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







**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**








We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      S-8 No. 333-122044 of Salon Media Group, Inc. of our report dated June 25,
      2007,
      relating to the financial statements of Salon Media Group, Inc. which appears
      in
      this Annual Report on Form 10-K.








/s/
      Burr,
      Pilger & Mayer LLP


San
      Francisco, California


June
      25,
      2007
Rashard Lee STAFFORD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Laura Francia MINICH, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3063

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP, Insurer for Cannelton Industries, Inc., Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor; Sylvester J. Linton, Respondents.

No. 16-2436

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 31, 2017

Decided: September 25, 2017

Cheryl L. Intravaia, FEIRICH/MAGER/GREEN/RYAN, Carbondale, Illinois, for Petitioner. Nicholas C. Geale, Acting Solicitor, Maia S. Fisher, Associate Solicitor, Gary K. Stearman, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Barry H. Joyner, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Timothy C. MacDon-nell, WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Lexington, Virginia, for Respondents.

Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Zurich American Insurance Group seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944 (2012). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *Zurich Am. Ins. Grp. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs,*No. 16-0122-BLA (B.R.B. Oct. 26, 2016). We dispense with oral argument heeause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### Maloney *v.*State.

Opinion delivered April 14, 1930.

*Jeff Bratton,*for appellant.'

*Hal L. Norwood,*Attorney General, and *Robert F. Smith,*Assistant, for appellee.

Butler, J.

Appellant was tried and 'convicted on a charge of selling whiskey, and sentenced to serve one year in the penitentiary. He urges, for reversal of the judgment, error of the court in refusing to grant a continuance because of the absence of his attorney, and because the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict, and for admission of improper testimony.

The indictment was returned on the 4th day of December, 19;29, and on the 9th he appeared, by his attorney, and filed a motion for continuance, because of the sickness of his attorney, M. P. Huddleston. The motion itself discloses that the attorney was seriously sick at the time he was alleged to have been employed. It is also disclosed by the record before us that he was represented by an attorney at the time of filing his motion, and that the same attorney represented him in the trial of his case. There was no abuse of discretion in the trial court in the refusal to grant the -continuance.

*1036The appellant also argues that the court erred in permitting a witness to testify that, previous to the transactions which resulted in the indictment, he had made search of defendant’s premises on two occasions, one about four or five months, and one about two or three months before the alleged date of the sale for which defendant was indicted, and found whiskey and empty containers, which had an odor of whiskey.

In permitting the introduction of this testimony the court cautioned the jury not to consider it as evidence showing the sale with which defendant was charged, but only as tending to show the business in which defendant was engaged, and in its instructions the court renewed its caution to the jury. With the cautionary charge, there was no emor in the admission of this testimony. *Taylor*v. *State,*169 Ark. 589, 276 S. W. 577; *Newcomb*v. *State,*177 Ark. 509, 7 S. W. (2d) 802; *Johnson*v. *State,*177 Ark. 1051, 9 S. W. (2d) 233; *Evans*v. *State,*177 Ark. 1076, 9 S. W. (2d) 320.

We have examined the record, and find that there was substantial testimony to support the verdict. An eyewitness testified positively to seeing appellant make the sale of the liquor, and this testimony is corroborated by other testimony in the case. While there was testimony tending to impeach the eyewitness, and show that her reputation for truth and morality was bad, and' there was also testimony contradicting her statements, the jury were the sole judges of the credibility of the witness, and it was their province to pass upon the conflicts in and the weight of the testimony, and the fact that the testimony is conflicting, and that there was evidence tending to impeach the veracity of the State’s witness, furnishes no grounds for reversal. This rule of law has been many times declared by this court, .and the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kory Allen CROSSMAN, a.k.a. Lobes, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10215

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of *653the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Wendi L. Overmyer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Cristen C. Thayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Kory Allen Crossman appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Crossman contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the amended Guidelines range, failing to adequately explain its decision and respond to Cross-man’s mitigating arguments, and relying on a clearly erroneous fact. The record reflects that the district court properly followed the approach set forth in *Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). The parties agreed on the amended Guidelines range and the district court understood that Crossman was eligible for a reduction to a sentence within that range. However, the court declined to grant a reduction. It sufficiently explained its decision. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the court’s finding that Crossman might be released from prison in the future was not clearly erroneous because the record reflects that Crossman will be eligible for parole. *See United States v. Dann,*652 F.3d 1160, 1176 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth clear error standard).

Crossman further contends that the district court abused its discretion when it declined' to reduce his sentence. The district court properly based its decision on its conclusion that Crossman would pose a serious threat to the ppblic in light of his serious post-sentencing acts of misconduct. *See*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B)(ii); *United States v. Lightfoot,*626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Raymond RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3942

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.6a


AMENDMENT TO THE
ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATION
AMENDED AND RESTATED
2010 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN
This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Alliant Energy Corporation Amended and Restated 2010 Omnibus Incentive Plan (as amended, amended and restated or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Plan”) is made by Alliant Energy Corporation (the “Company”), effective as of February 21, 2019.  Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Plan.
WHEREAS, Section 13(b) of the Plan provides that the Committee may amend the Plan at any time, subject to certain exceptions; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company and the Participants to change the minimum vesting schedule for time-based awards set forth in Section 7(b) of the Plan to clarify the intent of the section; and
WHEREAS, the Committee now desires to amend the Plan as provided below.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Plan, the Committee amends the Plan as follows:
With respect to all Awards granted under the Plan, Section 7(b) of the Plan is hereby replaced in its entirety as follows:
(b)    Restrictions on Vesting Schedule.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, an Award of Restricted Stock or Restricted Stock Units that is subject to restrictions that lapse solely over a specified period of time shall vest pro rata no more frequently than annually over a period of three years of continuous service, except in the event of death, Disability, retirement or a Change in Control (subject to Section 6(c)).  Notwithstanding this provision, up to 5% of the Shares reserved for issuance under this Plan, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 12, may be issued without a minimum vesting schedule.


On and after the effectiveness of this Amendment, each reference in the Plan to “this Plan”, “hereunder”, “hereof” or words of like import referring to the Plan, shall mean and be a reference to the Plan, as amended by this Amendment.  Except as amended hereby, the Plan continues and shall remain in full force and effect in all respects.




1
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS EASTLAND , TEXAS JUDGMENT
Daniel Ray Garcia
, * From the 106th District Court of Gaines County, Trial Court No. 19

- 5086

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 08 1

- C R * June 17 , 2021

The State of Texas
, * Per Curiam Memorand um Opinion (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.
, T rotter , J., and Williams, J. )
This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal
should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. Therefore, in accordance with this
court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134096 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134096 COA: 274189 Livingston CC: 95-008878-FH THOMAS EDWARD BYRD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing ent itlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1022 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2007

Clerk
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1275 

To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, 

join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2021 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. PERRY, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. 

BISHOP of North Carolina, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. 

COLE, Mr. BANKS, Mr. LOUDERMILK, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. KELLER, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. GOSAR, 

Mr. TIMMONS, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. HILL, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mrs. 

CAMMACK, Mr. ISSA, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. MULLIN, Mr. BUCK, Mr. 

PALAZZO, Mr. C. SCOTT FRANKLIN of Florida, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. 

RUTHERFORD, Mr. MANN, Mr. CAWTHORN, Mr. FLEISCHMANN, Mr. 

HICE of Georgia, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. CARTER of 

Texas, Mr. PENCE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. PALMER, Mr. WALTZ, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. ROY, Mr. CLINE, Mr. KELLY of Mississippi, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. 

BUDD, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. WOMACK, Mr. HERN, Mrs. MILLERMEEKS, Mr. STEUBE, Mr. CARL, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. GUEST, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. RICE of South Carolina, Mr. 

SCHWEIKERT, Mrs. LESKO, Ms. MACE, and Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to 

refrain from such activities. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1275 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Right-to3 Work Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELA5 TIONS ACT. 

6 (a) Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

7 U.S.C. 157) is amended by striking ‘‘except to’’ and all 

8 that follows through ‘‘authorized in section 8(a)(3)’’. 

9 (b) Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations 

10 Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3)) is amended by striking ‘‘: Pro11 vided, That’’ and all that follows through ‘‘retaining mem12 bership’’. 

13 (c) Section 8(b) of the National Labor Relations Act 

14 (29 U.S.C. 158(b)) is amended— 

15 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘or to dis16 criminate’’ and all that follows through ‘‘retaining 

17 membership’’; and 

18 (2) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘covered by 

19 an agreement authorized under subsection (a)(3)’’. 

20 (d) Section 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act 

21 (29 U.S.C. 158(f)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) 

22 and redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 

23 (2) and (3), respectively. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1275 IH

1 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT. 

2 Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 152) 

3 is amended by striking paragraph Eleventh. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Christopher Elwin FULLER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Angela Nora CRAFT, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0759

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF GRANT THORNTON LLP,**

**INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports dated June 8, 2007, accompanying the consolidated financial statements (which report expressed anunqualified opinion and contains an explanatory paragraph relating to California Micro Devices Corporation’s adoption of the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment) and management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting (which report expressed an unqualified opinion on management’s assessment and on the effective operation of internal control over financial reporting) included in theAnnual Report of California Micro Devices Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of California Micro Devices Corporation onForms S-8 (File No. 333-120313 effective November 9, 2004, File No. 333-108443 effective September 2, 2003, File No. 333-102199, effective December 24, 2002, File No. 333-88250, effective May 15, 2002, FileNo. 333-69268, effective September 12, 2001, File No. 333-43138, effective August 4, 2000, File No. 333-90919, effective November 12, 1999, File No. 333-61833, effective August 19, 1998, FileNo. 333-44959, effective January 27, 1998, File No. 333-10257, effective August 15, 1996, File No. 033-61907, effective August 17, 1995, File No. 033-84758, effective October 6, 1994, File No. 033-39000,effective February 20, 1991, and File No. 033-22836, effective June 29, 1988, and Forms S-3 (File No. 333-113695, effective March 17, 2004, File No. 333-108417, effective September 23, 2003, FileNo. 333-102198, effective February 25, 2003, File No. 333-76206, effective May 15, 2002, File No. 333-44986, effective September 8, 2000, File No. 333-91073, effective November 16, 1999, and FileNo. 033-76986, effective March 28, 1994).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of

JONATHON CLYDE WOODS,

Petitioner.

No. 55858-1-II

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MAXA, J. – Jonathon Clyde Woods seeks relief from personal restraint imposed following 

his 1989 conviction for aggravated first degree murder, for which he was sentenced to life 

imprisonment without possibility of parole. He committed that crime when he was 18 years old. 

He now seeks resentencing under In re Personal Restraint of Monschke, 197 Wn.2d 305, 329, 

482 P.3d 276 (2021), for the trial court to take into account his youth at the time of the crime. 

The State concedes that Woods is entitled to be resentenced under Monschke.

We accept the State’s concession and remand Woods’s judgment and sentence to the trial 

court for resentencing. The certificate of finality will be issued as soon as possible.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 

2.06.040, it is so ordered.

MAXA, J.

We concur:

WORSWICK, P.J.

VELJACIC, J.

Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

November 2, 2021
Margie Elaine SILCOX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4592

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 9, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Rowe, Ray, and Makar, JJ., concur.
#### Omoyi MVUEMBA, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-55160

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

Omoyi Mvuemba, Pro Se

*537Heather M. Bean, Attorney, Grace H. Kang, Attorney, Dominic A. Quiller, Attorney, McCune & Harber, LLP, Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Omoyi Mvuemba appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action brought under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Mvuemba fails to address how the district court erred in granting summary judgment and, thus, this issue is waived. *See Wilcox v. Comm’r,*848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) (arguments not raised on appeal by pro se litigant deemed abandoned); *see also Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle,*7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief áre waived).

We reject as unsupported by the record Mveumba’s contentions that the district court denied him an opportunity to take additional depositions, submit further evidence, and prepare his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and that his former counsel did not state arguments or submit evidence.

We do not consider Mvuemba’s arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,374
<SECURITIES>                                    24,169
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   265
<PP&E>                                          17,977
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,850)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,515
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,380
<SALES>                                         26,060
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,060
<CGS>                                           14,216
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 460
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,492)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,492)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,816)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)


</TABLE>