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

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Boardof Directors and StockholdersEvolving Systems, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements on Form S-3 Nos. 333-112082 and 333-122476 and on FormS-8 (Nos. 333-103655, 333-89438, 333-61446, 333-82473, 333-60779, 333-116085and 333-58285) of Evolving Systems, Inc. of our report dated March 14, 2007,with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Evolving Systems, Inc. as ofDecember 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, changes in stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss),and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December31, 2006, which report appears in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form10-K of Evolving Systems, Inc.

Our report refers to the Company’s adoption ofStatement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), *Share-BasedPayment.*
|  |   | /s/ KPMG LLP |
|--|--------|--------------|

Denver,ColoradoMarch 14, 2007

 

----
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 194

In the Interest of C.K., Jr., a child

Kelley M. R. Cole, Walsh County State’s Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee

v. C.K. , Jr., child, D.A., mother, Respondents and C.D.K. , Sr., father, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20230293

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Walsh County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable Barbara L. Whelan , Judge.

AFFIRMED

. Per Curiam

. Kelley M. R. Cole, State’s Attorney, Grafton, ND , for petitoner and appellee. Ulysses S. Jones, Devils Lake, ND , for respondent and appellant.1 Interest of C.K. No. 20230293
Per Curiam

. [¶1] C.D.K., the father, appeals from the juvenile court’s corrected findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order terminating his parental rights to the minor child, C.K. The order also terminate s the parental rights of the child’s mother, D.A. C.D.K. argues t he court erred in finding the child is in need of protection , the conditions causing the need for protection are likely to continue , and the child is suffering or will probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral , or emotional harm

. C.D.K. does not challenge the court’s finding the child spent over 450 of the last 660 nights in the care, control, and custody o f the human service zone

. [¶2] T he juvenile court found the child spent over 450 of the last 660 nights in the care, control, and custody o f the human service zone and is in need of protection. The record supports the court’s findings, and they are not clearly

erroneous. We conclude C.D.K. has not shown the court abuse d its discretion terminating C. D.K. ’s parental rights. We need not address C.D.K.’s challenge to the court’s other findings. N.D.C.C. § 27

- 20.3

- 20(1)(c)(2); Interest of R.L.

- P. , 2014 ND 28, ¶ 23, 842 N.W.2d 889 (“Because a finding that the children have been in foster care more than 450 out of the previous 660 nights, along with a finding of deprivation [now, the children are ‘in need of protection’], is sufficient to terminate parental rights under N.D.C.C. § 27

- 20

- 44(1)(c) [now N.D.C.C. § 27

- 20.3

- 20(1)( c)], it is unnecessary to address the parents’ challenge to the finding that the conditions and causes of the deprivation will likely continue.”)

. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4)

. [¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**The Board of DirectorsBelk, Inc.:We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registrationstatement No. 333-103762 on Form S-8 of Belk, Inc. andsubsidiaries of our reports dated April 14, 2005, withrespect to the consolidated balance sheets of Belk, Inc. andsubsidiaries as of January 29, 2005 and January 31,2004, and the related consolidated statements of income,stockholders’ equity, cash flows, and comprehensive incomefor each of the years in the three-year period endedJanuary 29, 2005, and all related financial statementschedules, management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting as of January 29,2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of January 29, 2005, which reports areincluded in the January 29, 2005 annual report onForm 10-K of Belk, Inc. and subsidiaries./s/ KPMG LLPCharlotte, North CarolinaApril 14, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from The
Bombay Company, Inc. quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the nine months
ended October 28, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000096287
<NAME> THE BOMBAY COMPANY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-28-2000
<CASH>                                            6283
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     119242
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                139187
<PP&E>                                          114878
<DEPRECIATION>                                   66147
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  203922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            55498
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         38150
<OTHER-SE>                                      103277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    203922
<SALES>                                         264871
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                264871
<CGS>                                           191565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   272566
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (511)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7184)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2838)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4346)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4346)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3189 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3189

    To prohibit the conditioning of any permit, lease, or other use 
 agreement on the transfer, relinquishment, or other impairment of any 
water right to the United States by the Secretaries of the Interior and 
                              Agriculture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 2013

   Mr. Tipton (for himself, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. McClintock, Mr. 
    Amodei, and Mr. Polis) introduced the following bill; which was 
referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the 
Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the conditioning of any permit, lease, or other use 
 agreement on the transfer, relinquishment, or other impairment of any 
water right to the United States by the Secretaries of the Interior and 
                              Agriculture.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Water Rights Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF WATER RIGHTS.

    The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture--
            (1) shall not condition the issuance, renewal, amendment, 
        or extension of any permit, approval, license, lease, 
        allotment, easement, right-of-way, or other land use or 
        occupancy agreement on the transfer or relinquishment of any 
        water right directly to the United States, in whole or in part, 
        granted under State law, by Federal or State adjudication, 
        decree, or other judgment, or pursuant to any interstate water 
        compact and the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
        Agriculture; and
            (2) shall not require any water user to apply for a water 
        right in the name of the United States under State law as a 
        condition of the issuance, renewal, amendment, or extension of 
        any permit, approval, license, lease, allotment, easement, 
        right-of-way, or other land use or occupancy agreement.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

32.1    Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
        of Aim Smart Corporation pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley
        Act of 2002

                            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-KSB of Aim Smart Corporation
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Michael Anthony, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Aim Smart Corporation, 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: January 30, 2008

                                                  /s/ Michael Anthony
                                                  ----------------------
                                                  Michael Anthony
                                                  Chief Executive Officer

                                                  /s/ Michael Anthony
                                                  ----------------------
                                                  Michael Anthony
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
Schedule of Directors Fees


 EXHIBIT 10.9 
  
 SCHEDULE OF THE COLONIAL BANCGROUP, INC. 
 DIRECTOR AND COMMITTEE FEES 
  
 Quarterly
Fees Payable to BancGroup Directors: $5,000 per quarter. 
  
 Fees Payable to
BancGroup Directors for BancGroup Board Meetings: $2,000 per meeting attended. 
  
 Quarterly Fees Payable to the Chairman of the Audit Committee: $2,000 per quarter. 
  
 Fees Payable to the Chairman of the Audit Committee: $1,000 per meeting attended. 
  
 Fees Payable to BancGroup Directors for service as a Chairman of any BancGroup Committee other than the Audit Committee: $1,500 per meeting attended. 
  
 Fees Payable to BancGroup Directors for service as a member of any BancGroup Committee:
$1,000 per meeting attended. 
  
 Fees Payable to any Special Litigation Committee:
$1,000 per meeting attended, provided, however, that in the event a meeting extends beyond four (4) hours in length, then each member shall receive an additional $500 fee for any additional four (4) hour period or any portion thereof.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ABBEY ROAD PLAZA, LLC, ANTHONY L. GRAHAM and ROSS F. 

PERSON,

Appellants,

v.

MAIDA VALE, INC.,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D16-2882 and 4D17-826

[March 22, 2018]

Consolidated appeals and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the 

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Gregory M. Keyser and 

Janis Keyser, Judges; L.T. Case No. 50-2012-CA-007504-XXXX-MB.

S. Brian Bull, John M. Jorgensen and Derek M. Jorgensen of Scott, 

Harris, Bryan, Barra & Jorgensen, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for 

appellants.

Julie H. Littky-Rubin of Clark, Fountain, La Vista, Prather, Keen & 

Littky-Rubin, LLP, West Palm Beach; and Scott W. Zappolo of Zappolo & 

Farwell, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit
      3.1.1


**CERTIFICATE
      OF AMENDMENT**


**OF**


**AMENDED
      AND RESTATED**


**CERTIFICATE
      OF INCORPORATION**


**OF**


**FLAGSHIP
      GLOBAL HEALTH, INC.**





(Pursuant
      to Section 242 of the


General
      Corporation Law of the State of Delaware)







Flagship
      Global Health, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby certifies as
      follows:




1.  The
      name
      of the corporation (hereinafter called the “Corporation”) is Flagship Global
      Health, Inc. The date of the filing of the Certificate of Incorporation of
      the
      Corporation (the “Certificate of Incorporation”) with the Secretary of State of
      the State of Delaware was February 5, 1993.




2.  The
      Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, filed on June 27, 2006,
      is
      hereby amended by striking out Article FOURTH, Section A thereof and by
      substituting in lieu of Article FOURTH, Section A, the following Article FOURTH,
      Section A:




“FOURTH:
      The amount of total authorized capital stock of this Corporation shall be Two
      Hundred Million shares, divided as follows: (i) One Hundred Seventy Five Million
      shares of Common Stock, with $0.001 par value (the “Common Stock”), and (ii)
      Twenty Five Million shares of Preferred Stock, with $0.001 par value (the
“Preferred Stock”).




3.  The
      Amendment of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation herein
      certified has been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section
      242
      of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.




Signed
      this 21 st day of
      May, 2007.




/s/  Philip
      E. Barak


Philip
      E.
      Barak


Corporate
      Secretary,


Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer
]JQ X^ O SX^ ^ ^ -l^ ^ C 

Citp of iWuiStle ^Joaf e 

DAVID H. BRADFORD 

MAYOR 

RICKY WILLIAMS 

CITY CLERK-TREASURER 

November 4,2011 

COUNCIL MEMBERS: 

JAMES HOLLAND 

JERRY KNIGHT 

ALLEN NOLES 

J O E PAMPINTO 

NEAL WILLIS 

^o 

D 

cn 

—tco5^ 

-.OCD 

CO 

Mr. Dennis J. DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: EAS - Muscle Shoals, Alabama 

Air Choice One, SeaPort proposals 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

I am writing in response to the proposals submitted to your office for essential air service 

at Muscle Shoals, Alabama. Thank you for the information regarding the proposals of MultiAero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One and SeaPort Airlines, bic. 

The City of Muscle Shoals will not waive the requirement for twin-engine, 15+ passenger 

pressurized turbo prop aircraft for essential air service in Muscle Shoals. 

Sincerely, 

David H. Bradford 

Mayor 

POST OFFICE BOX 2624 • MUSCLE SHOALS, ALABAMA 35662 • (256) 383-5675 • FAX (256) 386-9201
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3169 

To clarify the application of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act to the Internal Revenue Service, to require the Service 

to convene a regulatory review panel for certain rules, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 

Mr. MICHAUD (for himself and Mr. DENHAM) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition 

to the Committee on Small Business, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To clarify the application of the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act to the Internal Revenue Service, to require the Service to convene a regulatory review 

panel for certain rules, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘IRS Rulemaking Fair5 ness Act of 2013’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3169 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF APPLICATION OF G TO INTER2 NAL REVENUE SERVICE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 603(a) of title 5, United 

4 States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting after ‘‘to the extent that such 

6 interpretative rules’’ the following: ‘‘, or the statutes 

7 under which such rules are made,’’; and 

8 (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 

9 following: ‘‘or recordkeeping requirement’’. 

10 (b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 601 of title 5, United 

11 States Code, is amended— 

12 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

13 end; and 

14 (2) in paragraphs (7) and (8) to read as fol15 lows: 

16 ‘‘(7) the term ‘collection of information’ has the 

17 meaning given such term in section 3502(3) of title 

18 44, United States Code; and 

19 ‘‘(8) the term ‘recordkeeping requirement’ has 

20 the meaning given such term in section 3502(13) of 

21 title 44, United States Code.’’. 

22 SEC. 3. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE REQUIRED TO CON23 VENE REGULATORY REVIEW PANEL. 

24 Section 609(d) of title 5, United States Code, is 

25 amended— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3169 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

2 end; 

3 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at 

4 the end; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(4) the Internal Revenue Service.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

DAMIR VUCIC,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 23

- 1662

D.C. No. 2:15

- cr

- 00332

- KJD

- NJK

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Kent J. Dawson

, District Judge , Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2024 **

Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ , Circuit Judges

.

Damir Vucic appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for

early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) . We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm

.

We need not resolve the parties’ dispute over whether this appeal is barred

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 5 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 1662

by the appeal waiver in Vucic’s plea agreement because, even assum ing that the

waiver does not apply

, Vucic has not shown he is entitled to relief

.

Contrary to Vucic ’s contention, the district court expressly considered his

arguments

, including his substantial compliance while on supervision and his

difficulty finding employment

. The court concluded that early termination was

non e theless unwarranted in light of Vucic ’s delinquent restitution payments

, the

probation officer’s assessment of his personal life as unstable

, and the nature and

circumstances of the underlying armed robbery offense. The court sufficiently

explained its reasons for denying Vucic’s motion and did not abuse its broad

discretion in denying relief

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) ; United States v. Emmett

,

749 F.3d 817, 819

- 21 (9th Cir. 2014)

.

AFFIRMED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 31, 2014

NO. 03-13-00678-CV

E. H., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, ROSE, AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on October 8, 2013. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order. Because appellant is 

indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Amendment to
National
Research Corporation 
Restricted Stock Incentive Plan
for Joseph W. Carmichael 
Effective
March 3, 2006  



The Plan is hereby amended by
deleting the prior Section 3.D in its entirety and replace it with the following new
Section 3.D: 



	 	D. 	For
each quarter during 2006 that the Company meets or exceeds the Quarterly Net
               Operating Income Goal for 2006 set forth on Exhibit A, the Officer will
receive                an award of shares of Restricted Stock with a value of $50,000. 






The Plan is hereby amended by
inserting the following new Section 3.E: 



	 	E. 	If
the Company does not meet or exceed one or more Quarterly Net Operating
               Income Goal for 2006, then the Officer will be eligible to receive an
award of                shares of Restricted Stock with a fair market value equal to an
amount                calculated as follows: 






	 	i. 	Target
payout equal to $200,000.  






	 	ii. 	Threshold:
85% performance = award value equal to 50% of target.  






	 	iii. 	Between
85.1% and 100% performance = each 1 percentage point increase in
                    performance results in a 3-1/3 percentage point increase in award. (ex.
88%                     of 2006 annual income goal = award of  shares equal to 60 %
of target) 






	 	iv. 	Target:
100% of performance = award value equal to 100% of target.  






	 	v. 	Between
100.1% and 130% performance and above = each 1 percentage point increase
                    in performance results in a one percentage point increase in award.
(to a                     maximum award of 130% of target) 






	 	vi. 	The
amount calculated in (i)-(v) above shall be reduced by the product of (i)
                    $50,000 multiplied by (ii) the number of quarters during 2006 in
which the                     Company did meet or exceed the relevant Quarterly Net
Operating Income Goal for                     2006 set forth in Exhibit A.
#### Sherman CORMAN, Appellant, v. Linnie WOODS et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 17, 1954.

John S. Deering, Nicholasville, for appellant.

Robert Gullett, Nicholasville, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves access to a well, located in the stone boundary, wall between the property of’ the litigants. The issue was properly submitted to a jury, and the evidence sustains the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.