and any subsequent claims for the service provided under the same circumstances, must be adjudicated without using the NCD provision(s) found invalid.
( 2 ) *Coverage determination relief.* Within 30 days, CMS implements the Board decision. Any change in policy is applied prospectively to requests for service or claims filed with dates of service after the implementation of the Board decision.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-77,088

GARY DAVID GREEN, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. 19FC-1013C

IN THE 94 DISTRICT COURT

TH

NUECES COUNTY

Per curiam.

ORDER

The above-styled and numbered cause is pending before this Court as a result of

appellant’s capital murder conviction and resulting sentence of death in the 94 District

th

Court of Nueces County, Cause No. 19FC-1013C, styled The State of Texas v. Gary

David Green. Appellant has filed in this Court a motion titled “Joint Motion to Abate

Appeal for Completion of the Record.”

In his motion, appellant requests “[c]opies of all jury cards and juror

questionnaires from the trial” in this case. Appellant should first present his request for
Green – 2

the disclosure of this information to the trial court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art.

35.29.

Appellant further lists numerous other items that he contends are missing from the

appellate record. Because the trial court is in a better position to determine the accuracy

of the record, we abate the appeal and remand this cause to the trial court to resolve this

issue. The trial court is directed to make findings of fact regarding whether the items in

question have been omitted from the record, and if so, whether they should be included.

If the trial court determines that certain items need not be included in the record, then the

trial court should state its reasons for making that determination. If the trial court

determines that any relevant items have been omitted from the clerk’s record or reporter’s

record, then the trial court shall direct the clerk and/or court reporter to prepare, certify,

and file in this Court a supplemental record containing the omitted items. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 34.5(c)(1) & 34.6(d).

The findings shall be made and any necessary supplements shall be filed within 30

days of the date of this order. Appellant’s brief will be due in this Court within 30 days

thereafter.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 30 DAY OF MARCH, 2020.

th

Do not publish
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 24, 2009

Decided November 12, 2009

Amended November 13, 2009 

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ] Appeal from the United

 Plaintiff-Appellee, ] States District Court for

 ] the Northern District of

No. 09-1349 v. ] Indiana, Hammond Division.

 ] 

STEPHEN GOLDEN, ] No. 2:94-cr-00086-RL

 Defendant-Appellant. ] 

 ] Rudy Lozano, Judge.

AMENDED ORDER

A § 3582(c)(2) request for sentence modification is discretionary, United States v.

Cunningham, 554 F.3d 703, 707 (7th Cir. 2009), even for defendant Stephen Golden whose

Guideline range was lowered to 360 months to life from a range of life. And despite

Golden’s argument to the contrary, a district judge is permitted to leave a sentence alone,

id., which is what the judge did in Golden’s case. The district judge did not abuse his

discretion in handling Golden’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, especially in light of Golden’s

admitted incidents of prison misconduct. And, like his decision whether to grant a

sentence reduction, the district judge’s decision not to conduct a hearing is committed to

his discretion. United States v. Young, 555 F.3d 611, 615 (7th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2006059EN.01000101.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

10 March 2006

(2006/C 59/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1919 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,11 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4601 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68620 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3925 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5664 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 83,97 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9735 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5750 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,780 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 258,71 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9053 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5040 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,56 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,605 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6085 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6217 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3867 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2512 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8524 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9386 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 168,24 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,4711 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,5938 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3250 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 013,16 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,430 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,085 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,4200 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,562 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1919

JPY

Japanese yen

141,11

DKK

Danish krone

7,4601

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68620

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3925

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5664

ISK

Iceland króna

83,97

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9735

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5750

CZK

Czech koruna

28,780

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

258,71

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9053

RON

Romanian leu

3,5040

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,56

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,605

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6085

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6217

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3867

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2512

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8524

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9386

KRW

South Korean won

1 168,24

ZAR

South African rand

7,4711

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,5938

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3250

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 013,16

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,430

PHP

Philippine peso

61,085

RUB

Russian rouble

33,4200

THB

Thai baht

46,562

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3426

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to apply standards to

outpatient physical therapy provided as an incident to a physician’s

professional services.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 9, 1996

Mr. KLUG (for himself, Mr. STARK, and Mr. NUSSLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to apply

standards to outpatient physical therapy provided as an

incident to a physician’s professional services.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Outpatient Physical

5 Therapy Standards Act of 1996’’.
2

•HR 3426 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF STANDARDS TO OUTPATIENT OC2 CUPATIONAL AND PHYSICAL THERAPY SERV3 ICES PROVIDED AS AN INCIDENT TO A PHYSI4 CIAN’S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1862(a) of the Social Se6 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph

8 (14);

9 (2) by striking the period at the end of para10 graph (15) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

11 (3) by inserting after paragraph (15) the fol12 lowing:

13 ‘‘(16) in the case of outpatient occupational

14 therapy services or outpatient physical therapy serv15 ices furnished as an incident to a physician’s profes16 sional services (as described in section

17 1861(s)(2)(A)), that do not meet the standards and

18 conditions under section 1861(g) or 1861(p) as such

19 standards and conditions would apply to such ther20 apy services if furnished by a therapist subject to

21 section 1861(g) or 1861(p).’’.

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

23 this section apply to services furnished on or after July

24 1, 1997.

Æ
40883.

#### JENKINS v. SOUTHWIRE COMPANY.

Pannell, Judge.

The providing of the private walkway by the defendant in the present case, for the use of its invitees, such as the plaintiff, which walkway was in part about 5 feet above a loading ramp, was the equivalent of providing a walkway with an excavation immediately adjacent thereto. It is the duty of a landowner not to maintain on his premises an excavation in dangerous proximity to a private walkway used by the owner’s invitees so that persons passing along such way may be injured if, while in the exercise of ordinaiy care, by necessity or accident, they slightly deviate from such way. *Greenfield v. Watson,*54 Ga. App. 9 (187 SE 183); *Wright v. Southern R. Co.,*62 Ga. App. 316, 318 (7 SE2d 793); *McMahen v. Nashville, Chattanooga &c. R. Co.,*68 Ga. App. 397, 401 (23 SE2d 81); *Cox v. Greenfield,*50 Ga. App. 699 (179 SE 178). The petition sufficiently alleges the negligent breach of such duty on the part of the defendant *30and that such breach was the proximate cause of the injury and damage to plaintiff. The trial judge erred in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

Decided January 5, 1965

Rehearing denied January 21, 1965.

*Sanders, Mottola & Haugen, Willis G. Haugen, Gilbert & Head, Henry Head,*for plaintiff in error.

*Oscar W. Roberts, Jr., Reuben Word,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
#### John Gruel, Respondent, *v.*Andrew B. Yetter, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Wilder *&*Anderson (Frederick E. Anderson and John Ewen, of counsel), for appellant.

Einstein *&*Townsend (M. S. Guiterman, of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The appellant contends that the verdict is against the weight of evidence. We have carefully examined the evidence and believe that the jury was justified in finding that the defendant represented to the plaintiff’s agent that his storage warehouse was fire-proof, and, relying upon such statements, he, plaintiff, sent his goods to defendant’s warehouse for storage. It was conceded upon the trial that the warehouse in which plaintiff’s goods were stored was not fire-proof, and that the goods were entirely destroyed by fire.

The representations made by the defendant that his 'warehouse was a fire-proof one, was not the expression of an opinion, but was the representation of a fact. It also appears that such representations were false and were made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to store his goods with the defendant.

That plaintiff relied upon such representations and was deceived and injured thereby. Under the circumstances plaintiff was entitled to a verdict against the defendant for the damages sustained by him. 102 N. Y. 454.

As usual in cases like this one, plaintiff placed a very high value upon his destroyed property. The defendant also estimated such loss, and, of course, put a very conservative value upon the same. The jury evidently believed the plaintiff’s estimate was too high and defendant’s too low, and exercising their prerogative placed upon the goods a just and reasonable value, based upon the whole testimony.

The finding $500 we think was not high but just about right. We think that plaintiff’s expert who was produced to testify as to the value of the destroyed property had enough knowledge of the value of such goods to give an opinion and estimate the value thereof. For many years he had purchased and sold such goods, also was present upon a great many occasions when purchases and *852sales of goods were made and was an adjuster for the assured in many instances when property was destroyed or injured by fire.

This experience was sufficient, we judge, to make him an expert and a person fit to express an opinion as to the value of the goods in question, particularly in view of the fact that he was personally and intimately acquainted with their kind and character, having seen and examined them upon many occasions while in the plaintiff’s possession.

^ The appellant’s contention that the plaintiff waived the “ fireproof ” condition, we think is not borne out by the evidence. We cannot find any evidence herein that would justify us in so deciding. We also think'the plaintiff sustained the burden of proof as he was required to do.

We believe that no error was committed, and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed, with costs, *j*

Present: Fitzsimons, Ch. J., O’Dwyer and Olcott, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 10.6  


 SIXTH EXTENSION OF AMENDED AND RENEWED OPTION AGREEMENT  


        THIS FIFTH EXTENSION OF THE AMENDED AND RENEWED OPTION AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 1st day of January, 2009, by and
between The Hearst Corporation ("Hearst"), a Delaware corporation, and Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc. (the "Company"), a Delaware corporation. 


 W I T N E S S E T H  


        WHEREAS, Hearst and the Company entered into an Amended and Renewed Option Agreement dated as of August 29, 2000 (the "Amended
and Renewed Option Agreement"); and 


        WHEREAS,
Hearst and the Company extended the Amended and Renewed Option Agreement pursuant to an initial Extension and subsequent Second Extension of the Amended and Renewed Option
Agreement; and 


        WHEREAS,
Hearst and the Company mutually desire to further extend the Amended and Renewed Option Agreement as set forth hereinafter; 



        NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Amended and Renewed Option Agreement is hereby amended and extended by substituting the date of December 31, 2009 for the date of August 31, 2004 in Section 1 of
the Amended and Renewed Option Agreement. 


        Except
as expressly set forth herein, all terms and conditions of the Amended and Renewed Option Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. Unless otherwise defined herein, all
capitalized terms shall have their respective meanings as set forth in the Amended and Renewed Option Agreement. 


        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this extension of the Amended and Renewed Agreement as of the date first above written. 



											
	THE HEARST CORPORATION	 	HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.
	
 By:	
 	
/s/ RONALD J. DOERFLER







 	
 	
By:	
 	
/s/ JONATHAN C. MINTZER







 
	 	 	Name:

Title:	 	Ronald J. Doerfler
 Sr. VP and CFO	 	 	 	Name:

Title:	 	Jonathan C. Mintzer
 Vice President, General Counsel and
	 	 	Dated:	 	12/31/08	 	 	 	 	 	 Secretary
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Dated:	 	12/31/08
# C_2006074EN.01001203.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/12

---

Action brought on 7 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-72/06)

(2006/C 74/24)

Language of the case: Greek

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou Durande and Carmel O'Reilly, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC (1) of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers and in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC (1) of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers and in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26 of that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 6 February 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 31 of 6.2.2003, p. 18.

1

---