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

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Orion Energy Systems, Inc.

Manitowoc, Wisconsin 

We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Forms S-8 (No. 333-169611 and 333-148401) of Orion Energy Systems, Inc. of our reports dated June 14, 2012, relating to the consolidated financial statements, and theeffectiveness of Orion Energy Systems, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to theincorporation by reference of our report dated June 14, 2012 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ BDO USA, LLP 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 

June 14, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12089]



[[Page 26412]]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


CNO Executive Panel; Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given that the Chief of Naval 
Operations (CNO) Executive Panel will meet June 20-21, 1995, from 9:00 
a.m. to 4:00 p.m., on each day. The meeting will be held at the Applied 
Physics Laboratory, JHU, Johns Hopkins Road, Laurel MD. This session 
will be closed to the public.

    The purpose of this meeting is to conduct discussions on strategies 
for an uncertain future to include information warfare, reserve 
structure and mobilization, and the changing strategic environment. 
Additionally, the panel members will discuss and synthesize 
recommendations and conclusions which will appear in the Task Force 
final report. These matters constitute classified information that is 
specifically authorized by Executive order to be kept secret in the 
interest of national defense and are, in fact, properly classified 
pursuant to such Executive order. Accordingly, the Secretary of the 
Navy has determined in writing that the public interest requires that 
all sessions of the meeting be closed to the public because they will 
be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, 
United States Code.

    For further information concerning this meeting, contact: Timothy 
J. Galpin, Assistant for CNO Executive Panel Management, 4401 Ford 
Avenue, Suite 601, Alexandria, VA 22302-0268, Phone: (703) 756-1205.

    Dated: May 4, 1995
L. R. McNees,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-12089 Filed 5-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-F
United States Court of A ppeals
Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

July 5, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________
No. 04-51459

_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JUAN CARLOS ZACARIAS-AMADOR

Defendant - Appellant

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (04-CR-668)

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

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate the

sentence is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to

remand case for resentencing in light of the S upreme Court’s

recent opinion in Booker and this Court’s opinion in Mares is

granted.

_______________

*Pursuant to 5 th 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 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion in

the alternative to extend time to file appellee’s brief until 14

days from the Court’s denial of appellee’s motion to vacate and

remand is moot.
James E. DZURENDA, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correction, petitioner, v. Odilio GONZALEZ; and James E. Dzurenda, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correction, petitioner, v. Jourdan E. Huertas.

No. 13-204.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Motions of respondents for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut denied.
James Wesley SIDBURY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6675.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-11383

consolidated with No. 19-11384 Conference Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus
Sergio Fuentes,

Defendant—Appellant

.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CR-164-1 USDC No. 4:19-CR-251-1

Before Smith, Stewart, and Higginson, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Sergio Fuentes in appeal No. 19-11383 has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 23, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-11383 Document: 00515575636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2020No. 19-11383 c/w No. 19-11384

2 in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). The same Federal Public Defender also has moved to withdraw and filed an Anders brief in appeal No. 19-11384. Fuentes has filed a response that addresses both appeals. We exercise our authority to sua sponte consolidate the appeals, which implicate common facts and issues. See United States v. Rodriguez , 564 F.3d 735, 737 (5th Cir. 2009); Fed. R. App. P. 3(b)(2). We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Fuentes’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motions for leave to withdraw are
GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeals are DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 19-11383 Document: 00515575636 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2020
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1534 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1534

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic staple fibers that 
      are not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2005

  Mr. Coble introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic staple fibers that 
      are not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning.

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

SECTION 1. ACRYLIC OR MODACRYLIC SYNTHETIC STAPLE FIBERS, NOT CARDED, 
              COMBED, OR OTHERWISE PROCESSED FOR SPINNING.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.06.42       Synthetic staple   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         fibers, not                                                        31/2008
                         carded, combed,
                         or otherwise
                         processed for
                         spinning: acrylic
                         or modacrylic
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         5503.30.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
A99A2449.

#### NORRIS v. THE STATE.

(523 SE2d 80)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was tried before a jury and convicted of child molestation. This appeal followed the denial of his motion for new trial. *Held:*

Defendant challenges the denial of his motion for mistrial, contending the trial court improperly bolstered the nine-year-old victim’s credibility in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57. This assertion is based on the trial court’s response to defense counsel’s objection during the following portion of the State’s redirect examination of the victim:

> [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, one or two leading questions is enough but he’s over doing the leading.

> THE COURT: This is a child and I’m going to allow a fair amount of leading. But at this point this is a right articulate young lady.

> [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, Your Honor.

> THE COURT: And I think that if you ask her what happened, either one of you, you’re going to find out what happened. So just ask her.

> [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Okay.

> [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, without any disrespect to the Court I want to object to that last remark because I think it’s an expression of the Court on the credibility of this witness.

> THE COURT: Not credibility but she’s capable of telling what happened. I’m not commenting on anything other than with many children of this, these tender years we pull teeth and we pull statements out and the child is curled up and so forth. This is a child that is capable of testifying for herself. That’s what I said and that’s what I meant and I think the jury and everybody else understood that to be the case. Now, ask her a question and see if I’m right or wrong.

Although OCGA § 17-8-57 prohibits a trial judge in any criminal case from expressing or intimating an opinion as to what has or has not been proved or as to the guilt of the accused, the comments which are challenged in the case sub judice do not constitute a statement of opinion either as to proof or as to defendant’s guilt. Nor does it *232appear, in context, that the trial court’s comments went to the victim’s veracity. It appears the trial court was merely commenting on the nine-year-old victim’s competence to testify as this issue relates to defense counsel’s “leading questions” objection to the State’s attorney’s redirect examination of the victim. A trial judge’s explanation for a ruling on an objection neither constitutes an expression of opinion nor amounts to a comment on the evidence. *Corley v. State,*192 Ga. App. 35, 36 (3) (383 SE2d 586); *Faulkner v. State,*186 Ga. App. 879, 880 (2) (368 SE2d 820). Since the trial court did not impermissibly bolster the nine-year-old victim’s credibility in the case sub judice, defendant’s motion for mistrial was properly overruled. See *Hendricks v. State,*157 Ga. App. 715 (1), 716 (278 SE2d 453).

Decided October 4, 1999.

*William J. Mason,*for appellant.

*J. Gray Conger, District Attorney, Samuel G. Merritt, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Johnson, C. J., and Phipps, J., concur.*
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21820-21821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10845]



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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


City Holding Company, et al.; Formations of; Acquisitions by; and 
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Each application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank or to the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must 
include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in 
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically any questions of fact that 
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at 
a hearing.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received not later than May 26, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Senior 
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261:
    1. City Holding Company, Charleston, West Virginia; to merge with 
First Merchants Bancorp, Inc., Montgomery, West Virginia, and thereby 
indirectly acquire The Merchants National Bank of Montgomery, 
Montgomery, West Virginia.
    2. First Bancorporation, Inc., Beaufort, South Carolina; to become 
a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
FirstBank, N.A., Beaufort, South Carolina, formerly known as The 
Savings Bank of Beaufort County, FSB.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303: [[Page 21821]] 
    1. Farmers & Merchants Bank Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Forest, 
Mississippi; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 27.30 
percent of the voting shares of Community Bancshares of Mississippi, 
Inc., Forest, Mississippi, and thereby indirectly acquire Farmers & 
Merchants Bank, Forest, Mississippi.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 27, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-10845 Filed 5-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       6,619,434
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    627,167
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,338,469
<PP&E>                                         159,686
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,743,747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,607,943
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       131,680
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,342,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,743,747
<SALES>                                        812,820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               906,726
<CGS>                                        1,012,051
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,225,194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,757,581
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,023,134)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,023,134)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,023,134)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.67)


</TABLE>
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Osprey Ventures, Inc.
  (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2010, as filed
  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
  Report), I, Ma Cheng Ji, 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:

|1. | the Annual 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 Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Dated: August 12, 2010

/s/ Ma Cheng Ji

Ma Cheng Ji Chief Executive
Officer

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-34

)

GERARDO MARTINEZ-GASTON )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on July 30, 2013, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charges against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in Count 1 of the five-count Indictment, and

have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 30th day of July, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12276]



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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675

[Docket No. 950206040-5040-01; I.D. 051595C]


Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; 
Sharpchin/Northern Rockfish Species Category in the Aleutian Islands 
Subarea

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the directed fishery for the sharpchin/
northern rockfish species category in the Aleutian Islands subarea (AI) 
of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This 
action is necessary to prevent exceeding the sharpchin/northern 
rockfish species category total allowable catch (TAC) in the AI.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 17, 1995, 
until 12 midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew N. Smoker, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive 
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management 
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
(FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under 
authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 
Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations implementing the FMP 
at 50 CFR parts 620 and 675.
    In accordance with Sec. 675.20(a)(7)(ii) the sharpchin/northern 
rockfish species category TAC for the AI was established by the final 
groundfish specifications (60 FR 8479, February 14, 1995) as 4,338 
metric tons (mt).
    The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Director), has 
determined, in accordance with Sec. 675.20(a)(8), that the sharpchin/
northern rockfish species category TAC in the AI soon will be reached. 
Therefore, the Regional Director has established a directed fishing 
allowance of 4,038 mt, with consideration that 300 mt will be taken as 
incidental catch in directed fishing for other species in the AI. The 
Regional Director has determined that the directed fishing allowance 
has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing 
for the sharpchin/northern rockfish species category in the AI.
    Directed fishing standards for applicable gear types may be found 
in the regulations at Sec. 675.20(h).

Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 675.20 and is exempt from review 
under E.O. 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 15, 1995.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-12276 Filed 5-15-95; 2:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F