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

Accountants' Consent

Board
of Directors
Gold Banc Corporation, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-80751, 333-78871 and 333-34152) on Form S-8 of Gold Banc
Corporation, Inc. of our report dated February 9, 2001 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Gold Banc Corporation, Inc. as of December 31, 2000 and 1999 and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the three years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual
report on Form 10-K of Gold Banc Corporation, Inc.

|/s/ KPMG |  |  |  | 
|-------- |  |  |  | 

March
28, 2001

Kansas
City, Missouri

---

QuickLinks
( 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 JULY 2012 

,:OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION 

-Oporo.;-MECHANICAL DESIGN ENGINEERING . 

. lIemorandum ME 63 

TO: . Distribution DATE: October 7, 1971 

nOM: L.B. Molaskeyll 

SUBJECT: Telecoh . (EIC) 

J:~alled 

'Provided the £0110 :. .., ,~ 

response to. his request o£ a day earlier and 

on as to the materials in the electronics box 

and take-up structure. 

Part No. 

621-2898-005 

. 621-2899-005 . 

"621-2901-002 

,'621-2900-002 

Part No. 

621-2816-001 

621-2795-005 

'645-6948-002· 

645-7141-005 

621-2741-001 

A-2 ELECTRONICS (621-0407.) 

~ 

and Plate (inboard) 

End Plate (outboard) 

Mounting Fl.-ame 

COVer 

--""TUA Materj,a18 Be and MG 

Material 

Mag. ZK60A temper '15 

Mag. ZK60A Temper T5 

Mag. QQ-M-44Comp. 

AZ 3lB Cond. 0 

Mag. QQ~M-44 _ Comp. AZ 31 B 

Cond. 0 

!!!! Material 

central Shaft (Blank). Extruded Beryllium per 

SM 0180 (98% Be min, 

BeO 21 max) 

Central Spacer Mag ZK 60 A lemperTS 

Arm (BIR) Mag casting QQ-M-S6 

Camp. AZ 9lC, Temper T6 

R.oller Housing .- Mag casting QQ-M-56 . 

Camp. AZ 9lC I Temper '16 

Sleeve (Bl&llk) Beryll1U1l block hot pre •• ed, 

'standard grade 8M 0080 

Type I Clas. 2 

:1nCllu1;lt"ed about 'the shipping container for the return of 

-,ll.VI}3. . 'SSC has provided the container and that I would send 

:bi1D a .' sketch of the container with ~thedraw1ngs promised ad ter • 

D LBK/cj 

cc: ME' Maguire 

H.W. Robertson 

a.w. 30nes 

C. ICaratzas 

P. Petty 

R. R.oylance 

J.
Argued and submitted June 20,

affirmed September 28, 1983

#### In the Matter of the Marriage of FERRAN, *Appellant, and*FERRAN, *Respondent.*

(D8002-61178; CA A26896)

669 P2d 385

Mark McCulloch, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Powers & McCulloch, Portland.

Sanford Kowitt, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Newman, Judges.

RICHARDSON, P.J.

*665RICHARDSON, P. J.

Father appeals an order in this dissolution case holding him in contempt and requiring him to pay accumulated child support. We affirm.

The decree of dissolution was entered February 1, 1981, and, *inter alia,*ordered father to pay a total of $550 per month child support. Father filed a notice of appeal, and the trial court, pursuant to ORS 107.105(4), ordered father to pay temporary child support of $400 per month pending disposition of his appeal. The temporary support commenced May 1, 1981. On December 1, 1981, we affirmed the award of child support contained in the decree. *Ferran and Ferran,*54 Or App 954, 636 P2d 1013 (1981). Father paid the temporary support of $400 per month as it became due each month.

Subsequent to our decision on the original appeal, mother obtained an order to show cause why father should not be held in contempt for failure to pay the difference between the child support ordered in the decree and the amount paid under the order of temporary support. There is no dispute as to the amounts involved.

Father argues that mother is entitled to no more than the $400 per month paid pursuant to the temporary support order. He asserts that our decision was effective when issued and that the only order pending the decision on appeal was the temporary support order. That order, he argues, constitutes an accruing judgment and is the only judgment he is required to pay, because it was an adjudication between the parties covering the period from the date of the order to the date of our decision.

We affirmed the portion of the decree that awarded mother $550 per month child support commencing February 1, 1981. In *Harrington and Harrington,*59 Or App 131, 650 P2d 186 (1982), we said that, when we modify a support provision on appeal of the original decree without specifying an effective date other than the date of the decree, the modification is effective as of the date of the original decree. The same rationale is applicable to our affirmance of a support award in a decree. In the original appeal we simply affirmed the child *666support award without specifying an effective date; consequently, the award is effective as of the date of the original decree. The amount of the original award accrues as a judgment from that date and is not displaced by the temporary support award imposed pending our decision on appeal.

Affirmed. Costs to respondent.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-41172

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS PONTI RHODES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-99-CR-23-ALL

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

August 22, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Assistant Federal Public Defender appointed to represent

Carlos Ponti Rhodes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed

a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Rhodes has received copies of counsel’s motion and brief but did

not file a response. Our independent review of counsel’s brief

and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Page 1 of 1 page 

Copy,5 of 4 copies 

SAFSL BYE 21248-67 

EX C LIIT;;;; lij T II, '.', F. ,.:T;;:a;(7, ; —1 

DOD DIE 5;?,00.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

LaysimillMorm.......malorrnme.,,O,,,,,,,.....-ZwOrerrn27. • 

311111111111111131011,111,11111111111111 

F L. LL? 

HANDLE VIA EMAN 

-3Y'TEM ONLY 

NY; fi is: 19r" 

MaJORANDUM FOR COLONEL HOWARD 

SUBJECT: COMEX Queries Concerning General Stewaxt's 

DORIAN Briefing 

•IIMAYIN■MOIN. Your memorandum of 18 August 1967 requested information 

on two aspects of General Stewart's briefing to COMDEX on 

3 August 1967. The first subject concerned cameras used with 

the DORIAN system, and the second request was for clarification 

of recurring cost figures given in the briefing. 

Information that should assist you in responding to the 

COMIRFA request is attached. 

..MMOINNOMM.10 

Pow 

r, 

C. L. BATTLE 

Colonel, USAF 

MOL Program Office 

2 Attachments 

1. DORIAN Camera System 

2. Estimated Recurring 

Costs for NEL Vehicle 

Major Cambell/SAFSLM/55674/22Aug67/ams 

Copies: SAFSLM 

SAFSL Green 

SCG Read 

DORIA.N 

S.'('31-rM ONL, 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                                  5
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000
                                                    
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                     Mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                                27,283
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        135,949
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                           15,486
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     191,539
<PP&E>                                             2,099,143
<DEPRECIATION>                                       844,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1,490,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                189,982
<BONDS>                                              564,936
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                               6,334
<OTHER-SE>                                           609,884
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1,490,268
<SALES>                                              159,573
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     159,573
<CGS>                                                 16,722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        112,967
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        (698)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    10,410
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       36,894
<INCOME-TAX>                                          19,640
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   17,254
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                          17,254
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.27
        
 

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1

DIRECT AND INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES OF AVAX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

|NOTE: |  | All of the entities listed below are wholly owned direct or indirect subsidiaries of AVAX Technologies, Inc., except as noted.
|----- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED
STATES INCORPORATION (DELAWARE)

AVAX
International IP Holdings, Inc.

AVAX
International Holdings, Inc.

AVAX
International Services, Inc.

AVAX
America, Inc.

DENMARK
OFFSHORE HOLDING COMPANY

AVAX
Technologies Holdings ApS

FRENCH
ENTITIES

GPH,
S.A.

Genopoietic,
S.A.

AUSTRALIAN
ENTITIES

AVAX
Australia Holdings Pty Limited

AVAX
Australia Pty Limited (1)

AVAX
Australia Manufacturing Pty Limited (1)

---

---
a. Add to paragraph 4, as follows:.

"e. Priority-Precial

4

DON A. OSTaiiNIFR

Brigadier General, USAF

issit . for Guided Missiles Systcms

Deputy Cemmanderb:capon Systems

JOHN A. CONNOR

Chief, Fiscal &Documentation Branch

ExeCutiie Office

Demity. Commander/Weapon Syatemz

Ala CO:V.AND

Post Office 

2a1timro 3, M....ryland

•

Amend. No. 1 to

SDD No. 117L

23 August' 1956

AMIN:aNt TO AFDC SYSTEM =ELM= DIRECTIVE •

ADVLECED RECONNAISSARCESISTEM

1. AMEND:'.L.NT

ARDC System Development Directive. NO. 117L, dated 17. August 1956,

is amended as Vinous:

The Advanced Reconnaissance System is currently assigned

a development priority at lk, and USAF Preccdence List

rating of I-6.* (UNCLASSIFIED)

BY ORDER OF THE COMANDERe

of
\\\:, \\\N,

\

N\\.\:C\\"\\N\ \\\ N',N..\\XX\XXXX\\XX‘xN, ,,Nxnxvs.xxxVn\\.\\\

\\\ .\\N\

\\\\\\)\ \N\

SAM.X.S.W.X\XVZSX.00nX\N %,,V,X,XXV,XX V.CNASW\NN.N00,7%.

4.\\.\\NX\XX\X\\XXVNNX\XSZ1/4‘.\ XXV \\XV1/4XVCV

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

SS§ N,

n•nn•n`,..\\NNZW\NNX\Nvoenx\xsx\X\.\ .Xszv -' • -

;"`xxv"k\

‘\\

\\\ -\\\
4. TolaiNiVT 1/47OrMATION

a. Target Date - As indicated in Top Docrot Supplement to WS 117L

Development Plan, dated 2 ;pril 196. lezo,Proft

b.• FUnding Information . This oyotom. is being funded undor line item

621-1171.. (UNCL)

c. .References -

USAF Ooneral Operational Requirement No. $0 (SA-20),

16 !!itrch 1955. •

AFDC System Requirement 5, 17 October 1955.

(3) USAF Developmont Directive No. 85, 3 AuTost 1956. •

d. Other -

(/) Secur!tv - l.tlIntr,nanc^ nocurity restrictions on

information relating to dovelopmooO pro; rear, vatcm atatus, and planned

operational, cepabilitlos is :.Itasttr Security Clo.Asification

Guide for WS 117L will to pr:oorod, :tn.:re roster maintained of individuals whose position, a3 organization, requires overall

knowledoo of the sensitive c: acts of the VS 1171. development procram.

An up-to-date copy of this rooter will Le submittal for retention at

this ileadq• artero, .4;,t:1:

(2) Initlr;I limitation: on FY 1957 fundo

able; to this Command. peroit ellccation of only ri3,000,000 to initiate

development of 1;111171..- •o oocn co p000ible, ARDC Form 111, "Research

and 1)evelopment oLoold he nubmitted to heatiqeartero

ARDC‘ Attn: 000lioinz ol;nificant chn.00ca ls.o. the %45 1171. Development Plan which will result from this inadequate initial handing.

-4%411214'

(oc.t)

BY OhLIF2 OF THE COI:rtrna:

WO 343 A .4P ibeiltVrei 441 Mires la •-ir, .

OFFICIAL

Fis^al • Do..umentatif'n

17.)trut'yo (Tf!c

De!,11V • Comdr/

Weapon. Systems

•

JOHN - A. CONNOR

.1..4% I N. • ♦

R. OSIP!..::1".1

Boi:;Idier Coney 

USAF

f or Uuided rissilos Syotoos

Cor.mardl!r/Vf:ar;on Syitt.:14

This docunent is closnified SECaT bec000 it

contains information on technological dovtlopments pinnned.for the defence of the nation, the

unauthorized disclosure of which would result in

serious damage to the nation.

Branch.

e
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 2275** 
JANE DOE, as Next Friend of Individuals Known to the Defendant as Child 1 and Child 2 in the YKND Series , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. NATHAN BROWN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Marvin J. Garb is, Senior District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 01094

- MJG )

Submitted : February 27, 2015 Decided: March 11, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Nathan Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Jonathan Kelly, SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM: Nathan Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion to dismiss the complaint, denying Brown’s motion to add Defendants, granting the Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Brown’s counterclaims, and denying reconsideration . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The orde r s Brown seeks to appeal are neither final order s nor appealable interlocutory or collateral order s . Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny Brown’s motion s for clarification of the record on appeal and to correct the re cord
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to, and solely for the purposes of,18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002), each of the undersigned hereby certifies in the capacity and on the dateindicated below that:

 

1.               The QuarterlyReport of Cache, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 27,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Cache, Inc.

 

 
| November 6,  2008 | BY:    |  /s/ Thomas E. Reinckens                                                                                        |
|------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |       Thomas E. Reinckens                                                                   |
|                   |   |       Chairman and Chief                                                                    |
|                   |   |       Executive Officer                                                                     |
|                   |   |       (Principal Executive                                                                  |
|                   |   |       Officer)                                                                              |
|                   |   |                                                                                                                 |
|                   |   |                                                                                                                 |
| November 6,  2008 | By:    |  /s/ Margaret Feeney                                                                                            |
|                   |   |       Margaret Feeney                                                                       |
|                   |   |       Executive Vice President and        Chief  Financial Officer |
|                   |   |       (Principal Financial and                                                              |
|                   |   |       Accounting Officer)                                                                   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 11.1

COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

|BEGINNING BALANCE  |                      | 14,919,394                      
|------------------ | -------------------- | --------------------------------
|                   |                      |                                 
|DATE               | NO. OF SHARES
ISSUED | CONTRIBUTION TO
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
|                   |                      |                                 
|June 10, 2003      | 20,000               |                                 
|June 16, 2003      | 20,000               |                                 
|June 20, 2003      | 16,000               |                                 
|July 8, 2003       | 20,000               |                                 
|September 8, 2003  | 150,000              |                                 
|September 29, 2003 | 8,000                |                                 
|October 2, 2003    | 112,000              |                                 
|November 5, 2003   | 2,354,621            |                                 
|December 1, 2003   | 105,000              |                                 
|December 10, 2003  | 15,000               |                                 
|December 26, 2003  | 115,000              |                                 
|December 31, 2003  | 28,000               |                                 

|Net Loss for the year   | $2,886,632
|----------------------- | ----------
|Weighted average shares | 15,408,397
|Net Loss per share      | $(0.19)
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7749

STEVEN MARTIN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. BRIAN FROSH, in his official capacity as Attorney General; STATE OF MARYLAND , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar , Chief District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv - 02341

- JKB )

Submitted : August 19, 2021 Decided: August 23, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD , and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Kevin Jesse McCants, MCCANTS FIRM, Clinton, Maryland, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM:
Steven Martin seeks to appe al the district court’s order d ismiss ing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction

. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Martin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal cont entions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

* Although the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is without prejudice , we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC , 959 F.3d 605, 610

- 12, 615 (4th Cir. 2020) , cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021)

.
1 The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3766

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Ricardo Escatel-Chavez, also known * District of South Dakota. as Miguel Rodriguez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 23, 2005 Filed: September 30, 2005

___________ Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ricardo Escatel-Chavez (Escatel) pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court 1 explicitly stated that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory only, found Escatel was subject to a 16-level enhancement based on a prior conviction, and determined a Guidelines imprisonment range of 57-71 months. The court sentenced-2- Escatel to 60 months in prison and 3 years supervised release, after considering the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and concluding that his criminal history and the facts in this case warranted such a sentence. On appeal, counsel initially moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); counsel now moves to withdraw that motion, and asks to continue this appeal as a non-Anders appeal or, alternatively, for remand in light of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw her initial motion to withdraw, but otherwise deny her motion because any possible Booker argument fails. The record reveals that the district court properly calculated a sentencing range under advisory Guidelines and considered the sentencing factors in section 3553(a), and we conclude the sentence is not unreasonable. See Booker , 125 S. Ct. at 756-57 (Guidelines are only advisory); United States v. Pirani , 406 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (holding Booker error is avoided when district court calculates proper Guidelines sentencing range, treats Guidelines as advisory, and imposes reasonable sentence), petition for cert. filed , (U.S. July 27, 2005) (No. 05-5547). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________
ACCEPTED

04-15-00041-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

7/22/2015 12:07:41 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 07/22/2015 12:07:41 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk