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

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated March 24,
2006, which includes an explanatory paragraph for a going concern matter, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Digital Lightwave, Inc. that are included in the Companys Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Digital Lightwave, Inc., on Form S-8 (File No. 333-99683, effective September 17, 2002) and on Form S-3 (File
No. 333-116531, effective July, 2004).



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
|                      
|Tampa, Florida        
|March 24, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INTERIM
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND BALANCE SHEET AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q COMMUNICATIONS & POWER
INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED APRIL 2, 1999
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001000654
<NAME> COMMUNICATIONS & POWER INDUSTRIES HOLDING CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-1999
<CASH>                                           1,761
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     56,893
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,952
<PP&E>                                          77,376
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 233,688
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,358
<BONDS>                                        122,906
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           22,398
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,449)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   233,688
<SALES>                                        124,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,900
<CGS>                                           94,613
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,760
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,570)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (422)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,148)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,148)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
INDUSTRI-MATEMATIK INTERNATIONAL CORP.

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES AT APRIL 30, 1999

AUSTRALIA
Industri - Matematik Pty Ltd

CANADA
Industri - Matematik of Canada Inc.

FRANCE
Industri - Matematik France SARL

GERMANY
Industri - Matematik GmbH

THE NETHERLANDS
Industri - Matematik Nederland B.V.

SWEDEN
Abalon AB
Ceratina International AB
Ceratina Systems AB
Industri - Matematik AB

UNITED KINGDOM (1)
Enterprise Management System Limited (England and Wales)
Industri - Matematik Limited (England and Wales)

UNITED STATES (1)
Industri - Matematik American Operations, Inc. (Delaware)
Industri - Matematik Corp. (Delaware)
I - M Licensing Corp. (Delaware)
I - M North American Operations, Inc. (Delaware)
Software Finance Corp. (Delaware)
Software Research Corp. (Florida)

----------
(1) Country or state of incorporation is indicated in parentheses.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Nicholas Financial, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and nine months ended
December 31, 2009 (the Report) 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Peter L. Vosotas                 
|Peter L. Vosotas                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated:
February 16, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1789 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1789

 To ensure the safety of DOT-111 tank cars by improving standards for 
new tank cars and upgrading existing tank cars, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2015

    Mr. Payne (for himself, Ms. Norton, Mr. Rush, Mr. Connolly, Ms. 
  Slaughter, and Mrs. Watson Coleman) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 
                        the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure the safety of DOT-111 tank cars by improving standards for 
new tank cars and upgrading existing tank cars, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tank Car Safety and Security Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. DOT-111 TANK CAR IMPROVEMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall revise regulations 
regarding DOT-111 tank cars to--
            (1) improve the tank car design standards for new cars to 
        include an outer steel jacket around the tank car and thermal 
        protection, full-height head shields and high-flow capacity 
        pressure relief valves; and
            (2) require additional safety upgrades to tank cars built 
        after October 2011 by including installation of high-flow-
        capacity relief valves and design modifications to prevent 
        bottom outlets from opening in the case of an accident.
    (b) Security Enhancements.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Transportation Security 
Administration shall issue such regulations as are necessary to enhance 
the security of tank cars by requiring that all rail safety 
coordinators ensure that no tank car containing crude oil is left 
unattended during any period of time that such tank car is being 
transferred between railroad carriers or between a railroad carrier and 
a shipper.
    (c) Phase Out Plan.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall submit a 
plan to the appropriate committees of Congress to phase out, on an 
aggressive basis, older-model DOT-111 tank cars used to move flammable 
liquids that are not retrofitted to meet new Federal requirements 
established under this section.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Larry Porter, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 788] —

Malone Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (McKeighan, J.), rendered January 21, 2011, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crime of assault in the second degree (two counts).

*1451In October 2011, while an inmate at Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Washington County, defendant was convicted of two counts of assault in the second degree and sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent prison terms of seven years *(People v Porter,*305 AD2d 933 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 586 [2003]). Upon learning that the mandatory periods of postrelease supervision had not been imposed, County Court resentenced defendant to his original sentence plus five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

For the reasons set forth in *People v Porter*(95 AD3d 1450 [2012] [decided herewith]), we find that County Court properly resentenced defendant by adding periods of postrelease supervision *(see*Penal Law § 70.00 [6]; § 70.06 [1] [a], [b]; § 70.45 [1]; *People v Wright,*85 AD3d 1316, 1316 [2011]). Further, as in *People v Porter (supra),*we find that the resentencing did not amount to a violation of defendant’s double jeopardy rights *(see People v Williams,*14 NY3d 198, 217 [2010], *cert denied*562 US —, 131 S Ct 125 [2010]), and defendant received the effective assistance of counsel *(see generally People v Caban,*5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; *People v Wright,*85 AD3d at 1317).

Rose, J.P., Spain, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Beltra Cruz, Appellant.

[947 NYS2d 115]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert G. Seewald, J.), entered February 16, 2010, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.46 motion for resentencing, unanimously reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the motion granted, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision to include specifying and informing defendant of a proposed sentence.

The record of the resentencing proceeding does not dictate denial of resentencing on substantial justice grounds *(see e.g. People v Milton,*86 AD3d 478 [2011]). The court denied the motion primarily on the ground that defendant absconded prior to trial and remained at large for six years. However, we find that this misconduct may have been outweighed by mitigating factors.

Although defendant is a second felony drug offender, both his predicate felony and the underlying offense involved street level drug sales, and the remainder of his criminal history is insignificant. Defendant has no history of violence, and his prison disciplinary record is relatively minor. While incarcerated, defendant participated extensively in educational and training programs and received recommendations for potential future employment. Thus, we remand the matter for reconsideration of defendant’s motion.

We leave the length of the new sentence to the independent discretion of Supreme Court. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Catterson, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 26 Misc 3d 1233(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 50362(U).]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1996
(UNAUDITED) AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           6,431
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,639<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     44,987
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,339
<PP&E>                                         321,023
<DEPRECIATION>                                 133,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 337,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,487
<BONDS>                                        100,341<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,476
<OTHER-SE>                                     140,394
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   337,865
<SALES>                                        284,919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               284,919
<CGS>                                          197,813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  197,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,343
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,460
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,878
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,878
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14
<FN>
<F1>RECEIVABLES - ARE PRESENTED NET OF THE ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS.
<F2>BONDS - REPRESENT REVOLVING CREDIT LOANS AND LONG-TERM DEBT, LESS CURRENT
MATURITIES.
</FN>


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT31.4**

**CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

I, Paul J. Murphy,certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-KSB/A of Apogee Technology, Inc.;and

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

Date: April 27,2007
| /s/ Paul J. Murphy                                     |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Paul J. Murphy                                         |   |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of  Finance |   |   |   |
| (principal financial officer)                          |   |   |   |

 

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134469 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134469 

 COA: 267866 

Saginaw CC: 05-025955-FC 

ROSHUN MONTELL ROSAS,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l1022 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 29, 2007 

 Clerk
#### Lewanda Parthenia EPES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREEN TREE FINANCIAL SERVICING CORPORATION; Kirk D. McQuiddy, Law Office; Specialized, Incorporated of Virginia; Hawthorne & Hawthorne, Attorneys, Defendants-Appellees. *276Cindy Pearson, Movant.

No. 06-2045.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 9, 2007.

Decided: May 21, 2007.

Lewanda Parthenia Epes, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R.M. Adams, Bryan G. Scott, Spotts Fain, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Mark Charles Nanavati, Sinnott, Nuckols & Logan, PC, Midlothian, Virginia; Lawrence Alexis Dunn, Morris & Morris, Richmond, Virginia; Raymond Paul Childress, Jr., Michele Adams Mulligan, Kristie Gay Haynes, McSweeney, Crump, Childress & Gould, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lewanda Parthenia Epes appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellee Green Tree Financial Servicing Corporation’s motion for sanctions and affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court.**See Epes v. Green Tree Fin. Servicing Corp.,*No. 3:04-cv-00455-REP (E.D.Va. Dec. 14, 2004; May 12, 2006; Aug. 24, 2006). 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.*

*

 Although the district court was not deprived of subject matter jurisdiction by the state court's entry of judgment in Epes’s parallel state action, *see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,*544 U.S. 280, 284, 292, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005), the district court properly dismissed this action with prejudice because it was precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> Art. 5 FDS for 10K
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000825410
<NAME> LANDAUER, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                  4,524
<SECURITIES>                              321
<RECEIVABLES>                          10,222
<ALLOWANCES>                              319
<INVENTORY>                             1,169
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       18,744
<PP&E>                                 28,399
<DEPRECIATION>                         13,535
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         44,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  18,337
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                  866
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                             25,372
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           44,624
<SALES>                                43,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       43,800
<CGS>                                  15,054
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          15,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        15,878
<INCOME-TAX>                            6,325
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     9,489
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            9,489
<EPS-BASIC>                            1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                            1.09


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3:16-CR- Q003lo -rY'O 

v. INDICTMENT 

CORWIN MICHAEL BOBB, 

Defendant. 

ORS 811.540(1)(b)(A); 

ORS 813.010; 

18 U.S.C. §§ 13 and 1152 

COUNTl 

(Fleeing or Attempting to Elude a Police Officer) 

(ORS 811.540(1)(b)(A); 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 and 1152) 

On or about October 22, 2015, in the District of Oregon, in Indian Country, on the Warm 

Springs Indian Reservation, and within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the 

United States, defendant CORWIN MICHAEL BOBB, an Indian male, did operate a motor 

vehicle, and a police officer who was operating a vehicle appropriately marked showing it to be 

an official police vehicle gave a visual and audible signal to bring defendant's vehicle to a stop, 

including a signal by hand, voice, emergency light or siren; and defendant, while still in his 

vehicle, did knowingly flee and attempt to elude the pursuing officer; 

In violation of Oregon Revised Statute 81 l.540(l)(b)(A) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 and 1152. 

COUNT2 

(Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants) 

(ORS 813.010; 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 and 1152) 

On or about October 22, 2015, in the District of Oregon, in Indian Country, on the Warm 

Springs Indian Reservation, and within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the 

Case 3:16-cr-00036-MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 2
United States, defendant CORWIN MICHAEL BOBB, an Indian male, did operate a motor 

vehicle on premises open to the public, while under the influence of an intoxicant; 

In violation of Oregon Revised Statute 813.010 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 and 1152. 

Dated this 2-V. day of January 2016. 

A TRUE BILL. 

Presented by: 

BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

HNA THAN S. HAUB, 

ssistant United States Attorney 

Indictment Page2 

Case 3:16-cr-00036-MO Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ulrich Gottschling,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, tohis knowledge:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated: March 22, 2007 | By:   | /s/ ULRICH GOTTSCHLING           |
|----------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------|
|                       |            | Ulrich  Gottschling              |
|                       | * *        | *Chief  Financial Officer*       |
|                       | * *        | *(Principal  Financial Officer)* |

 

----