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

 

****

**Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP**

 

We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31,2013 of Advantage Oil & Gas Ltd. of our report dated March 27, 2014, relating to the consolidated financial statements, whichcomprise the consolidated statement of financial position as at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 and the consolidated statementsof comprehensive loss, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2013 and December31, 2012, which appear in the Exhibit incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 40-F. We also consent to referenceto us under the heading “Interests of Experts”, which appears in the Annual Information Form included in the Exhibitincorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 40-F.

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Calgary, Alberta

March 28, 2014

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Chartered Accountants****

111 5 Avenue SW, Suite 3100, Calgary, Alberta,Canada T2P 5L3

T: +1 403 509 7500, F: +1 403 781 1825, www.pwc.com/ca

 

“PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership.

 

** **
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 09-407 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EXTRADITION 

 Treaty Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ESTONIA 

Signed at Tallinn February 8, 2006 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 ESTONIA 

 Extradition 

Treaty signed at Tallinn February 8, 2006; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate September 29, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-16, 

 109th Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 July 29, 2008 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-12, 

 110th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 September 23, 2008; 

Ratified by the President December 11, 2008; 

Exchange of Instruments of Ratification 

 at Washington April 7, 2009; 

Entered into force April 7, 2009.
EXHIBIT 32.1/32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Hornby International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John Probandt, Chief Executive and Financial 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, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ John Probandt
-------------------------------------
Name: John Probandt
Title: Chief Executive and Financial Officer
Date: November 13, 2006
Ab~' (\ "'''"'fr' f"'!f':J>'I{ 

· T VVL .:5.. iL rL it ; ""-G. -l:._s t!:> .b fa ~ \A a -"\. ul J ;-:£-~..;.:;~~ ·J~' i•-t k 

a he u I& r u (' {L '(L v\. CCL j_ c c~ S.tL- . (.L) L -lL_ ....- L t.S. k (i:_ CL. ~ s (i_ -l:... 

a .-'\._ L~ d&- cKU- \:.. f-' rJ -r {J tlt. ( A ( b.v ~ "'-ts. or LU~~ r 

L l ~ htL. ~ ""--- c.. r o: V-- tu.. l r A ll'v v · u J b tr£J c \/\ f:" /SI c "v._O\ l::.. 2 (9- '-'-

ru- ~ l \ . k ([, 0-J p 'G- c; ~ ~ !:::_(£_ a . 7 h.a ~ vc ~ ~ 1)- r y 4- v- r d ; l ; -

C- "- ..,.. c. 'f . -l:..u- "t_k -;- .i. VVVLA. ·\:.J:::L r -
AMANDA LYNN MANATA , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 15

- 1925

_____ ________________________/ Opinion filed March 2, 2016. An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark J. Borello , Judge

. Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant ; Amanda Lynn Manata, pro se, Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. The appellant appeals her convictions for one count of organized scheme to defraud an d one count of grand theft, entered after an open plea to the charges . For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the appellant’s conviction for organized scheme to defraud, but r everse and remand for the trial court to vacate the2 appellant’s conviction f or grand theft and to resentence the appellant on the organized scheme to de fraud conviction

. C onvictions for both grand theft and scheme to defraud violate double jeopardy when both “are based on common allegations.” Saddler v. State , 921 So. 2d 777 (Fla . 1st DCA 2006). Here, both crimes were based on the same allegations that the appellant stole money from her employer by writing checks to herself between March 20 , 2014, and September 4, 2014. Thus, w e reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate t he appellant’s convicti on and sentence for grand theft, s ee Pizzo v. State , 945 So. 2d 1203, 1207 (Fla. 2006) (holding that grand theft was a lesser offense of organized fraud, for double jeopardy purposes, requiring reversal of grand theft c onvictions ) , a nd to resentence the appellant on the remaining organized scheme to defraud count. See Anucinski v. State , 148 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 2014) (holding that appropriate remedy for defendant improperly convicted of both theft and dealing in stolen property is to re mand for court to vacate one of the sentences and to resentence the defendant on the remaining count); Gonzalez v. State , 123 So. 3d 691 ( Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (reversing conviction and sentence on double jeopardy grounds and remanding for circuit

court to re sentence the defendant on the remaining count). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED AND REMANDED in part, for proceedings consistent with this opinion.3 ROBERTS, C.J., MAKAR and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-58311, 333-34645, 333-77793, 333-88671,
333-95883, 333-36982, 333-51856, 333-60500 and 333-81128), and in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-113436, 333-04717, 333-34711,
333-50391, 333-92905 and 333-89764), of ProxyMed, Inc. of our report dated March
25, 2004 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule,
which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 30, 2004
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60187

Summary Calendar

____________

Alma Sofia Centeno-Santiago, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A098 487 880

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Alma Sofia Centeno-Santiago, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing 

her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her 2019 motion to reopen, 

which sought rescission of the 2004 removal order entered against her in 

absentia. 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 27, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60187 Document: 00516980016 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2023
No. 23-60187

2

Motions to reopen are “disfavored”; review is “under a highly 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard”. Mauricio-Benitez v. Sessions, 908 

F.3d 144, 147 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Under this standard, our 

court will affirm unless the agency’s decision is “capricious, without 

foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather 

than the result of any perceptible rational approach”. Id. (citation omitted).

Review of the BIA’s factual findings is for substantial evidence; the findings 

are overturned only “if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion”. Id. 

The record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s on 

whether Centeno fulfilled her obligation to keep the immigration court 

apprised of her current address. E.g., id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B) (“No 

written notice shall be required under subparagraph (A) if the alien has failed 

to provide the address required . . . .”). She, therefore, forfeited her right to 

notice of her hearing, and the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen was not 

arbitrary. See Nivelo Cardenas v. Garland, 70 F.4th 232, 243 (5th Cir. 2023)

(“[A]n alien [can] forfeit [her] right to notice under Section 1229a(b)(5)(B), 

regardless of whether the [notice to appear] contained the hearing time and 

place, if the alien failed to provide the immigration court with a mailing 

address at which [she] could be notified”.). Because she forfeited her right 

to notice by failing to update her mailing address, her other contentions have 

no bearing on the BIA’s denying her motion to reopen. 

DENIED.

Case: 23-60187 Document: 00516980016 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2023
**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 Quarterly Report of Coastal Caribbean Oils & Minerals,
      Ltd. (the "Company") on FORM 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Phillip W. Ware, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.







Date: August 9, 2007
            By
                /s/ Phillip W.
                Ware
              Phillip
                W. Ware
              Chief
                Executive Officer,
              President
                and Principal Financial Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Coastal Caribbean Oils & Minerals, Ltd. and will be retained by Coastal
      Caribbean Oils & Minerals, Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 09-908 

________________________________________________________________________ 

ATOMIC ENERGY 

Assistance 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and POLAND 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Warsaw August 28 and September 8, 2009 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
POLAND 

Atomic Energy: Assistance 

 Agreement effected by exchange of notes at 

 Warsaw August 28 and September 8, 2009; 

 Entered into force September 8, 2009.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6567

JEFFREY LEE HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIM BARBOUR, Lieutenant Colonel, Assistant Superintendent; KIMBERLY K. ROYAL; TIMOTHY LIGHTBOURNE, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-01-236-AM) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 5, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Lee Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Lee Hall appeals the district court’s order dismissingwithout prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hall v. Barbour , No. CA-01-236-AM (E.D. Va. filedMar. 26, 2001; entered Mar. 28, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
ARS HomeAnimal Production and ProtectionFood Animal ProductionResearch

----

Program Team
- Steven Moeller, Lead
2022 Research Highlights
- Advancing Sustainable Livestock Production
- Developing New Crop Varieties with Enhanced Traits and Disease Resistance 
- Protecting Animal Health
Program Inputs
-                 Program Highlights             
-                 Workshops             
Program Planning
-                 Strategic Vision             
-                 Action Plan             
Program Reports
-                 Retrospective Assessment             
-                 Annual Reports             
Project Information
- List of Projects in this Program
- List of Project Annual Reports in this program

**Listed below are the Annual Reports for currently active projects directly assigned to this National Program.**
Exhibit 15

                         Independent Accountants' Report
                         -------------------------------


Ranger Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries
St. Petersburg, Florida

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of Ranger
Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 2003, and the related condensed
consolidated statements of operations and cash flows for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002 and for the period from inception through
June 30, 2003. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements for them
to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.


                                             /s/  Aidman, Piser & Company, P.A.


August 8, 2003
Tampa, Florida



                                       12
Order entered July 24, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01121
- CR No. 05
- 18
- 01122
- CR OSCAR PEREACRUZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal f

rom the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F18
- 00276
- S & F18
- 00275
- S



### O RDER Before the Court are appellant’s July 22, 2019 third motions for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. The motions are DENIED

. We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s ab sence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court isORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which

may include appointme nt of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. These appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court t o comply with the above order. The appeals shall be reinstated when the findings are received or at such other time as the Court deems appropriate.
/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
#### John Michael BUNTING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2326.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 9, 1978.

Joseph Jordan, of Bailey & Jordan, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles A. Stampelos, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MOORE, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence for the crime of aggravated battery. In his sentence the trial court indicated the appellant had pled guilty to the crime of aggravated battery when, in fact, he had been found guilty by a jury and in addition to a period of incarceration and fine the court required the appellant to make restitution to the victim for the victim’s medical expenses. The trial court also failed to cause appellant’s fingerprints to be affixed to the written judgment of guilt as required by Section 921.-241(1), Florida Statutes (1977). We agree with appellant’s , contentions that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant and reverse.

The written judgment of guilt and sentence should reflect the true facts of the case. In this instance, the written sentence *811should be corrected to reflect a finding of guilt by a jury as opposed to appellant’s having pled guilty.

Courts have no authority to exceed the punishment for criminal conduct as provided by the Legislature. With the exception of those matters which are within the inherent jurisdiction of the judiciary the determination of that conduct which shall constitute criminal conduct, and the punishment therefore, is the sole prerogative of the Legislative function of government and the judiciary, in sentencing an individual, must remain within the parameters established by the Legislature. While the trial courts enlightenment in this cause is noteworthy in view of recent legislation providing for the requirement of restitution in certain cases, such a requirement was not a prescribed means of punishment at the time of the commission of the crime in this case. It was therefore error to impose such a condition upon the appellant. See *Holmes v. State,*342 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

Accordingly, the judgment of guilt and sentence is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to readjudicate the defendant indicating a finding of guilt by the jury, eliminating the requirement of restitution, and obtaining the fingerprints of appellant on the written judgment of guilt as prescribed by Section 921.241(1), Florida Statutes (1977).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

CROSS and LETTS, JJ., concur.
#### Allen C. WEST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-126.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 3, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

No. Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Accessed Applicant County

Fiscal 

Year*

PA-31 Croasdale Bridge Replacement Bridge Replacement

US Fish and Wildlife 

Service - Cherry Valley 

National Wildlife Refuge

Stroud Township Monroe 2021

PA-32 Gettysburg Gateway 

Connectivity

Bicycle/Pedestrian 

Facility

National Park Service - 

Gettysburg National 

Military Park

PennDOT Adams 2021

PA-34 Cordorus Creekside Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian 

Facility

USACE - Cordorus Creek 

Flood Risk Management 

Project

Redevelopment 

Authority of York 

County

York 2022

The Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for the Pennsylvania Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) has selected its multiyear 

Program of Projects. The projects identified for programming for the Pennsylvania FLAP are listed below by application number and include:

Pennsylvania Program of Projects for Federal Fiscal Years 2020-2022

* Fiscal Year Programmed/Project Schedule is subject to change

The Pennsylvania PDC does not have a firm date for the next Call for Projects under the Access Program. Please bookmark our webpage to watch 

for future Calls for Projects in your state. https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/

If you have any questions regarding the Call for Projects, please contact Mr. Lewis Grimm, Planning Team Leader, at 703-404-6289 or 

Lewis.Grimm@dot.gov. For questions regarding project agreements and funding, please contact Ms. Jacinda Russell, Access Program Manager, at 

571-434-1543 or Jacinda.Russell@dot.gov.