alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference
in Registration Statement No. 333-184458 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 7, 2017, relating to the consolidated financial
statements of Plastic2Oil, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the “Company”), and the effectiveness of the Company’s
internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company and its subsidiaries as at
December 31, 2016 and 2015 for the years then ended. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading “Experts”
in such Registration Statement.



|D. Brooks and Associates CPA’s, P.A.
        West Palm Beach, Florida
        April 7, 2017
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order filed July 8, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00338

- CV

____________ ASHLEY COE , Appellant

V.

SIENNA FINANCIAL SER VICES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 127th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 18655



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed June 19, 2018. Our review has determined that a
relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain any request for a reporter’s r ecord, including any statement of points or issues under Rule 34.6(c).The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s

record on or before July 18, 2019 , containing any request for a reporter’s record, including any statement o f points or issues under Rule 34.6(c).
If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIA M
NUMBER 13-13-00223-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

CONNIE MARTHILJOHNI, Appellant,

v.

JAMES MARTHILJOHNI, Appellee.

On appeal from the 24th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This appeal was abated by this Court on June 18, 2013, to allow the trial court to 

conduct a trial and enter a final judgment. This cause is now before the Court on 

appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds the parties have compromised and 
2

settled the dispute which formed the basis of this appeal. Appellant requests that this 

Court dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, this case is hereby REINSTATED.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s motion to 

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby 

DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) 

("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). 

Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be 

entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

14th day of November, 2013.
**Exhibit 99**

 

CERTIFICATION UNDERSECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sabanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersignedcertifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatinformation contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of NorthernCalifornia Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr.                           |   |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr.                               |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer  and President                    |   |
|   |                                                      |   |
|   |                                                      |   |
|   | /s/ Bruce N. Warner                                       |   |   |
|   | Bruce N. Warner                                           |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer and  Principal Accounting Officer |   |
|        |                                                           |        |        |  |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001006762
<NAME>                        AGATE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.DOLLARS

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                              APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                        1,121,031
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   287,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   (19,457)
<INVENTORY>                                                     409,417
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              1,856,721
<PP&E>                                                          299,552
<DEPRECIATION>                                                (208,999)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                2,091,022
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           636,143
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                         183
<COMMON>                                                          1,293
<OTHER-SE>                                                    1,453,403
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  2,091,022
<SALES>                                                         740,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                740,524
<CGS>                                                           228,570
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   228,570
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              1,471,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                6,804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (924,175)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     57,605
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (981,780)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (981,780)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                      (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    (0.08)


</TABLE>
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 60

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should exercise the

line-item veto without awaiting the enactment of additional authorization

for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination of its constitutionality.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 17 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. SPECTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should

exercise the line-item veto without awaiting the enactment of additional authorization for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination of its constitutionality.

Whereas Federal spending and the Federal budget deficit

have reached unreasonable and insupportable levels;

Whereas a line-item veto would enable the President to eliminate wasteful pork-barrel spending from the Federal

budget and curb the deficit before considering cuts in important programs;

Whereas evidence may suggest that the Framers of the Constitution intended that the President have the authority

to exercise the line-item veto;
2

SRES 60 IS

Whereas scholars who have studied the matter are not unanimous on the question of whether the President currently

has the authority to exercise the line-item veto;

Whereas there has never been a definitive judicial ruling that

the President does not have the authority to exercise the

line-item veto; and

Whereas some scholars who have studied the question agree

that a definitive judicial determination on the issue of

whether the President currently has the authority to exercise the line-item veto may be warranted: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the

2 President should exercise the line-item veto without await3 ing the enactment of additional authorization for the pur4 pose of obtaining a judicial determination of its constitu5 tionality.

Æ
NUMBER 13-08-00447-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF B. C. C., A CHILD

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 24th District Court of Jackson County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yanez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant perfected an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights or

conservatorship. On July 28, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk's

record in the above cause was originally due on July 21, 2008, and that the district clerk,

Sharon Mathis, had notified this Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for

payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so

that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P.

37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten
2

days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of

prosecution. 

Appellant has failed to respond to this Court’s notice. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 30th day of October, 2008.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 23

- 00776

- CR

Eugene John Miller , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF LEE COUNTY NO. 10,247 , THE HONORABLE REVA TOWSLEE

- CORBETT , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

We grant appellant Eugene John Miller ’ s pro se motion to dismiss his appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________ Rosa Lopez Theofanis , Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrn e, Justices Kelly and Theofanis

Dismis sed on Appellant ’ s Motion

F iled : December 15, 2023

Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the unaudited
financial statements of June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             783
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   783
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       783
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,965
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,961)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,961)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1222

SARA CAPELLI,

Appellant,

v.

STEPHEN GREGORY CAPELLI, JR.,

Debtor – Appellee,

and

THOMAS HERBERT FLUHARTY,

Trustee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

District Judge. (2:14-cv-00087-JPB)

Submitted: July 30, 2015 Decided: August 10, 2015

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sara Capelli, Appellant Pro Se. Todd Bradley Johnson, JOHNSON 

LAW, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sara Capelli appeals the district court’s order affirming 

the bankruptcy court’s order overruling her objections to the 

exemptions claimed by the debtor in the underlying bankruptcy 

proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Capelli v. Capelli, No. 2:14-cv-00087-JPB (N.D.

W. Va. Jan. 29, 2015). 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.

AFFIRMED
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

510 

KA 14-02143 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID A. WITHERSPOON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

JEANNIE D. MICHALSKI, CONFLICT DEFENDER, GENESEO, FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

GREGORY J. MCCAFFREY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (JOSHUA J. TONRA OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Livingston County Court (Robert B.

Wiggins, J.), dated October 23, 2014. The order determined that

defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender

Registration Act. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs. 

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a

level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act

(Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that County Court’s

upward departure from his presumptive classification as a level two

risk is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. We reject

that contention. “ ‘The court’s discretionary upward departure [to a

level three risk] was based on clear and convincing evidence of

aggravating factors to a degree not taken into account by the risk

assessment instrument’ ” (People v Tidd, 128 AD3d 1537, 1537, lv

denied 25 NY3d 913). We reject defendant’s further contention that

the court improperly admitted a sworn deposition from each of the two

victims inasmuch as those depositions constitute “reliable hearsay”

that the court could properly consider in making an upward departure

(§ 168-n [3]; see People v Pichcuskie, 111 AD3d 1344, 1344, lv denied

22 NY3d 861). 

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03- 07 -00 320 -CV

Jo hn K oo -H yun K

im , A ppe lla nt
v. Austin Com m uni ty College ; Stephen B. Kinslow , as P resident of Austin Com m uni ty Co lle ge ; G r e g A bbot t, At to r ne y G e ne r al o f Te xa s; Re pr e se nt at ive Ja im e Va lde z ; a nd Myra M cDaniel, as Att orney for Austin Com m uni ty College , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-07- 0005 86 , HO NORAB LE GISELA D. TRIANA , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant John Koo-Hy

un Kim filed a notice of appe al, appa rently seekingto appea l f r o m th e tr ia l c o urt’ s o r d e r g r an ti n g a p p e ll e e s ’ mo ti o n s f

o r a c o n ti nu an c e o f a Ju n e 4 , 2007 trial setting. B eca

use we lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appea l, we dismiss the cause f or wa nt of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a)
.

Gene rally , courts of a

ppeals may only exercise jurisdiction over appea ls from final order s or judgme nts. Lehmann v. Har- Con Corp. , 39 S.W .3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (“A judgme nt is final for pur

poses of a

ppeal if it disposes of a ll pending pa rties and c laims in the recor d, except
as nec essar

y to ca rr y out the decr ee.” ). Ther e ar e ce rtain statutory exceptions to thi s rule, which expli citly al l o w i n t erloc utory appea ls from non-fina l orders. See Te x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2006) (listing permissible interlocutory appea ls). An appe al from2

a trial c ourt’s g rantingof a motion for continuance and dela

y of a tria l setting may

not be re viewed by interlocutory

appea l. Se e In reA. J

.L. , No. 02-04-00050- CV, 2004 Tex. App. L EXI S 4993, at *1 (T e x. App .— F or

t Wor th, June 3, 20 04 , n o p e t) (m e m. o p. ); Lovall v. Y en , No. 14-01-01108- CV, 2002 Tex. App. L EXI S 354, at *1-3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] J an. 17, 2002, no pet.) (not desig nated f

or publication). Ap pe lla nt s e e ks to a

pp e a l f ro m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r gra nti nga con ti nu anc e to
a pp e lle e s. We m ay

no t c on sid e r t

his c omplai nt in a

n inte rl oc uto ry

a pp e a l. T he re fo re , w e mus t dismiss this cause f

or wa nt of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a)
.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and He nson Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Jul y

6, 2007
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeffrey DENMAN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10565 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 11, 2018

Jeffrey Denman, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jeffrey Denman, federal prisoner # 06640-078, seeks a certificate of appeala-bility (COA) to challenge the district court’s order transferring his motion, *283styled under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), to this court as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2256 motion. The clerk of court docketed the transfer under case number 17-10491 and directed Denman to seek authorization to file a successive habeas petition. When he failed to do so, that action was dismissed. Meanwhile, Denman filed a notice of appeal from the transfer order, initiating this appeal.

The transfer of an unauthorized § 2255 motion is not a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). *See United States v. Fulton,*780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015). Therefore, “the appeal of such an order does not require a COA.” *Id.*According to Denman, with the benefit of liberal construction, the district court improperly construed his Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. A motion styled under Rule 60(b) that raises new “claims” or attacks the district court’s merits-based resolution of prior habeas claims should be construed as a successive habeas application. *See Gonzalez v. Crosby,*545 U.S. 524, 531-32 & n.4, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005); *Williams v. Thaler,*602 F.3d 291, 304 (5th Cir. 2010). The arguments in Denman’s putative Rule 60(b) motion raised new claims, *see Gonzalez,*545 U.S. at 531-32 *&*n.4, 125 S.Ct. 2641, and therefore the district court did not err in construing his motion as a successive § 2255 motion.

Accordingly, Denman’s motion for a COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. The district court correctly transferred the application to this court and that order is 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 *283the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 159

Honoring the memory of the victims of the Great Irish Potato Famine,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 25, 1997

Mr. LIPINSKI (for himself, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. UNDERWOOD, Mr.

BLAGOJEVICH, Mr. POSHARD, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. HORN, Mr.

ANDREWS, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MARKEY,

Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. DOYLE,

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. DAVIS

of Virginia, Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut, Mr. MANTON, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr.

KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Mr. RIGGS) submitted

the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee

on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Honoring the memory of the victims of the Great Irish

Potato Famine, and for other purposes.

Whereas 150 years ago, Ireland was in the midst of ‘‘Black

’47’’, the worst year of the Great Irish Potato Famine;

Whereas between 1846 and 1850, an estimated 1,500,000

people died in Ireland from starvation and disease and

over 1,000,000 people emigrated from Ireland to the

United States and Canada to escape the famine; and
2

•HCON 159 IH

Whereas on June 1, 1997, in Millstreet, County Cork, Republic of Ireland, British Prime Minister Tony Blair offered

the first public apology from the British Government for

its lack of action during the famine: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) joins all people of Irish descent in honoring

4 the memory of the victims of the Great Irish Potato

5 Famine;

6 (2) honors the millions of brave emigrants and

7 their descendants who rose from the tragedy of the

8 famine to make a profound contribution to the

9 United States; and

10 (3) encourages the British and Irish govern11 ments to build on the public apology from the

12 British Government and make a renewed effort for

13 peace in Northern Ireland.

Æ