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




Consent
from Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-149888 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 29, 2010 relating to the
consolidated financial statements of China Digital TV Holding Co., Ltd., its
subsidiaries, its variable interest entity (the “VIE”) and the VIE’s
subsidiaries (collectively, the “Group”) (which report expressed an
unqualified opinion and included an explanatory paragraph relating to the
retrospective application of authoritative guidance on noncontrolling
interests,  previously issued as Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial
Statements — an amendment of ARB No. 51”, now codified in Accounting Standards
Codification Topic 810, Consolidation, which was adopted by the Group on January
1, 2009) and our report dated April 29, 2010 relating to the effectiveness of
the Group’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 20-F of China Digital TV Holding Co., Ltd. for the year ended
December 31, 2009.
  /s/
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd.
 Beijing,
People’s Republic of China
 April 29,
2010
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00176

- CR

Roger Liverman

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 362nd District Court

o f Denton Count y (F

- 2012

- 0136

- D )

October 9 , 2014

Opinion by Justice Meier

(p)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. We rev erse the trial court’s

judgment and render a judgment of acquittal

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier

Justice Bill Meier
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: The State of Texas v. Gleannloch Commercial Development, LP

Appellate case number: 01-16-00427-CV

Trial court case number: 1041442

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County

Appellant the State of Texas has filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for rehearing en 

banc. The Court requests a response to the motion for rehearing and to the motion for rehearing 

en banc from appellee Gleannloch Commercial Development, LP. The response must be filed no 

later than 5:00 p.m., 20 days from the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.2.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 18, 2018
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12289]



      

[[Page 26807]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Bureau of Indian Affairs



_______________________________________________________________________



Receipt of Petition for Federal Acknowledgment of Existence as an 
Indian Tribe: Mattaponi Tribe; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 1995 / Notices 
 
[[Page 26808]] 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs
[K00360-95-35420]


Receipt of Petition for Federal Acknowledgment of Existence as an 
Indian Tribe

    This is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the 
Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs by 
209 DM 8.
    Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.9(a) (formerly 25 CFR 54.9(a)) notice is 
hereby given that the Mattaponi Tribe (Mattaponi Indian Reservation), 
Route 2, Box 310, West Point, Virginia 23181, has filed a petition for 
acknowledgment by the Secretary of the Interior that the group exists 
as an Indian tribe. The petition was received by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) on April 4, 1995, and was signed by members of the 
group's governing body.
    This is a notice of receipt of petition and does not constitute 
notice that the petition is under active consideration. Notice of 
active consideration will be sent by mail to the petitioner and other 
interested parties at the appropriate time.
    Under Section 83.9(a) (formerly 54.8(d) of the Federal 
regulations), interested parties may submit factual and/or legal 
arguments in support of or in opposition to the group's petition. Any 
information submitted will be made available on the same basis as other 
information in the BIA's files. Such submissions will be provided to 
the petitioner upon receipt by the BIA. The petitioner will be provided 
an opportunity to respond to such submissions prior to a final 
determination regarding the petitioner's status.
    The petition may be examined, by appointment, in the Department of 
the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of Acknowledgment and 
Research, Room 1362-MIB, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240, 
Phone: (202) 208-3592.

    Dated: May 3, 1995.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 95-12289 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, Chris Regnier, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
    required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
    Form 10-K of Renaissance Home Equity Loan Trust 2007-3 (the "Exchange
    Act periodic reports");

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
    whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
    to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
    light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

  3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
    covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
    servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
    conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in
    this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
    in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled
    their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material
    respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
    for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
    assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
    securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
    Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
    have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
    disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance
    described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
    10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Ocwen
    Loan Servicing, LLC as Servicer.

    Dated:   March 24, 2008


    /s/ Chris Regnier
    Signature

    Vice President
    (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master
    servicer)
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.71.4


Jack A. Shaw                                                          HUGHES(TM)
President and Chief Executive Officer                                    DIRECTV
                                                                        PanAmSat
                                                           DIRECTV Latin America
                                                          Hughes Network Systems

                                    (STAMP)


October 28, 2003

Mr. Joseph R. Wright
President and CEO
PanAmSat Corporation
20 Westport Road
Wilton, CT 06897

Re:     Employment Agreement dated August 20, 2001, as amended by Letter of
        February 3, 2003 (the "February 3 Letter") and by Letter of
        February 5, 2003(the "February 5 Letter") (collectively called the
        Employment Agreement)

Dear Joe:

This letter will confirm our further understanding and agreement related to the
transaction completion bonus in the amount of $1.5 million that will be payable
to you under the Employment Agreement. All payments are premised on your
being employed by PanAmSat at the time of payment except as specifically
provided below.

We have agreed that the first installment of the transaction bonus will be
payable to you upon the later to occur of (a) the closing of a transaction
covered by the Employment Agreement and (b) the earlier of (i) March 31, 2004 or
(ii) the date your employment is involuntarily terminated by action of
PanAmSat Corporation for any reason, by reason of your death or disability or
voluntarily by you for Good Reason, as defined in the Employment Agreement.
We have agreed that the second installment will be payable on the sooner of the
one-year anniversary of the first payment or the date your employment is
involuntarily terminated for any reason other than Cause, as defined in the
Employment Agreement or is voluntarily terminated by you for Good Reason.

If the foregoing conforms to your understanding of our agreement, please
countersign a copy of this letter where indicated below and return it to me, at
which time this letter will become an amendment to the Employment Agreement.

Sincerely,

/s/ JACK SHAW
---------------------------------------
Agreed to and accepted October 31, 2003

/s/ JOSEPH R. WRIGHT
---------------------------------------
Joseph R. Wright
Bataski BAILEY, petitioner, v. EMS VENTURES, INC.

No. 12-9279.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Alan KACHALSKY, et al., petitioners, v. Susan CACACE, et al.

No. 12-845.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Proclamation 10885 of January 20, 2025

# Flying the Flag of the United States at Full-Staff on Inauguration Day

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in honor of Inauguration Day and everything good and noble that it represents about our Nation, our people, and our form of Government, I hereby order that, on this and all future Inauguration Days, the flag of the United States shall be flown at full-staff.

Accordingly, I hereby order that the flag of the United States shall be flown at full-staff at the White House and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government, in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions, for the remainder of this day beginning immediately.

I also direct that, for the same period of time, the flag shall be flown at full-staff at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.

Upon the end of this Inauguration Day, I hereby order that the flag of the United States shall be returned to half-staff as directed by Proclamation 10876 of December 29, 2024 (Announcing the Death of James Earl Carter, Jr.), in recognition of the memory of our former President, until the period of 30 days from the day of his death has concluded.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.



[FR Doc. 2025-01899 Billing code 3395-F4-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

TIMOTHY RORICK and DEANNA RORICK, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CV-204

)

HARDI NORTH AMERICA, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint filed on February

18, 2015, seeking to name Northfield Industries, LLC, as an additional defendant in this product

liability case. (Docket # 21.) Defendant Hardi North America, Inc., does not oppose the motion.

(Mot. for Leave to Am. Compl. ¶ 10 Ex. B.) 

Plaintiffs’ deadline for any amendments to the pleadings passed on February 2, 2015.

(Docket # 19, 20.) Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion is untimely.

 A party seeking to amend a pleading after the date specified in a scheduling order must

show “good cause” for the amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). BKCAP,

LLC v. Captec Franchise Trust 2000-1, No. 3:07-cv-637, 2010 WL 1222187, at *2 (N.D. Ind.

Mar. 23, 2010) (quoting Tschantz v. McCann, 160 F.R.D. 568, 571 (N.D. Ind. 1995)); see Alioto

v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 719-20 (7th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases). “[T]o demonstrate

good cause, a party must show that despite [his] diligence, the time table could not reasonably

have been met.” BKCAP, 2010 WL 1222187, at *2 (citing Tschantz, 160 F.R.D. at 571).

Plaintiffs explain that they issued written discovery to Hardi on October 9, 2014, but did

not receive Hardi’s responses until February 5, 2015–three days after Plaintiffs’ deadline to
amend the pleadings. (Mot. for Leave to Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6.) These responses confirmed what

Plaintiffs had informally learned from Hardi several months earlier–that Northfield Industries

had manufactured the wheel assembly that is the subject of this case. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 6.) Given Hardi’s

interrogatory answer, Plaintiffs now find it necessary to add Northfield Industries as a partyDefendant in the case. (Id. ¶ 8.) 

Leave to amend is freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(2). 

Considering all of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have established “good cause” for the belated

amendment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint

to name Northfield Industries, LLC, as an additional defendant (Docket # 21) is GRANTED. 

The Clerk is DIRECTED to show Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint filed. 

SO ORDERED. 

Enter for February 19, 2015.

S/Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6942

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSE BAUTISTA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-91-400-A)

Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 18, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Bautista, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Bautista appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion for production of transcript at government expense. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Bautista, No. CR-91-400-A (E.D.

Va. June 4, 1998). 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
EXHIBIT 15

LETTER FROM INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM REGARDING UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION

LETTER IN LIEU OF
CONSENT FOR REVIEW REPORT

April 21, 2009

Boeing Capital Corporation

500 Naches Avenue SW, 3rdFloor

Renton, Washington

We have reviewed, in accordance with
the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information of Boeing Capital Corporation and subsidiaries for the periods ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, as indicated in our report
dated April 21, 2009; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred
to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-154844 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement
prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
|                         
|Seattle, Washington      



20
1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-2832

___________ Sidney Lyles, III, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Columbia Public School District; * Dr. Phyllis Chase, Superintendent; * [UNPUBLISHED] Dr. Mary Laffey, Principal; * Debra Barksdale, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 24, 2008 Filed: December 31, 2008

___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Sidney Lyles appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal with prejudice of his civil complaint for failure to comply with court orders. After careful review of the record and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the district c ourt did not abuse its discretion and we affirm for the reasons stated in its order. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. We also deny Lyles’s pending motion and petition.

______________________________
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

MARTIN DULBERG, individually, and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and RASIER,

LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00850-WHA

ORDER RE NOTICE OF

FURTHER REVISED

SETTLEMENT

The Court thanks the parties for their timely notice of further revised settlement (Dkt.

No. 154). After review, important details related to the proposed settlement remain unclear. It

is accordingly impossible to ascertain from the parties’ filing whether the issues raised in the

prior order have been adequately addressed.

Still, the parties are encouraged to jointly move for preliminary approval of settlement. 

The newly executed settlement agreement along with the proposed notice to class members (and

any other relevant information) should be appended to the motion. This course of action will

tease out remaining issues. No trial dates or deadlines will be vacated, however, until the

proposed settlement has been preliminarily approved. 

The parties’ notice of further revised settlement indicated that the new class notices will

be e-mailed to the class members. E-mailing notices is generally disfavored. The Court

cautions that if the parties wish to pursue e-mailing the notice to the class members, the motion

Case 3:17-cv-00850-WHA Document 155 Filed 05/24/19 Page 1 of 2
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

2

for preliminary approval should provide explanation as to why this course of action should be

permitted. E-mailing the class notice will not be rubber-stamped merely because it had been

allowed in the past. The parties are also reminded that the released claims may not be broader

than the certified claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00850-WHA Document 155 Filed 05/24/19 Page 2 of 2
|   | Exhibit 35.1.3 |
|--------|----------------|

 

 

GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

**CMLTI 2007-AR8**

 

I, Michael Gathright, an authorized officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, 

Inc. (the "Servicer"), certify that:

 

|   | 1. | A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and including |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

January 1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (or applicable portion 

thereof) and of the Servicer's performance under the applicable servicing 

agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

|   | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in 

all material respects throughout such period.

 

|   | Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|

ascribed to them in the Agreement.

 

Date: February 29, 2008

 

/s/ Michael Gathright

Michael Gathright

Senior Vice President, Loan Administration
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with this Annual Report of Eco Building Products,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Randall Smith, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1. Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2015, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Eco Building Products, Inc.



Date: November 9, 2015



|/s/ Randall Smith             | 
|----------------------------- | 
|Randall Smith                 | 
|(Principal Financial Officer) |
Michael VANDERWAL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6784.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 6 

To elect Patrick J. Leahy, a Senator from the State of Vermont, to be 

President pro tempore of the Senate of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 20, 2021 

Mr. SCHUMER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To elect Patrick J. Leahy, a Senator from the State of 

Vermont, to be President pro tempore of the Senate 

of the United States. 

1 Resolved, That Patrick J. Leahy, a Senator from the 

2 State of Vermont, be, and he is hereby, elected President 

3 of the Senate pro tempore. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
case 2:14-cv-00090-JTM-PRC   document 1-1   filed 03/24/14   page 1 of 1