alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  
    
    Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-140442) pertaining to the Aviat Networks,
Inc. 2007 Stock Equity Plan;
    
    Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-163542) pertaining to the Aviat Networks,
Inc. 2007 Stock Equity Plan and Aviat Networks, Inc. 2010 Employee Stock Purchase Plan;
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-140193) pertaining to the registration of
520,445 shares of Class A Common Stock issued or issuable by Aviat Networks, Inc.
#### Harper *v.*Perry.

No. 13323.

May 14, 1940.

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

1. The remedy by motion for a new trial in the superior court applies to the correction of errors committed on the trial and sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict returned by the jury. Code, §§ 70-202 et seq. It does not apply to correction of errors in a judgment or decree based on a verdict. *Fowler*v. *Johnson,*151 *Ga.*122 (c) (106 S. E. 90) ; *Vickers*v. *Robinson,*157 *Ga.*731 (7) (122 S. E. 405); *Smith*v. *Aultman,*160 *Ga.*364 (2) (127 S. E. 774) ; *Cook*v. *Powell,*160 *Ga.*831 (20) (129 S. E. 546). Accordingly, it is not a good ground of attack on a motion for a new trial complaining of a'verdict rendered in an equitable action that it was made and filed before rendition of the decree. *Durrence*v. *Cowart,*160 *Ga.*671 (129 S. E. 26).

2. Where a motion for new trial is pending in the superior court, there is no provision of law authorizing the movant to file a second separate original motion for new trial complaining of the same verdict. An instance of that character would not be comprehended by the Code, § 70-303, providing for extraordinary motions for new trial to be made after adjournment of the term of court.

3. In the instant case, at a hearing of the second motion for a new trial the respondent objected to proceeding with the hearing, on the ground that at the time the second motion was filed the movant had already pending in the court an original motion for new trial, complaining of the same verdict. The judge overruled the objections, and after consideration of the case overruled the second motion, and the movant excepted. After the filing of the bill of exceptions by the movant, the respondent filed a separate bill of exceptions in the form of an original bill, in which he recited the filing of the bill of exceptions by the movant, and assigned error on the refusal of the judge to sustain the respondent’s objections to proceeding with the hearing of the second motion for a new trial. *Held: {a)*The bill of exceptions sued out by the respondent is in substance a cross-bill of exceptions, and entitled to be treated as such in the ease presented by the bill of exceptions sued out by the movant. See *Latimer*v. *Bennett,*167 *Ga.*811-820 (146 S. E. 762).

(5) The judge erred in overruling the respondent’s objections to proceeding with the hearing of the second motion for new trial.

(c) No question is raised as to whether the judge erred in refusing to sustain the respondent’s objections on the ground that the second motion " for a new trial was not made during the term at which the verdict was rendered. Any such question would be properly addressed to the merits of the motion for a new trial; and no ruling is made thereon.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*234
      *Joe M. Ray*and *E. L. Smith,*for plaintiff.

*H. A. Wilkinson,*for defendant.
#### Josephine A. Harrington, Respondent, *v.*Robert P. Harrington, Appellant.

Submitted July 20, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

Motion to direct filing of the remittitur dismissed, without costs, since it appears by affidavits of defendant’s attorneys that after the motion was made they compliéd with the request of plaintiff’s attorney. (See 290 N. Y. 126.)
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION





We, John
N. Hatsopoulos, Chief Executive Officer, and Anthony S. Loumidis, Chief
Financial Officer, of American DG Energy Inc., or the company, certify,
pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1. The
Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the company for the year
ended December 31, 2009, or the Report, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or
78o(d)); and




2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the company.




Date:
      November 19, 2010/s/ John N. HatsopoulosJohn
      N. Hatsopoulos
                Chief
      Executive Officer/s/ Anthony S. LoumidisAnthony
      S. Loumidis
                Chief
      Financial Officer





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.





A signed
original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Russell B. SIMMONS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-11335 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(April 24, 2017)

Peter J. Sholl, Natalie Hirt Adams, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Anita M. Cream, Suzanne C. Nebesky, Amanda Lynn Rie-del, Sara C. Sweeney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Stephen M. Crawford, Stephen M. Crawford, Esquire, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HULL, WILSON, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Russell Simmons, Jr. appeals the district court’s imposition of three years of supervised release for his identity theft conviction (Count 24) under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l). The government concedes the imposition of a three-year term of supervised release for that conviction was plain error, *see*Government’s Br. at 4, and we agree. Our review of that error, which resulted in a term of supervised release greater than the one-year statutory maximum for aggravated identify theft, establishes that reversal is required. *See, e.g., United States v. Sanchez,*586 F.3d 918, 930 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that where a sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, plain error exists and needs to be corrected because it affects the defendant’s substantial rights as well as the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the judicial proceedings). We therefore vacate the sentence on Count 24 and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED AS TO COUNT 24.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6863 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6863

  To provide that members of the Armed Forces, firefighters, and law 
enforcement officers shall be eligible for the Good Neighbor Next Door 
 Sales Program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2023

  Mr. Lawler introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide that members of the Armed Forces, firefighters, and law 
enforcement officers shall be eligible for the Good Neighbor Next Door 
 Sales Program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``Housing for Heroes Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES, FIREFIGHTERS, AND 
              LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FOR GOOD NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR 
              SALES PROGRAM.

    (a) Eligibility.--Members of the Armed Forces, firefighters, and 
law enforcement officers shall be eligible to purchase eligible 
properties under the Good Neighbor Next Door Sales Program of the 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, as provided under 
subsection (b).
    (b) Eligible Properties.--Notwithstanding section 204 of the 
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1710), part 291 of the regulations of 
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (24 C.F.R. part 291), or 
any other provision of law, regulation, guideline, order, or notice, in 
carrying out the Good Neighbor Next Door Sales Program for single-unit 
properties acquired by the Secretary, properties shall be made 
available for purchase under the Program by members of the Armed 
Forces, by firefighters, and by law enforcement officers without regard 
to whether or not they are located in a revitalization area.
    (c) Regulations.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
shall amend the regulations of the Secretary as necessary to carry out 
subsections (a) and (b).
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6688 

To permit grant funds to be used to identify unidentified human remains 

without regard as to whether the manner of death is determined to 

be a homicide. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2023 

Mr. RESCHENTHALER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit grant funds to be used to identify unidentified 

human remains without regard as to whether the manner 

of death is determined to be a homicide. 

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 ‘‘Cold Case Moderniza5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZING GRANT UNDER JENNIFER’S LAW TO 

7 BE USED ON ANY UNIDENTIFIED REMAINS. 

8 (a) PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.—Section 202(a)(1) 

9 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act (34 

2 

•HR 6688 IH

1 U.S.C. 40501) is amended by inserting after ‘‘including 

2 migrants’’ the following: ‘‘, without regard to whether the 

3 manner of death is determined to be a homicide’’. 

4 (b) USE OF FUNDS.—Title II of the Child Abuse Pre5 vention and Enforcement Act (34 U.S.C. 40501 et seq.) 

6 is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating the first section 205 as 

8 section 204; and 

9 (2) in section 204(a), as redesignated, by in10 serting after ‘‘including migrants’’ the following: ‘‘, 

11 without regard to whether the manner of death is 

12 determined to be a homicide’’. 

13 SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GRANTS. 

14 Any Department of Justice grant awarded to States 

15 and units of local government for forensic genetic 

16 geneaology may be used to identify unidentified human re17 mains without regard to whether the manner of death is 

18 determined to be a homicide. 

Æ
EXHIBIT 23.2**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement No. 333-114496,333-121039, and 333-128547 on Form S-3 and No. 333-116014 and 333-122716 on Form S-8 of GascoEnergy, Inc. (“Gasco”) of our reports dated February 27, 2007 relating to our audits of theconsolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, included in andincorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Gasco for the year ended December31, 2006.**/s/*****HEIN****& ASSOCIATES LLP*Denver, Colorado
#### EDWARDS et al v. EZELL & SUGGS.

Appeal from Milam county.

*Principal and Agent*— Contract—Liability.—When an agenfchas due authority to make a written contract, not under seal, and he makes it in his own name, whether he describes himself to be an agent or not, or whether the principal be known or unknown he, the agent, will be liable to be sued, and the principal will also be liable to be sued thereon, unless it is clear that the credit was given exclusively to the agent, and it is the intention of both parties that no resort shall in any event be against the principal. Reversed and remanded.

Opinion by

Willson, J.
#### CANNA CARE, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-70265

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 10, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed July 25, 2017

William McPike, Esquire, Attorney, Ah-wahnee, CA, Letitia Elisabeth Pepper, Esquire, Attorney, Riverside, CA, Betty Williams, Law Office of Williams *&*Associates, PC, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant

Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Washington, DC, Richard Farber, Esquire, Supervisory Attorney, Patrick J. Urda, Esquire, General Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: GRABER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and GUILFORD,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Andrew J, Guilford, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Canna Care, Inc., a marijuana dispensary operating in California, appeals the Tax Court’s decision upholding the Internal Revenue Service’s déficiency findings in Appellant’s federal income taxes for the years 2006 through 2008. The Internal Revenue Service had determined those tax deficiencies because it found that Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 280E, disallowed Appellant’s purported business expense deductions.

Appellant raises three claims on appeal: (1) Section 280E as applied here violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth *571Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, (2) Section 280E does not preclude state and local tax deductions, and (3) Section 280E does not preclude Appellant’s net operating loss carryover deduction from 2005.

Appellant did not raise any of these claims in the Tax Court and, thus, the arguments are all unpreserved for our review. “Absent exceptional circumstances, this court will not consider an argument that was not first raised in the Tax Court.” *Sparkman v. Comm’r,*509 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2007). In our discretion, we decline to consider these claims now. *See Singleton v. Wulff,*428 U.S. 106, 121, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Blanche Marquis, Appellant, *v.*Leonard J. Marquis et al., Respondents.

Argued November 16, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*800' *Henry Epstein*for appellant.

*H. H. Nordlinger*and *Jacob I. Gharney*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Lottghran-, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### Thomas Prescott, as Administrator of the Estate of Russell Prescott, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Anson B. Collins, Doing Business under the Name of *“*Collins Brothers,” Respondent. Alphonse Perras, as Administrator of the Estate of Arthur Perras, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Anson B. Collins, Doing Business under the Name of *“*Collins Brothers,” Respondent. Francis Murray, as Administrator of the Estate of Roger Murray, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Anson B. Collins, Doing Business under the Name of *“*Collins Brothers,” Respondent.

Argued April 7, 1943;

appeals dismissed May 27, 1943.

*813
      *James Conboy*and *J. S. Carter*for appellants.

*Charles B. Sullivan, John J. Conners, Jr.,*and *Warner M. Bouck*for respondent.

Appeals dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the judgment does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
Summary of Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.23 

Summary of Director Compensation 
 Directors of ABIOMED who are not our employees receive an annual retainer of $36,000 or an equivalent value of our common stock, at the individual’s option. Our Lead Director receives additional
annual compensation of $25,000. In addition, the Chair of our Audit Committee receives additional annual compensation of $17,500 and each member of our Audit Committee receives additional annual compensation of $7,500. The Chair of our Compensation
Committee receives additional annual compensation of $10,000 and each member of our Compensation Committee receives additional annual compensation of $5,000. The Chair of our Nominating and Governance Committee receives additional annual
compensation of $7,000 and each member of our Nominating and Governance Committee receives additional annual compensation of $5,000. If our Board of Directors or any of its Committees has an unusually large number of meetings in any year, our Board
of Directors has the authority to pay each Director $1,200 for attendance at meetings of our Board of Directors and $1,000 for attendance at any meetings of Committees of our Board of Directors. Similarly, our Board of Directors has the authority to
pay $1,000 to the Chair of our Audit Committee for attendance at meetings of our Audit Committee and $1,300 to the Chair of our Nominating and Governance Committee for attendance at meetings of our Nominating and Governance Committee. 

Our non-employee directors are also eligible to receive stock options and other awards under our stock incentive plans. It is
currently our policy to grant each non-employee director who continues to be a director following our annual meeting of stockholders, a performance share award in the form of restricted stock units covering 5,333 shares of our common stock, vesting
annually over three years from the date of grant. It is also currently our policy to grant a stock option to purchase 25,000 shares of our common stock upon the appointment of new non-employee directors, with an exercise price of the fair market
value of our common stock on the date of grant, and vesting annually over five years. 
 Our directors are also eligible for
additional compensation in the event that they perform additional services for ABIOMED in excess of the normal time commitments we expect of our directors.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason Wayne CAREY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7006

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed July 7, 2017

(D.C. No. 6:16-CR-00025-RAW-l) (E.D. Oklahoma)

Linda A. Epperley, Christopher Wilson, Office of the United States Attorney, Eastern District of Oklahoma, Muskogee, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee

O. Dean Sanderford, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.*

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously *628that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

*628ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge

Defendant-Appellant Jason Wayne Carey appeals from the sentence imposed after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of explosives. 18 U.S.C. §§ 842(i)(l), 844(a)(1). Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we remand to the district court to vacate the judgment and resentence.

Mr. Carey was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. 1 R. 42-44. The PSR recommended a guideline range of 37 to 46 months, based in part on Mr. Carey committing the offense “subsequent to sustaining one felony conviction of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K1.3(a)(2); see 3 R. 3-4. The prior violent felony was pointing a weapon at another person in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1289.16. See 3 R. 4. But in United States v. Titties, 852 F.3d 1257, 1275 (10th Cir. 2017), we held that a conviction under this statute does not qualify as a crime of violence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. This definition resembles that found in the sentencing guidelines. The government concedes that this intervening decision controls here. Aplee. Br. at 4. Accordingly, we REMAND to the district court to vacate its judgment and resentence.

**

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March 31, 2011  | /s/ Xiaolong Zhou                                                         |
|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            | Xiaolong Zhou                                                             |
|                            |                                                                           |
|                            | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |

----
#### RESERVE FINANCE COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. CRYSTAL MOTORS, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 23056.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 27, 1966.

J. Charles Whitfield, Jr., Herbert Finkelstein, Houston, Tex., for appellant.

Percy D. Williams, William E. Hall, Jr., Jack Binion, J. Rolfe Johnson, Houston, Tex., for appellee.

Butler, Binion, Rice, Cook & Knapp, Houston, Tex., of counsel.

Before JONES and DYER, Circuit Judges, and SPEARS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

In a bankruptcy proceeding the district court entered an order appointing a receiver for the alleged bankrupt. A motion to vacate the appointment was denied after a hearing. The case is before this Court on appeal from the order denying the motion to vacate. The appointment of a receiver was correct. The matter was discretionary and the discretion was properly exercised. The order of the district court is

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1
                            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 Smith Barney  Principal PLUS Futures
Fund L.P. II (the  "Partnership")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September
30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  I, David J. Vogel, President of Smith Barney Futures Management
LLC, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of the
Partnership.


/s/ David J.Vogel
David J. Vogel
Smith Barney Futures Management LLC
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002



<PAGE>