alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Ronald N. Frankel, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Synacor, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Synacor, Inc.





Date: March 31, 2014/s/ Ronald N. FrankelRonald N. FrankelPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)








I, William J. Stuart, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Synacor, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Synacor, Inc.





Date: March 31, 2014/s/ William J. StuartWilliam J. StuartChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Synacor, Inc. and will be retained by Synacor, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification “accompanies” the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Marcus Andrew BURRAGE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-7515.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 11, 2009

s0831 

# Order

September 11, 2009

137969

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137969 COA: 278566 Calhoun CC: 2 006-004487-FC MARK EUGENE MOTTINGER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 13, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER DENYING 

MOTION TO CONTINUE 

CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

Defendants’ motion to continue the case management conference (Dkt. No. 540) is

DENIED. It is important for this case to move forward on schedule in light of the October 2 trial

date. Defendants have a large cast of excellent lawyers who can carry the ball in Attorney

González’s absence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 544 Filed 06/03/17 Page 1 of 1
Derrick Benard WOODS, petitioner, v. Robert M. STEVENSON, III, Warden.

No. 12-7718.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-12-TLS 

)

MARSHALL BUTLER )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 47], filed on October 9, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection to the

Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 47] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 5 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on October 27, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D2 3

- 1957 Lower Tribunal No. 2020

- SC

- 054204

_____________________________
D WAIN M. H ALE , Appellant
,

v.

J OSAM P RODUC TS , I NC ., and J OSAM F RAM E & A LIGNMENT , Appellee s

.

_____________________________ Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the C ounty Court for Orange County

. Brian S. Sandor , Judge.

May 14, 2024

PER CURIAM

.

AFFIRMED

.

TRAVER
, C

. J

. , and MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., c oncur.

Dwain M. Hale, Clermont, pro se.

Josam Produc ts , Inc., Orlando, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee, Josam Frame & Alignment.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No 13-cv-00269-RBJ

CHARLES THOMAS ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BIOMET, INC.,

BIOMET MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,

BIOMET U.S. RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, and

BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS, LLC,

 

Defendants.

ORDER TO SET SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The parties are ordered to set an initial 

scheduling conference in this Court (with Judge Jackson) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 

D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 no later than 45 days after the answer, motion to dismiss or other 

response to the complaint is filed. Each party’s lead trial counsel shall attend the conference.

The conference shall be held in Courtroom A-902, Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th

Street, Denver, Colorado. The parties are directed to jointly contact Chambers by telephone at 

(303) 844-4694 or by email at Jackson_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov to obtain a scheduling 

conference date. 

A meeting for the purposes of attempting to agree on a scheduling order and satisfying 

the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) should be held no later than 21 days before the 

proposed scheduling order is tendered. The proposed scheduling order, which should be 

prepared as described in Appendix F to the local rules, should be tendered no later than five days 
before the scheduling conference. The proposed scheduling order should set forth the parties’

agreement or their respective positions on the matters set forth in Appendix F. A copy of 

instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form scheduling order can be 

downloaded from the Court’s website (http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx).

DATED this 4

th day of February, 2013.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge
Robert Allan COWAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9124.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

Certification of ChiefExecutive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Arbor EnTechCorporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on thedate hereof (the “Report”), Mark Shefts, as Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Quarterly Report for the fiscalquarter ended July 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)           The information in the QuarterlyReport, and the information in the Report, fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| September 14, 2004 | s/Mark Shefts           |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                    | Mark Shefts             |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
Aasorcall Ady Jetty ll ed)

cSaudy Laila ably «cyte JS ob Quill Aylaa (8 abl
CLAN ASAUS) Gas Cal ga) Gaghati g wtbadi g
Petre D. WASHINGTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9224.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION & ORDER October 2012

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 v. 

 

 Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: _______________

APPLICATION FOR 

ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY 

PRO HAC VICE

(CIVIL LOCAL RULE 11-3) 

I, , an active member in good standing of the bar of 

 , hereby respectfully apply for admission to practice pro hac vice in the 

Northern District of California representing: in the 

above-entitled action. My local co-counsel in this case is __________________________________, an 

attorney who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who maintains an office 

within the State of California. 

MY ADDRESS OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S ADDRESS OF RECORD: 

MY TELEPHONE # OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S TELEPHONE # OF RECORD: 

 

MY EMAIL ADDRESS OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S EMAIL ADDRESS OF RECORD: 

 

I am an active member in good standing of a United States Court or of the highest court of 

another State or the District of Columbia, as indicated above; my bar number is: . 

A true and correct copy of a certificate of good standing or equivalent official document from said 

bar is attached to this application. 

I agree to familiarize myself with, and abide by, the Local Rules of this Court, especially the 

Standards of Professional Conduct for attorneys and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Local Rules. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated: 

 APPLICANT 

 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

 FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application of is granted, 

subject to the terms and conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must indicate 

appearance pro hac vice. Service of papers upon, and communication with, local co-counsel 

designated in the application will constitute notice to the party. 

Dated: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Reset Form

Eddie Lindsey 4:17-cv-00753

United Air Lines, Inc., Continental Airl

Edward B. Goolsby

Edward B. Goolsby

Edward B. Goolsby

Texas Supreme Court

Eddie Lindsey

1221 McKinney, Ste. 2500

Houston, TX 77010

530 Lytton Avenue, 2nd Floor

Palo Alto, CA 94301

(713) 655-1101 (650) 617-3226

egoolsby@azalaw.com jason@skaggsfaucette.com

24092436

Jason Skaggs
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 126 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.126

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

                                 An Act

 
 To amend Public Law 89-366 to allow for an adjustment in the number of 
    free roaming horses permitted in Cape Lookout National Seashore.

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT IN NUMBER OF FREE ROAMING HORSES PERMITTED IN 
              CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE, NORTH CAROLINA.

    (a) In General.--The first subsection (b) of section 5 of Public 
Law 89-366 (16 U.S.C. 459g-4) is amended--
        (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``100 free roaming horses'' 
    and inserting ``not less than 110 free roaming horses, with a 
    target population of between 120 and 130 free roaming horses,'';
        (2) in paragraph (3), by striking subparagraph (B) and 
    inserting the following new subparagraph:
        ``(B) unless removal is carried out as part of a plan to 
    maintain the viability of the herd; or''; and
        (3) in paragraph (5), by striking ``100'' and inserting 
    ``110''.
    (b) Repeal of Duplicate Subsection.--Section 5 of Public Law 89-366 
is further amended--
        (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a)'' after ``(a)''; and
        (2) by striking the second subsection (b).

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Joyce BROWN, petitioner, v. Michael HALE, et al.

No. 12-1013.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1330 

To provide that Social Security contributions are used to protect Social 

Security solvency by mandating that Trust Fund monies cannot be 

diverted to create private accounts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide that Social Security contributions are used to 

protect Social Security solvency by mandating that Trust 

Fund monies cannot be diverted to create private accounts. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security Trust 

5 Funds Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SOLVENCY. 

7 Those amounts, equal to taxes imposed under sec8 tions 1401 and 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
2 

•HR 1330 IH 

1 1986 and taxes imposed under chapter 1 of such Code 

2 to the extent attributable to section 86 of such Code, 

3 which are made available to the Federal Old-Age and Sur4 vivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability 

5 Insurance Trust Fund under the applicable provisions of 

6 law as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 

7 shall be available solely for the purposes of the old-age, 

8 survivors, and disability insurance program under title II 

9 of the Social Security Act, as in effect on such date, and 

10 shall not be available for the establishment or funding of 

11 private accounts. 

Æ
Michael C. TIERNEY, petitioner, v. HAWAI'I.

No. 12-9170.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Hawai'i dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Franklin GRAHAM, aka CQ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10085.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
 








































 
 

  Exhibit 10.6    
    


 Amendment 2008-1

Amendment For Final Regulations Under Code Section 409A  


 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL INC.

DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN  


        WHEREAS, Qwest Communications International Inc. (the "Company") established the
Qwest Communications International Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan effective as of January 1, 1999, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2005 (the "Plan"); and 


        WHEREAS, Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), applies to the Part A of the Plan; and 


        WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend Part A of the Plan in order to comply with final regulations issued under Code
Section 409A; and 


        WHEREAS, Section 11.1 of the Plan permits the Company to amend the Plan provided that no such amendment shall decrease or restrict
the value of a participant's account balance in existence at the time the amendment is made. 


        NOW THEREFORE, Part A of the Plan is hereby amended as set forth below effective as of January 1, 2009: 


        1.     Part A,
Section 4.4, Coordination With Withdrawal Election Rules in Effect for Pre-2005 Deferrals, is hereby amended by replacing the first
sentence of Part A, Section 4.4 as follows: 



        4.4   Coordination With Withdrawal Election Rules in Effect for Pre-2005 Deferrals.    If the Participant
elects to withdraw all of his or her pre-2005 Account Balance pursuant to the terms of Section 4.4 of Part B of this Plan, the following rules will apply, provided, however,
that in no event will any benefits under this Part A be subject to the withdrawal provisions of Section 4.4 of Part B: 




        2.     Part A,
Section 11.4, Termination, is hereby amended by adding the following sentence at the end of the paragraph: 




In
the event the Plan is terminated, benefits will be paid as provided in this Plan, however, at the discretion of the Employer, any benefit that is subject to Code Section 409A may be
distributed in a manner that complies with the applicable requirements of Code Section 409A. 





        3.     Except
as amended above, each and every provision of the Plan, as it previously may have been amended, shall remain in full force and effect without change or
modification. 


1







 

        4.     Any
inconsistent provision of the Plan shall be read to be consistent with this Plan Amendment and its purposes. 





							
	 PLAN DESIGN COMMITTEE

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL INC.
	
 By:	
 	








  FELICITY O'HERRON

Title: Vice President, Human Resources	
 	
By:	
 	







  ERIK P. AMMIDOWN

Title: Director, Employee Benefits, Health & Disability Benefits
	
 By:	
 	








  GERARD SMITH

Title: Director, Employee Benefits, HRIS	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

Dated: November 11, 2008

	
 	

 





2











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.6
Wayne BEATON, petitioner, v. Jessica D. VALVERDE, et al.

No. 12-8669.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER SHORTENING TIME

TO HEAR MOTION TO STAY

The deadline to respond to defendants’ motion to stay (Dkt. No. 476) is shortened from

June 2 to MAY 26 AT NOON. The deadline for any reply is shortened from June 9 to MAY 30 AT

NOON. The hearing on the motion is rescheduled from July 13 to JUNE 7 AT 9:00 A.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 481 Filed 05/20/17 Page 1 of 1
什么是2型糖尿病?

当您的身体不能很好地制造或使用胰岛素时,就会发生2型糖尿病,从而

导致高血糖水平。 

欲了解更多有關健康平權的信息,請訪問www.fda.gov/healthequity。 

血压正常 均衡的饮食 控制体重 积极运动

降低您患2型糖尿病的风险 

疲劳度增加

口渴和排尿增加 饥饿感增加 视力模糊

不愈合的溃疡 不明原因的

体重减轻

症状往往发展缓慢,可能很

轻微。许多人没有任何症状。 

2型糖尿病最常发生在中年和老年人身上,

但可以在任何年龄段发病。 您知道

 吗? ?

约1/10的

成年人患

有2型糖尿病 

不吸烟
糖尿病和老年人

当您的身体不能很好地制造或使用胰岛素时,就会发生2型糖尿病,从而

导致高血糖水平。 

欲了解更多有關健康平權的信息,請訪問www.fda.gov/healthequity。 

饮食健康

不吸烟 控制您的血糖

运动健身 控制您的血压

按规定服用药物

如果您有糖尿病,要保持您的肾脏健康。 

65岁以上的人中有

四分之一患有糖尿

病。

老年人有最高比例

与糖尿病有关的晚期

肾脏疾病。当您的肾脏开

始衰竭,需要进行透析

(清除体内的废物和多余

的液体)或肾脏移植时就

会发生这种情况。 

94 ãÖ

Çi
NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)

Case No. 3:17-cv-00715-RS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Rosemary M. Rivas (State Bar No. 209147)

Email: rrivas@zlk.com

LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: (415) 291-2420

Facsimile: (415) 484-1294

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Urešomir Čorak

[Additional counsel appear on signature page.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

BRIAN CLEVLEN, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTHERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 

PAUL F. TRUEX, CRAIG THOMPSON, 

MAY LIU and WILLIAM SHANAHAN,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00715-RS

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(i)

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 25 Filed 07/17/17 Page 1 of 2
1

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)

Case No. 3:17-cv-00715-RS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Lead Plaintiff Urešomir Čorak files this notice of voluntary 

dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendants have not filed an 

Answer or moved for summary judgment. A class has not been certified. Plaintiff has not previously 

dismissed an action based on or including the same claims as presented in this instant action. This 

dismissal is without prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 17, 2017 LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP

By: /s/ Rosemary M. Rivas

Rosemary M. Rivas

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650

San Francisco, CA 94104

Tel: (415) 291-2420

Fax: (415) 484-1294

Shannon L. Hopkins

LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP

733 Summer Street, Suite 304

Stamford, CT 06901

Tel: (203) 992-4523

Fax: (212) 363-7171

Email: shopkins@zlk.com

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Urešomir Čorak

Case 3:17-cv-00715-RS Document 25 Filed 07/17/17 Page 2 of 2
Paul E. PAVULAK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9526.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statements of Discover Bank and Discover Card Execution Note Trust (Registration Numbers 333-191359, 333-191359-01 and 333-191359-02) on Form S-3 of our Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm datedMarch 21, 2014 relating to Management’s Assertions on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Discover Card Execution Note Trust for the year ended December 31, 2013. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Chicago,Illinois 

March 21, 2014