alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**






MRU
      Holdings, Inc.


590
      Madison Avenue, 13 th Floor


New
      York,
      NY 10022




We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-3 ( Nos.
      333-143202, 333-138559, 333-138558 and 333-147822) and Form
      S-8 ( Nos.
      333-129997 and 333-129998 )
      of MRU
      Holdings, Inc. of our reports dated September 15, 2008, relating to the
      consolidated financial statements and the
      effectiveness of MRU Holdings, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, which
      appears in this Form 10-K. Our report relating to the consolidated financial
      statements contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to
      continue as a going concern.







***/s/
      BAGELL, JOSEPHS, LEVINE & COMPANY, L.L.C.***


Bagell,
      Josephs, Levine & Company, L.L.C.


Marlton,
      NJ 08053









September
      15, 2008
NO. 07-10-0046-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

FEBRUARY 17, 2010

______________________________

ROBERT PATRICK WHITEAKER AND 

ROBERT WHITEAKER RANCHES, INC., APPELLANTS

V.

DOUG LATHEM, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 69TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARTLEY COUNTY;

NO.4371-H; HONORABLE RON ENNS, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

**MEMORANDUM OPINION**

Pending before this Court is *Appellants' Motion to Dismiss Appeal Without Prejudice*in which they represent that the issues presented in this appeal have been rendered moot by this Court's *Order on Petition for Writ of Mandamus* and Judgment rendered in cause number 07-10-00001-CV on February 4, 2010.  Without passing on the merits of the case, the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed without prejudice.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).  Having dismissed the appeal at Appellants request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Patrick A. Pirtle

      Justice

2
2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-15-2002

USA v. Boone

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 99-5439

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Boone" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 131.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/131
Filed February 15, 2002 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

Nos. 99-5439/5695/5894 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

LARRY BOONE, 

 Appellant No.: 99-5439 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

THOMAS WESTON, aka Rasul 

 Thomas Weston, 

 Appellant No.: 99-5695 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 Appellant No.: 99-5894 

v. 

THOMAS WESTON, aka Rasul 

On Appeal and Cross-Appeal from the Judgment of 

Conviction and Sentence of the United States District 

Court for the District of New Jersey 

(Crim. No. 99-cr-005898) 

District Judge: Hon. Garrett E. Brown, Jr. 

Argued: September 15, 2000 

Before: ROTH, McKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judge s 
ORDER AMENDING OPINION 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Slip Opinion filed in 

this case on January 29, 2002, be amended as follows: 

On page 12, delete the first sentence in the third 

paragraph which reads: "The testimony regarding the

search of Weston's night club did not amount to plain 

error." And, replace it with the following: "The district 

court's admission of the testimony regarding the search of 

Weston's night club was not an abuse of discretion." 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Theodore A. McKee 

 Circuit Judge 

DATED: February 15, 2002 

A True Copy: 

Teste: 

 Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals 

 for the Third Circuit 

 2
EXHIBIT  10.6

                            FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE ("Amendment") dated August 12, 2005 for reference
purposes, is made and entered into by and between L.A.T. INVESTMENT CORPORATION,
a  California  corporation  ("Landlord"),  and  COMPUMED,  INC.,  a  Delaware
corporation  ("Tenant").

                                    RECITALS

The  Amendment  is  made  with  reference to the following facts and objectives:

A.  Landlord  and  Tenant  entered into a written lease dated June 24, 1999 (the
"Lease")  in  which  Landlord  leased  to Tenant and Tenant leased from Landlord
certain  premises located at 5777 West Century Boulevard, Suite 1285 and 315 Los
Angeles,  California  90045  (the  "Premises").

B.  Tenant  desires  to  extend  the  Lease  Term,  and  Landlord agrees to such
extension  on  and  subject  to the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in
this  Amendment.

                                    AGREEMENT

NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of  the  mutual covenants set forth herein,
Landlord  and  Tenant  do  hereby  amend  the  Lease  as  follows:

1.  Lease  Term

The  Lease Term shall be extended for a period of one (1) year ("Extended Term")
commencing  n  September  1,  2005  and  expiring  on  August  31,  2006.

2.  Rent

The  Monthly  Rent  for  the Premises shall be $11,822.08 effective September 1,
2005.

Second  Amendment  to  Lease
Compumed,  Inc.
August  12,  2005

<PAGE>

                                     Page 2

3.  Excused  Rent
    ----------------
Notwithstanding  section  5.2  of  the  Lease,  Landlord  hereby  conditionally
waives  Tenant's  obligation to pay one half of the Monthly Rent in months 6 and
12  of  the  Extended  Term  for  a  total of two (2) months, subject to all the
provisions  of  section  5.2  of  the  Lease.

                                  RATIFICATION.
                                  -------------

Except  as  modified  expressly  or  by necessary implication hereby, all of the
terms  and  conditions of the Lease shall remain unchanged and in full force and
effect. To the extent the provisions of this Amendment are inconsistent with the
provisions  of  the  Lease,  the  provisions of this Amendment shall control and
supersede  such  inconsistent  provisions  in  the  Lease.

IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date set
forth  below.

TENANT:

COMPUMED,  INC.,
a  Delaware  corporation



By:  /s/  John  G.  McLaughlin
  ----------------------------

Date  signed:  August  17,  2005


LANDLORD:

L.A.T  INVESTMENT  CORPORATION,
a  California  corporation



By:  /s/Bruce  Nahid
  ------------------

Date  Signed:  August  25,  2005
Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 5 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 6 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 7 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 8 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05559-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 9 of 9
✎AO 85 (Rev. 8/98) Notice, Consent, and Order of Reference — Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

District of

NOTICE, CONSENT, AND ORDER OF REFERENCE —

EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES

Plaintiff MAGISTRATE JUDGE

V.

Case Number:

Defendant

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(c), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, you are notified that a United States

magistrate judge of this district court is available to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or nonjury trial,

and to order the entry of a final judgment. Exercise of this jurisdiction by a magistrate judge is, however, permitted only if all

parties voluntarily consent.

You may, without adverse substantive consequences, withhold your consent, but this will prevent the court’s jurisdiction

from being exercised by a magistrate judge. If any party withholds consent, the identity of the parties consenting or withholding

consent will not be communicated to any magistrate judge or to the district judge to whom the case has been assigned.

An appeal from a judgment entered by a magistrate judge shall be taken directly to the United States court of appeals for

this judicial circuit in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of this district court.

CONSENT TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In accordance with provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties in this case consent to have a United

States magistrate judge conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including the trial, order the entry of a final judgment, and

conduct all post-judgment proceedings.

Party Represented Signatures Date

ORDER OF REFERENCE

IT IS ORDERED that this case be referred to

United States Magistrate Judge, to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.

Date United States District Judge

NOTE: RETURN THIS FORM TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT ONLY IF ALL PARTIES HAVE CONSENTED 

ON THIS FORM TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Case 7:07-cv-05895-SCR-GAY Document 3-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 1
(104 So. 918)

#### W. L. SMITH v. L. B. RAINEY.

(7 Div. 476.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 26, 1925.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; Woodson J. Martin, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
Exhibit 99.2

                          CFO 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 Guaranty  Federal  Bancshares,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Bruce Winston, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Bruce Winston
-----------------

Bruce Winston
Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2002
**EXHIBIT      21.1**

**Direct      Subsidiaries of Ariel Way, Inc. **

| **Subsidiary**                       |   | **Jurisdiction                of Incorporation** |
|--------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
| dbsXmedia,                Inc.       |   | Delaware                                         |
| Enfotec,                Inc.         |   | Delaware                                         |
| Ariel                Way Media, Inc. |   | Delaware                                         |
| Ariel                Way Media, Ltd. |   | United                Kingdom                    |

**Direct      Subsidiaries of dbsXmedia, Inc. **

| **Subsidiary**                 |   | **Jurisdiction                of Incorporation** |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
| dbsXmedia,                Ltd. |   | United                Kingdom                    |

----
Case 1:07-cv-05910-NRB Document 5 Filed 09/04/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05910-NRB Document 5 Filed 09/04/2007 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.1


                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Roger A. Parker, certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Amber Resources
Company of Colorado;

     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.


Date:  September 22, 2004


/s/ Roger A. Parker
Roger A. Parker
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32
                                                                      ----------


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

By signing below, each of the undersigned  officers hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to his or her knowledge,  (i) this report fully complies with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the  information  contained  in this  report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of Union
Community Bancorp.

Signed this 16th day of May 2005.




/s/ J. Lee Walden                        /s/ Alan L. Grimble
-----------------------------------      -------------------------------------
J. Lee Walden                            Alan L. Grimble
Chief Financial Officer                  Chief Executive Officer

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Union  Community  Bancorp and will
be retained by Union  Community  Bancorp and  furnished  to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2336

STAFFIONEY CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LINDSEY-CAMPBELL OIL GAS SERVICES; MINUTEMAN FOOD MART 7 

SEVEN GROCERY,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:20-cv-00181-BO)

Submitted: May 25, 2021 Decided: May 27, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Staffioney Campbell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Staffioney Campbell appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation to dismiss her civil complaint. The magistrate judge 

recommended dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and advised 

Campbell that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive 

appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this 

warning, Campbell failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 

F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Campbell

has waived appellate review by failing to file objections. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s judgment. 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
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1913 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to pay educational assistance or subsistence allowances to certain 

individuals during school term, quarter, or semester breaks. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2019 

Mr. CISNEROS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay educational assistance or subsistence allowances to certain individuals during school term, quarter, or semester breaks. 

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 ‘‘Break Relief for Every 

5 Academic Kind of Period in an Academic Year for Vet6 erans Act’’ or the ‘‘BREAK PAY for Veterans Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1913 IH

1 SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE OR SUB2 SISTENCE ALLOWANCES TO CERTAIN INDI3 VIDUALS DURING SEMESTER BREAKS. 

4 Section 3680(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, 

5 is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘; or’’ and 

7 inserting a semicolon; 

8 (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ‘‘dis9 approval.’’ and inserting ‘‘disapproval; or’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub11 paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(C) during periods between school terms, 

13 quarters, or semesters where the educational institu14 tion certifies the enrollment of the eligible veteran or 

15 eligible person on an individual term basis if— 

16 ‘‘(i) the period between those terms, quar17 ters, or semesters does not exceed eight weeks; 

18 and 

19 ‘‘(ii) both terms, quarters, or semesters im20 mediately preceding and immediately following 

21 the period are not shorter in length than the 

22 period.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2




CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Guaranty Federal Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Carter Peters, 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








/s/  Carter Peters




Carter Peters


Chief Financial Officer







August 12, 2010
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Floyd Junior POWELL, a/k/a Dick, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6515.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 8, 2013.

Decided: May 24, 2013.

Floyd Junior Powell, Appellant Pro Se. William A. Brafford, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Adam Christopher Morris, Craig Darren Randall, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Floyd Junior Powell seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2006) as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Powell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

*195We 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.

*DISMISSED.*