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

|DAVIDSON& COMPANYLLP |                       | A Partnership of Incorporated Professionals
|-------------------- | --------------------- | -------------------------------------------
|                     | Chartered Accountants |                                            

Exhibit 23.1

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
  Statement of Viscount Systems, Inc. on Form S-8 (No. 333-97699) previously filed
  by Viscount Systems, Inc. of our report dated February 23, 2006 on our audit
  of the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of December 31, 2005
  and for the year then ended, which report appears elsewhere in this Annual Report
  on Form 10-KSB of the Company as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005.

**"DAVIDSON & COMPANY LLP"**

|Vancouver, Canada | Chartered Accountants
|----------------- | ---------------------
|                  |                      
|March 28, 2006    |                      

A
  Member of SCINTERNATIONAL

1200 - 609 Granville Street, P.O. Box 10372, Pacific Centre,
  Vancouver, BC, Canada, V7Y 1G6
  Telephone (604) 687-0947 Fax (604) 687-6172

---
Nodal Exchange, LLC Rulebook Appendix C: Reporting Levels, Accountability Levels and Position Limits

Physical 

Commodity Code Contract Name

Reporting 

Level

Spot Month 

Position Limit (lots)

Single Month 

Accountability Level 

(lots)

All Month 

Accountability Level 

(lots)

Aggregation 

Group*

CFTC 

Referenced 

Contract

GJQ PJM.OYSTERCR24 KVUNIT01_month_on_dac 25 138 138 1656 0

GJR PJM.OYSTERCR24 KVUNIT01_month_off_dac 25 138 138 1656 0

GJS PJM.TMI20 KVUNIT01_month_on_dac 25 244 244 2928 0

GJT PJM.TMI20 KVUNIT01_month_off_dac 25 244 244 2928 0
# C_2019103EN.01003401.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2019 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Di-Ka (Lamp)

(Case T-766/17) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a lighting fitting - Ground for invalidity - Earlier Community design - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2019/C 103/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eglo Leuchten GmbH (Pill, Austria) (represented by: H. Lauf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Di-Ka Vertriebs GmbH & Co. KG (Arnsberg, Germany) (represented by: M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 (Case R 738/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Eglo Leuchten and Di-Ka Vertriebs.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eglo Leuchten GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eglo Leuchten GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2449 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for limitations on duty 

hours for yardmaster employees, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2019 

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for limitations on duty hours for yardmaster employees, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Railroad Yardmaster 

5 Protection Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON DUTY HOURS OF YARDMASTER 

7 EMPLOYEES. 

8 (a) LIMITATIONS ON DUTY HOURS OF YARDMASTER

9 EMPLOYEES.—Section 21103 of title 49, United States 

10 Code, is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2449 IH

1 (1) in the heading of such section, by inserting 

2 ‘‘AND YARDMASTER EMPLOYEES’’ after ‘‘TRAIN

3 EMPLOYEES’’; 

4 (2) by inserting ‘‘or yardmaster employee’’ after 

5 ‘‘train employee’’ each place it appears; and 

6 (3) in subsection (e), by inserting ‘‘or 

7 yardmaster’’ after ‘‘During a train’’. 

8 (b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 21101 of title 49, United 

9 States Code, is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (3) by inserting ‘‘a yardmaster 

11 employee,’’ after ‘‘dispatching service employee,’’; 

12 and 

13 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(6) ‘yardmaster employee’ means an indi15 vidual responsible for supervising and coordi16 nating the control of trains and engines oper17 ating within a rail yard.’’. 

18 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec19 tions for chapter 211 of title 49, United States Code, is 

20 amended by striking the item relating to section 21103 

21 and inserting the following: 

‘‘21103. Limitations on duty hours of train employees and yardmaster employees.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

December 17 , 2019
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00558- CV

ALSCO, INC., Appellant

V. MALLORY JACKSON, Appellee
On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-02372

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed July 3, 2019. On December 3, 2019, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). The motion is granted. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.
PER CURIAM Panel Consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13859]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, the Department of Justice 
gives notice that a proposed consent decree in the case captioned 
United States v. Avanti Development, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 
IP01-402-C-B/S (S.D. Ind.) was lodged with the United States District 
Court for the Southern District of Indiana on May 21, 2001. The 
proposed consent decree relates to the Avanti Superfund Site (the 
``Site'') in Indianapolis, Indiana.
    The proposed consent decree would resolve a civil claim of the 
United States for recovery of unreimbursed past response costs under 
section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9607, against Settling 
Defendant Vornado Realty Trust. The proposed consent decree would 
provide for payment of $30,000 toward the United States' past response 
costs associated with the Site.
    For a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, 
the Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United 
States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to 
United States v. Avanti Development, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 
IP01-402-C-B/S (S.D. Ind.), and DOJ Reference No. 90-11-3-06099.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at: (1) The Office of 
the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, 10 
West Market Street, Suite 2100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (contact 
Thomas Kieper (317-226-6333)); and (2) the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency (Region 5), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604 (contact Kevin Chow (312-353-6181)). Copies of the 
proposed consent decree may also be obtained by mail from the 
Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, 
Washington, DC 20044. In requesting copies, please refer to the above-
referenced case name and DOJ Reference Number, and enclose a check made 
payable to the Consent Decree Library for $7.50 (30 pages at 25 cents 
per page reproduction cost).

William D. Brighton,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 01-13859 Filed 6-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
EXHIBIT 23.1

                                [LOGO GOES HERE]
                                              CPA,LLC
                                 KYLE L. TINGLE
                          PERSONAL FINANCIAL PLANNING
                        BUSINESS SERVIES & TAX PLANNING



May 11, 2005

To Whom It May Concern

The firm of Kyle L. Tingle, CPA, LLC consents to the inclusion of his report
dated May 5, 2005 accompanying the audited financial statements of International
Card Establishment, Inc. as of December 31, 2004, in the Form 10-KSB, with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and to the Firm under the caption
"experts" in the Prospectus.

Very truly yours,

/s/ KYLE L. TINGLE, CPA, LLC

Kyle L. Tingle
Kyle L. Tingle, CPA, LLC
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kin L. GAYLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-30574

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

Duane Evans, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Virginia Laughlin Schlueter, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kin L. Gayle, federal prisoner # 30212-034, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine, and he was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 120 months in prison. Gayle appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence, which primarily was based on recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines for crack cocaine. The Assistant Federal Public Defender representing Gayle on appeal has filed an unopposed motion to substitute counsel. Counsel avers that he was a member of the review panel charged with determining Gayle’s eligibility for a reduction under the amendments to the Guidelines for crack cocaine. Counsel contends that his participation in the review panel creates a potential conflict of interest.

Because Gayle was subjected to the mandatory minimum penalty, he was not eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief under the recent crack cocaine guidelines amendments. *See*21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 851; *United States v. Pardue,*36 F.3d 429, 431 (5th Cir.1994). Nor has Gayle alleged or identified any basis upon which the district court could have imposed a sentence below the statutory minimum.

*918Gayle’s appeal is entirely without merit. Therefore, counsel’s motion to substitute counsel is denied, the appeal is dismissed, and counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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.
* 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

March 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11459

Summary Calendar

ANTHONY LIONEL GIBSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF TEXAS; DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS, BILL LONG, Clerk; JOHN

VANCE, District Attorney; MARK NANCARROW, Judge; FRED MCDANIEL,

Magistrate Judge; JOSIE MASSAR, Court Reporter; BAILIFF COURT 

#204; KATI DREW; C. LEROY JOHNSON; BRUCE ANTON,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CV-2309

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

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges,

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony Lionel Gibson, former Texas prisoner # 695684,

appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, in which

he sued numerous defendants connected with his state court

conviction and subsequent state habeas proceedings. The district

court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to

state a claim because the claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477 (1994).
No. 05-11459

-2-

Gibson argues that the district court erroneously applied

the Heck-bar. The thrust of Gibson’s claims is that the

defendants conspired and falsified documents in his state habeas

proceedings because they knew his incarceration was illegal,

thereby depriving him of his liberty. Gibson’s claims challenged

the validity of his incarceration, and the district court did not

err. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.

Gibson has also filed a motion to compel the court reporter

to produce a transcript of a hearing on his motion for discovery. 

That motion is denied.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6030

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

EMILIO BAUTISTA-TERAN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:07-cr-00177-CMC-6; 3:09-cv-70068-CMC)

Submitted: May 22, 2013 Decided: June 24, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emilio Bautista-Teran, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Mark C. 

Moore, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Emilio Bautista-Teran seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2012). We dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a 

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty 

days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or 

reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he 

timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 

214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on November 12, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on 

December 20, 2012. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 

Because Bautista-Teran failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal. To the extent Bautista-Teran moves for

authorization pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2006) to file a 

successive § 2255 motion, such motion is denied. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3

adequately presented in the materials before this Court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The Midland Pacific Railroad Co. v. Newman.

1. The decision in the preceding case of The Midland. Pacific Jlailroad .Company y. McCartney, affirmed.

This, like the preceding case, was brought up by petition in error, from the - District Court of Otoe county. • It was argued in connection with that cause.

*/S. H. Calhoun*and *J. H, Croxton,*for plaintiffs in error.

*I. N. Shambaugh,*for defendant in error. .....

Lake, J.

The record in this ease presents precisely the same questions as have already been passed upon in the case, of The-Midland Pacific Railroad v. McCartney, decided at this term of the court. . .

For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment of the District Court in this must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of CAPITAL RESOURCE ALLIANCE INC., a Colorado corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Joseph Forzani, Chief Executive Officer and Frederick Fitzgerald, Chief Financial Officer of the Company do hereby certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C.  1350), that to their knowledge:



(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/ Joseph Forzani

Joseph Forzani, President and Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Frederick Fitzgerald

Frederick Fitzgerald, Secretary/Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer



November 16, 2007



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Capital Resource Alliance Inc. and will be retained by Capital Resource Alliance Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARSHAWN TYLIQUE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 271 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of April, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
crypto.com | Derivatives North America

crypto.com | Derivatives

200 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1400

Chicago, IL 60606

Jaime M. Walsh

+1 (312) 884-0927

Jaime.walsh@nadex.com

20221007(1)

October 7, 2022

Via CFTC Portal Submissions

Mr. Christopher Kirkpatrick

Secretary of the Commission

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

3 Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington D.C. 20581

RE: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments: Nadex Amends Strike Widths - Submission Pursuant to 

Commission Reg. §40.6(d)

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (“Act”), and Section 40.6(d) of 

the regulations promulgated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) under the Act 

(the “Regulations”), North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. (“Nadex”, the “Exchange”) hereby provides notice 

that it amended the strike widths of various contracts during the week of October 3, 2022 due to increased or 

decreased volatility, as the case may be, in the underlying markets upon which the Nadex contracts are based. 

Amended strike widths are reflected in Exhibit A.

Nadex hereby certifies that the additions and amendments contained herein comply with the Act, as 

amended, and the Commission Regulations adopted thereunder. No substantive opposing views were expressed to 

Nadex with respect to these additions. Nadex hereby certifies that notice of these events was posted on its website 

at the time of this filing.

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 

(312) 884-0927 or by email at jaime.walsh@nadex.com.

 Sincerely, 

Jaime M. Walsh

Head of Legal
crypto.com | Derivatives

200 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1400

Chicago, IL 60606

20221007(1)

EXHIBIT A

Week of October3, 2022

Contract Trade Date of Change Strike Width Adjusted 

From

Strike Width Adjusted To

20-Minute Wall Street 30 (Wide) 

Binary

October 3, 2022 8 16

20-Minute Wall Street 30 (Narrow) 

Binary

October 3, 2022 6 12

2-Hour Wall Street 30 Binary October 3, 2022 24 48

20-Minute US 500 (Wide) Binary October 3, 2022 1.5 3

20-Minute US 500 (Narrow) Binary October 3, 2022 1 2

2-Hour US 500 (Wide) Binary October 3, 2022 3 6

20-Minute US Tech 100 (Wide) Binary October 3, 2022 4 8

20-Minute US Tech 100 (Narrow) 

Binary

October 3, 2022 3 6

2-Hour US Tech 100 (Wide) Binary October 3, 2022 12 24

20-Minute US SmallCap 2000 (Wide) 

Binary

October 3, 2022 1.4 2.8

20-Minute US SmallCap 2000 

(Narrow) Binary

October 3, 2022 1.2 2.4

2-Hour US SmallCap 2000 (Wide) 

Binary

October 3, 2022 2.8 5.6

Daily Wall Street 30 Binary October 3, 2022 40 80

Daily US 500 Binary October 3, 2022 6 12

Daily US Tech 100 Binary October 3, 2022 24 48

Daily US SmallCap 2000 Binary October 3, 2022 4 8

Daily Crude Oil Binary October 3, 2022 0.4 0.8

Daily Gold Binary October 3, 2022 3 6
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 13 - 00176 - CR KERRIS TENNILE HARRI S, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 100th District Court Childress County, Texas Trial Court No. 5416, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding



### November 4, , 2013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK , J . J. Kerris Tennile Harris pled guilty to the offense of assault against a family member which was enhanced by a prior conviction. The trial court placed him on deferred adjudication for two years. Within less than a year, the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant ’s guilt alleging numerous violations of his terms of community supervision. Appellant pled true to the majority of the allegations , and the State waived the ones to which he did not plead true. The trial court then adjudicated appellant’s guilt and sentenced him to sixteen years confinement.2

Appellant’s counsel ha s filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Ander s ’ 1 brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that appellant’s appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to appeal pro se. By letter , this court also notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response . After several motions to extend the time to file, appellant was given until October 10, 2013 to file his response or brief . To date, no response or brief has been filed. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders , app ellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal which included the sufficiency of the evidence to support appellant’s guilt for the original crime, the effectiveness of counsel, and the severity of the punishment. However, counsel then explained why t he issues lack merit. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. S tate, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) and concluded the same. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. 2
Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish.

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 - 45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals.