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

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors

Prescient Applied Intelligence, Inc:

We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the following registration statements, Form SB-2, as amended, (File number 333-128752), S-3 (File number 333-55912) and Form S-8 (File number 333-41320), of Prescient Applied Intelligence, Inc. of our report dated March
27, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Prescient Applied Intelligence, Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity (deficit), and cash flows for the
years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Prescient Applied Intelligence, Inc.

Our
report dated March 27, 2007, 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 raise 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 that uncertainty.



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|/s/ Amper, Politziner & Mattia P.C.
|                                   
|Edison, New Jersey March 27,
2007
# C_2021375EN.01000301.xml

| 17.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/3

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10426 — Lone Star/Green-City Immobilier)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 375/03)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | LSREF6 Balto Holdings S.à r.l. (‘Lone Star’, Bermuda), controlled by Lone Star Funds; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

LSREF6 Balto Holdings S.à r.l. (‘Lone Star’, Bermuda), controlled by Lone Star Funds; and,

| — | Green-City Immobilier (France). |
| --- | --- |

—

Green-City Immobilier (France).

Lone Star acquire(s) within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Green-City Immobilier.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for Lone Star: wholly owned subsidiary of affiliates of Lone Star Funds, a private equity firm that invests globally in real estate, equity, credit, and other financial assets, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Lone Star: wholly owned subsidiary of affiliates of Lone Star Funds, a private equity firm that invests globally in real estate, equity, credit, and other financial assets,

| — | for Green-City Immobilier: independent real estate developer in major cities in France, with a focus on new housing, such as collective housing, intermediate housing, houses and / or detached villas, townhouses and student residences. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Green-City Immobilier: independent real estate developer in major cities in France, with a focus on new housing, such as collective housing, intermediate housing, houses and / or detached villas, townhouses and student residences.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10426 — Lone Star / Green-City Immobilier

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2135 

To amend titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act to provide certain 

individuals with information on employment support services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2015 

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. REED, Mr. 

YOUNG of Indiana, and Mrs. BLACK) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act 

to provide certain individuals with information on employment support services. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Promoting Oppor5 tunity for Disability Benefit Applicants Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2135 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROVIDING INFORMATION ON PUBLIC OR PRIVATE 

2 EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT SERVICES. 

3 (a) AMENDMENT TO TITLE II.—Title II of the Social 

4 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended by insert5 ing after section 218 the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 219. INFORMATION ON EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT 

7 SERVICES. 

8 ‘‘The Commissioner of Social Security may provide 

9 individuals who are denied benefits under this title based 

10 on an adverse determination of disability information on 

11 appropriate public or private entities that provide employ12 ment services, vocational rehabilitation services, or other 

13 support services.’’. 

14 (b) AMENDMENT TO TITLE XVI.—Section 1615 of 

15 such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382d) is amended by inserting after 

16 subsection (a) the following: 

17 ‘‘(b) The Commissioner of Social Security may pro18 vide individuals who are denied benefits under this title 

19 based on an adverse determination of disability informa20 tion on appropriate public or private entities that provide 

21 employment services, vocational rehabilitation services, or 

22 other support services.’’. 

23 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

24 subsections (a) and (b) shall apply with respect to applicaVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:56 May 08, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2135.IH H2135

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2135 IH

1 tions for monthly benefits filed on or after the date that 

2 is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Lopez, Appellant.

The defendant was arrested three or four blocks from the scene of the crime after being chased to that location by some neighbors of the complaining witness. Based on the totality of circumstances known to the arresting officer, we have concluded that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant *(see, People v Bigelow,*66 NY2d 417).

*828We have reviewed the record and have determined that the showup that occurred 15 minutes after the crime was not improper but was "an appropriate procedure to secure a prompt and reliable identification of the perpetrator while the incident was vivid in the victim’s memory” *(People v Ford,*110 AD2d 847; *see also, People v Brnja,*70 AD2d 17, *affd*50 NY2d 366).

The trial court’s *Sandoval*ruling was not an abuse of discretion *(see, People v Bennette,*56 NY2d 142; *People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371; *People v Frumerin,*121 AD2d 736). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1166

ETHELBERT T.F. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at

Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00219-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ethelbert T.F. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1166 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ethelbert T.F. Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action 

in which he sought to challenge a prior state court decision. On appeal, we confine our 

review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Johnson’s 

informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has 

forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 

(4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, 

our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment. Johnson v. Virginia, No. 2:22-cv-00219-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va. Jan. 30, 

2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1166 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 21.1

                      SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

Hyperion Enhanced Networks of Virginia, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

Hyperion Telecommunications of Arkansas, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

         Entergy  Hyperion  Telecommunications  of  Arkansas,  L.L.C.(50% owned)
          (an Arkansas  limited  liability company)

Hyperion Telecommunications of Florida, Inc. (Florida corporation)

         MediaOne Fiber Technologies, Inc. (20% owned) (Florida corporation)

Hyperion Telecommunications of Kansas, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

         Multimedia Hyperion Telecommunications (49.9% owned) (Kansas general
          partnership)

Hyperion Telecommunications of Kentucky, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

         Hyperion Telecommunications of Lexington, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

         Hyperion Telecommunications of Louisville, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

Hyperion Telecommunications of Louisiana, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

         Entergy  Hyperion  Telecommunications  of Louisiana,  L.L.C.(50% owned)
          (an Arkansas  limited  liability company)

Hyperion Telecommunications of Mississippi, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

         Entergy Hyperion  Telecommunications  of Mississippi, L.L.C.(50% owned)
          (an Arkansas limited  liability company)

Hyperion Telecommunications of New Jersey, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

         Hyperion Telecommunications of Central New Jersey, Inc. (Delaware
          corporation)

Hyperion Telecommunications of New York, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

         Hyperion Telecommunications of Albany, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

         Hyperion Telecommunications of Buffalo, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

         Hyperion Telecommunications of Syracuse, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

Hyperion Telecommunications of Pennsylvania, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

         PECO Hyperion Telecommunications (50% owned) (Pennsylvania general
          partnership)

         Hyperion Susquehanna Telecommunications (50% owned) (Pennsylvania
          general partnership)

         Allegheny Hyperion Telecommunications, L.L.C. (50% owned) (Pennsylvania
          limited liability company)
<PAGE>
         Hyperion Telecommunications of Harrisburg, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

Hyperion Telecommunications of Tennessee, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

         AVR of Tennessee, L.P. d/b/a Hyperion of Tennessee, L.P. (95% owned)
          (California limited partnership)

Hyperion Telecommunications of Vermont, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

Hyperion Telecommunications of Virginia, Inc. (Virginia corporation)

         MediaOne of Virginia (37% owned) (Virginia general partnership)
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 4, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40747

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PRESTON JOSEPH ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-189-TH-WCR-1

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

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before KING, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This court affirmed the sentence of Preston Joseph Robinson. 

United States v. Robinson, 115 F. App’x 259 (5th Cir. 2004). The

Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in

light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Robinson

v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1949 (2005). This court requested

and received supplemental letter briefs addressing the impact of

Booker. 
No. 04-40747

-2-

Robinson argues that the district court erred under Booker

in enhancing his sentence based on facts not admitted by him or

found by a jury and in sentencing him under the mandatory

guideline scheme held unconstitutional in Booker. Our review is

for plain error due to his failure to raise an appropriate

objection in the district court. See United States v. Mares, 402

F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005).

Under the plain error standard of review, the appellant must

show that (1) there is an error (2) that is clear or obvious and

(3) that affects his substantial rights. United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993). If these factors are established,

the decision to correct the forfeited error is within this

court’s sound discretion, which will not be exercised unless the

error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 736. 

The district court’s enhancement of Robinson’s sentence

pursuant to a mandatory guideline scheme based on facts that were

not found by a jury or admitted by him constituted error that was

plain. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 520-21. Robinson argues that the

error affected his substantial rights because it was structural

or because prejudice should be presumed. However, these

arguments are foreclosed. See United States v. Malveaux, 411

F.3d 558, 560 n.9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 194

(2005). Because the record does not show that Robinson likely

would have received a more lenient sentence if the district court
No. 04-40747

-3-

had acted under an advisory sentencing system, Robinson has not

shown that the district court’s error affected his substantial

rights. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 521. 

Nothing in the Supreme Court’s Booker decision requires us

to change our prior affirmance in this case. Accordingly, we

reinstate that affirmance. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6192

IVERY SWEEZY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEVE BAILEY, Superintendent; BOB DELANEY, Psychologist, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-14-MU) Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 20, 1999Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivery Sweezy, Appellant Pro Se. Curtis Oscar Massey, II, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ivery Sweezy appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Sweezy v. Bailey , No. CA-96-14-MU (W.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 1999). We deny Sweezy’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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
#### Diefendorf *v.*Diefendorf *et al.*

*(Supreme*Court, General *Term,*Third *Department.*

July 7, 1890.)

No opinion. Judgment corrected as on file. See 8 N. Y. Supp. 617.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 28, 2014

NO. 03-13-00505-CR

Rex Allen Stockton, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT OF LAW NO. 4 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment entered by the trial court. Having reviewed the record and 

the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s

judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Because appellant is indigent 

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           FEB-1-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              FEB-3-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                FEB-1-1997
<CASH>                                          27,151
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,937
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,392
<PP&E>                                          14,218
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,612
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,144
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,613
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,456
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,033
<SALES>                                         43,618
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,087
<CGS>                                           27,049
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,846
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  88
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,105
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,535
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,570
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32


                                  CERTIFICATION


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

         (A)      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: August 14, 2003



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





<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32



                                  CERTIFICATION


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

         (C)      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: August 14, 2003




                                                   s/ Mark A. Ruth
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                      Mark A. Ruth
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Gage Height                    
csv

      Average Canal Gage Height                    
csv

      Average Secondary Canal Gage Height                    
csv

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

      Gage Height                    
json

      Average Canal Gage Height                    
json

      Average Secondary Canal Gage Height                    
json
# C_2021309EN.01000201.xml

| 2.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10286 — BNPPF/bpost)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 309/02)

On 27 July 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 32021M10286. 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 32021M10286. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---