alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 15.4**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-205944) of Baozun Inc. of our report dated June 1, 2016, relating to theconsolidated financial statements of Automoney Inc. and its subsidiaries (which report expresses an unmodified opinion andincludes an emphasis of matter paragraph regarding going concern), appearing in this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form20-F of Baozun Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2015.

 

 

 

/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Certified Public Accountants LLP

Shanghai, China

June 1, 2016
#### David L. MATHIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. SALAZAR, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-15646

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

David L. Mathis, Pro Se

Megan Anne Schultz Richards, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Federal prisoner David Mathis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a section 2241 habeas petition, *see Tablada v. Thomas,*533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Mathis argues that the two-hour watch program at FCI Herlong, which requires higher risk prisoners to report, to staff every two hours during the day and when moving from one location in the prison to another, violates his due process and equal protection rights. Mathis’s due process claims fail because the two-hour watch program does not implicate a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. *See Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (explaining that liberty interests are implicated where a restraint exceeds the sentence “in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force” or “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”); *Moody v. Daggett,*429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9, 97 S.Ct. 274, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976) (noting not “every state action carrying adverse consequences for prison inmates automatically activates a due process right”).

*484Mathis’s equal protection challenge to the two-hour watch program also fails because he has not alleged that the prison’s placement of inmates into the program “affect[s] fundamental rights [or] proceeds along suspect lines,” *Heller v. Doe,*509 U.S. 312, 319, 113 S.Ct. 2637, 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993), and we perceive a rational basis for requiring higher risk inmates to report to staff more frequently, *see, e.g., McLean v. Crabtree,*173 F.3d 1176, 1186 (9th Cir. 1999) (concluding the Bureau of Prisons had a rational basis for excluding inmates with detainers from sentence reduction eligibility).

Mathis’s claim that the district court erred when it denied his petition without leave to amend, raised for the first time in his reply brief, is waived. *See Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr.,*849 F.3d 1204, 1213 (9th Cir. 2017).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and- is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996

<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           780
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,030)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.000
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.000
        



</TABLE>
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

IKEMEFULA CHARLES IBEABUCHI, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0841 PRPC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR1999-095310

The Honorable John R. Doody, Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED AND RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Andrea L. Kever

Counsel for Respondent

Ikemefula Charles Ibeabuchi, Florence

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, and Judge 

David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 6-18-2019
STATE v. IBEABUCHI

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM: 

¶1 Petitioner Ikemefula Charles Ibeabuchi seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s 

first petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538 ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


December 12, 2017


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 356


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect
our evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on December 11, 2017, in accordance with the valuation method set forth
in the Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as
the party performing the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-220826) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an
exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO________________


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1933

JAMSHID FARSHIDI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (CA-03-56-2)

Submitted: December 3, 2003 Decided: July 27, 2004

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamshid Farshidi, Appellant Pro Se. Guy Winston Horsley, Jr.,

Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorneys General, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dr. Jamshid Farshidi appeals from the district court’s

order granting summary judgment to Defendant on his Title VII, due

process, and state law claims. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Dr. Farshidi’s

motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. See Farshidi v. Norfolk State Univ., No. CA03-56-2 (E.D. Va. filed July 9, 2003 & entered July 10, 2003). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

          - 26 CFR Part 1

### CFR Correction

This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

In Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1 (§§ 1.641 to 1.850), revised as of April 1, 2021, make the following corrections:

1. In section 1.817A-1, add paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1.817A-1

* * * * *

                            (c)                             *Applicability dates.*                             Paragraph (b) of this section applies to taxable years beginning after                             *October 13, 2020.*                             However, a taxpayer may choose to apply the rules of paragraph (b) of this section for a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017, the effective date of the revision of section 807 by Public Law 115-97, and on or before                             *October 13, 2020,*                             provided the taxpayer consistently applies the rules of paragraph (b) of this section to that taxable year and all subsequent taxable years.                             *See*                             section 7805(b)(7). For taxable years beginning on or before                             *October 13, 2020, see*                             paragraph (b) of this section as contained in 26 CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2020.                        

* * * * *

1.818-2

2. In section 1.818-2, remove paragraph (c). 

[FR Doc. 2022-06881 Filed 3-30-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 0099-10-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ERICK FINNEGAN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 470 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of December, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ARTRELLE FRAGHER, AKA Richard Lee 

Evans, AKA Fragher Smith, AKA Kenneth 

Winzer, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-10091 

D.C. No. 3:18-cr-00517-CRB-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 20, 2021**

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. 

Artrelle Fragher appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

his guilty-plea convictions and concurrent 77-month sentences for three counts of 

possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and three counts of 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 27 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-10091 

distribution and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance within 

1,000 feet of a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 

860(a). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Fragher’s counsel 

has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to 

withdraw as counsel of record. Fragher has filed multiple pro se supplemental 

briefs. The government has filed an answering brief. 

Fragher entered into a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver. 

Assuming without deciding that the appeal waiver is not enforceable, our 

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 

(1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Fragher’s pro se 

challenges to the district court’s jurisdiction are unavailing. See United States v. 

Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. All other pending motions 

and requests are DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 28, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23

- 1245

Lower Tribunal No. 21

- 26603 SP

________________



### First Class Parking Systems LLC,

Appellant,

vs.



### Ilya Bykov,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the C ounty Court for Miami

- Dade County, Luis Perez

Medina , Judge.

Alan A. Glenn (Hollywood) , for appellant.

No appearance , for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES , JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fla. Sm. Cl. R. 7.140(f) ; Morburger v. J. Reporting, Inc.

,

318 So. 3d 619, 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“First adopted in 1973 by the2

Florida Supreme Court, the Florida Small Claims Rules . . . eschew the

formality ordinarily associated with civil litigation, creating an open ‘ People's

Court ’ in which mere technicalities ‘ must not obscure the greater purpose of

justice for all. ’ ” (quoting Donoghue v. Wallach , 455 So. 2d 1085, 1086 n.1

(Fla. 2d DCA 1984) ))

.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 11.1

                         INTELLIQUEST INFORMATION GROUP, INC.
               STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                        (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

                                                           For the Three Months
                                                                   Ended       
                                                            September 30, 1997 
                                                            ------------------ 
Net income available to common stockholders. . . . . . . . . . .   $ 1,382
                                                                   -------
Weighted average shares outstanding:
  Common stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     8,390
  Common stock issuable upon exercise of options and warrants. .       197
                                                                   -------

Weighted average common shares and equivalents . . . . . . . . .     8,587

Net income per share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   $   .16
                                                                   -------

                                       21
# Official Journal C 111A/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.111.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 111A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5330 April 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.111.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 111A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5330 April 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 111A/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — third supplement to the 28th complete edition | 1 |
| 2010/C 111A/02 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — fourth supplement to the 28th complete edition | 18 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2010/C 111A/01

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — third supplement to the 28th complete edition

1

2010/C 111A/02

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — fourth supplement to the 28th complete edition

18

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2010/C 111A/03 | Corrigendum to the Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — 6th supplement to the 27th complete edition (OJ C 183 A of 5.8.2009) | 37 |
| 2010/C 111A/04 | Corrigendum to the Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — 28th complete edition (OJ C 302 A of 12.12.2009) | 37 |

Corrigenda

2010/C 111A/03

Corrigendum to the Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — 6th supplement to the 27th complete edition (OJ C 183 A of 5.8.2009)

(OJ C 183 A of 5.8.2009)

37

2010/C 111A/04

Corrigendum to the Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — 28th complete edition (OJ C 302 A of 12.12.2009)

(OJ C 302 A of 12.12.2009)

37

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Windswept Environmental
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October
1, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I , Charles L. Kelly, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 Company.



                                             /s/ Charles L. Kelly, Jr.
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Charles L. Kelly, Jr.
                                           Chief Financial Officer

                                           Dated: November 15, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          82,832                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,911                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       369                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,799                       0
<PP&E>                                          81,828                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,912                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,870                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,157                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       183,083                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (170,937)                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   202,870                       0
<SALES>                                         16,484                   9,154
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,484                   9,154
<CGS>                                           17,724                  15,744
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,283                  22,765
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,470                   1,070
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (23,269)                (14,681)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (23,269)                (14,681)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  3,042                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (20,227)                (14,681)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.43)                  (2.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.43)                  (2.17)
        

</TABLE>