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



Exhibit 23.1 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT    The Board of Directors
The viaLink Company We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statements (No.
333-5912) on Form S-3, (No.333-41320) on Form S-8, and (No. 333-101523) on Form
S-2 of The viaLink Company of our report dated March 5, 2004, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of The viaLink Company as of December 31, 2003 and
2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders
equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual
report on Form 10-KSB of The viaLink Company. Our report dated March 5, 2004, contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and is dependent
upon access to additional external financing, which raises substantial doubt
about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial
statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of
this uncertainty. KPMG LLP Dallas, Texas
April 28, 2004
CHANGE IN TERMS AGREEMENT

Borrower:         US Global Nanospace, Inc.          Lender:  USDR(NV), Inc.
                  f/k/a US Global Aerospace, Inc.
                  2533 N. Carson St., Suite 5107
                  Carson City, NV  89706

Principal:        Amounts up to $125,000.00          Interest Rate:    10.000%

Loan Date:        June 6, 2003

Maturity:         October 31, 2004

Date of Agreement:         June 11, 2004

                      DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING INDEBTEDNESS

A Revolving Promissory Note dated June 6, 2003 in original principal amounts up
to $125,000.00.

                         DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE IN TERMS

Original principal amounts have been increased from $125,000.00 to $500,000.00.
All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

                                 PROMISE TO PAY

US Global Nanospace, Inc. f/k/a US Global Aerospace, Inc., ("Borrower") promises
to pay to USDR(NV), Inc. ("Lender"), the principal balance then outstanding,
together with interest at the rate of 10.000% per annum on the unpaid principal
balance from June 6, 2003, until paid in full.

                                     PAYMENT

Borrower will pay these loans in one principal payment of the balance then
outstanding, plus interest on or before October 31, 2004. This payment due on
October 31, 2004 will be for all principal and all accrued interest not yet
paid. Unless otherwise agreed or required by applicable law, payments will be
applied first to any accrued unpaid interest, than to principal. Borrower may
pay without penalty all or a portion of the amount owed earlier than it is due.

                             SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS

This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties,
their successors and assigns.


BORROWER:                               LENDER:

US Global Nanospace, Inc.,              USDR(NV), Inc.
f/k/a US Global Aerospace, Inc.


By: /s/ John Robinson                   By: /s/ Julie Seaman
  ----------------------------------       -------------------------------------
  John Robinson, Chairman                  Julie Seaman, Secretary
#### Tarsem S. BRAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-74939.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 18, 2007.

Hector M. Roman, Jr., Esq., Roman & Singh, LLP, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michael T. Donnellan, U.S. Dept of Justice Environmental Enforcement Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Tarsem S. Brar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, which adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We review the IJ’s decision for substantial evidence, *Abebe v. Gonzales,*432 F.3d 1037, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because the IJ relied on inconsistencies between Brar’s testimony and declaration that go to the heart of Brar’s asylum claim, including inconsistencies regarding whether Brar filed police reports regarding the alleged mistreatment of his family and when he *720first met Detective Grewel, the purported instigator of the mistreatment. *See Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).

Because Brar did not establish that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief because Brar did not establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to India. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Opinions & Orders

Court opinions and orders can be accessed through several different links, depending on the time period.

**Recent Opinions and Orders**

Recent Decisions of the Court is a general listing of all public decisions issued by the judges of the court within the last calendar year. This list includes judge decisions on Vaccine Act motions for review.

Recent Decisions of OSM is a general listing of all public Vaccine Act decisions issued by the Office of Special Masters within the last calendar year.

**All Other Opinions and Orders**

All public decisions issued from January 1, 2014 to present are available via the Government Printing Office GovInfo website. This list includes public decisions issued in both general jurisdiction and Vaccine Act cases. There is also a more search friendly version of this site.

All older court opinions posted prior to 2014 are available on the court's website. This includes both general jurisdiction and vaccine injury cases.

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
Exhibit 99.1


                                  CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I hereby certify that:

         (J) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q(i);

         (B) To the best of my knowledge this Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q (i)
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of  1934(U.S.C.  78m(a) or 78o(d));  and, (ii) the  information
contained in this Report fairly present, in all material respects, the financial
condition  and results of  operations  of Tengasco,  Inc.  and its  Subsidiaries
during the period covered by this report.


Dated: May 20, 2003


                                                       /s/ Richard T. Williams
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Richard T. Williams
                                                       Chief Executive Officer




A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Tengasco,  Inc. and will be retained by Tengasco, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23


[KPMG LOGO]


1000 Walnut, Suite 1600                            Telephone 816 474 8480
P.O. Box 13127                                     Fax 816 556 9652
Kansas City, MO 64198




                             Accountants' Consent



Board of Directors
CBES Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
333-39785) on Form S-8 CBES Bancorp, Inc. of our report, dated August 11, 2000,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of CBES Bancorp, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of June 30, 2000 and 1999 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2000,
which report appears in the June 30, 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of CBES
Bancorp, Inc.


                           [KPMG LLP SIGNATURE LOGO]


Kansas City, Missouri
September 28, 2000
# C_2021091EN.01002901.xml

| 18.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/29

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10148 — FCA/EEPS/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 91/02)

On 12 March 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10148. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10148. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Gage Height                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Maximum Water Temperature (C)                    
csv

      Minimum Water Temperature (C)                    
csv

      Water Temp Deg C                    
csv

      Flow                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Gage Height                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Maximum Water Temperature (C)                    
json

      Minimum Water Temperature (C)                    
json

      Water Temp Deg C                    
json

      Flow                    
json
# C_2021312EN.01000101.xml

| 4.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10122 — Mayr-Melnhof Karton/Kotkamills)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 312/01)

On 11 June 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10122. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10122. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### MULLINS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Summons—Service on Corporation—Managing Agent.

A local superintendent of a life insurance company, who has “general supervision of the business” of his district, is a “managing agent,” on whom process against the company may be served, as provided by Code Civ. Proc. § 431. Dykman, X, dissenting.

Appeal from Mt. Vernon city court.

Action by Julia Mullins, as administratrix of Catherine Flynn, ■deceased, against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, on a policy of life insurance. The summons was served on one W. A. Skidmore, a local superintendent _ of defendant. From an order ■denying a motion to set aside the service of the summons, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

Arnoux, Ritch & Woodford (Wm. H. Arnoux and John McG. Goodale, of counsel), for appellant.

William Riley, for respondent.

PRATT, J.

The justice had evidence before him which justified Mm in finding that Skidmore was a managing agent of defendant, .and his decision is binding upon us. We think that the duties of *960Skidmore, as set forth in the manual of defendant, quoted in appellant’s points, are sufficient to sustain the finding. “As superinv tendent, you have general supervision of the business of your district.” An agent who has general supervision of a business is a managing agent. ■ The district in which the powers are exercised may be limited, but the powers are general. Bain v. Insurance Co., 9 How. Pr. 448; Palmer v. Pennsylvania Co., 35 Hun, 370; Rochester, H. & L. R. Co. v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 48 Hun, 190; Barrett v. Telegraph Co. (Sup.) 10 N. Y. Supp. 138; Brayton v. Railroad Co. (Sup.) 25 N. Y. Supp. 264,—are in point, and sustain this conclusion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

BROWN, P. J., concurs. DYKMAN, J., dissenting. See opinion in Stubing v. Insurance Co., infra
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Sparta Inc. 

Under Contract No. HQ0006-06-F-0002 et al. 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

) 

) 

) ASBCA No. 59937 

) 

) 

Kevin J. Slattum, Esq. 

Mary E. Buxton, Esq. 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 

Los Angeles, CA 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Carol L. Matsunaga, Esq. 

Senior Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Carson, CA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismiss_ed with prejudice. 

Dated: 24 November 2015 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59937, Appeal of Sparta Inc., 

rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Northwest Pipe Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephanie J. Welty, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                          
|/s/ Stephanie J. Welty                                    
|Stephanie J. Welty Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer
|August 8, 2008
# Court of Appeals
**First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 14

- 00937

- CV

Deborah A. Beck and Nancy Beck

- Deane

v
.

Dave Escobales

NO. 2013

- 07491 IN THE 125TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

RPT REC ORD
MT FEE CLK RECORD STATEWIDE EFILING FILING $3,143.00 $10.00 $90.00 $20.00 $175.00 03/03/2015 03/03/2015 01/09/2015 11/26/2014 11/26/2014 PAID
E

- PAID

PAID E

- PAID
E

- PAID ANT
ANT ANT ANT
ANT



### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $3,4 38 .00.
Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine , Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this May 2 9 , 2015

.
# C_2021342EN.01000201.xml

| 25.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 342/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 342/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10383 — Blackstone/Vista/Ellucian)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 342/02)

On 18 August 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10383. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10383. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4636

TERRY KINARD,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CR-95-205)

Submitted: February 27, 1997

Decided: March 13, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ann Briks Walsh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,

South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney,

A. Peter Shahid, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,

South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Terry Kinard pled nolo contendere to a charge of bank robbery in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (1994). He seeks to appeal his 151-

month sentence. The district court's judgment and commitment order

was entered on April 17, 1996. Kinard requested leave to file a notice

of appeal out of time on July 31, 1996. The district court granted the

motion on August 1, 1996, finding good cause and excusable neglect.

Kinard filed his notice of appeal on August 2, 1996.

In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within

ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). With or without a motion, the district court may grant an extension of time to file

of up to thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect if the notice

of appeal is filed within the thirty-day extension period. See United

States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court

may not otherwise extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.

United States v. Avendano-Camacho, 786 F.2d 1392, 1394-95 (9th

Cir. 1986); United States v. Schuchardt, 685 F.2d 901 (4th Cir. 1982).

Kinard's notice of appeal and motion for an extension of time to

file were submitted 104 days after entry of judgment. The notice of

appeal is thus ineffective because the district court was without

authority to extend the time for filing beyond forty days after entry

of judgment. Schuchardt, 685 F.2d at 902. Kinard may seek a belated

appeal or review of his claims in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214.

We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

 2