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

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference to our firm under the
caption Selected Financial Data and the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-29487, 333-94759 and 333-117361) pertaining to the Orphan Medical, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan and
Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-90651, 333-68701,
333-66651, 333-60197, 333-51287 and 333-33552) and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated February 6,
2004, with respect to the financial statements and schedule of Orphan Medical, Inc. included in its Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 3 for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/   Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
July 19, 2004
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10877

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Francisco Javier Ramirez Martinez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:21-CR-519-1

______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Francisco Javier Ramirez 

Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez Ramirez has not filed a response. We 

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 24, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10877 Document: 61-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2024
No. 23-10877

2

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th 

Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 23-10877 Document: 61-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2024
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 7-5 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 7-5 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 7-5 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-05802-KMK-GAY Document 7 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 

OF THE STATE OF COLORADO 

CERTIFICATE OF FACT OF GOOD STANDING 

I, Jena Griswold, as the Secretary of State of the State of Colorado, hereby certify that,

according to the records of this office, 

is an entity formed or registered under the law of , has complied with all 

applicable requirements of this office, and is in good standing with this office. This entity has 

been assigned entity identification number .

This certificate reflects facts established or disclosed by documents delivered to this office on 

paper through that have been posted, and by documents delivered to this office 

electronically through @ . 

I have affixed hereto the Great Seal of the State of Colorado and duly generated, executed, and issued this 

official certificate at Denver, Colorado on @ in accordance with applicable law. 

This certificate is assigned Confirmation Number . 

*********************************************End of Certificate******************************************** 

Notice: A certificate issued electronically from the Colorado Secretary of State’s Web site is fully and immediately valid and effective. However, 

as an option, the issuance and validity of a certificate obtained electronically may be established by visiting the Validate a Certificate page of 

the Secretary of State’s Web site, http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/CertificateSearchCriteria.do entering the certificate’s confirmation number 

displayed on the certificate, and following the instructions displayed. Confirming the issuance of a certificate is merely optional and is not 

necessary to the valid and effective issuance of a certificate. For more information, visit our Web site, http://www.sos.state.co.us/ click 

“Businesses, trademarks, trade names” and select “Frequently Asked Questions.”

AEGIS Hedging Solutions, LLC

Delaware 20191466800 12/14/202012/15/2020 14:53:03 12/15/2020 14:53:03 12789536
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.5

                              CERTIFICATE OF MERGER
                       MERGING TEXAS NEVADA OIL & GAS CO.,
                              A TEXAS CORPORATION,
                                  WITH AND INTO
                         HOUSTON AMERICAN ENERGY CORP.,
                             A DELAWARE CORPORATION

     Pursuant to the provisions of Section 252(c) of the Delaware General
Corporation Law, the undersigned corporation hereby certifies as follows:

     1. The name and state of incorporation of each of the constituent
corporations are:

        (a)   Texas Nevada Oil & Gas Co.; and

        (b)   Houston American Energy Corp., a Delaware corporation.

     2. An Amended and Restated Plan and Agreement of Merger (the "Plan of
Merger") has been approved, adopted, certified, executed and acknowledged by
Texas Nevada Oil & Gas Co. and by Houston American Energy Corp., in accordance
with the provisions of subsection (c) of Section 252 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law.

     3. The name of the surviving corporation is Houston American Energy Corp.

     4. The Certificate of Incorporation of Houston American Energy Corp., in
effect as of the effective date of the merger, shall be the Certificate of
Incorporation of the surviving corporation.

     5. The surviving corporation is a corporation of the State of Delaware.

     6. The executed Plan of Merger is on file at 801 Travis Street, Suite 2020,
Houston, Texas 77002, which is the principal place of business of the
surviving corporation.

     7. A copy of the Plan of Merger will be furnished by Houston American
Energy Corp. on written request and without cost, to any shareholder of Texas
Nevada Oil & Gas Co. or to any stockholder of Houston American Energy Corp.

     8. The authorized capital stock of Texas Nevada Oil & Gas Co. is
100,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, and 10,000,000
shares of preferred stock, par value $0.001 per share.

     9. The effective date of this certificate and of the merger described
herein shall be January 17, 2002.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Houston American Energy Corp., has caused this
certificate to be signed by John F. Terwilliger, its authorized officer, on
January 17, 2002.

                                       HOUSTON AMERICAN ENERGY CORP.



                                       By   /s/ John F. Terwilliger
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                            John F. Terwilliger, President
Exhibit 24.1

                            TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     I, the undersigned director of Traffic Technology, Inc. (the "Company"), do
hereby constitute and appoint Mark Messina or Richard Bourke my true and lawful
attorney and agent to sign an Annual Report on Form 10-KSB to be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, and to do any and all acts and things and to
execute any and all instruments for me and in my name in the capacity indicted
below, which said attorney and agent, may deem necessary or advisable to enable
the Company to comply with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, and
any rules, regulations, and requirements of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in connection with such Annual Report, including specifically, but
without limitation, power and authority to sign for me in my name and in the
capacity indicated below, any and all amendments (including post-effective
amendments) hereto; and I do hereby ratify and confirm all that the said
attorney and agent shall do or cause to be done by virtue of this power of
attorney.

     Executed below by the following person in the capacity and on the date
indicated:

Signature                      Title                Date
---------                      -----                ----

/s/ Steve Ziomek              Director          March 27, 2002
-------------------------
Steve Ziomek


/s/ Gary Pinkston             Director          March 29, 2002
-------------------------
Gary Pinkston


/s/ Ray Deese                 Director          March 26, 2002
-------------------------
Ray Deese


/s/ Dana Woudenberg           Director          March 26, 2002
-------------------------
Dana Woudenberg
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 7 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 7 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 7 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 7 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 7 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05832-KMK-GAY Document 32 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 1 of 1
# C_2019357EN.01004301.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/43

---

Order of the General Court of 18 July 2019 — Taminco and Arysta LifeScience Great Britain v EFSA

(Case T-621/17) (1)

(2019/C 357/52)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Human Resource Development (#1199).                     

*Date/Time:*                         June 7-8, 2001, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                     

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Rooms 320 & 330, Arlington, VA 22230.                     

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Victor Santiago, Program Director, Human Resource Development Division, Room 815, National Foundation, 4210 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-4673.                     

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                     

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: May 15, 2001. 

Susanne Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 01-12591 Filed 5-17-01 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
---

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 Revett Minerals Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, 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/ Ken Eickerman       | 
|----------------------- | 
|Ken Eickerman           | 
|Chief Financial Officer | 
|Date: May 12, 2011      | 

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

---
#### Katrina A. RANDOLPH, Petitioner, v. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, Respondent.

No. 2013-3106.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 18, 2013.

Before DYK, PROST and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The court considers whether to dismiss Katrina A. Randolph’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Randolph’s representative received the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision in her case on February 22, 2013. Her petition was initially received by the court on April 25, 2013.

A petition for review of an MSPB decision must be filed “within 60 days after the Board issues notice” of its decision. 5 *928U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). This filing period is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional.” *Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp.,*735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.Cir.1984).

Here, Randolph was required to file her petition by April 23, 2013, two days before it was received. Her petition is therefore untimely. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 25(a)(2)(A) (“filing is not timely unless the clerk receives the papers within the time fixed for filing”). Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider Randolph’s petition and must dismiss it.

Accordingly,

It Is ORDERED That:

(1) The petition is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
#### Voyka Kutanovski, Appellant, v Frank DeCicco, Defendant, and City of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered December 9, 1987, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant City of New York and against her.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The record establishes that a collision occurred on April 18, 1983, between a truck owned by the defendant City of New York and driven by the defendant Frank DeCicco, and a car owned and driven by the plaintiff. The accident occurred near 63rd Street in Brooklyn, approximately one mile from the point where the Belt Parkway merges with the Gowanus *541Expressway. The plaintiff and two witnesses who were passengers in her car testified that the truck struck the car four times, twice in the rear, once on the left side and once in the front. However, there was testimony from a responding police officer that the only damage he observed upon his arrival at the scene was on the left side of the car and the right fender of the truck. He stated that he observed no damage to the rear of the car. In addition, DeCicco’s examination before trial was read at the trial indicating that he did not see the plaintiff’s car before the accident and the plaintiff’s car must have cut in front of his truck.

The plaintiff argues initially that the verdict in the city’s favor was against the weight of the evidence. We disagree. It is well settled that a jury verdict in favor of defendant should not be set aside unless the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence *(Burgess v DeAngelis,*135 AD2d 679, 680; *Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129). A review of the evidence adduced upon trial, particularly the testimony of the police officer who responded to the accident scene, clearly indicates that a fair basis existed for the jury’s verdict in the city’s favor.

The plaintiff also argues that the court erred in allowing the jury to hear the conclusory statements in DeCicco’s examination before trial testimony. While these statements may have constituted inadmissible opinion evidence, in view of the other evidence adduced we conclude that any error was harmless and that the plaintiff’s case was not prejudiced thereby *(see, Rodriguez v Board of Educ.,*104 AD2d 978; *Pickering v Freedman,*32 AD2d 649).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
GRANT OF EXTENSION

PAGE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0154

DEBRA ANN CHRISTIAN, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF 

CLIFFORD CHRISTIAN, 

Plaintiff and Appellant,

vs.

UNITED FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL 

DISTRICT COURT

HONORABLE MIKE MENAHAN

LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY CAUSE NO. ADV-2018-1172

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Pursuant to authority granted under the Montana Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 26(1), Appellee United Fire & Casualty Company is granted an 

extension of time until October 28, 2022, to prepare, file and serve the Appellee’s 

Answer Brief. 

Dated this day of , 2022. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

September 28 2022

09/28/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0154
Case 1:07-cv-05563-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05563-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05563-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05563-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05563-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5
Order entered January 27, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00091
- CR
MARCIE LYNN MCCARTHY , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 2

Dallas County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. MB1052426
- M



### O RDER
T he Court GRANTS court reporter Terri Foster Jones’s January 23, 2015 motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record.
We ORDER Ms. Jones to file the reporter’s record within THIRTY (30) DAYS from
th e date of this order.
We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record within FIFTEEN (15) DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
# C_2017121EN.01003702.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/37

---

Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Heineken Romania v EUIPO — Lénárd (Csíki Sör)

(Case T-83/17)

(2017/C 121/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Heineken Romania SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: A.-M. Baciu, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: András Lénárd (Sincraieni, Romania)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Csíki Sör’ — Application for registration No 12 105 839

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2016 in Case R 1310/2015-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division of July 1st, 2015 in Opposition B 002 279 514; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division of July 1st, 2015 in Opposition B 002 279 514;

st

| — | upheld the opposition B 002 279 514; |
| --- | --- |

—

upheld the opposition B 002 279 514;

| — | reject the European Union trade mark application No 012 105 839‘Csíki Sör’ in its entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the European Union trade mark application No 012 105 839‘Csíki Sör’ in its entirety.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
(84 South. 925)

#### STATE ex rel. TATE v. McBRIDE et al.

(6 Div. 902.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 27, 1919.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Hugh A. Locke, Judge.

J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., and Horace C. Wilkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following Committee Meeting:

*Name of Committee:*                         Army Science Board (ASB).                    

*Date of Meeting:*                         June 4-5, 2001.                    

*Time of Meeting:*                         0830-1545, June 4, 2001; 0830-1545 June 5, 2001                    

*Place:*                         Presidential Towers, Arlington, VA, 9th Floor conference room.                    

*Agenda:*                         The Army Science Board's (ASB) panel will conduct an Ad Hoc Study on “Adapting Future Wireless Communication” to examine future commercial wireless capabilities and recommend which capabilities may have applicability for the Objective Force. The meetings will be open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the committee at the time and in the manner permitted by the committee. For further information, please contact Mr. Jeff Ozimek, Army Science Board Staff Assistant, 732-532-5496 or Ms. Lisa Calabrese, Army Science Board Staff Assistant Assistant, 732-427-4646.                    

Wayne Joyner,

Executive Assistant, Army Science Board.

[FR Doc. 01-12201  Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M