alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-72192, 333-58510, 333-55828, 333-54886,
333-48582, 333-46252, 333-84545, 333-89170 and 333-89172) and on Form S-3 (Nos.
333-107963, 333-72746, 333-61410 and 333-80419) of Homestore, Inc. of our
report dated March 25, 2003, except as to Notes 13 and 21, as to which the date
is August 12, 2003, relating to the financial statements which appear in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report dated March 25, 2003 relating to the financial statement schedule,
which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 12, 2004
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darius BRIGHTWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-13045 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(February 27, 2017)

Lindsay Feinberg, Michelle Lee Schie-ber, Danial Edward Bennett, Tamara A. Jarrett, Michael J. Moore, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Macon, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Darius Santas Brightwell, Marianna, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARTIN, ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel S. Woodrum, appointed counsel for Darius Brightwell, in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant, because, in his opinion, the appeal is without merit. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Brightwell’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
# FILED
February 17, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE SUPREME COUR T OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ( ( Plaintiff-Appellee, ( Filed: February 17, 1998 ( ( v. ( ( S. Ct. No. ( 03S01-9612-CR-00120 DAVEY JOE VINEYARD AND ( JIMMY LEE COCKBURN, ( ( Defendants-Appellants. (



### Order on Petition To Rehear Upon consideration of the petition to rehear filed by the appellants Davey

Joe Vi neyard and Jimmy Lee Cockburn, thi s Court is of the opinion that the petitio n should be and the same is hereby denied.

PER CURIAM
Neelam UPPAL, Appellant, v. The HEALTH LAW FIRM, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-0671

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 12, 2018 Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 31, 2018

Neelam Uppal, Largo, pro se.

George F. Indest III, of the Health Law Firm, Altamonte Springs, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*1289AFFIRMED. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

WALLIS, LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, J.J., concur.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Capital Corp of the West(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Thomas T. Hawker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                    | /s/ Thomas T. Hawker                  |   |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  May 9, 2004 | Thomas T. Hawker                      |
|                    | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Jose N. VAZQUEZ FIGUEROA, Appellant, v. Hon. Daniel D. RAULERSON, in his Capacity as a Candidate; Craig Latimer, in his Official Capacity as Supervisor of Elections of Hillsborough County, Florida; Kristy Reid Bronson, in her Official Capacity as Chief of Bureau of Election Records, Division of Elections, State of Florida; and Ken Detzner, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of Florida Department of State, Appellees.

No. 1D17-0405

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 9, 2018

Jose N. Vazquez Figueroa, pro se, Appellant.

Emmett Mitchell, IV, Roger N. Beaubien, and Richard E. Coates, Coates Law Firm, PL, Tallahassee, for Appellee Daniel D. Raulerson; David A. Fugett, General Counsel, and Jesse Dyer, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee, for Appellees Ken Detzner and Kristy Reid Willis f/k/a Kristy Reid Bronson; Mary Helen Farris, General Counsel, and Robert E. Brazel, Chief Assistant County Attorney, Office of the County Attorney, Tampa, for Appellee Craig Latimer.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED . *See**McPherson v. Flynn* , 397 So.2d 665, 667-68 (Fla. 1981) (holding courts have no jurisdiction after an election to determine an individual's right to hold office); *Norman v.Ambler* , 46 So.3d 178, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that circuit court was without power to entertain defeated candidate's challenge to primary opponent's qualification for state senate based on alleged inaccuracies in financial disclosure forms because primary had already occurred).

Lewis, Kelsey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime Homero GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-41150 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 21, 2017

Amy Howell Alaniz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jaime Homero Guerrero, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jaime Guerrero, federal prisoner # 46020-379, filed in the district court a *pro se*motion, purportedly under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting that Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines demonstrated that the district court erred by not applying a four-level reduction for his minor role in the offense. Guerrero, again *pro se,*appeals the district court’s construction of that motion as a motion for sentence reduction via 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

In his direct appeal, Guerrero did not challenge the denial of a minor-role reduction. *See United States v. Guerrero,*600 Fed.Appx. 936 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Claims of misapplication of the guidelines are not cognizable under § 2255. *United States v. Williamson,*183 F.3d 458, 462 (5th Cir. 1999); *United States v. Vaughn,*955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992). In certain circumstances, the district court may reduce a sentence based on an amendment. *See*§ 3582(c)(2). In light of the relief Guerrero sought and the unavailability of relief under § 2255, the court did not err in construing the motion as a § 3582(c)(2) motion. *See Castro v. United States,*540 U.S. 375, 381-82, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003).

*180We review *de novo*whether the district court had authority to reduce the sentence under § 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Jones,*596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010). Section 3582(c)(2) applies only to retroactive guideline amendments that are listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), p.s. *Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). As Guerrero concedes, Amendment 794 is not listed there, so the court did not err in denying a reduction. *See Jones,*596 F.3d at 276.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23

                                March 12, 2001


Douglas H. Kelsall
Executive Vice President & CFO
10200 A East Girard Avenue
Denver, Colorado  80231


     Re:  Amendment to Employment Agreement
          ---------------------------------

Dear Doug:

I am writing to confirm that effective October 1, 2000 your salary is $185,000,
and your target bonus, subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors, is
$92,500.  Effective November 30, 2000, your title is Executive Vice President &
CFO.

This letter is intended to amend your Employment Agreement to reflect your new
salary and/or title.  The purpose of this letter is to express these changes
only; no terms and conditions of your Employment Agreement, other than the terms
that are expressly amended in this letter, are changed by this letter.

If you have any questions regarding this matter,  please do not hesitate to
contact me.  Please acknowledge your understanding and acceptance of this
amendment to your Employment Agreement by signing below and returning this
document to the General Counsel on or before March 16, 2001.

Sincerely,

/S/ Oakleigh Thorne
-------------------
Oakleigh Thorne
CEO


Acknowledged and Accepted By:


/s/ Douglas H. Kelsall
----------------------
Douglas H. Kelsall
Executive Vice President & CFO
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please see attached renewal application.
### D o c k e t I D F A

A
­ 2 0 1 5
­ 1 8 4 1 D o u g B e l l [ d b e l l 3 6 @ g m a i l

. c o m ] S e n t : T u e s d a y , S e p t e m b e r 0 1 , 2 0 1 5 1 1 : 2 0 A M T o : 9

­ A W

A

­ A V S

­ 3 3 3 E x e m p t i o n s ( F A A )

A s r e q u e s t e d , I h a v e g i v e n m y c u s t o m b u i l t X 8 a i r c r a f t a n a m e .

D B C a r b o n X 8

K i n d R e g a r d s ,
D o u g B e l l
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Zamba Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Norman D. Smith, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1)              TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)              Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certification as of the 13th day ofAugust 2003.
|   |   |   |   | /s/ Norman D. Smith                                    |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Norman D. Smith  President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-018-CR

AARON LEE OWENS	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

	Appellant Aaron Lee Owens is attempting to appeal from his conviction for bodily injury to an elderly person.  Appellant’s appeal is untimely, however; his notice of appeal was due on December 2, 2002, but was not filed until December 9, 2002.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2.

	On March 19, 2003, we notified appellant of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal and informed him that his appeal was subject to dismissal unless, by March 31, he filed a response explaining why his notice of appeal was timely.  No response has been filed.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f), 44.3.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	CAYCE, C.J.; DAY and LIVINGSTON, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 15, 2003
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
I, Michael P. Huseby, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CharterCommunications Holdings, LLC and Charter CommunicationsHoldings Capital Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrants as of, and for,the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrants and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrants,including their consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) [Reserved];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrants’ disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrants’ internal control over financialreporting that occurred during theregistrants’ most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrants’ fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrants’ internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrants’auditors and the audit committee of the registrants’ board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrants’ ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrants’internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 25, 2004   /s/ Michael P. HusebyMichael P. Huseby  Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer)
14284

#### BOYKIN, CONSERVATOR OF THE BANK OF CAMDEN v. SHANNON

(185 S. E., 926)

September, 1935.

*Messrs. Nelson, Mullins & Grier*and *Murdoch M. Johnson,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Wittkowsky & Wittkowsky,*for respondent.

April 27, 1936.

*Per curiam.*

The cardinal facts of this case and the procedure adopted are identical with the case of *Boykin, Conservator, v. Zemp,*reported in 179 S. C., 257, 184 S. E., 573.

It is admitted by respondent that the *Zemp case*just above referred to is controlling.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the complaint dismissed.
Exhibit











June 6, 2018




Dear Laura Nyquist, 


With the business decisions Teradata announced today, we want to inform you that your role will be relocating to San Diego in the future. Teradata is extending you the offer to move to San Diego to continue your employment with the company.  We believe this is an exciting opportunity but also recognize this is a life-changing decision.  We invite you to take some time and evaluate if a move is something you would consider and accept. 
Should you decide to relocate with your role, Teradata will provide relocation support in the amount of $50000 (renter) / $100000 (homeowner).  By June 8, you will receive more detailed information via DocuSign regarding the relocation process and next steps.    
We ask you to indicate on or before June 20, 2018, via DocuSign, your interest to further explore moving with your position.  If you choose to further explore this relocation opportunity, we will then evaluate your role relative to the San Diego market and initiate an offer letter confirming offer details.  
If, after consideration, you choose to decline this relocation opportunity, you will be eligible for a transition package once you work through a transition period in which you continue to perform your normal duties for the company.  This transition package is described below.  
Transition Support includes the following*: 


		
	▪
	You will receive 48 weeks of separation pay in a lump sum, subject to applicable tax withholdings


		
	▪
	You will be eligible for your 2018 annual bonus (prorated based upon your departure date and subject to plan guidelines)


		
	▪
	Unvested equity, including outstanding time-based restricted share units and any stock options you have received, will be fully vested as of your departure date


		
	▪
	Benefits – You will receive twenty-six (26) weeks of subsidized COBRA 


		
	▪
	Outplacement -You will receive two (2) months of outplacement services with RiseSmart




*Please note:  Receipt of Transition Support is contingent upon receipt of an executed general release agreement and the expiration of any revocation period.
We recognize this is a lot to consider and you will likely have questions over the coming weeks. Please do not hesitate to reach out to your manager or our HR team as needed. Our locally based HR team members will be conducting office hours for the next two (2) weeks to make it easier for you to direct your questions.  We will also provide a dedicated HR email inbox, HRQuestions@teradata.com, to direct any HR questions.  


Regardless of your decision, we want to thank you for your dedicated service to Teradata and our customers.  We truly appreciate the time, effort, and dedication you have shown and will show through this transition.







1
Shannon Lee MORRIS v. STATE

CR-16-0432

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         February 24, 2022.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 14, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 129 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2022-41, CP2022-47.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2022-03950 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40599 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SILVINO HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(5:05-CR-2370-ALL)

-------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Silvino Hernandez-Hernandez (Hernandez) appeals the 41-month term of imprisonment imposed on his guiltyplea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. He objects to the 16-level “crime of violence” enhancement based on his prior conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm under Florida Statute Annotated § 784.045(1)(a). After Hernandez filed his appeal, we held that the relevant offense qualifies as crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines “because it has as an element at least a threatened use of force.” United States v.2

Dominguez , 479 F.3d 345, 347-49 (5th Cir. 2007); see § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), comment. (n.1(B)(iii)). The enhancement of Hernandez’s sentence was proper. Hernandez further asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) cause the statute to be unconstitutional. This argument is foreclosed under Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Hernandez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided

and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). We repeatedly have rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Hernandez properly concedes that this argument is foreclosed and that he raises it only to preserve it for further review. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.