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

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



|1. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-122801) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew 2004 Executive Share Option Scheme
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-122801) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew 2004 Performance Share Plan
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-122801) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew 2004 Co-investment Plan
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-13694) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew 2001 US Share Plan
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|5. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-12052) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew U.S. Employee Stock Purchase Plan
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|6. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-39814) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew Long Service Award Scheme
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|7. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-155173) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew 2001 US Share Plan
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|8. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-155172) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew 2004 Performance Share Plan
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|9. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-158239) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew plc Deferred Bonus Plan
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|10. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-168544) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew Global Share Plan 2010
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|11. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-199117) pertaining to the Smith & Nephew Global Share Plan 2010
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated February 25, 2015, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Smith & Nephew plc, and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of Smith & Nephew plc, included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2014.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Ernst & Young
LLP

London, England

March 5, 2015
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 BigString  Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I,
Todd M.  Ross,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  do hereby  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 ss.13(a) or 15(d)
          of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.  ss.78m or 78o(d),
          and,

(2)       the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



Dated:  May 12, 2006                        /s/ Todd M. Ross
                                          --------------------------------
                                          Todd M. Ross
                                          Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Theundersigned officer of WII Components, Inc. (the “Company”) herebycertifies that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2010 to which this certification is beingfurnished as an exhibit (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item601(b)(32)”) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the“Securities Act”), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification(A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theExchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and(B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filingunder the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that theCompany specifically incorporates it by reference.

 
| **Date: August 12, 2010** |                            |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                           | /s/ John Fitzpatrick            |
|                           | Name: John Fitzpatrick          |
|                           | Title: Chief Executive  Officer |

 

1

----
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 QC Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas E. Nickerson, 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; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: November 14, 2005



/s/ Douglas E. NickersonDouglas E. NickersonChief Financial Officer




Page 37
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         941,045
<SECURITIES>                                   711,740
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,652,785
<PP&E>                                       6,619,560
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,272,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,947
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,201,398
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,272,345
<SALES>                                        497,089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               579,858
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               168,114
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                411,744
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            411,744
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   411,744
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    34.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    34.17
        

</TABLE>
JOSEPH M. SHELTON

,

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 16

- 2948

______ _______________________/

Opinion filed February 1, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Russell L. Healey , Judge

.

Joseph M. Shelton , pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chi ef,

Criminal Appeals , Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Forsythe, Appellant, *v.*Banmiller.

*70Submitted December 11,1961.

Before Rhodes, P. J., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

*John T.*Forsythe, appellant, in propria persona.

*Arlen*Specter, Assistant District Attorney, *Paul M. Ghalfin,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *James G.*Grumlish, Jr., District Attorney, for appellee.

January 16, 1962:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The order of the Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia County is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge Peter F. Hagan for the court below, reported at 25 Pa. D. & C. 2d 744.
#### Earl G. PERRY, Jr. v. Earl G. PERRY, Sr.

No. 87-C-1718.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Perry, Earl G. Jr.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-7015; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “E”, No. 85-15870.

Prior report: La.App., 507 So.2d 881.

Application denied.

DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
SERVE D MA Y24 , 201 1 ..•:TO-EnAl!Gri[ :

U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C
I N TH EMATTE RO F AMERICA N DISCOUN T BEAUT Y SUPPL Y FA A DOCKE T No . [T o b e assigned ] (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S NO
. FAA-2011-006 2 

### ORDE RO FDISMISSA L O n Februar y 2 , 2011 , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (hereinafte r referre dt o a s "Complainant" ) file daComplaint
. Responden t American Discoun t

Beaut y Suppl y (hereinafte r

referre dt o a s "Respondent" ) ha do n Januar y 25 , 201 1 file daReques t for Hearing
. O n Ma y 18 , 2011 , Complainan t withdre w it s Complaint , citin g settlement
. 1 4 C.F.R
. § 13.21 5 states : *'A t an y lim e befor e o r

durin g ahearing , a

n agenc y attorne y may withdra w acomplain t o r part y ma y withdra w areques t for ahearin g withou t th e consen t

o f th e administrativ e la w judge
. I f a n agenc y attorne y withdraw s th e complain t o r apart y withdraw s th e reques t for ahearin g an dth e answer , th e administrativ e la w judg e shal l dismis s th e proceeding s imde r thi s subpart withprejudice. " WHEREFORE , th e withi n file dWithdrawa l o f Complain t

havin g bee n rea dan d considered , it

i s ORDERE D a s follows : 1
. Complainant' s Withdrawa l o f Complain t

i s hereb y granted ; an d 2
. Thi s proceedin g b e an di s hereb y dismisse dwid i prejudice
.s o ORDERED
. 

# r 0 Richar dC
. Goodwi n Administrativ e Law Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFDM S No . FAA-20n-006 2 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Jean Simo n Riendea u American Discoun t

Beaut y Supply , Responden t 921 5 W.Pic o Blvd
. Lo s Angeles , C A 9003 5 TEL : 310-274-372 4 FAX : 310-815-825 3 Geral dA . Ellis , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Southern Region , ASO- 7 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n P.O
. Bo x 2063 6 Atlanta , G A 3032 0 TEL : 404-305-520 0 FAX : 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e OfPc e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t 202-366-753 6 Fax

' Servic e wa s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , use th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration, 80

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2WI000 , Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430
.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 7238

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BRANDON MICHAEL JONES , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00105

- D

- 2 )

Submitted : April 11, 2024 Decided: April 16, 2024

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Brandon Michael Jones, Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7238 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Brandon Michael Jones appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jones’ motion

. See United States v. Malone , 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Jones , No. 5:08

- cr 00105

- D

- 2 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 7, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-7238 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2011 

d0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2011 

142957 

ALCONA COUNTY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 142957 

 COA: 292155 

Alcona CC: 07-001052-NM 

MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE 

LIABILITY & PROPERTY POOL, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 10, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60652

Summary Calendar

JARNAIL SINGH

Petitioner

v.

ALBERTO R GONZALES, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A75 261 658

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jarnail Singh, a native and citizen of India, has filed a petition for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) order denying his application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against

Torture (CAT). Singh argues that he was persecuted by law enforcement

authorities in Punjab between 1993 and 1995 because he was a Sikh and

member of the All-India Sikh Student Federation. Singh contends that the
No. 06-60652

2

BIA’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and that the BIA failed

to consider whether humanitarian asylum relief should be granted. 

“When, as here, the BIA affirms the immigration judge and relies on the

reasons set forth in the immigration judge’s decision, this court reviews the

decision of the immigration judge as well as the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed v.

Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006). The BIA’s factual findings are

reviewed for substantial evidence. Ozdemir v. INS, 46 F.3d 6, 7 (5th Cir. 1994).

Under the substantial evidence standard, this court will affirm the BIA’s

decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. at 8. 

The record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the immigration

judge’s finding that Singh did not demonstrate past persecution on account of

any of the five enumerated grounds for asylum relief set forth under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42)(A). See Mikhael, 115 F.3d 299, 304 & n.4 (5th Cir. 1997);

Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 1996); Ozdemir, 46 F.3d at 8.

Because the BIA adopted and affirmed this finding, Singh’s argument that the

BIA failed to consider humanitarian asylum relief is unavailing. See Shehu v.

Gonzales, 443 F.3d 435, 440-41 (5th Cir. 2006). The record also does not compel

a conclusion contrary to the determination that Singh lacked a well-founded fear

of persecution on account of an enumerated ground for asylum relief. See Shehu,

443 F.3d at 437-40; Ozdemir, 46 F.3d at 8.

Singh cannot meet the more demanding standard for withholding of

removal given that he cannot satisfy the standard for asylum. See Ozdemir, 46

F.3d at 8. Singh has also failed to satisfy the requirements for relief under the

CAT because he has failed to show that he would more likely than not be

tortured if he is returned to India. See Bah v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 348, 352 (5th

Cir. 2003). 

The petition for review is DENIED.
Battery Charger and External Power Supply Product Classes in the Preliminary Analysis 

Table 1. External Power Supply Product Classes 

Consumer Utility Product 

Class ID Example Application(s)

Class A

AC-DC

Basic Voltage A1 Cordless Phones, LAN Equip., Notebooks

Low Voltage* A2 Mobile Phones, MP3 Players

AC-AC

Basic Voltage A3 Home Security Systems

Low Voltage* A4 Aquarium Accessories, Indoor Fountains

Non-Class A

Multiple-Voltage

100 W X1 Inkjet Imaging Equipment

≥100 W X2 Video Game Consoles

High Power >250 W H1 Amateur Radios

For Medical 

Devices

AC-DC

Basic Voltage M1 Sleep Apnea Machines, Medical Nebulizers

Low Voltage* M2 Blood Pressure Monitors

AC-AC

Basic Voltage M3 [no products identified]

Low Voltage* M4 [no products identified]

For MotorOperated BC 

Applications and 

Detachable

Batteries

AC-DC

Basic Voltage B1 Ride-On and Radio-Controlled Toy Vehicles, 

Small Power Tools

Low Voltage* B2 Shavers, Beard Trimmers, Hair Clippers

AC-AC

Basic Voltage B3 [no products identified]

Low Voltage* B4 [no products identified]

* Nameplate output voltage less than 6 volts and nameplate output current greater than 550 milliamps. 

Table 2. Battery Charger Product Classes 

Consumer Utility Product Class

Battery Example Application(s)

Energy

Battery 

Voltage ID Description

AC-DC

<100 Wh

Inductive 

Connection 1 Low Energy, Inductive Toothbrushes

<4 V 2 Low Energy, Low Voltage Mobile and Cordless Phones

4–10 V 3 Low Energy, Med. Voltage Portable DVD Players, Small 

Power Tools, Camcorders

>10 V 4 Low Energy, High Voltage Notebooks, Large Power Tools

100–3000 

Wh

<20 V 5 Med. Energy, Low Voltage Marine Chargers

≥20 V 6 Med. Energy, High Voltage Scooters, Lawnmowers

>3000 Wh 7 High Energy Golf Cars

DC-DC

<9 V DC Input to BC 8

Low Voltage DC Input

(e.g., from a USB port) MP3 Players, Mobile Phones

≥9 V DC Input to BC 9

High Voltage DC Input

(e.g., from an automobile) In-Vehicle (Removable) GPS

AC-AC AC Output from Battery 10 AC Output Uninterruptible Power Supplies

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 COMMENT 34
#### Town & Country House & Home Service, Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*Percy C. Newbery et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

January 26, 1959.

*Thomas D. Conway*for plaintiff.

*Durkes Clark*for defendants.

Cortland A. Johnson, J.

Following a long and strenuous litigation (see 1 Mise 2d 294, revd. 1 A D 2d 702, affd. 3 N Y 2d 554) this action appeared on the Trial Calendar of Special Term, Part II of this court on December 4, 1958. The plaintiff not appearing, the action was dismissed, for reasons set forth by the court in a written memorandum dated on that day. (16 Mise 2d 779.) Plaintiff now moves to open its default.

The case was returned to this court for the limited purposes defined by the Court of Appeals in its opinion *{supra)*namely, to render a judgment granting appropriate injunctive relief as directed in the opinion and to assess damages as therein defined. No testimony is required to support the judgment directed, and such a judgment may be settled on notice. The court is not inclined to open the plaintiff’s default to take proof of damages. Of course, this is not to be attributed to any supposed discourtesy on the part of plaintiff’s attorney; he has been guilty of none, and nothing in the decision of December 4, 1958 was intended to indicate any.

*827The plaintiff, however, obviously intends to pursue the defendants with all the claims that can be devised. From the filed papers in the action it appears that on September 25, 1958, plaintiff procured leave to serve an amended complaint, to which defendants have served an amended answer containing denials and separate defenses; plaintiff also served an amended bill of particulars. Defendants protest that plaintiff is proceeding upon an entirely new theory of liability; it is certainly true that the amended complaint increased the damage claimed from $25,000 to $250,000.

I doubt that this claim is within the purview of the opinion of the Court of Appeals. I conclude that the plaintiff is (perhaps understandably) more anxious to engage the defendants in continuous litigation than they are to terminate the action. The default seems to me calculated and the motion to open it is denied except that a judgment enjoining the defendants in accordance with the opinion of the Court of Appeals and dismissing the complaint in all other respects may be settled on notice.