alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.01

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  333-39613)  pertaining  to the 1995  Equity  Incentive  Plan and to the
Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-98880)  pertaining to the 1995 Employee
Stock  Purchase  Plan,  the 1995  Directors  Stock Option Plan,  the 1995 Equity
Incentive Plan, the 1994 Equity Incentive Plan and the 1983 Stock Option Plan of
Elantec Semiconductor,  Inc., of our report dated October 22, 1997, with respect
to the consolidated  financial statements and schedule of Elantec Semiconductor,
Inc.  included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30,
1997.


                                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Jose, California
December 26 , 1997

                                       46
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 Bedminster National Corp. (the
“Company”) on 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Paul Patrizio, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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; and2.
              The
      information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
      Bedminster National Corp.
  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.
  BEDMINSTER
NATIONAL CORP.
  By:
              /s/
      Paul PatrizioPAUL
      PATRIZIOPresident,
      Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
  Officer,
  Date:  
May 19, 2008
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

DENISE BROWNING,

 Defendant-Appellant

No. 13-50111

D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00329-PSG-3

MEMORANDUM

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 4, 2015

Pasadena, California

Before: KLEINFELD and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and CARR, Senior 

District Judge.**

Defendant Denise Browning appeals her conviction and sentence for 

willfully aiding or assisting in the filing of false tax returns, in violation of 26 

U.S.C. § 7206(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 

 

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The Honorable James G. Carr, Senior United States District Judge for the 

Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAR 20 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

3742(a). For the reasons stated below, we affirm the conviction, but vacate the 

sentence and remand for resentencing.

1. Sufficient evidence supports Defendant’s conviction. The evidence,

viewed in the light most favorable to the government, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 

U.S. 307, 319 (1979), demonstrates that Defendant willfully prepared false tax 

returns. For example, instead of reporting the actual amount of wages paid to 

employees, Defendant only reported the wage amount that matched the amount of 

taxes the company already paid. 

In 2005, during an interview with an IRS agent, Defendant acknowledged 

that the wages she reported on the returns should match those reported on the 

employees’ W-2s. Nevertheless, on a subsequent return, she again underreported

the wages paid to employees. Defendant refused to sign the returns because she did 

not want to sign something under penalty of perjury that she knew was false. 

Further, the jury viewed email correspondence between Defendant and her boss in 

which Defendant asked if she should file certain returns “as is, totally legit.”

Finally, at trial, Defendant admitted she knew the numbers she wrote on the 

returns were false. The jury, based on the evidence before it, reasonably rejected 

Defendant’s good-faith defense that she relied on an IRS provision which she 

believed allowed her to file the false returns if she later amended them. 
3

2. As the government correctly concedes, in light of United States v.

Castro-Ponce, 770 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2014), we must vacate and remand for 

resentencing. The district court imposed a two-level increase in Defendant’s 

offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 on the ground that Defendant 

committed perjury, but failed to explicitly make findings as to perjury’s three 

elements. On remand, the district court must consider each element in deciding 

whether to impose the enhancement.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
# S-900
Customer PO Date Job Flightof Pilot Spotter Steps Before Power Up √ Check Black Magic batterie charge BMPCC Set Aperture & Focus BMPCC Check presence SD card BMPCC Check Flight batterie charge DroneBatt # Check Receiver batterie charge Remote Check Remote batterie charge Remote Visual inspection Props & Arms Drone Visual inspection Connections Drone Visual inspection Flight batterie anchors Drone Power Up Checklist PU Receiver channel Remote PU Remote Remote Drone PU Drone Drone Last checks before Take-off Control Remote receiver status Drone Control IMU status Drone Control gimbal functions Drone Start motors & visual check vibrations Drone Select GPS mode(starts recording) Remote FPV image & iOS good Remote Confirm GPS ready status Remote Start Flight Timer Remote Power Down Checklist Stop flight timer time Remote PD Drone Drone Stop recording(select manual mode) Drone N/A N/A Parameters Comments
N/A Comments LEDs

N/A N/A N/A Comments Reading Comments

N/A N/A N/A
Parameters N/A N/A 

# Pre-Flight Checklist

Steve

Stop recording (select manual mode) Drone Check SD content iPad Check flight batterie charge charge Drone Inspect drone Drone PD Receiver Remote PD Remote Remote Signatures: SPOTTER PILOT

Mission Debriefing: N/A N/A N/A N/A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RYAN FELL MORTIMER,

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL ANDREW MCCOOL, RAYMOND

CHRISTIAN MCCOOL, ESTATE OF

RAYMOND R. MCCOOL AND MCCOOL

PROPERTIES, LLC,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 19 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

RYAN FELL MORTIMER,

Petitioner

v.

340 ASSOCIATES, LLC AND MCCOOL

PROPERTIES, LLC,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 20 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22 nd day of June, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED

, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all

remaining issues. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is: M.D. Appeal Dkt. 37 - 2020 38 - 2020[ 19 MAL 2020 and 20 MAL 2020 ]

- 2

Whether, in this matter of first impression, the Supreme Court should adopt the “enterprise theory” or “single entity” theory of piercing the corporate veil to prevent injustice when two or more sister companies operate as a single corporate combine?
#### George CURTISS and Nancy Curtiss, and all other persons or parties unknown claiming a right, title, estate, lien or other interest in the real estate described in the Complaint in this action, hereby designated as Unknown Defendants, Appellants, v. Thomas H. HUBBARD and Frances H. Hubbard, Appellees.

No. S-722

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Aug. 2, 1985.

Chrystal Sommers Brand and Edward G. King, Ziegler, Cloudy, King, Brown & Peterson, Ketchikan, for appellants.

A. Lee Petersen, Anchorage, for appel-lees.

Before RABINOWITZ, C.J., and BURKE, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

We decided the merits of this case in *Hubbard v. Curtiss,*684 P.2d 842 (Alaska 1984), affirming the judgment in part, reversing it in part, and remanding the case for entry of a decree quieting title to a portion of the property involved in favor of the Curtisses. On remand, the Curtisses moved for an award of attorney’s fees. The trial court denied the motion on two grounds: first, because awarding attorney’s' fees would exceed the scope of the remand from this court, and second, because the Curtisses were not the prevailing parties, even if our decision were considered. The court thus let stand its determination that neither party had prevailed and each should bear his or her own costs and attorney’s fees.

In our view the scope of the remand on the merits did not preclude the court from addressing once again the question of attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees are awarded to the prevailing party under Civil Rule 82. An appellate decision affirming a judgment irj part and reversing it in part may change' important facts on which an earlier prevailing party determination was based. The trial court has the power to reconsider its determination after such a decision so that the goal of awarding partial attorney’s fees to the party who has won the lawsuit can be realized. This is consistent with the practice in previous cases that have been remanded by this *1155court to the superior court for further proceedings. *See, e.g., Continental Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.,*528 P.2d 430 (Alaska 1974), *appeal after remand*552 P.2d 1122 (Alaska 1976); *Western Airlines, Inc. v. Lathrop Co.,*499 P.2d 1013 (Alaska 1972), *appeal after remand*535 P.2d 1209, 1216-17 (Alaska 1975); *McCoy v. Alaska Brick Co.,*389 P.2d 1009 (Alaska 1964), *appeal after remand*400 P.2d 454, 457 (Alaska 1965).

The court did not, however, abuse its discretion in determining that neither party had prevailed. The Curtisses claimed that they owned all of Lot 13. At the trial this claim was resolved against them and in favor of the Hubbards. This adjudication was not greatly changed by our decision on appeal. One corner of Lot 13 was ordered transferred to the Curtisses. This appears to be about one-sixteenth of the entire lot. The Curtisses have acknowledged that the superior court’s pre-appeal determination that neither party had prevailed was not error. Our decision did not change the underlying judgment so significantly that we are able to say that the court abused its discretion in persisting in the view that neither party won this lawsuit.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00372-CR

LISA TUIAN JEFFERSON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 413th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-F201800364

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lisa Tuian Jefferson appealed two judgments rendered against her on two counts 

in one trial court case number. The judgments were rendered, and the sentences were 

imposed, on September 17, 2018. 

This appeal was dismissed on December 19, 2018 because we determined, with the 

information we had available, that appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely. Although 

a motion for rehearing of the dismissal was untimely, it directed our attention to a pro se 

letter filed in the days after the trial court’s judgment. Before our plenary power expired, 

we vacated our December 19, 2018 judgment and withdrew our opinion of the same date. 
Jefferson v. State Page 2

On February 27, 2019, we determined appellant’s pro se letter was a notice of appeal and 

reinstated the appeal.

On March 7, 2019, and March 18, 2019, the trial court signed a new certificate of 

right of appeal indicating that appellant waived her right to appeal and that because the 

underlying case was a plea bargain case, appellant did not have the right to appeal. Also 

on March 7, 2019, a hearing was held where appellant expressed the desire to dismiss her 

appeal.1

Because the trial court's certificate of right of appeal that Jefferson signed indicates 

Jefferson has no right to appeal and has waived her right to appeal, this appeal must be 

dismissed. See TEX.R. APP. P. 25.2(d) ("The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that 

shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under 

these rules."); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (plea bargain); 

Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (waiver of appeal). We use 

Rule 2 to excuse Rule 42.2(a)’s requirement of a written motion signed by the defendant

and may dismiss the appeal because appellant plainly stated her desire on the record to 

dismiss her appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 42.2(a); Hendrix v. State, 86 S.W.3d 762, 763 (Tex. 

App.—Waco 2002, no pet.).

For the reasons expressed herein, this appeal is dismissed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

 

1 On March 29, 2019, appellant also filed a motion to dismiss which was not signed by appellant but which 

had the referenced hearing transcript attached and relied upon it to request dismissal.
Jefferson v. State Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Appeal dismissed 

Opinion delivered and filed April 3, 2019

Do not publish 

[CR25]
**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 Quarterly Report of SRKP 5, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C.
      Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.


/s/
              Anthony C. PintsopoulosAnthony
                  C. Pintsopoulos
                Principal
                  Financial Officer
                November
                  7, 2006
#### Joseph MARTIN, III, a/k/a “Jo-Jo” Martin v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 91-KA-0601.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 23, 1993.

Pamela A. Femngton, Natchez, for appel-¡ant

Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Charles W. Maris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal No. 9312 from Judgment dated May 24, 1991, Richard T. Watson, Ruling Judge, Adams County Circuit Court.

Before PRATHER, P.J., and PITTMAN and McRAE, JJ.

Affirmed.
---

|EXHIBIT
      32.1                                 
|---------------------------------------------------
|CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER           
|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 The
  Cavalier Group (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
  August 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
  date hereof (the Periodic Report), I, Gerald W. Williams, Chief
  Executive 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 Periodic 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 Periodic
        Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and results of operations of the Company.

|    | Dated: October 05, 2007   
|--- | --------------------------
|    |                           
|/s/ | Gerald
      W. Williams
|    |                           
|    | Gerald W. Williams        
|    | Chief Executive Officer   

---
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16046-16047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6481]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4057-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]


Kentucky; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4057-DR), dated March 6, 2012, 
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency

[[Page 16047]]

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-
3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the 
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of March 6, 2012.

    Magoffin and Wolfe Counties for Individual Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-6481 Filed 3-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Annual report of Westcott Products Corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the "Report"), I (We), Wayne Bassham, President of the Company, and Todd Albiston, Vice President and Director 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

| *Date:*** | *12/27/06*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/Wayne Bassham***                           |
|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|------------------------------------------------|
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Wayne Bassham, President and Director***      |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | * *                                       |
| *Date:*** | *12/27/06*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/Todd Albiston***                           |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Todd Albiston, Vice President and Director*** |
#### STATE ex rel. Johnny L. JOHNSON v. Hilton BUTLER, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 88-KH-2455.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Johnson, Johnny L.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or reinedial *1208writs; Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 20621.

Denied.
**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**

| 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                Partnership. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                  Freddie M. Kotek                                    |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Freddie                  M. Kotek                                        |
| Title: | Chief                  Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner |
| Date:  | May                  15, 2006                                            |
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO  RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of North American Scientific, Inc. ("Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending October 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, L. Michael Cutrer, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and, Alan I. Edrick, Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|                       |  |     |                                                              
|---------------------- |  | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: January 22, 2004 |  | By: | /s/L. MICHAEL CUTRERL. Michael Cutrer Chief Executive
Officer
|                       |  |     |                                                              
|Date: January 22, 2004 |  | By: | /s/ALAN I. EDRICKAlan I. Edrick Chief Financial Officer      

---

QuickLinks