alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 15.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Smith & Nephew plc: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-122801,No. 333-13694,No. 333-155173,No. 333-155172,No. 333-158239,No. 333-168544,No. 333-199117) on Form S-8 of Smith & Nephew plc of our report dated 22 February 2017, withrespect to the Group balance sheets of Smith & Nephew plc and subsidiaries as of 31 December 2016 and 2015 and the related Group income statements, Group statements of comprehensive income, Group cash flow statements and Groupstatements of changes in equity, for each of the years then ended, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of 31 December 2016, which report appears in the 31 December 2016 annual report on Form 20-F of Smith & Nephew plc. 

Our report refers to a change in composition of reportable segments and to our auditof the adjustments that were applied to reflect such change in the 2014 Group financial statements, as more fully described in Note 2 to the Group financial statements. However, we were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the2014 Group financial statements other than with respect to such adjustments. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

KPMG LLP 

London, United Kingdom 

March 6, 2017
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS




This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the
requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title18 (Crimes
and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by
any person for any other purpose.




The undersigned, who are (i) the Chief Executive Officer
of UMTH Land Development, L.P., the general partner of United Development
Funding III, L.P. (the “Partnership”) and (ii) the Chief Financial Officer of
UMTH Land Development, L.P., the general partner of the Partnership, each hereby
certify as follows:




The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership
(the “Report”), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.









Dated this15thday of May, 2008.











/s/ Hollis M.
Greenlaw


Hollis M. Greenlaw


Chief Executive Officer of UMTH Land Development, L.P.,solegeneral partner of the


Registrant, and President and Chief Executive
Officer of UMT Services, Inc., sole general partner of UMTH Land Development,
L.P.








/s/ Cara D.
Obert


Cara D. Obert


Chief Financial Officer of UMTH Land Development, L.P.,solegeneral partner of the Registrant








A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TULSA COUNTY, State of Oklahoma.

No. 2049.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 6, 1940.

Whit Y. Mauzy, U. S. Atty., of Tulsa, Okl., for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Before LEWIS and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant.
#### H.R. JACKSON, Jr., et al. v. Edward James LOPEZ.

No. 88-C-0544.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 1988.

In re Jackson, H.R. Jr.; Craig, Jean; Michalk, Evelyn; Stidham, Robert Eugene; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA86-1293; Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 87989-B.

Prior report: La.App., 524 So.2d 769.

Denied.
#### The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MORGAN COUNTY, Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Rainsford J. WINSLOW, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 82CA0417.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Jan. 9, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1986.

Certiorari Denied (Winslow) March 31, 1986.

*1004E. Ord Wells Fort Morgan, for petitioner-appellee.

Rainsford J. Winslow, Fort Morgan, pro se.

BERMAN, Judge.

In accordance with the holding of the Supreme Court in *Board of County Commissioners v. Winslow,*706 P.2d 792 (Colo.1985), we address the issues raised by Win-slow on appeal, including the question whether the district court of Morgan County abused its discretion in entering judgment against Winslow prohibiting him from appearing pro se. We conclude that no abuse of discretion occurred. Therefore, we do not address Winslow’s remaining contentions.

In *Board of County Commissioners v. Winslow, supra,*the Supreme Court ruled that a district court, as a court of equity and general jurisdiction, has the power to enjoin a litigant from filing suits *pro se*within the district upon a finding of a serious abuse of judicial process.

Here, Morgan County filed a petition in the district court seeking to enjoin Winslow from prosecuting a pending action *pro se*and from further *pro se*appearances in the Thirteenth Judicial District. The court granted the petition, ordering Winslow enjoined and restrained from filing any further *pro se*actions or pleadings in its judicial district.

We agree with the findings made by the district court in granting the injunction. In support of its decision, the district court made the following findings:

> “Winslow has appeared pro se before this court on many occasions ... that his pleadings are usually extraordinarily voluminous and replete with irrelevant and immaterial matters; that the actions filed by Winslow, except for the latest, have all been determined adversely to him; that this latest action appears to be an attempt to raise an issue which is res ajudicata [sic] by reason of the Court’s judgment in one of Winslow’s prior suits; that Winslow’s actions and methods of procedure impose a heavy burden on the resources of this Court.... That the unwarranted burden placed on the operation of this Court due to Winslow’s actions and the resultant expense thereof are prejudicial to the interests of the taxpaying public; that where it is necessary to prohibit such an abuse of the judicial process within this Court, it is within the power and authority of this Court to prevent the further commission of the abuse and concomitant injury to public rights and interests....”

There is ample justification for the district court’s findings and conclusions, and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion.

Judgment affirmed.

KELLY and METZGER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, David H. Fater, certify that:

1.
        I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vicor Technologies, Inc.;


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.
        Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;


4.
        I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:


a)
        Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant , including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;


b)
        Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;


c)
        Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and


5.
        The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):


a)
        All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and


b)
        Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.




Date: May 15, 2008
        
        
        /s/ David H. FaterDavid H. FaterPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer




---
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 138 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.138
                                     Agreed to December 15, 2000        

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                          Concurrent Resolution

Whereas human progress in the 21st century will depend upon global 
  understanding and cooperation in finding positive solutions to hunger 
  and violence;
Whereas the turn of the millennium offers unparalleled opportunity for 
  humanity to examine its past, set goals for the future, and establish 
  new patterns of behavior;
Whereas the people of the United States and the world observed the day 
  designated by the United Nations General Assembly as ``One Day in 
  Peace, January 1, 2000'' (General Assembly Resolution 54/29);
Whereas the example set on that day ought to be recognized globally and 
  repeated each year;
Whereas the people of the United States seek to establish better 
  relations with one another and with the people of all countries; and
Whereas celebration by the breaking of bread together traditionally has 
  been the means by which individuals, societies, and nations join 
  together in peace: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
        (1) each year should begin with a day of peace and sharing 
    during which--
            (A) people around the world should gather with family, 
        friends, neighbors, their faith community, or people of another 
        culture to pledge nonviolence in the new year and to share in a 
        celebratory new year meal; and
            (B) Americans who are able should match or multiply the 
        cost of their new year meal with a timely gift to the hungry at 
        home or abroad in a tangible demonstration of a desire for 
        increased friendship and sharing among people around the world; 
        and
        (2) the President should issue a proclamation each year calling 
    on the people of the United States and interested organizations to 
    observe such a day with appropriate programs and activities.
  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.

  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-51025

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Fredrick Brown, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:19-CR-524-2

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Fredrick Brown pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and 

conspiracy to commit money laundering. He now appeals, challenging the 

district court’s $2,331,639 restitution order, arguing that it exceeds the 

statutorily authorized amount. Such a challenge is not barred by Brown’s 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 21, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-51025 Document: 00516402006 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2022
No. 21-51025

2

appeal waiver. See United States v. Kim, 988 F.3d 803, 811 (5th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 142 S. Ct. 225 (2021).

The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) limits the 

amount of restitution to the losses resulting directly and proximately from 

the offense of conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2). Brown argues that 

the Government did not satisfy its burden to prove the amount of loss 

proximately caused to the victims of the offense as required by the MVRA, 

resulting in an illegal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e); Kim, 988 F.3d at 

811. 

The “Restitution Reference Sheet” incorporated by reference into 

the revised presentence report (PSR) outlined the amount of pecuniary loss 

suffered by specific victims as a result of Brown’s offense, and the total 

amount of those losses corresponds precisely to the district court’s total

restitution award. That information is considered reliable, see United States 

v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012), and the Government cited it in 

support of the restitution amount at sentencing. Brown presented no 

argument or evidence to rebut the reliability or accuracy of the PSR facts 

relating to restitution, and the district court was free to adopt them. See

United States v. Dickerson, 909 F.3d 118, 129-30 (5th Cir. 2018); Harris, 702

F.3d at 230. In light of the foregoing, the restitution award did not illegally 

exceed the amount authorized under the MVRA, see § 3663A(a)(2); United 

States v. Sharma, 703 F.3d 318, 322-23 (5th Cir. 2012), and the judgment of 

the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-51025 Document: 00516402006 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2022
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of WNC California Housing
Tax Credits, L.P. (the "Partnership") for the year ended March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,  section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper,  Jr., President and Chief
Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify 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 Partnership.




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.

Date:   August 31, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2310 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2310

  To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on p-Toluene Sulfonyl 
                               Chloride.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Voinovich) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on p-Toluene Sulfonyl 
                               Chloride.

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

SECTION 1. P-TOLUENE SULFONYL CHLORIDE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.11 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to p-Toluene Sulfonyl Chloride) 
is amended by striking the date in the effective column period and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

November 1, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00853-CV

IN RE DIPAK T. PATEL AND PRAVIN T. PATEL, Relators 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

 344th District Court 

Chambers County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CV25784 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On March 2, 2018, relators Dipak T. Patel and Pravin T. Patel filed a petition 

for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 

2017); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this court to compel 

the Honorable Randy McDonald, presiding judge of the 344th District Court of 

Chambers County, to vacate his September 27, 2018 order denying relators’ motion 

to dismiss.
2 

With certain exceptions, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both 

that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate 

remedy at law, such as an appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 

135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Relators have not shown that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion. We therefore deny relators’ petition for writ of 

mandamus.

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Donovan, Wise, and Jewell.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4423

_____________________________

SILAS GILYARD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James C. Hankinson, Judge.

May 29, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Silas Gilyard, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas Sandgaard, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this 10-K/A Report of Znynex Medical Holdings, Inc.;

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. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.

Dated:  June 16, 2005

/s/  Thomas Sandgaard
--------------------------------------
Thomas Sandgaard
President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board
Principal Executive Officer