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









CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File Number 333-12346), the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 333-11894) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan (F) and the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan, Qualified Stock Option PlanUS Employees (F), the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 333-13268) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan (F), as amended, and the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan, Qualified Stock Option PlanUS Employees (F), and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 333-13378) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd. 2001 Employee Stock Purchase PlanGlobal Non-U.S. and the AudioCodes Ltd. 2001 U.S. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of our report dated January 28, 2003 with respect to the Consolidated Financial Statements of AudioCodes Ltd., included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2002 filed with Securities and Exchange Commission.







/s/ KOST FORER & GABBAY

KOST FORER & GABBAY

A Member of Ernst & Young Global





Tel - Aviv, Israel

March 31, 2003
#### JENKINS *v.*MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INC.

Workmen’s Compensation — Decision of Appeal Board — Discretion of Referee — Bindings of Bact.

Decision of workmen’s compensation appeal board affirming award of compensation by referee is affirmed where the record on appeal whieh presents questions dealing with findings of fact and an alleged abuse of discretion on the part of the referee, reveals no fraud or allegation of fraud, and does not support a charge of abuse of discretion (Const 1963, art 6, § 28).

Reference for Points in Headnote

58 Am Jur, Workmen’s Compensation §§ 522, 530, 532, 534.

*581Appeal from Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board.

Submitted Division 2 May 10, 1968, at Lansing.

(Docket No. 1,308.)

Decided May 31, 1968.

Robert T. Jenkins presented bis claim for workmen’s compensation against his employer, Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., a foreign corporation. Award to claimant affirmed by Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board. Defendant employer appeals.

Affirmed.

*Ripple, Chambers & DeWitt,*for plaintiff.

*Keeling, Bogue & Huthwaite,*for defendant.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a decision of tbe workmen’s compensation appeal board which affirmed tbe award of the referee. Tbe appeal presents questions dealing with findings of fact and an alleged abuse of discretion on the part of tbe referee.

Tbe record reveals no fraud or allegation thereof, nor does it support tbe charge of abuse of discretion. See Constitution 1963, art 6, § 28.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.

Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Moody, JJ., concurred.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Otoniel GUZMAN-ABREGO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50241 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western *264District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Otoniel Guzman-Abrego, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Otoniel Guzman-Abrego has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Guzman-Abrego has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Guzman-Abrego’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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; *United States v. Carey,*496 Fed.Appx. 405, 407 (5th Cir. 2012).

*

 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.
#### Ashbrook vs. Watkins &c.

November 18.

Error to thp Breckinridge Circuit; Aleev M’Lean Judge.

*Equity. Mistake. Usury.*

Chamcerv. Üasa 3i.

Money paid, by mistake, and on an ■ usurious agreement, abovo the legal interest, recovered back by English bill.

*Haggin*for plaintiff,

*Judge*Owsley

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This writ of error is brought to a decree, pronounced by the court below, dismissing a hill which was exhibited by Ashbrook against the Watkinses, for the purpose of correcting an alleged mistake in the consideration stated in a deed of conveyance, executed by Ashbrook to Ansiem Watkins, and to recover one hundred dollars, which, through mistake, was charged against Ashbrook and deducted from the price which Watkins was to pay for the land, and also to recover usurious interest, which was received by Watkins in the purchase of the land, &c.

The record exhibits satisfactory evidence of the alleged mistake, and, in the opinion of the court, shows an unquestionable *right in Ashbrook to*a decree for the one hundred dollars, together with *the*additional sum of fifty-five *dollars;*the latter sum being for interest above six per cent, which was paid by Ashbrook to Watkins in the sale of the land, and the former sum forming also a part of the purchase money, and being a charge of that much made by Watkins, and, under a mistaken opinion, allowed by Ashbrook.

The decree must, therefore, be reversed with costs, the cause remanded to the court below, and a decree there entered against Ansiem Watkins in favor of Ashbrook, for one hundred and fifty-five dollars and costs.
Exhibit 32.1

**PACIFIC WEBWORKS, INC.**

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officers of Pacific WebWorks, Inc. certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

•

the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

•

the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  January 9, 2012

Date:  January 9, 2012

/s/Kenneth W. Bell

Kenneth W. Bell

Chief Executive Officer

/s/K. Lance Bell

K. Lance Bell

Chief Financial Officer |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6242 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6242

  To amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to 
 expand coverage of the definition of absent uniformed services voter, 
                            under such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 6, 2023

  Mr. Frost introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to 
 expand coverage of the definition of absent uniformed services voter, 
                            under such Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Voting Overseas Treated Equally for 
Servicemembers Act of 2023'' or the ``VOTES Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF THE COVERAGE OF THE DEFINITION OF ABSENT UNIFORMED 
              SERVICES VOTER UNDER THE UNIFORMED AND OVERSEAS CITIZENS 
              ABSENTEE VOTING ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 107 of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 
Absentee Voting Act (52 U.S.C. 20310) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (1)(A) by striking ``on active duty'' 
        and inserting ``on active duty, active service, or inactive 
        duty-training as defined, respectively, by section 101(d) of 
        title 10, United States Code,'';
            (2) in subparagraph (1)(A) by striking ``such active duty'' 
        and inserting ``such duty status'';
            (3) in subparagraph (1)(C) by striking ``active duty or 
        service'' and inserting ``active duty, active service, or 
        inactive duty-training''; and
            (4) in subparagraph (5)(A) by striking ``active duty or 
        service'' and inserting ``active duty, active service, or 
        inactive duty-training as defined, respectively, by section 
        101(d) of title 10, United States Code,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to elections occurring after January 1, 2025.
                                 <all>
```
#### Wyvonne Rontea JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6013

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Wyvonne Rontea Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wyvonne Rontea Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed and advised Jones that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Jones has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### David GIVENS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America; U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Respondents.

No. 16-72207

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed October 4, 2017

David Givens, Pro Se

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent United States of America

Jacob Loshin, Attorney, Stephen G. Yo-der, Securities & Exchange Commission, *518Washington, DC, for Respondent U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

David Givens petitions pro se for review of an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) denying his claim for a whistleblower award under Section 21F of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, We have jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(f). The SEC’s determination may be set aside only if “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or “unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (2)(E); *see also*15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(f); *Ponce v. SEC,*345 F.3d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition.

The record supports the SEC’s determination that Givens was not entitled to a whistleblower award because Givens did not provide information to the SEC “that led to the successful enforcement” of an SEC action. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(b); *see also*17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-4(c) (defining information that leads to successful enforcement).

We reject as meritless Givens’s contention that the SEC denied him due process of law.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant To18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of eCollege.com (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, Oakleigh Thorne, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, andReid Simpson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)          the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|  /s/  OAKLEIGH THORNE |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
| Oakleigh Thorne                      |   |
| Chief Executive Officer              |   |
| March 31, 2005                       |   |
|                                 |   |
|                                 |   |
|  /s/  REID SIMPSON    |   |
| Reid Simpson                         |   |
| Chief Financial Officer              |   |
| March 31, 2005                       |   |

 

----
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased the week prior to May 24, 2022 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :



### None Available

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c ca les/

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,657
<RECEIVABLES>                               54,002,882
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                        166,956,498
<PP&E>                                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             220,962,037
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                   3,149,627
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 217,812,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               220,962,037
<TRADING-REVENUE>                            2,523,473
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         5,905,333
<COMMISSIONS>                                9,838,402
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,409,596)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 (1,409,596)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,409,596)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.81)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-27-1996
<CASH>                                         79,412
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12,681
<ALLOWANCES>                                      640
<INVENTORY>                                     8,354
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              102,404
<PP&E>                                          7,142
<DEPRECIATION>                                  4,126
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                105,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           9,788
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          254
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                     95,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  105,612
<SALES>                                        33,790
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               33,790
<CGS>                                          15,024
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15,024
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               22,276
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   555
<INCOME-TAX>                                      189
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      366
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.01
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ulysses Maldonado, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 638]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated February 17, 1998 *(People v Maldonado,*247 AD2d 555 [1998]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered August 4, 1995.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Altman and S. Miller, JJ., concur.
Sl()-I()()3()3-()1 9 20 0 CW A Drive , Suit e 20 1 Mosinee , Wisconsi n 5445 5 ,_.--.. , Plion e 715-693-214 7 Fa x715-693-461 4 www . fly-cwa . or g CENTRA L WISCONSI N AIRPOR T 

# flycwA

Februar y24,201 0 Th e Honorabl e Raymon d H . LaHoo d Secretar y U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 New JerseyAve , S E Washington , D

C 2059 0 Doclce t DOT-OST-2010-0034 Pea rMr . Secretary : Than k yo u fo rth e opportunit yt o expres s m ysuppor t fo rth e applicatio n fo rantitrus t immunit yan d propose d join t busines s agreemen t file d b yAmerica n Airlinei s an d Japa n Airlines . Th e propose d allianc e betwee n thes e tw o airline s i s vita l fo rth e oneworl d allianc e t o compet e effectivel ywit h th e Sta ran d SkyTea m alliances . Thi s increase d allianc e conhpetitio n willi n tur n enhanc e th e benefit s o f th e Department' s Ope n Skie s polic y- firs t b ysolidifyin g U.S . -Japa n Ope n Skies , the n b yservin g a s a foundatio n fo rfurthe rliberalizatio n acros s Asia . Afte ra thoroug h review , I encourag e th e Departmen t o f tranlsp^ ^ t o approv e thi s applicatio n a s i t woul d enabl e thes e oneworl d allianc e airline s t o wor k cibsel ytogethe rt o delive rhighl ycompetitiv e ai r {transportatio n services . Approva l fo rAA/JA L allianc e wil l hav e a positiv e impac t o n ai rtrave l byofferin g customers mor e service , schedulin g an d pricin g option s an d wil l hel p t o ensur e tha t customers continu e t o benefi t fro m th e competitio n afforde d b ythre e competitiv e ai ralliances . i urg e yo u t o quickl yapprov e thi s application . Sincerely , Sincer( Ton yVai m uM . Airport/ftanifnistrato r tvaren(a(fl)/-cwa.org Cc : fil e



## Servin g Wausau , Steven s Poin t an d th e Centra l Wisconsi n Regio n
Our court affirmed Willis' convictions on his direct appeal 1

in United States v. Swinney, 970 F.2d 494 (8th Cir. 1992), cert.

denied sub nom. Willis v. United States, 113 S. Ct. 1650 (1993).

 Appellant's motion to file a supplemental appendix is

2

granted. That appendix is part of the record reviewed by this

court.

Appellant's motion for production of documents is denied, and

his attorney's motion for leave to withdraw is dismissed as moot.

 

No. 95-3632

 

James A. Willis, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

 Appellee. *

 

Submitted: May 17, 1996

 Filed: June 21, 1996

 

Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

 

PER CURIAM.

James A. Willis appeals the district court's denial of his section

2255 motion to set aside his convictions for his involvement in a cocaine

distribution conspiracy. Willis argues that the district court should

1

have provided him with an evidentiary hearing to consider his claim that

he was denied effective assistance at trial. Having carefully reviewed the

record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the district 2
2

court correctly concluded that Willis has not established either that

counsel's errors were below an objective standard of reasonableness or that

the errors prejudiced him. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's

denial of Willis' motion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.