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

Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm

The Board of
Directors 
Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc.:

We consent to
the incorporation by reference in:

|      |            |                         |  |  | 
|----- | ---------- | ----------------------- |  |  | 
|Form  |            | Registration
 Statement |  |  | 
|      |            |                         |  |  | 
|S-8   | 333-157872 |                         | 
|S-3/A | 333-162611 |                         | 

of our reports
dated March 16, 2010, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial
condition of Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc. as of December 31, 2009
and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
stockholders equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the years
then ended, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2009, which reports appear in the December 31, 2009 annual
report on Form 10-K of Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc.

/s/KPMG LLP

New York, New
York 
March 16, 2010

---
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 213 (Thursday, November 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28159]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Senior Executive Service; Performance Review Board

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Designation of PRB Chair.

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

SUMMARY: This notice designates the Performance Review Board Chair for 
the Department of Energy.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The appointment is effective as of September 30, 2000.

Performance Review Board Chair

    David L. Hamer, Department of Energy.

    Issued in Washington, DC October 26, 2000.
David M. Klaus,
Director of Management and Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-28159 Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28667]



[[Page 67033]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended by P.L. 104-13; 
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.

ACTION: Submission for OMB Review; comment request.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed information collection described below will be 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 
as amended). The Tennessee Valley Authority is soliciting public 
comments on this proposed collection as provided by 5 CFR Section 
1320.8(d)(1). Requests for information, including copies of the 
information collection proposed and supporting documentation should be 
directed to the Agency Clearance Officer: Wilma H. McCauley, Tennessee 
Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street (EB 5B), Chattanooga, Tennessee 
37402-2801; (423) 751-2523.
    Comments should be sent to OMB Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for Tennessee Valley Authority no 
later than December 8, 2000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Type of Request: Regular submission, proposal to reinstate with 
change a previously approved collection for which approval has expired 
(OMB control number 3316-0062).
    Title of Information Collection: TVA Procurement Documents, 
including Invitation to Bid, Request for Proposal, Request for 
Quotation, and other related Procurement or Sales Documents.
    Frequency of Use: On Occasion.
    Type of Affected Public: Individuals or households, businesses or 
other for-profit, non-profit institutions, small businesses or 
organizations.
    Small Business or Organizations Affected: Yes.
    Federal Budget Functional Category Code: 999.
    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 24,500.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 50,000.
    Estimated Average Burden Hours Per Request: 0.49.
    Need For and Use of Information: TVA procures goods and services to 
fulfill its statutory obligations and sells surplus items to recover a 
portion of its investment costs. This activity must be conducted in 
compliance with a variety of applicable laws, regulations, and 
Executive Orders. Vendors and purchasers who voluntarily seek to 
contract with TVA are affected.

Jacklyn J. Stephenson,
Senior Manager, Enterprise Operations, Information Services.
[FR Doc. 00-28667 Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00037-Z-BR

§

ELAINE ORTEGA (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

ELAINE ORTEGA (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997), has 

appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining ELAINE ORTEGA (1) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I 

determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by an 

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of 

guilty be accepted, and that ELAINE ORTEGA (1) be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) -

POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE METHAMPHETAMINE and have sentence imposed accordingly. After 

being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: July 26, 2022

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00037-Z-BR Document 30 Filed 07/26/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 69
|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                       
|                                                                                    
|Ohio Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                    
|                                                                                    
|Ohio Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 31,300 | 31,300 | 31,300 | 31,300 | 31,300 | 25,800 | 25,800 | 25,800
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 25,800 | 25,800 | 25,800 | 25,800 | 25,800 | 25,800 | NA     | 27,300 | NA     | 25,300
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 25,300 | 26,300 | 26,300 | 28,000 | 28,000 | 28,000 | 28,000 | 28,450 | 28,450 | 28,450
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 28,950 | 28,950 | 28,950 | 28,950 | 28,950 | 28,950 | 28,950 | 28,950 | 28,950 | 29,950
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 29,950 | 29,950 | 29,950 | 29,950 | 29,950 |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 51

Expressing the sense of Congress that Federal mandates to States should

be rescinded unless they are accompanied by sufficient funds to pay

for them.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1993

Mr. DREIER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Government Operations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that Federal mandates

to States should be rescinded unless they are accompanied by sufficient funds to pay for them.

Whereas the burden of Federal mandates on State and local

governments has increased precipitously in recent years;

Whereas State and local spending on mandatory programs

has increased from 30 percent in 1962 to 50 percent in

1992;

Whereas cost estimates of this burden to the States range

from $15,000,000,000 to $500,000,000,000;

Whereas the mandates for Medicaid alone cost the States

$44,000,000,000 in 1992;

Whereas mandates are a tool to create Government programs

despite Federal spending limits and lead to more Govern-
2

•HCON 51 IH

ment than would arise if the Federal Government had to

pay for the programs it required;

Whereas actions of the Federal Government that directly or

indirectly prescribe the manner, standards, level, and

conditions of public service to be provided by State and

local governments are often taken with little regard for

the fiscal consequences of such actions upon the affected

State and local jurisdictions;

Whereas such mandates force State and local governments to

exhaust scarce public resources to comply with their requirements;

Whereas mandates detract from the ability of State and local

governments to use local public resources to meet local

needs;

Whereas forcing States to implement and fund Federal mandates compromises the goals of Federal regulations and

places States in the precarious position of either attempting to fund the Federal requirements with diminishing

amounts of available revenue or jeopardizing eligibility

for certain Federal funds;

Whereas Federal regulations are best carried out by Federal

agencies, not State and local governments; and

Whereas this excessive fiscal burden has weakened the Federal system of Government and damaged intergovernmental relations: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress should refrain from imposing

3 future mandates on States, and it should either rescind

4 previous mandates on States or provide the necessary

5 funds to carry out the requirements of the mandates.
3

•HCON 51 IH

Æ
Case 3:22-cr-00156-K Document 18 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 34
Case 3:22-cr-00156-K Document 18 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 35
Case 3:22-cr-00156-K Document 18 Filed 04/19/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 36
Case 3:22-cr-00156-K Document 18 Filed 04/19/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 37
Case 3:22-cr-00156-K Document 18 Filed 04/19/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 38
#### ADAMS v. STATE.

No. 22093.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 26, 1942.

*411Combs & Dixie and King C. Haynie, all of Houston, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for preventing a person from engaging in a lawful vocation, punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

The prosecution is under the Act of the 47th Leg., 1941, c. 100, H.B.No.800, which appears in Vol. 3, Vernon’s Texas P.C., as Art. 1621b.

Omitting formal parts, the indictment alleged that appellant “did by use of force and violence, attempt to prevent and did prevent Brantley Finch from engaging in a lawful vocation, to-wit, salesman on a bread route, at Channelview, Harris County, Texas, as an employee of Paul’s Bakery.”

The indictment was assailed by motion to quash for various claimed defects; We do not discover any vice in the State’s pleading.

The difficulty we encounter is a failure to discover the evidence to support some of the descriptive averments of Mr. Finch’s vocation. It is not alleged directly that he was the salesman of bread. Perhaps the reasonable conclusion from the averment would be that he was such a salesman. The facts show that he was no bread salesman at all, but was the seller of pies, jelly rolls, doughnuts and other sorts of pastries. That, however, is not the most serious question. Mr. Finch might be a salesman of pastries on a bread route, but we fail to find any evidence that the route of his travels was a “bread route”. Such was averred as descriptive of his vocation which was alleged to have been interfered with'by appellant.

It is also claimed that the State failed to prove that Mr. Finch was an employee of Paul’s Bakery as alleged, he having repeatedly testified that he was an independent operator, buying his merchandise and selling it; and that the merchandise was his whether or not he sold it. The evidence on the question here mentioned is confusing and somewhat contradictory.

However, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for the other reasons given.
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 Secured Digital  Applications,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly  period ending  September 30,
2005 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  I, Patrick  Soon-Hock Lim, Chief Executive  Officer  (principal
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, 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/ Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
-------------------------
Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
June 15, 2006
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 30, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00784-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF J.I.O.O. AND J.I.O.O., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 470th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 470-52919-2022 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Carlyle 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Before the Court is appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file his 

notice of appeal. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s February 29, 2024 final 

decree of divorce. Because appellant filed a timely motion for new trial, the notice 

of appeal was due on May 29, 2024 or, with an extension motion, June 13, 2024. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a) (providing ninety-day deadline for filing notice of 

appeal), 26.3 (providing for fifteen-day extension of time to file notice of appeal). 

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2024, eighteen days past the last possible 

due date. 
 –2– 

In his motion, appellant asks that we allow his late-filed appeal. However, 

this Court lacks the authority to do so. See id. 2 (appellate court cannot suspend 

rules to alter time for perfecting appeal); Mitschke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251, 

260 (Tex. 2022) (“[T]he absence of a timely notice of appeal prevents the appellate 

court from ever exercising jurisdiction in the first place.”). Accordingly, we deny 

appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a). 

240784F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF J.I.O.O. 

AND J.I.O.O., CHILDREN 

No. 05-24-00784-CV 

 On Appeal from the 470th Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 470-52919-

2022. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Molberg and Carlyle 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee Candace Marie Oyenuga recover her costs of 

this appeal from appellant Kazim Oladotun Oyenuga. 

Judgment entered July 30, 2024
# C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

A T L A N T A

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l s h e re b y p a sse s t h e f o l l o w i n g o rd e r:

A 1 7 A 1 2 9 5

. T E R R Y W

A Y N E V E SE L I C A v

. T E R E SA L

. V E SE L IC A

.

O n M a y 1 2

, 2 0 1 6

, t

h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a

n o r d e r f i n d i n g T e r r y W a

y n e V e se l i c a

i n c o n t e m p t o f a d i v o r c e a

n d se t t l e m e n t a g

r e e m e n t f o r f a i l i n g t o p a

y h i s c h i l d r e n ’ s

h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e a n d h i s p o r t i o n o f o n e o f t

h e c h i l d r e n ’ s st

u d e n t l o a n p a y m e n t s. T e r r y

f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r n e w t r i a l

, w h i c h t

h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d

. H

e t h e n f i l e d t h i s d i r e c t

a p p e a l

. W e l a c k j u r i sd i c t i o n

.

W h e r e

, a s h e r e

, t

h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n i n v o l v e s r i g h t s a n d o b l i g a t i o n s c r e a t e d b y

a se t t l e m e n t a g

r e e m e n t i n c o r p o r a

t e d i n t o a d i v o r c e d e c r e e

, a n d d o e s n o t i n v o l v e c h i l d

c u st o d y

, t h e c a se i s a d o m e st i c r e l a

t i o n s m a t t e r w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f O C G

A § 5

- 6

- 3 5

( a ) ( 2 )

. Se e W

a l k e r v

. E st a t e o f M a y s

, 2 7 9 G a

. 6 5 2

, 6 5 3 ( 1 ) ( 6 1 9 SE 2 d 6 7 9 ) ( 2 0 0 5 ) ;

C o l l i n s v

. D a v i

s

, 3 1 8 G a

. A

p p

. 2 6 5

, 2 6 6

- 2 6 7 ( 1 ) ( 7 3 3 SE 2 d 7 9 8 ) ( 2 0 1 2 )

. A

p p e a l s i n

su c h m a t t e r s m u st b e i n i t i a

t e d b y f i l i n g a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r d i sc r e t i o n a

r y a p p e a l

. Se e

O C G A § 5

- 6

- 3 5 ( a ) ( 2 )

. T e r r y ’ s f a i l u r e t o f

o l l o w t h e r e q u i r e d a

p p e l l a t e p r o c e d u r e

d e p r i v e s u s o f j u r i sd i c t i o n o v e r t h i s a p p e a l

, w h i c h i s h e r e b y D I SM I SSE D

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t l a n t a

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e

x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t

h e s e a l o f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. March 30, 2017

03/30/2017
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7238

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANA LILIA GAMBOA-FELIX,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-99-23; CA-02-725-2)

Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 5, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Francis Fleming, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, San

Diego, California, for Appellant. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ana Lilia Gamboa-Felix appeals from the denial of her 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate her sentence. An appeal may

not be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2255

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of

reason would find that her constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that

Gamboa-Felix has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED