alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-3 No. 333-33025, Form S-3 No. 333-47775 Form S-3 No. 333-54251 and
Form S-8 No. 333-32809 and related prospectuses of Quest Education Corporation
of our report dated May 10, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Quest Education Corporation included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended March 31, 1999.



                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Atlanta, Georgia

June 29, 1999
#### In the Matter of Keymani R.J., Also Known as Kymani R. Mercy First et al., Respondents; Shakima J., Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 142]-

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b and Family Court Act article 6 to terminate the mother’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Kings County (Beckoff, J.), dated May 5, 2011, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, determined that she abandoned the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to Mercy First and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother abandoned the subject child because she had no contact with him or MercyFirst, the foster care agency where the subject child had been placed, during the six-month period immediately prior to the filing of the petition (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; *Matter of Amaru M. [Kizwana M.], 87*AD3d 1069 [2011]; *Matter of Robert A.G.,*62 AD3d 701 [2009]; *Matter of Dallas Keith M.,*55 AD3d 612 [2008]; *Matter of Jamar Terry N.,*46 AD3d 563 [2007]). Moreover, the mother failed to satisfy her burden of proving that she suffered from a severe hardship that so permeated her life that attempts at communication were not feasible *(see Matter of Robert A.G.,*62 AD3d 701 [2009]; *Matter of Jamar Terry N.,*46 AD3d 563 [2007]; *Matter of Elizabeth Susanna R.,*11 AD3d 619, 620 [2004]). Further, following a dispositional hearing, the court properly determined that termination of the mother’s parental rights and freeing the child for adoption was in the child’s best interest *(see Matter of Jessie Skyler D. [Donna S.], 88*AD3d 703, 704 [2011]; *Matter of Andrea B.,*66 AD3d 770, 771 [2009]; *Matter of Lillian D.L.,*29 AD3d 583, 584 [2006]). Angiolillo, J.P., Eng, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RYAN BUNDY, 

Defendant. 

BROWN, Senior Judge. 

3:16-cr-00051-BR-5 

JUDGMENT 

On October 27, 2016, Defendant Ryan Bundy was found Not 

Guilty of Counts One and Two of the Superseding Indictment 

(#282). The Court, therefore, enters a judgment of acquittal as 

to Counts One and Two of the Superseding Indictment. 

On June 10, 2016, the Court dismissed Count Three of the 

Superseding Indictment. See Order (#671) Granting Motion to 

Dismiss, issued June 10, 2016. The Court, therefore, enters a 

judgment of dismissal as to Count Three of the Superseding 

Indictment. 

1 - JUDGMENT 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2585 Filed 03/06/18 Page 1 of 2
The jury did not reach any unanimous verdict as to Count 

Five of the Superseding Indictment. On January 23, 2018, the 

government filed an Unopposed Motion (#2420) to Dismiss Count 

Five of the Superseding Indictment in which the government moved 

to dismiss Count Five with prejudice. The Court granted that 

Motion. See Order (#2579), issued February 27, 2018. 

Accordingly, the Court enters a judgment of dismissal as to Count 

Five of the Superseding Indictment. 

The underlying indictment is also dismissed as to Defendant 

Ryan Bundy. 

Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant Ryan 

Bundy is acquitted, discharged, and any bond exonerated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 6th day of March, 2018. 

ANNA J. BROWN 

Senior United States District Judge 

2 - JUDGMENT 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2585 Filed 03/06/18 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Mecca Clinkscales, Petitioner, v Raymond W. Kelly et al., Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 683]

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated September 10, 2010, dismissing petitioner from the Police Department, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Judith J. Gische, J.], entered May 24, 2011), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evi*423dence that petitioner stole a $500 money order from a fellow police officer and deposited it into her personal bank account *(see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). There is no basis for disturbing the Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Trials’ (ADC) credibility determinations *(Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]).

The ADC properly denied petitioner’s request for an adjournment of the hearing pending the disposition of the complaining officers’ related disciplinary charges. Petitioner’s counsel agreed to the scheduled hearing date, knowing that the minutes, but not the decision, in the related matter were available. Moreover, the decision in the related matter was not probative of any issue in this proceeding. Petitioner was not deprived of due process, as she had a copy of the complaining officers’ testimony in the related hearing *(see People v Comfort,*60 AD3d 1298, 1299 [2009], *lv denied*12 NY3d 924 [2009]).

The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness *(see Matter of Kelly v Safir,*96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]). Concur — Mazzarelli J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Richter, JJ.
Results and Findings from TWP

TWP Changes

BAHG Direction

March 14, 2019
Annual Reporting Meeting

1 GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Work Plan Process, October 19, 2016

• TWG to “review progress on funded monitoring and research projects 

for the previous year”1

• Emphasis on “results/findings/scientific advances”1

• TWG “to give direction to the BAHG in the development or review of 

annual budget recommendations”1
Ideas

TWG recommendation to AMWG

January February March April May June

Getting to a TWG Recommendation
KA
Section 2.7 Criteria for Review and Revision

• Principles

• “Year three changes may be more substantive...”

• The proposer has the burden to prove the change is warranted

• Criteria

• Scientific requirement or merit (e.g., method change)

• Administrative needs (e.g., budget cuts, CPI change)

• New initiatives

• Endorsed by Program Manager before proposal is developed
Questions to Spark Dialogue

• Which results/findings/scientific advances stood out as impactful?

• Were there major omissions or projects lacking suitable progress?

• Which monitoring and research activities are most promising for 

future attention?

• What direction would you give the BAHG?
Schedule BAHG Calls
EXHIBIT 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS
I, L. Joshua Eikov, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Colmena Corp;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

                                           /s/ L. Joshua Eikov
                                           ----------------------
                                           L. Joshua Eikov
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: November 15, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6333

KEVIN D. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief

District Judge. (CA-96-119)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin D. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

without prejudice his action entitled "Show Cause for a Temporary

Restraining Order." The district court's dismissal without prejudice is not appealable at this time, given the fact that Appellant

could save his complaint through amendment. Domino Sugar Corp. v.

Sugar Workers' Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993). This

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (1992) (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory

order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains Summary Financial Information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 1996 and the Consolidated
Statement of Operations for the quarter ended September 30, 1996 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,550
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,148
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        143
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,032
<PP&E>                                             709
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              482
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,308
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,793
<SALES>                                            166
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   166
<CGS>                                              164
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      164
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   807
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (40)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    295
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       295
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
AO 442 (Rev. J 1/11) Arrest WIIIJ'BIIt 

• ORIGINAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

United States of America 

v. 

DORTHEA J. JOLING 

for the 

District of Oregon 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 6:15-cr-00113-MC 

.~wARREST WARRANT 

To: Any authorized law enforcement officer 

YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and bring before a United States magistrate judge without unnecessary delay 

(nome ofJ1UMHI to be tu'f'UUd) DORTHEA J. JOLING ~~~~~~~~------------------------------------------- who is accused of an offense or violation based on the following document filed with the court: 

~ Indictment 0 Superseding Indictment 0 Information 0 Superseding Information 0 Complaint 

0 Probation Violation Petition CJ Supervised Release Violation Petition 0 Violation Notice GT Order of the Court 

This offense is briefly described as follows: 

18 U.S.C. 1521 -Conspiracy to File Retaliatory Liens 

18 U.S.C. 1521 - Retaliatory Liens 

Failure to Appear as Ordered 

Date: 04123/2015 

City and state: -=Euge;;;a.;;,;..;.;ne;;:.,...;::O~R;...._ ______ _ 

' 

J 

THOMAS M. COFFIN, MaQI1trat,·Judge 

Prinled name and tilk' 

Return 

;o/s-/15:" 

I I 

This warrant \}'BS received on (dot!) t.i/J._ s/ f ) , and the person was arrested on (dote) 

at (cityandslllle) C ly Kc>cd.-e A-(_ 1 • "" '' .? __/ ~/.--/ . -~ ..... ~, . /' 

.-' /' :;/, / 

. ~__,...a . ArN#in~ 

6r-ycr Gti/16 .Dt!SM 

Case 6:15-cr-00113-MC Document 17 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
        32.2



CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 the Annual Report of Intelligroup, Inc, (the Company)
        on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
        I, Madhu Poomalil, Chief Financial 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 and to the best of my knowledge and belief,
        that:


|(1) | The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
        of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); and      
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                     
|(2) | The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                               |     |                                  
|------------------------------ | --- | ---------------------------------
|DATE: October 21,
        2005 | By: | /s/ Madhu
    Poomalil           
|                               |     |                                  
|                               |     | Madhu
          Poomalil         
|                               |     | Chief
          Financial Officer





---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafiq Salim, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 521]

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah A. Haendi*1485ges, J.), rendered April 15, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of harassment in the second degree and assault in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial is granted.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]) and harassment in the second degree (§ 240.26 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence *(see People v Hines,*97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], *rearg denied*97 NY2d 678 [2001]). In any event, that contention lacks merit *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). In addition, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this nonjury trial *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see Bleakley,*69 NY2d at 495). We further conclude, however, that Supreme Court abused its discretion in admitting rebuttal evidence concerning defendant’s relationship with a woman other than his wife, requiring reversal of the judgment and a new trial. “The general rule of evidence in this State concerning the impeachment of witnesses with respect to collateral matters is that ‘the cross-examiner is bound by the answers of the witness to questions concerning collateral matters inquired into solely to affect credibility’ ” *(People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 288 [1983]; *see People v Bellamy,*26 AD3d 638, 641 [2006]). Defendant’s extramarital relationship “was not a material issue in this case . . . [, and t]he rebuttal testimony served solely to attack defendant’s credibility on a collateral issue” *(Bellamy,*26 AD3d at 641).

In view of our decision to reverse, we need not address defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief. Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
Order entered December 12, 2018 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01037-CV 

IN RE JUAN GUERRA AND JUAN DELTORO, Relators 

Original Proceeding from the 162nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-1607967 

ORDER 

Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Whitehill 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relators’ petition for writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER relators to bear the costs, if any, of this original proceeding. 

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL 

 JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1755 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1755

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 36, United States Code, to make certain improvements in 
      the congressional charter of the Disabled American Veterans.

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

SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL CHARTER OF DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS.

    (a) Purposes.--Section 50302 of title 36, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
        ``The purposes of the corporation are--'' and inserting ``The 
        corporation is organized exclusively for charitable and 
        educational purposes. The purposes of the corporation shall 
        include--'';
            (2) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (3) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (9); and
            (4) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new 
        paragraphs:
            ``(7) to educate the public about the sacrifices and needs 
        of disabled veterans;
            ``(8) to educate disabled veterans about the benefits and 
        resources available to them; and''.
    (b) Dissolution.--Chapter 503 of such title is amended by adding at 
the end the following new section:
``Sec. 50309. Dissolution
    ``On dissolution or final liquidation of the corporation, any 
assets remaining after the discharge or satisfactory provision for the 
discharge of all liabilities shall be transferred to the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs for the care of disabled veterans.''.
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 503 of such title is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 50308 the following:

``50309. Dissolution.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 30, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1755

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend title 36, United States Code, to make certain improvements in 
      the congressional charter of the Disabled American Veterans.
```