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



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-49837, No.333-44436 and No. 333-101962 on Form S-8 of our reports dated June 2, 2005, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc., and managements report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. for the year ended March 25, 2005.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California

June 2, 2005
#### Stanislaw Wysocki, Respondent, v Andreas Balalis et al., Defendants, and Prevail General Contracting, Inc., et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[737 NYS2d 94]

In *505an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant York Scaffold Equipment Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), dated May 31, 2000, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and the defendant Prevail General Contracting, Inc., separately appeals from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motions are granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff sustained injuries after falling from a scaffold that was supplied by the defendant York Scaffold Equipment Corp. (hereinafter York) and erected by his employer, the defendant Prevail General Contracting, Inc. (hereinafter Prevail). The plaintiff asserted causes of action to recover damages for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and § 241 (6). York and Prevail separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court denied the motions.

The Supreme Court erred in denying York’s motion, since York, as supplier of the scaffold, did not exercise any supervision, direction, or control over the plaintiff’s work (see, *Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp.,*82 NY2d 876; *Sabato v New York Life Ins. Co.,*259 AD2d 535; *Haghighi v Bailer,*240 AD2d 368).

The Supreme Court also erred in denying Prevail’s motion. Since the plaintiff was employed by Prevail and received Workers’ Compensation benefits for his injuries, the plaintiff is precluded from claiming that he was not an employee of Prevail, and this action is barred as to it by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law *(see,*Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, 29 [6]; *Werner v State of New York,*53 NY2d 346; *Turner v Gannett Suburban Newspaper,*260 AD2d 370; *French v Shaft,*154 AD2d 336; *Richiusa v Kahn Lbr. & Millwork Co.,*148 AD2d 690). Ritter, Acting P.J., Smith, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 306

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

November 10, 1993.

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

they are hereby, elected to the following standing committees

of the House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Luis V. Gutierrez,

Illinois.

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY:

Bobby L. Rush, Illinois.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.1   Principal Executive and Financial Officer - Section 906
               Certification

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the annual report on Form
10-KSB (the "Form 10-KSB") for the year ended December 31, 2005 of Taitron
Components Incorporated (the "Issuer").

I, Stewart Wang, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

      (i)   the Form 10-KSB fully complies with the requirements of Section
            13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and:

      (ii)  the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
            of the Issuer.

Dated March 31, 2006                           By: /s/ Stewart Wang
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Stewart Wang
                                                   Principal Executive Officer &
                                                   Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE GREAT
ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 10-Q FOR THE 16 WEEK PERIOD ENDED JUNE 19,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-26-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-19-1999
<CASH>                                          126259
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   173836
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     781489
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1142598
<PP&E>                                         1688613
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3045179
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1099764
<BONDS>                                         770977
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         38325
<OTHER-SE>                                      780276
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3045179
<SALES>                                        3113722
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3113722
<CGS>                                          2242133
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2242133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                881299
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               24394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (32326)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     12780
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (19546)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (19546)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.51)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE GREAT
ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 10-Q FOR THE 40 WEEK PERIOD ENDED
DECEMBER 5, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-05-1998
<CASH>                                          138949
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   214169
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     946077
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1337430
<PP&E>                                         1690364
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3203706
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1050276
<BONDS>                                         910297
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         38287
<OTHER-SE>                                      886138
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3203706
<SALES>                                        7753035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7753035
<CGS>                                        (5513730)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (5513730)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (2168170)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (47839)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  23296
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1910)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              21386
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     21386
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56
        

</TABLE>
pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the rebuttable 

presumption of prejudice. NRS 34.800(2). 

First, appellant claimed that he had good cause to overcome 

the procedural bars because counsel failed to file a direct appeal from his 

judgment of conviction. Appellant failed to demonstrate good cause 

because he knew in 1994 that counsel did not file a direct appeal. He 

could have raised this claim in his 1994 petition and failed to demonstrate 

good cause for the entire length of his delay. Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 

248, 254-55, 71 P.3d 503, 507-08 (2003). Therefore, the district court did 

not err in denying this claim. 

Second, relying in part on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. , 132 

S. Ct. 1309 (2012), appellant argued that he had good cause because he 

was not appointed counsel in the first post-conviction proceedings. We 

conclude that this argument lacked merit. The appointment of counsel 

was discretionary in the first post-conviction proceedings, see NRS 

34.750(1), and appellant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. 

Further, this court has recently held that Martinez does not apply to 

Nevada's statutory post-conviction procedures. See Brown v. McDaniel, 

Nev. , P.3d (Adv. Op. No. 60, August 7, 2014). Thus, the 

failure to appoint post-conviction counsel and the decision in Martinez 

would not provide good cause for this late and successive petition. 

Finally, appellant claimed that he was actually innocent of the 

deadly weapon enhancement. Appellant previously raised this exact claim 

in a motion to modify or correct. See Luna v. State, Docket No. 45591 

(Order of Affirmance, December 21, 2005). This court rejected that claim; 

therefore, this claim is barred by the doctrine of law of the case. See Hall 

v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16, 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1995). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(01 I947A 
J. 

Based on the forgoing, we conclude that appellant failed to 

demonstrate good cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural bars, 

and he failed to overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State. 

Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the petition as 

procedurally barred, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

Douglas 

J. 

CHERRY, J., concurring: 

Although I would extend the equitable rule recognized in 

Martinez to this case because appellant was convicted of murder and is 

facing a severe sentence, see Brown v. McDaniel, 130 Nev. , P.3d 

(Adv. Op. No. 60, August 7, 2014) (Cherry, J., dissenting), I concur in 

the judgment on appeal in this case because the State pleaded laches 

under NRS 34.800(2) and appellant failed to rebut the presumption of 

prejudice to the State. 

cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge 

Juan Manuel Luna 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(0) 1947A
# C_2022368EN.01000401.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/4

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Megatherm-Csillaghegy Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-188/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct VAT - Rules governing exercise of that right - Revocation and subsequent reinstatement of a taxable person’s tax identification number - Forfeiture of the right to deduct the VAT relating to transactions carried out during the period preceding that revocation - Principle of proportionality)

(2022/C 368/05)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Megatherm-Csillaghegy Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the order

Articles 63, 167 and 168, 178 to 180, 182 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, and the principles of value added tax (VAT) neutrality and proportionality must be interpreted as precluding a national measure under which a taxable person subject to VAT whose tax identification number was revoked on the ground that it had failed to submit and publish its annual accounts then reinstated, following the rectification of that omission, is deprived of its right to deduct input VAT paid during the period preceding that revocation, even though the substantive requirements giving rise to the right to such a deduction are satisfied and that taxable person has not acted fraudulently or abusively in order to be able to benefit from that right.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---
No. 10835.

#### Wallace *v.*Spellacy.

Decided October 27, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Harrison county.

*Mr. R. H. Minteer,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Milton Taggart*and *Mr. D. A. Hollingsworth,*for defendant in error.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the court of common pleas affirmed.

Price, C. J., Si-iauck, Crew and Davis, JJ., concur.
| (1)   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section a 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 the operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August 13, 2009 | /s/ Kent M. Yauch                                                                   |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             | Kent M. Yauch                                                                       |
|                             | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal financial officer) |
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 314 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 314

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 19, 1993.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3351) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 
to allow grants for the purpose of developing alternative methods of punishment 
for young offenders to traditional forms of incarceration and probation. The 
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this resolution and 
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate 
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under 
the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by the 
amendment printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
modified, shall be considered as read. No amendment to the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, as modified, shall be in order except those 
printed in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to 
a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
Whole. All points of order against the amendment numbered 5 in part 2 of the 
report are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 
the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments 
as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on 
any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                         Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          58,412
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  500,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    148,364
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               933,114
<PP&E>                                         613,954
<DEPRECIATION>                                  78,924
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,656,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          575,768
<BONDS>                                      1,621,217
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     16,318
<COMMON>                                        90,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,665,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,656,789
<SALES>                                        112,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               624,394
<CGS>                                           88,941
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  393,653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               149,815
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                22,498
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,214
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,214
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,577
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,637
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,637
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.4
   1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of SkillSoft Public Limited Company;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.
    
    Omitted;4.
    
    Omitted;5.
    
    Omitted.
  /s/
Thomas J. McDonaldThomas J. McDonaldChief Financial Officer -30-
#### Gilbert Roland MYERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-854.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 26, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; J. Cail Lee, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 589

To express deep appreciation and gratitude to my current and former staff

members for their loyalty, support, and dedication to the Congress and

the residents of the 20th and 22d Congressional Districts of Pennsylvania

during my 18 years as a Member of the United States House of Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 29, 1994

Mr. MURPHY (for himself and Mr. GREENWOOD) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

To express deep appreciation and gratitude to my current

and former staff members for their loyalty, support, and

dedication to the Congress and the residents of the 20th

and 22d Congressional Districts of Pennsylvania during

my 18 years as a Member of the United States House

of Representatives.

1 Resolved, That the following current and former staff

2 members are recognized with deep appreciation and grati3 tude for their loyalty, support, and dedication to the Con4 gress and to the residents of the 20th and 22d Congres5 sional Districts of Pennsylvania over the past 18 years:
2

HRES 589 IH

1 Fredrick P. McLuckie, Karen Mollenauer, Jac2 queline Joseph, Ron Ungvarsky, Erin Sheerin, Ken

3 Laird, Martha Hunter, David Mark, Marissa

4 Creager, Stephen Mayberry Gates, Debbie Tekavec,

5 Charlene Konek, Dave Coder, Charles Losko, Jim

6 Riley, Ted Martin, John Gaspich, Vince Zapatosky,

7 Dan Giosta, Jackie Cassady, Paulette Bieneck, Joe

8 Wise, Shelley Gutherie, Vicki Nimmo, John T.

9 Casey, Janet Martin, Lynn Rongaus, Mike Corbett,

10 Danette Delmastro, Andrew Juracko, Teresa

11 Faunce, Landon Washington, Mike Johns, Judy

12 Loughman, Tom Lamb, Luther Sheets, Jennifer

13 Bigi, Cheryl Genevie, Melanie Taylor, John Wood14 ward, Christine McCormick, Karen Hofer, Sharon

15 Wulbern, Bob Sturgeon, Sally Scripture, Maryellen

16 Stevens, Donna Thomas, Geri Ethridge, Kim Moses,

17 Joan Smith, Virgil Puskarich, Kerry Keurbis, Tom

18 Conrad, Tanya Rahall, Rich Fiesta, Charlie Tocci,

19 Karen Kadilak, Rita McCormick, Sara Ruth, Tina

20 Tokish, Leo Vicini, Joe Babish, Dominic Antonelli,

21 James Levy, Florence Potega, Maryann Cialone,

22 Florentine Garcia, Debra Aiken Wilson, Marlene

23 France, Albert Spence, Clarence Norman, Cheryl

24 Kinsey, Judy Wagner, Patricia Perry, Sally Farrer,

25 Barbara Neid, Kathy Homrock, Robert Schiffbauer,
3

HRES 589 IH

1 Barbara Cassasanta, John Lignelli, George Gallo,

2 Louis Coccoli, Diane Jacobs, Yvonne Epps, Gary

3 Caruso, Greg Chaklos, Roseann Tulley and Rich

4 Roberts.

Æ