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









CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-176105 on Form S-3 and in Registration No’s. 333-63637, 333-72134, 333-72296, 333-130773 and 333-130774 on Form S-8 of Synergetics USA, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) of our reports dated October 11, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of July 31, 2011, and 2010, and for each of the three fiscal years in the period ended July 31, 2011, and to our report dated October 11, 2011 on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of July 31, 2011 included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2011.




/s/UHY LLP




St. Louis, Missouri


October 11, 2011
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51148

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO NORIEGA-CISNEROS, also known as

Roberto C. Noriega, also known as Roberto

Cisneros Noriega, also known as Robert

Noriega, also known as Roberto Noriega

Cisneros, also known as Roberto N. Oriega,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-02-CR-225-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Roberto Noriega-Cisneros appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Noriega-Cisneros contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element
No. 03-51148

-2-

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Noriega-Cisneros maintains that

he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence

exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be

imposed for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Noriega-Cisneros acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-KSB FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                   458
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                         16,200
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      16,658
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        16,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 26,304
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                          114,690
<COMMON>                           2,898,306
<OTHER-SE>                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          16,658
<SALES>                              118,460
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     204,838
<CGS>                                 55,370
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         55,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  141,748
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                         141,748
<EPS-BASIC>                            .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .04







</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
JAMES GERARD BOYLE,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 23

- 2354
D.C. No. 2:11

- cr

- 00454

- RCJ

- CWH

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones
, District Judge , Presiding

Submitted August 20, 2024 **

Before: S.R. THOMAS, RAWLINSON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges

. James Gerard Boyle appeals from the district court’s order denying his
motion for early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e )(1).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We need not resolve the parties’ dispute over whether this appeal is barred

* 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

AUG 27 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 2354

by the appeal waiver in Boyle’s plea agreement because, even assuming that the
waiver does not apply, Boyle has not shown he is entitled to relief

. Contrary to Boyle’s assertion , the district court expressly considered his
arguments, including his substantial compliance with the terms of his release

. Nonetheless, t he court concluded that early termination was unwarranted in light of
Boyle’s violation of the terms of his supervision just one month after his release
, his potential for recidivism
, and the reasons asserted by the government . The court

also emphasized that Boyle had agreed to a term of lifetime supervision, and
“compliance with the condit ions of supervised release is demanded

— not

rewarded.” The court sufficiently explained its reasons for denying Boyle’s
motion and did not abuse its broad discretion in denying relief. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(1) ; United States v. Emmett , 749 F.3d 817, 819

- 2 2 (9th Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
        32




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the quarterly filing of Artfest International, Inc., a Delaware
      corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September
      30,
      2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
      undersigned, Larry D. Ditto, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
      U.S.C.ss.1350), 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.


Dated:
              March 21, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Larry
              D.
              DittoLarry
              D. DittoChairman
              and Chief Executive Officer
No. 09-8613.

#### Juan Heron-Salinas, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1072, 130 S. Ct. 2097,

176 L. Ed. 2d 730,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3316.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 566 F.3d 898.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Hewitt Associates, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                  |  |     |  |                        
|----------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 4, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ John J. Park       
|                  |  |     |  | John J. Park           
|                  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Hewitt Associates, Inc. and will be retained by Hewitt
Associates, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission as and exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
# C_2017198EN.01000301.xml

| 22.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/3

---

Special Report No 9/2017

‘EU support to fight human trafficking in South/South-East Asia’

(2017/C 198/03)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 9/2017 ‘EU support to fight human trafficking in South/South-East Asia’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**55 KA 09-02349** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TROY E. SWAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

CYNTHIA B. BRENNAN, AUBURN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (BRIAN N. BAUERSFELD OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, J.), rendered May 21, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of escape in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant previously was convicted upon his plea of guilty of escape in the second degree (Penal Law § 205.10 [1]), based on allegations that he escaped from a detention facility while working as a member of a gardening crew. We affirmed the judgment of conviction ( People v Swan , 50 AD3d 1566) but, when the Court of Appeals thereafter granted defendant’s motion for leave to appeal ( Swan , 11 NY3d 795), the People consented to vacate the judgment provided, inter alia, that a bench trial would be conducted on stipulated facts. In our decision in the prior appeal, we had noted that defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea allocution was legally insufficient because defendant stated therein “that he escaped from jail while gardening on the grounds outside the jail and thus did not escape from ‘a detention facility’ within the meaning of the statute” ( Swan
, 50 AD3d at 1566), and we further noted that defendant’s contention did not fall within the rare case exception to the preservation doctrine ( id. at 1566-1567). Following the bench trial, County Court found defendant guilty as charged and, on appeal from the judgment of conviction, defendant now contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm.

According to the stipulated facts as well as testimony presented by the People, defendant was working in an area located a few hundred feet from the detention facility when he fled. The area was on property owned by Cayuga County, and it was used exclusively by the detention facility for gardening by inmates. Inmates assigned to the**-2- 55 KA 09-02349** 

gardening crew, including defendant, were escorted by and worked under the supervision of one or more correction officers. We thus conclude that, contrary to defendant’s contention, the area was part of the detention facility within the meaning of Penal Law § 205.10 (1) ( see People v Blank , 87 AD2d 947; cf. People v Sharland , 130 AD2d 819). Inasmuch as the People submitted uncontested evidence that defendant escaped from the facility, i.e., its gardening area, on the date specified in the indictment, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495).

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 9422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4534]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0128]


National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee; Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. 
L. 92-463), the Secretary of Homeland Security has renewed the charter 
for the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC) for a 2-
year period, from February 9, 2009 until February 9, 2011. This 
Committee advises the Coast Guard on safety, security and environmental 
protection issues relating to the offshore mineral and energy 
industries.

ADDRESSES: A copy of this notice and the Committee charter is available 
in our online docket, USCG-2009-0128, at http://www.regulations.gov. 
You may request a copy of the charter by writing Commander P.W. Clark, 
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) of NOSAC, at U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 
Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James M. Magill, Assistant to DFO of 
NOSAC; telephone 202-372-1414.

    Dated: February 24, 2009.
Howard L. Hime,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. E9-4534 Filed 3-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5214 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5214

 To designate the United States courthouse located at 225 Cadman Plaza 
    East, Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Hugh L. Carey United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2006

  Mr. Towns introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the United States courthouse located at 225 Cadman Plaza 
    East, Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Hugh L. Carey United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 225 Cadman Plaza East, 
Brooklyn, New York, shall be known and designated as the ``Hugh L. 
Carey United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Hugh L. Carey 
United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
DICESARE, et al. v. The CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

156A17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 3, 2019

Russ Ferguson, III, Attorney at Law, for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority.

James Cooney, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority.

Mark J. Horoschak, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority.

Brian Allen Hayles, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority.

Sarah Motley Stone, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, d/b/a Carolinas Healthcare System.

R. Michael Elliot, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

Linwood Jones, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Hospital Association.

Debbie W. Harden, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority.

Michael P. Fischer, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority.

Matthew Tilley, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority.

Hampton Y. Dellinger, Attorney at Law, for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority.

Kathleen M. Konopka, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

Alexander L. Simon, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

Benjamin E. Shiftan, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

Daniel Seltz, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

Adam Gitlin, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

Brendan P. Glackin, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

*349The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of August 2019 by Defendant to admit Nicholas A. Widnell Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of September 2019."
STATE of North Carolina v. Joey Parice GRAHAM

No. 104P19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2019

Joey P. Graham, for Graham, Joey Parice.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 26th of March 2019 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1)
    
    such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
ended June 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the three months ended June 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Plumas Bancorp.
 Date:  August 8, 2007
    /s/ Andrew RybackAndrew J. Ryback, Chief Financial Officer
EVERBANK COMMERCIAL FINANCE, INC., Plaintiff, v. The HUNOVAL LAW FIRM, PLLC, Mathias H. Hunoval, and Christina R. Hunoval, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. CSI Finance Leasing, Inc., Third-Party Defendant.

No. COA18-909

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 6, 2019

AFFIRMED IN PART. REVERSED IN PART.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: August 7, 2014 105791 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

 Respondent,

 v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN E. DENSMORE,

 Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 5, 2014

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________

Andrew Kossover, Public Defender, Kingston (Michael K.

Gould of counsel), for appellant.

D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan

Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Devine, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County

(Williams, J.), rendered December 18, 2012, convicting defendant

upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of rape in the second

degree (four counts).

In satisfaction of a 10-count indictment, defendant pleaded

guilty to four counts of rape in the second degree. County Court

thereafter sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to

an aggregate prison term of 17 years followed by 15 years of

postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals and we affirm.

We reject defendant's contention that he was improperly

adjudicated as a second felony offender inasmuch as County Court
-2- 105791 

was not obligated to expressly advise him that he had the right

to challenge the constitutionality of his prior conviction (see

People v Wood, 108 AD3d 932, 932-933 [2013]; People v Smith, 121

AD2d 771, 772 [1986]). To the contrary, where defendant was

provided with a predicate felony statement, declined to

controvert the allegations contained therein and admitted to the

prior conviction for criminal mischief in the second degree, we

find that the court substantially complied with the dictates of

CPL 400.21 (3) and that defendant was properly sentenced as a

second felony offender (see People v Wood, 108 AD3d at 933;

People v Ellis, 53 AD3d 776, 777 [2008]).

Finally, although certain comments by County Court during

sentencing could be characterized as intemperate, given the

nature of defendant's crimes – unprotected intercourse with four

different girls under the age of 15 after befriending them for

that express purpose – we find no abuse of discretion or

extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a reduction of his

sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Olson, 110 AD3d

1373, 1377 [2013]; People v Beliard, 101 AD3d 1236, 1239 [2012],

lv denied 20 NY3d 1096 [2013]).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Lynch, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court