alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



Forefront Venture Partners, L.P.



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
registration statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-18445, 333-43087 and 333-58372)
and on Form S-8, (Nos. 333-16981, 333-16303, 333-15159, 333-06405, 333-71473,
333-53365, 333-44413, 333-85541, 333-86011, 333-44970, 333-35038, 033-93180,
033-99860, 333-68946 and 333-27301) of Avant! Corporation of our report dated
February 9, 2001, except for Note 4, as to which the date is March 30, 2001,
relating to the statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of
investments, of Forefront Venture Partners, L.P. as of December 31, 2000, and
the related statements of operations and changes in partners' capital for the
years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999 appearing in the Avant! Corporation

Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.


/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

BDO Seidman, LLP
San Jose, California
April 1, 2002
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lois RANDLE.

No. 61325.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1978.

In re: Lois Randle applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and stay order. Parish of St. Mary.

Writ granted. The transcript of the proceeding in which relator pleaded guilty indicates that relator was not properly Bokin-ized in view of her exposure to imprisonment. *Boykin v. Alabama,*395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Accordingly, relator’s conviction and sentence are reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS, J.,

dissent from this grant on the basis of improper Boykinization. See *McChesney v. Henderson,*482 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1973).
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2811 

To require the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration to withdraw proposed rules relating 

to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 

Ms. LUMMIS (for herself, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. DAINES, Mr. 

MARSHALL, Mr. RISCH, Mr. WICKER, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. RICKETTS, Mrs. 

FISCHER, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. MORAN, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. 

ROUNDS, Mr. LEE, and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To require the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 

of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

to withdraw proposed rules relating to the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSED ENDANGERED 

4 SPECIES ACT OF 1973 RULES. 

5 (a) WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSED RULES.— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 2811 IS

1 (1) USFWS AND NMFS RULES.—The Director 

2 of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 

3 the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the Na4 tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall 

5 withdraw the following proposed rules: 

6 (A) The proposed rule of the United States 

7 Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Ma8 rine Fisheries Service entitled ‘‘Endangered and 

9 Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revision of 

10 Regulations for Interagency Cooperation’’ (88 

11 Fed. Reg. 40753 (June 22, 2023)). 

12 (B) The proposed rule of the United States 

13 Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Ma14 rine Fisheries Service entitled ‘‘Endangered and 

15 Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Endan16 gered and Threatened Species and Designating 

17 Critical Habitat’’ (88 Fed. Reg. 40764 (June 

18 22, 2023)). 

19 (2) USFWS RULE.—The Director of the 

20 United States Fish and Wildlife Service shall with21 draw the proposed rule of the United States Fish 

22 and Wildlife Service entitled ‘‘Endangered and 

23 Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations Per24 taining to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

25 Plants’’ (88 Fed. Reg. 40742 (June 22, 2023)). 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 2811 IS

1 (b) NO FINALIZATION, IMPLEMENTATION, OR EN2 FORCEMENT.—The Director of the United States Fish 

3 and Wildlife Service and the Assistant Administrator for 

4 Fisheries of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad5 ministration, as applicable, may not take any action to fi6 nalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rules described 

7 in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL SPECIALTIES, INC., and Beverly M. Jones, personal representative of the Estate of Quentin R. Jones, Deceased, Petitioners, v. Aileen RENFROE, personal representative of the Estate of Tommie E. Renfroe, Deceased, et al., Respondents. The GARRETT CORPORATION, Air Research Manufacturing Division, Petitioner, v. Aileen RENFROE, personal representative of the Estate of Tommie E. Renfroe, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Nos. 78-659, 78-764.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 23, 1978.

J. Thomas Cardwell of Akerman, Senter-fitt & Eidson, Orlando, for petitioner — The Garrett Corp.

John C. Briggs of Robertson, Williams, Duane & Lewis, Orlando, for petitioners— Professional Medical Specialties, Inc., and Beverly M. Jones.

George E. Adams of Adams & Hill, Orlando, Donald L. Salem of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, San Diego, Cal., and Arthur Sherman of Sherman & Nordstrom, West Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents.

DOWNEY, Chief Judge.

By petitions for writs of certiorari we have for review orders of the trial court denying motions to compel answers in a discovery deposition.

The action involved is one for wrongful death. Suit was commenced one day before the Statute of Limitations expired, but process was not served until six months later. Petitioners raised the Statute of Limitations as a defense and by way of discovery sought to garner the facts sur*398rounding the delay in service of process so that they could assert that lack of due diligence in service of process nullified the filing of the suit before the Statute of Limitations had actually run. In order to prove those facts petitioners took the deposition of a lawyer for respondents. He refused to answer the questions propounded regarding the filing of this action and the Court refused to require him to do so. It is this latter judicial act we are asked to review.

There are numerous Federal cases holding due diligence in service of process is required in order to enable one to rely upon the act of filing suit to toll the running of the Statute of Limitations. The Second District Court of Appeal has held recently in *Pratt*v. *Durkop,*356 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978), that the timely filing of suit is all that is required to stop the statute from running. Neither the Supreme Court of Florida nor this Court has spoken to the precise question.

We are sorely tempted by expedition to resolve the question presented, but that is not a proper reason for granting certiorari. Expediency and the possible saving of time and expense do not constitute grounds for granting review of interlocutory orders by common law certiorari. Should we grant certiorari in discovery questions such as this, this Court would become inundated in the review of such a multitude of discovery questions that our present docket predicament could but worsen. Accordingly, we decline to grant the writ in this case because the issue presented can be resolved upon plenary appeal. We reaffirm the rule announced in *Siegel v. Abramowitz,*309 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

Petitions for writ of certiorari are DENIED.

ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

This certificationset forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirementsof Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and may not be reliedupon or used for any other purposes.

 

In connection withthe Annual Report of Ezenia! Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Khoa D. Nguyen, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

 
| Date:  March 26, 2008 |   | /s/ Khoa D.  Nguyen      |
|----------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                       |   | Khoa D. Nguyen           |
|                       |   | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

 

----
### Saline-water resources of New Mexico

By: J. W. HoodLester Ray Kister

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1601

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 6
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 6
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
333-48692  and  333-26117  on Form S-8 of our report  dated  February  12,  2003
relating to the consolidated  financial  statements of Poore Brothers,  Inc. and
subsidiaries  as of and for the year  ended  December  28,  2002  (which  report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory  paragraph relating
to  the   application  of  procedures   relating  to  certain   disclosures  and
reclassifications  of financial  statement  amounts related to the 2001 and 2000
financial  statements  that  were  audited  by other  auditors  who have  ceased
operations and for which we have expressed no opinion or other form of assurance
other  than with  respect  to such  disclosures  and  reclassifications,  and an
explanatory  paragraph  relating to the change in the method of  accounting  for
goodwill and other  intangible  assets with indefinite  lives as required by the
Statement  of  Financial  Accounting  Standards  No.  142,  "Goodwill  and Other
Intangible  Assets",  which was  effective  January 1, 2002),  appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Poore Brothers, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year
ended December 28, 2002.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
March 27, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GREGORY ORLANDO FANN, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-14-456

:

VINCENT T. MOONEY, : (Judge Brann)

:

Respondent :

ORDER

April 22, 2016

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT:

1. Fann’s habeas corpus petition is DENIED. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

3. Based on the Court’s conclusion herein, there is no basis

for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

1

Case 4:14-cv-00456-MWB-JVW Document 16 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 1
#### William SEBASTIAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-861.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 1, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
years to life in prison as stipulated by the parties in the plea agreement, 

and a judgment of conviction was filed on June 4, 2010. Appellant filed a 

direct appeal from that judgment of conviction. 

On direct appeal, this court concluded that the district court 

had abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion to substitute 

counsel; thus, this court remanded the matter for the district court to 

conduct further proceedings. See Jordan, Jr. v. State, Docket No. 56181 

(Order of Remand, March 17, 2011). On remand, the district court 

appointed new counsel, who filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea. 

Alter conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered an 

order denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Appellant's appeal 

from the order was dismissed. See Jordan, Jr. v. State, Docket No. 59453 

(Order Dismissing Appeal, January 12, 2012). The district court did not 

enter a new judgment of conviction. 

We conclude that the post-conviction petition was filed 

prematurely, as there is no valid judgment of conviction in this case. The 

effect of the Order of Remand on direct appeal was to vacate the original 

judgment of conviction and place appellant back in a position where he 

could file a presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Because this 

court vacated the sentence in the original judgment of conviction and no 

independent appeal lies from the denial of a presentence motion to 

withdraw a guilty plea, the district court should have entered a new 

judgment of conviction after denying appellant's motion to withdraw a 

guilty plea. Therefore, we vacate the order denying the post-conviction 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus and we direct the district court to enter 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(01 1947A me 
a new judgment of conviction in this case, which will start anew the time 

for filing an appeal from the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with 

this order. 

Ao„esasan J. 

Hardesty 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge 

Michael H. Schwarz 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A
#### Daniel Wilbur GARDNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1164.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 2, 1977.

*579Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and W. C. McLain, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The only point which merits discussion is the propriety of appellant’s sentence to life in prison “at hard labor.” To be imprisoned “at hard labor” is improper because no existing state statute provides for its imposition as a sentence for any offense. *Brooks v. State,*349 So.2d 794 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).

Remanded for the purpose of striking the language “at hard labor” from the sentencing order; otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

GRIMES, Acting C. J., and SCHEB and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
23  CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (Numbers 033-99434, 333-19069, 333-30635, 333-44781, and 333-78241)
on Form S-8 of SITEL Corporation of our reports dated February 1, 2002,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of SITEL Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated
statements of income (loss), stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, and the related
schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 2001 Annual Report on Form
10-K of SITEL Corporation.  /s/  KPMG LLPKPMG LLPBaltimore, MarylandMarch 27, 2002
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCTOBER 24, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-10346

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-00202-CR-T-26-MSS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

JOHN LEE STOVER, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(October 24, 2005)

Before BIRCH, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Lee Stover, appeals his conviction under section 924(c) of Title 18 of
2

the United States Code for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a

crime of violence. Stover argues, for the first time on appeal, that section 924(c) is

unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress under the Commerce

Clause. Because we have previously held that section 924(c) was validly enacted

under the commerce clause power, see United States v. Ferreira, 275 F.3d 1020,

1028 (11th Cir. 2001), and we have no authority to revisit that decision, see Cargill

v. Turpin, 120 F.3d 1366, 1386 (11th Cir. 1997), we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.
# EUR-Lex - 51996IP0732 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 51996IP0732

**Resolution on a Community initiative for ornamental horticulture **

*
Official Journal C 198 , 08/07/1996 P. 0266 *

B4-0732/96

Resolution on a Community initiative for ornamental horticulture

The European Parliament,

- having regard to Article 43 of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 234/68 on the establishment of the common organization of the market in live trees and other plants, bulbs, roots and the like, cut flowers and ornamental foliage ((OJ L 55, 2.3.1968, p. 1.)),

A. whereas ornamental horticulture in the Union, which covers an area of 68 000 hectares and has a value of about ECU 11 bn and a turnover of ECU 19 bn, provides employment for more than half a million people,

B. whereas this sector is therefore an extremely important part of the economy in the Member States of the European Union,

C. whereas some recent association agreements and the Union's policy of general trade liberalization are leading to a significant increase in imports of cut flowers, in particular from non-member Mediterranean countries,

D. whereas this situation has caused a serious crisis in the sector,

1. Calls on the Commission to bring forward as soon as possible practical measures to support producers and promote this sector;

2. Calls for sufficient funding, and hence not less than ECU 60 m a year, to be allocated to such measures;

3. Calls on the Commission to maintain its position that all agricultural products, including cut flowers, should be subject to the same, lowest, VAT rate;

4. Calls on the Commission to forward in the near future proposals with regard to the development of a quality label so that it will be easy for the consumer to recognize the way an agricultural product has been produced with regard to environmental and ethical production components;

5. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.
#### Charles Thomas HUNTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-400.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

June 18, 1969.

Christopher C. Ford, of Duncan & Ford, Tavares, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

Appellant’s privately engaged trial counsel neglected to object to the trial court’s failure, upon invocation of the rule, to require the prosecuting witness to leave the courtroom during the trial and to an allegedly prejudicial remark made by the state attorney in opening argument. These objections are lost.

Because the assistant public defender appointed to represent Hunter on appeal neglected to communicate with him for many months and, so far as the record shows, took no action of any consequence, and because the attorney appointed by the trial court upon discharge of the assistant public defender was so late in filing his brief and did so then only after a pointed reminder from this court, we have reviewed the entire record lest Hunter think this the us*354ual standard of justice in the Second Appellate District.

The trial court properly admitted Hunter’s statement as a voluntary one. The evidence more than adequately supports Hunter’s conviction of assault with intent to commit rape. It would in fact have supported a conviction of rape. The record is free from reversible error.

Affirmed.

LILES, C. J., and McNULTY, L, concur.
EXHIBIT  32.02

                           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  Quarterly  Report of Pangea Petroleum Corp. (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"), the
undersigned,  in  the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that  to  his  knowledge:

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  the  Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  August  24,  2009                    /s/  Robert  Wilson
                                             -------------------
                                             Robert  Wilson,
                                             Chief  Financial  Officer