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



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Siebel Systems, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration
statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-47062) and Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-07983, 333-22763,
333-40437, 333-53369, 333-72969, 333-85007, 333-94243, 333-41792, 333-49986,
333-51018, 333-52998, 333-55406, 333-59526, 333-72218, 333-75052,  333-106671
and 333-118979) of Siebel Systems, Inc. of our report dated January 30, 2004,
except for Note 2, as to which the date is February 11, 2005, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Siebel Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2002 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of
operations and comprehensive income (loss), stockholders' equity and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, which
report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment
No. 1, of Siebel Systems, Inc.



Our report refers to the
restatement of the financial statements for all periods presented to correct the
Company's accounting for rent-related obligations incurred in connection with
operating lease commitments that include escalating lease schedules.  Our report
also refers to a change in the method of accounting for goodwill.



/s/ KPMG LLP
Filed 8/22/16 P. v. Cebreros CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSE GUADALUPE CEBREROS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 H043131

 (Monterey County

 Super. Ct. No. CR13817)

Defendant Jose Guadalupe Cebreros challenges the superior court’s denial of his 

Penal Code section 1170.18 petition.

1

 His petition sought to redesignate his 1988 

possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350) conviction as a misdemeanor. The 

court denied his petition on the ground that the 1988 conviction was ineligible for 

redesignation under section 1170.18 because defendant had already obtained relief as to 

the 1988 conviction under section 1203.4. Section 1203.4 permits a trial court to grant 

relief from some, but not all, of the consequences of a conviction where a defendant has 

successfully completed probation. The Attorney General concedes that the basis for the 

superior court’s denial of defendant’s petition was incorrect. We agree and reverse the 

order.

 

1

Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
2

I. Background

In 1988, defendant was charged by information with felony possession of cocaine 

for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352). He subsequently pleaded guilty to felony 

possession of cocaine and was granted probation. In 1998, defendant sought relief under 

section 1203.4. The court granted him relief under section 1203.4. 

In August 2015, defendant filed a petition under section 1170.18 for redesignation 

of his 1988 conviction as a misdemeanor. The prosecution opposed his petition and

contended that the court lacked “jurisdiction” because defendant had already been 

granted relief under section 1203.4. The court denied defendant’s petition on the ground 

that “[t]he offense is not eligible for the requested relief” because “[t]his conviction has 

already been dismissed.” Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal from the court’s 

order. 

II. Analysis

This court held in People v. Tidwell (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 212 (Tidwell) that the 

fact that a defendant has been granted relief from some of the consequences of a felony 

conviction under section 1203.4 does not mean that the conviction is ineligible for 

redesignation as a misdemeanor under section 1170.18. (Tidwell, at pp. 218-220.) We 

agree and therefore accept the Attorney General’s concession.

III. Disposition

The order denying the petition is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the 

superior court for consideration of the merits of defendant’s petition.
3

_______________________________

Mihara, J.

WE CONCUR:

_____________________________

Elia, Acting P. J.

_____________________________

Bamattre-Manoukian, J.
§ 195.05-1 Installation and details. ( a ) The installation of all systems of an electrical engineering or interior communication nature, together with the details of design, construction, and installation shall be in accordance with the requirements of Subchapter J (Electrical Engineering) of this chapter. Systems of this type include the following:
Ship's Service Generating Systems. Ship's Service Power Distribution Systems. Ship's Lighting Systems. Electric Propulsion and Propulsion Control Systems. Emergency Lighting and Power Systems. Electric Lifeboat Winch Systems. Electric Steering Gear and Steering Control Systems. Fire Detecting and Alarm Systems. Sound Powered Telephone and Voice Tube Systems. Engine Order Telegraph Systems. Rudder Angle Indicator Systems. Refrigerated Spaces Alarm Systems. Navigation Lights Systems. Daylight Signaling Lights. Miscellaneous Machinery Alarms and Controls. General Alarm Systems.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EXCITE
INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 EXCEPT
FOR THE EARNINGS PER SHARE DATA WHICH HAS BEEN RESTATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE" AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             760
<SECURITIES>                                       810
<RECEIVABLES>                                      338
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,115
<PP&E>                                           1,606
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (156)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,801
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,993
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,530
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,564)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,801
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   953
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      228
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,115
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  50
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,435)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,435)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,435)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.15)


</TABLE>
# C_2011226EN.01003001.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/30

---

Action brought on 17 June 2011 — Kadio Morokro v Council

(Case T-316/11)

2011/C 226/59

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mathieu Kadio Morokro (Cocody, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: S. Le Damany, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011, (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011, (2) in so far as they concern him, |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011, (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011, (2) in so far as they concern him,

1

2

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant raises a plea alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons in so far as the contested decision and regulation infringe Article 296 TFEU, pursuant to which legal acts of the European Union institutions must state the reasons on which they are based. The applicant submits, first, that the statement of reasons does not clarify why he was included on the list of persons, in the annex to the decision and the regulation, against whom certain restrictive measures were imposed and, second, that that failure to state reasons deprives him of the possibility to properly challenge the restrictive measures imposed on him.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011, amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011, amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10).

2

---
# C_2011173EN.01001602.xml

| 11.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/16

---

Action brought on 21 March 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-29/11)

2011/C 173/35

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the selection board’s decision in competition EPSO/AD/147/09-RO not to admit the applicant to the oral test in that competition.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Director of EPSO’s decision of 10 December 2010 to dismiss the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Director of EPSO’s decision of 10 December 2010 to dismiss the applicant’s complaint;

| — | in so far as it is necessary, annul the selection board’s decision in competition EPSO/AD/147/09-RO to award the applicant an eliminatory mark of 6/10 for his written test C; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as it is necessary, annul the selection board’s decision in competition EPSO/AD/147/09-RO to award the applicant an eliminatory mark of 6/10 for his written test C;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

White Mountain 

National Forest

71 White Mountain Drive

Campton, NH 03223

Comm: (603) 536-6100

TTY: (603) 536-3665

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 

File Code: 2580

Date: February 18, 2011

Glenn Keith

Deputy Director

Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Waste Prevention

One Winter Street, 7th Floor

Boston, MA 02108

Dear Mr. Keith,

In January 2011, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts posted a notice seeking public comment 

on Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s (MassDEP) revised draft Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan (RH SIP). The comments herein review the Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) component of the RH SIP. The MassDEP BART describes your

proposal to improve regional haze impacts at mandatory Class I areas across your region. We 

appreciate the opportunity to work closely with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts through the 

initial evaluation, development, and, now, subsequent review of this plan. Cooperative efforts 

such as these ensure that, together, we will continue to make progress toward the Clean Air Act’s 

goal of natural visibility conditions at our Class I wilderness areas and parks. 

This letter acknowledges that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, has 

received and conducted a substantive review of your proposed BART. The Forest Service's 

participation in Massachusetts’ administrative process does not waive any legal defenses or 

sovereignty rights it may have under the laws of the United States, including the Clean Air Act 

and its implementing regulations. Only the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can 

make a final determination about the document's completeness, and therefore, only the EPA has 

the ability to approve the document. 

From the perspective of a Federal Land Manager, I have attached the Department of Interior

comments and I concur with their response. I look forward to your response required by 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(3). For further information, please contact Ralph Perron, Air Quality Specialist, at 

(802) 222-1444.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to work closely with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

The Forest Service compliments you on your hard work and dedication to significant

improvement in our nation's air quality values and visibility.

Sincerely,

/s/ Thomas G. Wagner

THOMAS G. WAGNER

Forest Supervisor

Enclosure

cc: Bret A Anderson

Thomas R Doane

Ann Acheson

Charles E Sams

Anne Arnold

Anne McWilliams

Holly Salazer

Patricia F Brewer

Tim Allen

Meredith Bond
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report of Loral Space &Communications Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Richard J. Townsend, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.     /s/ RICHARD J. TOWNSEND       *Richard J. Townsend* *Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*March 14, 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JOHN P. GREINER, JR., 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-13979 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CHARTER COUNTY OF 

MACOMB, MICHIGAN aka 

MACOMB COUNTY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF # 158) 

 Pursuant to the Order entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit on February 22, 2019, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration (ECF #158) is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 4, 2019 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on March 4, 2019, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
            OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C SECTION 1350)

The undersigned, as the Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of
Matria Healthcare, Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and
belief, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005,
which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Matria Healthcare, Inc. at the
dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.

      This 15th day of March 2006.

                                    /s/ Stephen M. Mengert
                                   --------------------------------
                                    Stephen M. Mengert
                                    Senior Vice-President and
                                    Chief Financial Officer

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Matria
Healthcare, Inc. and will be retained by Matria Healthcare, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

      The information in this Exhibit 32.2 shall not be deemed "filed" for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor
shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in
such filing.
#### § 144.830 Protection against hot piping.

Each exhaust pipe from an internal combustion engine which is within reach of personnel must be insulated or otherwise guarded to prevent burns. On a new vessel, each pipe that contains vapor, gas, or liquid that has a temperature exceeding 150 °F (65.5 °C) which is within reach of personnel must be insulated where necessary or otherwise guarded to prevent injury.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 24

- 00116

- CV

Minerva RAMOS

, Appellants

v.

Daniel L OREDO

, Appellee

From the County Court a t Law No. 10

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2024CV00069

Honorable Cesar Garcia , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 26, 2024

D ISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant’s brief was originally due on March 25, 2024. On June 4, 2024, we ordered

appellant to file her brief and to show cause in writing by June 14, 2 024, why this appeal should

not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). Appellant

did not respond to this court’s order, and, to date, appellant has not filed a brief. Becaus e appellant

failed to timely file a brief in this appeal, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id.

PER CURIAM
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 10

- 00875

- CV

Herbert Allen SMITH and Missy Rene Smith,

Appellants

v.

SAN ANTONIO HOUSING AUTHORITY FOUNDATION, INC.

d/b/a San Antonio Housing Authority a/k/a SAHA,

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010

- CI

- 18484

Honorable David A. Berchelmann, Jr. , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebecca S immons , Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 5, 2011

DISMISSED

Appellant s ha ve filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion contains a certificate

of service to appellee, which has not opposed the motion. Therefore, we grant the motion and

dism iss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a)(1). Costs of the appeal are taxed against

appellant s

.

PER CURIAM
RECEIVED 

-s Z: (J 2 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUG 2 ~ 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

Executive Helicopters, Inc. 

) 

) 

) Docket No. FAA-2012-0476 ____________________________ ) 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

As the parties have settled this matter, the Complaint filed in this matter on June 12, 2012 is 

hereby withdrawn. 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

Enforcement ivision, AGC-300 

Autumn Killingham 

Attorney, AGC-300 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Telephone: (202) 267-7728 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the Withdrawal of Complaint, in the matter of Executive Helicopters, Inc., 

has been mailed this date by via facsimile and certified mail to: 

Jeremy Bass, President 

Executive Helicopters, Inc. 

3231 Victory Street 

Hanger 328 West 

Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

The original and one copy was also mailed this date by Certified Mail to: 

Hearing Docket, Room 924A, AGC-10 (Original and one copy) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Atten: Hearing Docket Clerk 

August 22, 2012