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











**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      consent to the use in this Registration Statement of Tasker Capital Corp. on
      Form SB-2 (Registration Statement No. 333-128287) of our report, dated March
      9,
      2006, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Tasker Capital Corp. and
      Subsidiaries (a development stage company) as of December 31, 2005 and 2004,
      and
      the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and
      cash flows for each of the years then ended. We consent to the use in this
      Registration Statement of Tasker Capital Corp. on Form SB-2 (Registration
      Statement No. 333-128287) of our report, dated September 9, 2005, relating
      to the combined balance sheet of pHarlo Citrus Technologies, Inc., Indian River
      Labs, LLC, pHarlo Citrus Properties Partnership, LLLP, Coast to Coast
      Laboratories, LLC, pHarlo USA, Inc., and pHarlo of Brevard, Inc. as of December
      31, 2004, and the related combined statements of operations, capital deficiency,
      and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003. We also consent
      to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in such Registration
      Statement.




/s/    Rothstein,
      Kass & Company, P.C.




Roseland,
      New Jersey


March
      31,
      2006
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael A. HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-14854 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed (February 17, 2017)

Lisa Tobin Rubio, Robert J. Brady, Jr., Wifredo A. Ferrer, Daniel Matzkin, Emily M. Smachetti, Robin W. Waugh, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Elizabeth Rainbow Willard, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Harris appeals his two concurrent six-month sentences for violating the terms of his supervised release. On appeal, he argues that his sentences are substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to properly consider the relevant sentencing factors. Upon careful review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we affirm Harris’s sentences.

We review the reasonableness of a sentence that is imposed after revocation of supervised release under an abuse-of-discretion standard. *See United States v. Cunningham,*607 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors. *See United States v. Talley,*431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We will vacate a sentence only if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by imposing a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the *633case. *See United States v. Irey,*612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sentences at the low end of the guideline range. The district court properly considered the relevant factors. Specifically, the court considered the nature and circumstances of the offense, Harris’s history and characteristics, and the need for deterrence when it expressed its concern that more lenient approaches to past violations had not prompted Harris to obey the terms of his supervised release. Harris argues that the sentence was unreasonable because it was “based on one use of alcohol.” However, his argument ignores the fact that he had tested positive on numerous past occasions. The district court did not commit a clear error of judgment in weighing the sentencing factors. *Irey,*612 F.3d at 1190.

AFFIRMED.
HSBC BANK, USA, as Trustee, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Christopher J. CHESNEY, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1111

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 26, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed as from a nonappealable nonfinal order. See Hayward & ASSOCS., Inc. v. Hoffman, 793 So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ("[I]t is well-established that an order that merely grants a motion to dismiss, as contrasted with an order dismissing a complaint or an action, is not a final order.").

LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Order filed May 28, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00237

- CR

____________ DEVANE BERNARD SALTE RS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 405TH District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13CR0588



### ORDER
This court has determined, pursuant to T exas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State's Exhibit 12 , a video

.The clerk of the 405TH District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of

this court the original of State’s Exhibit 12, a video, on or before June 8, 2015

. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; t o deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State’s Exhibit 12 to the clerk of
the 405TH District Court.

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the quarterly report of INCA Designs, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2007 (the “Report”), I, Stacy
      Josloff, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
                Company.







/s/
      Stacy
      Josloff


Stacy
      Josloff


Chief
      Financial Officer


October
      23, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be
      retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

October 25, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00692

- CV

John SHULL

, Appellant

v.

WESTOVER CROSSING (SAN ANTONIO) HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. ;

Spectrum Association Management, LP; and Buck (Delvin) Benson, Appellee s

Fr om the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 15954 Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Pro se appellant John Shull filed his brief on October 17, 2016 . The printed brief consists
of eighty

- nine pages but it does not contain a certificate of compliance. Contra T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
9.4 (i)(3)

. The included portions of the brief contain more than 30,000 words, over twice the
allowed maximum

, c ontra id. R. 9.4(i) ( 2 ) (B) , and t he brief’s typefaces are smaller than required

,

c ontra id. R. 9.4(d),(e). The brief fails to conform with the Rules.

This court may strike a brief that fails to conform with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Id. R. 9.4(k). Therefore, we STRIKE Appellant’s brief and ORDER appellant John
Shull to file an amended brief within TEN DAYS of the date of this order. The amended brief must correct all of the violations listed above and fully comply with the applicable rules. See, e.g.

, id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1.
If the amended brief does not comply with this order, we “may strike the brief, prohibit [Appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if [Appellant] had failed to file a brief.” See id.

R. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing this court to dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to timely file a brief).

If Appellant timely files a brief that complies with this order, Appellee s ’ brief will be due thirty days after Appellant’s brief is filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(b)._______ __________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 25th day of October, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Ariba, Inc.:

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-81773 and 333-89119) of Ariba, Inc. of our report dated
October 18, 1999, except as to Note 8, which is as of December 16, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Ariba, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of September 30, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
operations and other comprehensive income (loss), stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 1999,
and the related financial statement schedule which report appears in the
September 30, 1999, annual report on Form 10-K of Ariba, Inc.

                                          /s/ KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California
December 23, 1999
The FLORIDA LOTTERY, Appellant, v. SENECA ONE, LLC, and Rhonda Mortimer-Buckner, Appellees.

No. 1D17-2836

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 4, 2018

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Rachel Nordby, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

W. Mason and Megan A. McNamara of Fox Rothschild, LLP, West Palm Beach, for Appellee Seneca One, LLC.

Per Curiam.

*534This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the non-final order under review did not explicitly determine, as a matter of law, that Appellant, The Florida Lottery, was not entitled to sovereign immunity, a point which Appellant concedes. *See**Fla. Highway Patrol, a Div. of the Fla. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Jackson* , 238 So.3d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (dismissing the appeal filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(xi) where the non-final order being challenged did not explicitly determine, as a matter of law, that the appellant was not entitled to sovereign immunity); *see also**Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin. v. McClain* , 1D16-474, --- So.3d ----, ----, 2018 WL 1833386, at *2 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 18, 2018) ("Because the court here did not explicitly indicate on the face of the order that it was denying sovereign immunity as a matter of law, the order is not appealable."). The trial court may enter an amended order explicitly stating on its face that Appellant is not entitled to sovereign immunity, if that was the substance of the trial court's determination. *See**id.* at ----, 2018 WL 1833386 at *3.

DISMISSED .

Lewis, Makar, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
First Department,

January, 2004

(January 6, 2004)

#### Michael Butler, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Defendant, and Sports Bar, Formerly Known as Stan’s Sports Bar, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[770 NYS2d 317]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered January 14, 2003, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action of the verified complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that on November 1, 2001, he became intoxicated as a patron of defendant Sports Bar, by drinking alcohol served by defendant’s employees, and that after leaving the bar he was struck by a subway train, resulting in injuries. He asserts claims against the tavern and its owners under the Dram Shop Act set forth in General Obligations Law § 11-101, as well as by operation of section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, and for negligence. However, plaintiff has no remedy under the facts as alleged.

New York courts have not imposed a common-law duty to protect a person whose injuries are results of his or her own voluntary intoxication, and have refused to recognize a common-*302law cause of action against providers of alcoholic beverages for injuries to such persons *(Sheehy v Big Flats Community Day,*73 NY2d 629, 636 [1989]; *Livelli v Teakettle Steak House,*212 AD2d 513 [1995]). The cause of action under the Dram Shop Act, a statutory vehicle for relief distinct from the common law, is limited to a third party injured or killed by an intoxicated person and does not authorize recovery for injuries sustained by the person whose own voluntary intoxication resulted from the sale *(Sheehy*at 635; *cf. Rutledge v Rockwells of Bedford,*200 AD2d 36, 41 [1994]). Moreover we have long recognized that section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law does not create an independent statutory cause of action *(Moyer v Lo Jim Café,*19 AD2d 523 [1963], *affd*14 NY2d 792 [1964]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.
1

Brown, Kelly

From: Sasser, Erika

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 4:45 PM

To: Brown, Kelly

Subject: FW: Ozone NAAQs NPRM -- Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO 12866 and 

13563

Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments Under EOs 12866_13563_OzoneNAAQs_NPRM_11_

12.docx

Please post email and attachment(s) to Ozone NAAQS Rulemaking docket. Thanks 

From: Frey, Nathan J. [mailto:Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:41 AM 

To: Sasser, Erika; Cooperstein, Sharon; Shepherd, Eloise; Elman, Barry; Rees, Sarah 

Subject: Ozone NAAQs NPRM -- Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO 12866 and 13563 

For discussion in this afternoon’s call, attached please find a summary of additional interagency comments under EOs 

12866 and 13563 on the Ozone NAAQs NPRM. Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. 

Nathan
Aleksey LISKER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. MARK V DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4162

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
J.L., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2039

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 18, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Julius J. Aulisio, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SALARIO, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6160 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6160

   To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize a lifespan 
                         respite care program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 1, 2023

 Mr. Molinaro (for himself and Mr. Cardenas) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize a lifespan 
                         respite care program.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF LIFESPAN RESPITE CARE PROGRAM.

    Section 2905 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ii-4) 
is amended by striking ``fiscal years 2020 through fiscal year 2024'' 
and inserting ``fiscal years 2024 through 2028''.
                                 <all>
```
Marta Maria BASCOY, et al., Appellant(s)/petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0923, 3D17-0911

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 14, 2017

ORDERED that appellants' notice of dismissal is recognized by the Court, and these consolidated administrative appeals from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation are hereby dismissed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6215 

To prohibit Federal funds from being made available for the Justice40 

Initiative or for the American Climate Corps. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2023 

Mr. GOOD of Virginia (for himself, Mr. OGLES, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. 

HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, Mr. WEBER of 

Texas, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. MOONEY, Mr. CLYDE, Mr. 

BIGGS, Mr. JACKSON of Texas, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. CLOUD, Mrs. LESKO, 

Mr. DONALDS, Mr. NEHLS, Mr. CRANE, Mr. GOODEN of Texas, and Mr. 

BURLISON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on 

Natural Resources, Education and the Workforce, and Oversight and Accountability, 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 Federal funds from being made available for 

the Justice40 Initiative or for the American Climate Corps. 

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 ‘‘No American Climate 

5 Corps Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6215 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMERICAN CLIMATE CORPS AND JUSTICE40 INITIA2 TIVE FUNDING PROHIBITION. 

3 No Federal funds may be used for— 

4 (1) the Justice40 Initiative (as described in Ex5 ecutive Order 14008 (86 Fed. Reg. 7619, relating to 

6 tackling the climate crisis)); or 

7 (2) the American Climate Corps (as described 

8 in the fact sheet published by the White House on 

9 September 20, 2023, relating to the American Cli10 mate Corps). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Connie Francis LITTLEPAGE III v. Virginia O. LITTLEPAGE

2160023

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Maurice N. CAVER v. STATE

CR-16-0608

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Willie Leon BANKS

CR-16-0595

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
S.H., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. In re: GUARDIANSHIP OF S.L., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1462

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 16, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed because of the appellant's failure to satisfy this court's April 13, 2018 fee order.

KELLY, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Amenhotep KALFANI, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0398

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 05, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 23



<PAGE>



April 18, 2005



Luna Technologies International, Inc.
61-A Fawcett Road
Coquitlam, British Columbia
Canada  V3K 6V2



Re: Luna Technologies International, Inc. - Form S-8

Dear Sir/Madame:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement on Form
S-8 Number 333-112647 of our report dated March 31, 2005 on the financial
statements of Luna Technologies International, Inc. as of December 31, 2004 and
the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the Registration Statement.

Sincerely,


"Dale Matheson Carr-Hilton LaBonte"


Dale Matheson Carr-Hilton LaBonte
(formerly LaBonte & Co.)
Chartered Accountants
Vancouver, British Columbia
Juan F. PEREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1273

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 8, 2018

Juan F. Perez, Graceville, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See**Martinez v. State* , 211 So.3d 989 (Fla. 2017).

COHEN, C.J., BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Suzanne A. DOCKERTY, Esq., et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. AIS VENTURES, LLC, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1653

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JANUARY 03, 2018

ORDERED that the corrected stipulation for dismissal of appeal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed.