alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
23.1
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  October
27, 2009
  Dear Mr.
Borish
  Freedom
Environmental Services, Inc.
  RE:  Letter
of Consent
  Kramer
Weisman and Associates, LLP hereby provides its consent to the use of our audit
report dated October 17, 2008, except for notes 2, 3, 13 and 14 which are dated
October 27, 2009 for the audit of the Freedom Environmental Services, Inc.
balance sheets, related statement of operation and stockholders equity and cash
flows for the year ended December 31, 2007.
  Furthermore,
we hereby provide our consent to Tarvaran, Askelson & Company, LLP to
reference our audit report in the report to be published by Tarvaran, Askelson
& Company LLP for the year ended December 31, 2008. We understand that our
audit report will be included in the Form 10K/A for the year ended December 31,
2008.
  We have
reviewed form 10K/A which the Company plans to publish and approve all
references which relate to our audit report dated October 17, 2008, except for
notes 2, 3, 13, 14 as to which the date is October 27, 2009 with no
exceptions.
  Very
Truly Yours,
  /s/
Kramer Weisman & Associates, LLP
  
  Davie,
Florida
  October
27, 2009
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document




































 



 
 

  Exhibit 10.40    
    


 
    AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
  DTS, INC. AND DANIEL E. SLUSSER    
    



        This Amendment (the "Amendment") effective as of February 9, 2010, is made and entered into by and between DTS, Inc. (the
"Company") and Daniel E. Slusser (the "Executive"). 


        Whereas,
DTS and Executive have previously entered into an Employment Agreement effective January 1, 2009 (the "Agreement"); and 


        Whereas,
the parties to the Agreement wish to amend the Agreement; 



        NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the respective covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 



        Section 1,
"Term" shall be amended by adding the following: 




        "Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the term shall be extended to expire on December 31, 2010." 


        This
Amendment does not delete, terminate or replace any provision of the Agreement except as specifically provided herein. 



        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the day and date first written above. 

 






 



							
	 DANIEL E. SLUSSER	 	 DTS, INC.
	
 By:	
 	
/s/ DANIEL E. SLUSSER






  Daniel E. Slusser	
 	
 By:	
 	
/s/ JON KIRCHNER






  Jon Kirchner
 President & Chief Executive Officer
	

Date: February 9, 2010	
 	
Date: February 9,
2010                                    




 

 








QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.40


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN DTS, INC. AND DANIEL E. SLUSSER
ALASKAN SEAFOOD
CBI REPL AC EME NT PAGE
EPA
- HQ
- OW
- 2013
- 0652

DCN:_ 00198CBI

THE FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N REMOVED BE CAUSE IT CONT AINS CONF ID ENT IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA TION (CB I) PER 40 CFR P ART 2, SU BP ART B .
Exhibit 32.1

      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 NuVim, Inc. (the "Company") on  Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended  June 30, 2008 as filed with  the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the "Report"), I, Richard
P.  Kundrat, Chief  Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:

  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.

Date: August 19, 2008

/s/ Richard P. Kundrat

Richard P. Kundrat, Chief Executive Officer

                                       36
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40979

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FERNANDO TREVINO-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Texas

(M-95-CR-228-1)

August 1, 1997

Before JOHNSON, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fernando Trevino-Rodriguez appeals his sentence following his

convictions for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute

and possession with the intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms

of marijuana. He argues that the district court erred in assessing

a two-level enhancement pursuant to United States Sentencing

Guidelines section 3B1.1(c). Specifically, Trevino-Rodriguez claims

that the district court improperly determined that he played a
1The sentencing range for Trevino-Rodriguez without the

section 3B1.1 enhancement is 57 to 71 months. While the present

sentence of 70 months falls within this range, it was the lowest

possible term in the range (70-87 months) for the base offense

level of 26 applied at the district court level. This indicates

the district court’s intent to impose the least harsh sentence

available. Furthermore, the record is devoid of evidence that the

district court would have imposed the same sentence absent the

error. See United States v. Williams, 503 U.S. 193, 203-04 (1992).

Thus, we will remand the case for resentencing rather than affirm

for harmless error. See, e.g., United States v. Tello, 9 F.3d

1119, 1130-31 (5th Cir. 1993).

2

leadership role in the offense.

A district court’s finding that a defendant is a leader

pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines section 3B1.1 is a

fact finding that is reviewed for clear error. See United States

v. Valencia, 44 F.3d 269, 272 (5th Cir. 1995). After thoroughly

reviewing the record in the present case, we determine that

insufficient evidence exists indicating that Trevino-Rodriguez was

a “leader” for purposes of enhancement under section 3B1.1(c). See

United States v. Jobe, 101 F.3d 1046, 1065 (5th Cir. 1996),

petition for cert. filed, (U.S. June 25, 1997); United States v.

Ronning, 47 F.3d 710, 711-13 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, the

sentence imposed by the district court was clearly erroneous and is

VACATED. The case is REMANDED1 to the district court for

resentencing.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
Exhibit 32.1

      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 NuVim,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the  quarterly  period  ended  September  30,  2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the "Report"),
I, Richard P. Kundrat,  President,  and Chief Executive  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, to the best of my knowledge:

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.

Date: November 30, 2006

/s/ Richard P. Kundrat
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         9406000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4066000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    4112000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              18171000
<PP&E>                                        77129000
<DEPRECIATION>                                17783000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                80243000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9796000
<BONDS>                                         150000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      33441000
<OTHER-SE>                                      338000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  80243000
<SALES>                                       96715000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              96715000
<CGS>                                         87615000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 87615000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4476000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3492000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1132000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1132000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Phillip EMILY, Appellant.

No. ED 105780

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: August 14, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied September 18, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied October 30, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Amy Marie Bartholow, Office of the State Public Defender, 1000 West Nifong, Bldg. 7, Ste. 100, Columbia, MO 65203.

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Evan Joseph Buchheim, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., and Mary K. Hoff, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

*101Phillip Emily appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for one count of receiving stolen property, in violation of Section 570.080, RSMo 2000,1 for which he was sentenced as a persistent offender to fifteen-years' imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to RSMo 2000 as amended.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5854]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Alabama Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of 
the Alabama Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by 
conference call at 2 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 3 p.m. on 
Tuesday, April 7, 2009. The purpose of this meeting is to conduct 
planning on the Committee's community forum on the ``Civil Rights 
Implications of Alabama's Eminent Domain Policies and Practices.''
    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-
free call-in number: (866) 364-7584, conference call access code number 
89288526. Any interested member of the public may call this number and 
listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls 
they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund 
any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they 
initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. 
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by 
first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing 
the Service with the conference call number and contact name Farella E. 
Robinson.
    To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of 
lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting 
Corrine Sanders of the Central Regional Office and TTY/TDD telephone 
number, by 4 p.m. on March 31, 2009.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
address is U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Central Regional Office, 
400 State Avenue, Suite 908, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Persons wishing 
to e-mail their comments, present their comments at the meeting, or who 
desire additional information should contact Farella E. Robinson, 
Director, at [email protected]. Records generated by this meeting may 
be inspected and reproduced at the Central Regional Office, as they 
become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested 
in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the 
Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Central 
Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations 
of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, March 13, 2009.
Christopher Byrnes,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
 [FR Doc. E9-5854 Filed 3-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: May 7, 2015 TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR- 2013 -0602 FROM: Rob Lawrence

EPA/Region 6/PD SUBJECT: May 5 , 2015 Presentation at the TCEQ Environmental Trade Fair and Conference **SUMMARY** A presentation was made by EPA at the 23 rd Annual TCEQ Environmental Trade Fair and Conference . The presentation discussed the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants as part of a larger presentation on the Methane Strategy . The meeting was in Austin , Texas . **ATTENDEES** Participants: The meeting was conducted in a large ballroom a t the Austin Convention

Center a nd there was no registration process for any individual presentation or panel . EPA Participant : Rob Lawrence (Region 6 Energy Policy Advisor)
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40910

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

DAMENIEL PRESTON OWENS

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 536

Filed: May 30, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

T HIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Melissa Moo dy , District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence,

affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Bo ise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Dameniel Preston Owens pled guilty to grand theft. Idaho Code § § 18

- 2403(1),

18

- 2407(1)(b) . The district court sentenced Owens to a unified term of fourteen years, with three

years determinate. Subsequently, Owens filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for a reduction

of his sentence , which the district court denied. Owens appeals, contending the district court

abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35 motion.

A motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of2 new or additional information su bsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the

record, including the new information submitted with Owens’ Rule 35 motion, we conclude no

abuse of dis cretion has been shown. Therefore, the district co urt’s order denying Owens’

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
Exhibit 13

RULE 13a-14(b) CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Vodafone Group Plc, a company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 March 2013(the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|            |  |  |  |                    |  | 
|----------- |  |  |  | ------------------ |  | 
|            |  |  | 
|7 June 2013 |  |  |  | /s/ Vittorio Colao |  | 
|Date        |  |  |  | Vittorio Colao     |  | 
|            |  |  |  | Chief Executive    |  | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

RULE 13a-14(b) CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Vodafone Group Plc, a company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 March 2013(the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|            |  |  |  |                         |  | 
|----------- |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|            |  |  | 
|7 June 2013 |  |  |  | /s/ Andy Halford        |  | 
|Date        |  |  |  | Andy N. Halford         |  | 
|            |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer |  | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2203

EDWARD R. ROUSE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOGO D. WEST, JR., Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-425-3) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward R. Rouse, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Edward R. Rouse appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil action. The district court dismissed Rouse’s complaint without prejudice for failure to showthat he had exhausted his administrative remedies. Because a dismissal without prejudice is not generally appealable, we dismiss the appeal. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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.

DISMISSED
---



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Century Pacific Tax Credit Housing FundII
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the year ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, James Bleiler, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, 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 result of operations of the Partnership.

|/s/ James V. Bleiler                          | 
|--------------------------------------------- | 
|                                              | 
|James V. Bleiler 
    Chief Financial Officer | 
|                                              | 
|January 21, 2005                              | 
|                                              | 
|Date                                          | 
|                                              | 

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vernon Truitt, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 885]

Appeal by the de*643fendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered June 29, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of robbery in the first degree because the prosecution did not prove ownership of the stolen property (see, Penal Law § 160.15 [3]; see *also,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on that charge.

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.