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





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








To the Board of Directors of FNB United Corp.


Asheboro, North Carolina





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-144132 on Form S-8 of FNB United Corp. our report dated June 27, 2013, with respect to the financial statements and supplemental schedule of the CommunityOne 401(k) Plan included in this Annual Report on Form 11-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.











/s/ Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP





Charlotte, North Carolina


June 27, 2013
Albany

Atlanta

Brussels

Denver

Los Angeles

Miami

New York

1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

Tel: 703.336.8800

mckennalong.com

Northern Virginia

Orange County

Rancho Santa Fe

San Diego

San Francisco

Seoul

Washington, DC

MARK E. MCKINNON

703.336.8708

EMAIL ADDRESS

mmckinnon@mckennalong.com

January 12, 2015

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Re: Docket No. FAA-2014-0610: Supplement to Petition of Total Safety U.S., 

Inc. for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012

Dear Mr. Troutman:

The following is a supplement to the docket to indicate that on November 20, 

2014, a revised Operations Manual, marked confidential and proprietary, was hand 

delivered by petitioner to the UAS Integration Office. This submission contained the 

additional information requested on November 14, 2014. It is our understanding that 

petitioner has answered all outstanding questions and requests for additional information. 

If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please do not 

hesitate to call. 

 

MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE

 /s/ 

Mark E. McKinnon
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 20504 Summary Calendar

**Administrator**

**- Benefits for the Exxonmobil Savings**  **Plan,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Linda Janesko; Wendy Witterschein,** 

Defendants

— Appellants

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20

- CV

- 375

Before **Haynes, Willett,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Before considering an appeal’s merits, we must confirm that we have jurisdiction. Castaneda v. Falcon , 166 F.3d 799, 801 (5th Cir. 1999). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we are limited to reviewing “final decisions of the district

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States C ourt of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 12, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-20504 Document: 00515859139 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2021No. 20

- 20504

2 courts.” In suits against multiple defendants, a decision is not final, and therefore not appealable, until “the district court has de cided all claims against all parties.” Williams v. Seidenbach , 958 F.3d 341, 346 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc); see also **Fed. R. Civ. P.** 54(b). This appeal contravenes the final

judgment rule in two ways. First, it was filed before the Defendants

Appellants’ d ispute with the other defendants was resolved. The notice of appeal was filed on September 22, 2020, but the Agreed Order of Dismissal was not entered until January 14, 2021. Second, it was filed before the other defendants’ counterclaim against the Plaint iff

- Appellee was resolved. Indeed, the Agreed Order of Dismissal indicates that live counter claims still exist against the Plaintiff

- Appellee from both sets of defendants.

**IT IS ORDERED** that this appeal is **DISMISSED** for lack of jurisdiction. Case: 20-20504 Document: 00515859139 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cristobal RAFAEL-QUERIAPA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-40533.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, David Hill Peck, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*326Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Cristobal Rafael-Queriapa appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry of an alien after having been deported. He argues that the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and that his indictment should have reflected a prior conviction. He also argues that his sentence is unconstitutional under *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because it was imposed pursuant to a mandatory guidelines scheme.

Rafael’s arguments that the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional and that the prior conviction should have been charged in his indictment are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998).

Rafael challenges the *Booker*error as structural in nature and argues that prejudice should be presumed. This court rejected that argument in *United States v. Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.2005). Our review is for plain error. *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); *United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556).

The district court committed error that is plain by sentencing Rafael under a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme. *Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d at 733. However, Rafael fails to carry his burden of showing that this error affected his substantial rights. *Id.*at 733-34. The district court made no comments indicating that it would have imposed a lesser sentence in the absence of mandatory guidelines. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
H. Res. 326 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 18, 2007. 

Whereas the Vietnam Veterans Memorial marks the 25th anniversary of its dedication in 2007; 

Whereas the Memorial commemorates the sacrifice of more 

than 58,000 men and women who lost their lives during 

the Vietnam War; 

Whereas the Memorial honors the sacrifice of the 153,303 

men and women who were wounded during the conflict; 

Whereas the Memorial honors the more than 3,000,000 men 

and women who served in the United States Armed 

Forces in Southeast Asia; 

Whereas the Memorial has served as a powerful force for national healing; 

Whereas over four million people visit the Memorial each year 

to pay tribute to lost loved ones and remember the sacrifice of those who served the United States during the 

Vietnam War; and 

Whereas the Memorial is a testament to the dedication of the 

private individuals and corporations that raised 

$8,400,000 to build the Memorial: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 
2 

•HRES 326 EH 

(1) honors the sacrifice of the men and women who 

lost their lives in service of the United States during the 

Vietnam War; 

(2) recognizes the service of the men and women 

who were members of the United States Armed Forces 

during the Vietnam War; and 

(3) commemorates the 25th anniversary of the dedication of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
H. Res. 217

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 17, 2007.

Whereas Celilo Falls, located near The Dalles, Oregon, was 

a great fishing and trading location for Indian tribes and 

has been called the ‘‘Wall Street of the West’’ by historians; 

Whereas artifacts suggest tribes as far as Alaska, the Great 

Plains and the Southwest United States came to trade 

and fish at Celilo for over 10,000 years; 

Whereas the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama and Warm 

Springs tribes reserved their fishing rights at their usual 

and accustomed places, including Celilo, when they signed 

treaties with the United States; 

Whereas on March 10, 1957, to provide hydroelectricity and 

irrigation, The Dalles Dam was constructed; 

Whereas the completion of the dam inundated Celilo in six 

hours, quickly changing the way of life for tribes that 

fished at Celilo; and 

Whereas tribes still live and fish along the river, exercising 

their treaty rights agreed with the Congress of the 

United States: Now, therefore, be it 
2

•HRES 217 EH 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes 

the 50th anniversary of the flooding of Celilo Falls and the 

change of life it imposed upon tribal peoples. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Case No. 14,784.

#### UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN.

[3 McLean. 390.] 1

Circuit Court. D. Illinois.

June Term, 1844.

Pehjcrít — Bankrupt Schedule — Indictment — Items of Schedule. .

1. In an indictment for perjury under the bankrupt law. in not giving a true and full account of the property of the' petitioner, the items on the schedule need not be stated in the indictment.

2. The allegation that the property was omitted. with intent to defraud A. B. and the other creditors, is sufficient.

[Cited in U. S. v. French, 57 Fed. 389.]

Motion to quash au indictment.

Mr. Butterfield, II. S. Dist. Atty.

Logan & Field, for defendant.

1

 [Reported by Hon. John McLean, Circuit Justice.]

OPINION OF THE COURT. This is an indictment for perjury under the bankrupt law. The defendant being an applicant under the bankrupt law, presented a petition, which is set out in the indictment; and a schedule was annexed, which was sworn, to by the petitioner. The indictment charges that the schedule did not exhibit a true account of ail his property; that he owned a certain real and personal property, which is stated, and which he omitted to set down in his schedule, corruptly, fraudulently, &c. The second count states the same charge, and that the petitioner had conveyed the property to his mother, in trust. A motion is made to quash this indictment. 1. That the schedule was not stated at large in the indictment. This is unnecessary. No more of the items of property need be stated, than those charged to have been fraudulently and corruptly omitted. 2. That the allegation that the said property was withheld to defraud one of the creditors, naming him. and others, is insufficient, as all the creditors should be named. The allegation is sufficient. All the creditors need not be named in the indictment. In this respect we think the indictment is good. The motion to quash is overruled.
No. 59708.

#### Novelty Veiling Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 226080-K, 229770-K, and 238043-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: rdegen2000@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:50:05 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Richard Degenhardt

Centereach, NY 11720
From: barblodge@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:21:55 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Barbara Lodge

De Soto, MO 63020
From: gesstone@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:03:41 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

ROSE STONE

Pensacola, FL 32503
Appendix A 

Policy and Memorandums
NUMBER 13-14-00702-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

____________________________________________________________

DAVID C. MCCOY AND JUDY L. MCCOY, Appellants,

v.

MICHAEL MORGAN AND MICHAEL MORGAN 

STATE FARM INSURANCE, Appellees. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This appeal was abated by this Court on December 10, 2014, and the parties were 

ordered to mediation. This cause is now before the Court on appellants’ motion to 

dismiss the appeal on grounds the parties have resolved the matter at mediation. 

Appellants request that this Court dismiss the appeal. A certificate of conference was 
2

requested but not filed. More than ten days has passed since the filing of the motion and 

no response has been filed by appellees. Accordingly, this case is hereby 

REINSTATED. 

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants’ motion to 

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellants’ motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby 

DISMISSED. There being no agreement in the motion regarding costs, pursuant to Rule 

42.1(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, all costs are taxed against appellants. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs 

against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellants’ request, no motion 

for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

5th day of February, 2015.
---

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 accompanying Annual Report On Form
10-KSB of Resource Group Inc. for the Year Ended February 29, 2008, I, Ken
Greenlaw, Chief Financial Officer of Resource Group, Inc. hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

|1. | Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the Year ended
      February 29, 2008, 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 such Annual Report on Form
      10-KSB for the Year Ended May 8, 2008, fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Resource
      Group, Inc.

By:       /s/ Ken
Greenlaw             Ken
Greenlaw            
Chief Financial Officer

Dated: May 8, 2008

---
No. P67/39.

#### Kroll Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 245917-K, etc. (New York).

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of miniature hunting knives similar in all material respects to those the subject of *M. Pressner & Co.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 489, C.D. 2686), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.