alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.00

               INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Stockholders and Board of Directors
Global Technologies, Ltd. and Subsidiaries

We consent to incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statements (Nos.
333-15767 and 333-49319) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 333-14013,  333-32772,  333-41096
and 333-47740) on Form S-3 of Global  Technologies  Ltd. and subsidiaries of our
report dated November 15, 2001,  relating to the  consolidated  balance sheet of
Global Technologies,  Ltd. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2001, and the related
consolidated   statements  of  operations,   changes  in  stockholders'   equity
(deficiency)  and  comprehensive  (los) and cash flows for the year then  ended,
which report appears in the June 30, 2001 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Global
Technologies,   Ltd.  and  subsidiaries.  Our  report  contains  an  explanatory
paragraph regarding the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.

                                     /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
December 13, 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner 

v.

EDWARD JAMES KAUSHAS, 2

nd

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2539 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Board File Nos. C3-17-683, C3-18-292

Attorney Registration No. 202592

(Lackawanna County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2018, following consideration of the 

responses to this Court’s Rule to Show Cause why Respondent should not be placed 

on temporary suspension, the Rule is made absolute. It is provided that:

1. Respondent is placed on temporary suspension until further definitive action 

by this Court;

2. Respondent shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217; 

3. The President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County 

shall enter such orders as may be necessary to protect the rights of Respondent’s 

clients or fiduciary entities with which he is involved, see Pa.R.D.E. 217(g); and

4. All financial institutions in which Respondent holds fiduciary funds shall freeze 

such accounts pending further action.
Respondent’s rights to petition for dissolution or amendment of this order and to 

request accelerated disposition of charges underlying this order pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 

208(f)(6) are specifically preserved.

Finally, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s Motion for Leave to Supplement the 

Record in Support of the Petition is granted.

This Order constitutes an imposition of public discipline pertaining to 

confidentiality. See Pa.R.D.E. 402.
Exhibit 23.1



LOGO



PricewaterhouseCoopersABN 52 780 433 757Darling Park Tower 2201 Sussex StreetGPO BOX 2650SYDNEY NSW 1171DX 77 SydneyAustraliawww.pwc.com/auTelephone +61 2 8266 0000Facsimile +61 2 8266 9999




February 25, 2005



Consent of Independent Accountants



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3
(File no: 109123) of CanWest Media Inc. and the additional registrants identified therein our report dated October 13, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements of The Ten Group Pty Limited as of and for the years ended August 31, 2004
and 2003 which appears in the Annual Report for the year ended August 31, 2004 on Form 20-F of CanWest Media Inc. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading Independent Accountants in the Registration Statement.



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers
|PricewaterhouseCoopers    
|Sydney, Australia         



Liability is limited by the
Accountants Scheme under the Professional Standards Act 1994 (NSW)
**EXHIBIT 23.3**
**CONSENT OF EXPERT**
     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”) of Ivanhoe Mines Ltd. (the“Company”) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
     I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name under the heading “Item 4: Descriptionof the Business – Qualified Persons” and disclosure of a scientific and technical nature pursuantto which I have acted in a supervisory capacity under the heading “Item 4: Description of theBusiness – Monywa Copper Project, Myanmar” in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the yearended December 31, 2004, dated March 30, 2005, and in the 40-F.
  Sincerely,          *“PaulChare”*    Name:  Paul Chare    Title:  MAusIMM 
  Date:    March 30, 2005
#### Joehau Collazo, Respondent, v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Submitted February 22, 2010;

decided April 29, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Donald M. Prest, certify that;

(1)         I have reviewed this report on Form10-QSB/A (Amendment No. 1) for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2007 of Bear River Resources, Inc.;

(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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)         The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

(5)         The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  

Date:  February 19, 2008
#### Dedy WIDJAJA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-70442.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 9, 2008.

Dedy Widjaja, San Francisco, CA, pro se.

Shelley Goad, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Julia Tyler, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*641Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Dedy Widjaja, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions *pro se*for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the harm Widjaja suffered did not rise to the level of past persecution. *See id.*at 1016-17. Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that he failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution because, although he is a member of a disfavored group, the agency found that he had not met his burden of demonstrating the requisite individualized risk of persecution under *Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004).

Because Widjaja failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1





                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT





To The Board of Directors and Shareholders
BTG, Inc.:

                 Under date of May 20, 1997, we reported on the consolidated
balance sheets of BTG, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of March 31,
1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended March 31, 1997, as contained in the 1997 annual report to
shareholders.  These consolidated financial statements and our report thereon
are incorporated by reference in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for
the year 1997.  In connection with our audits of the aforementioned
consolidated financial statements, we also have audited the related
consolidated financial statement schedule as listed in Item 14(a)2 in the
Company's Form 10-K for the year 1997.  This consolidated financial statement
schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on the consolidated financial statement schedule based
on our audits.

                 In our opinion, based on our audits, such consolidated
financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic
consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all
material respects, the information set forth therein.





                                        /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


McLean, Virginia
May 20, 1997





                                       23
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ATTEBURY GRAIN LLC, 

A limited liability company, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

GRAYN COMPANY, a corporation;

VICENTE CORTEZ, an individual, 

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 18-56325

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-05258-R-PJW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 21, 2020

Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

In a prior appeal, this court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff

Attebury Grain LLC for claims under California’s Uniform Voidable Transactions

Act (UVTA) arising from the fraudulent transfer of Superior Grain Co., a corn

FILED

FEB 21 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
processing business, to Defendants Vicente Cortez and Grayn Co. See Attebury

Grain LLC v. Grayn Co., 721 F. App’x 669, 671-72 (9th Cir. 2018). This court

reversed summary judgment on Attebury’s claim of unjust enrichment and

remanded for the district court to dismiss that claim and “determine the amount of

damages due on the fraudulent transfer claims alone.” Id. at 672. On remand, the

district court awarded damages totaling $1,148,107.55, comprised of Attebury’s

$825,706.95 arbitration award against Superior plus prejudgment interest. We

affirm.

We reject Defendants’ argument on appeal that the district court violated this

court’s mandate by awarding damages without holding a hearing or taking

additional evidence on remand. Nothing in the mandate required the district court

to take such action.

We also reject Defendants’ argument that Superior transferred only its

equipment and corn inventory to Defendants. Defendants suggest that language in

this court’s memorandum disposition referring to the transfer of Superior’s

equipment and corn inventory establishes the “law of the case” that only such

assets were transferred. See Attebury Grain, 721 F. App’x at 671. However, the

language relied upon by Defendants does not amount to a holding as to the identity

of the assets transferred, which was not an issue before this court on appeal, and

2
does not affect the unchallenged determination that Superior transferred

“substantially all” of its assets to Defendants.

The district court complied with this court’s mandate by determining the

amount of damages due on Attebury’s fraudulent transfer claims pursuant to the

UVTA, which allows damages based on either “the value of the asset

transferred . . . or the amount necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim, whichever is

less.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.08(b)(1). The record shows that the district court had

sufficient evidence before it that the value of Superior’s entire business exceeded

the amount of the arbitration award. Therefore, the district court did not err in

awarding damages based on this latter amount.

AFFIRMED.

3
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the report of Emo Capital Corp. (the "Company"),
on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending January 31, 2011 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Juanming Fang,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Sect
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect 1350), that to
my 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/ Juanming Fang

Juanming Fang,

Chief Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer

Dated: March 21, 2011
Order entered January 14 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 01202
- CV HADDINGTON FUND, LP , ET AL. , Appellant s

V. BRADLEY S. KIDWELL, ET AL. , Appellee s On Ap peal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429
- 02197
- 2016



### O RDER Before the Court is the January 13, 2020 second request of Latresta Ginyard, Official Court Reporter for the 199th Judicial District Court ̧ for an extension of time to file the reporter’s
record. We GRANT the request and extend the time to January 23, 2020 . We caution Ms. Ginyard that further requests for extension will be disfavored.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
SCPW-23-0000275 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

________________________________________________________________ 

ERNEST HORCAJO, III, Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE HONORABLE HENRY T. NAKAMOTO, 

Judge of the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, 

State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge, 

and 

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent. 

________________________________________________________________ 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

(3CPN-20-0000003) 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, and Eddins, JJ., 

Circuit Judge Castagnetti and Circuit Judge Souza, 

assigned by reason of vacancies) 

 Upon consideration of the petition for writ of mandamus 

filed on April 5, 2023, the answers to the petition filed on May 

8, 2023, and the record, Respondent Judge has provided the 

relief sought in this original proceeding by acting on 

Petitioner’s pending Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40 

proceeding. 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-23-0000275

22-MAY-2023

09:37 AM

Dkt. 16 ODDP
2

It is ordered that the petition is dismissed as moot.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, May 22, 2023

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Jeannette H. Castagnetti

/s/ Kevin A.K. Souza
Order entered October 16, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01003

- CR

JOSEPH AARON PEREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial C ourt Cause No. F05

- 26451

- M



### O RDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any

other reason.

 The trial court shall fi rst determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecu te the appeal, it shall next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to that eff ect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds appellant is not indigent, it shall d etermine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can

be filed.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record, containing the written

findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court wi thin THIRTY

DAYS of the date of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be

reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received,

whichever is earlier.

/s/ L ANA MYERS

JUSTICE
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1018 

Requesting the Senate to adjust its rules to reflect the intent of the framers 

of the Constitution by amending the Senate’s filibuster rule, Rule 22, 

to facilitate the consideration of bills and amendments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 19, 2010 

Mr. MCDERMOTT (for himself, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. WELCH, 

Mr. HONDA, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. 

COURTNEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BECERRA, Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of 

California, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. DELAURO, Ms. KAPTUR, 

Ms. SUTTON, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. HIRONO, 

Mr. NADLER of New York, Ms. ESHOO, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. TONKO, Mr. 

BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. COHEN, Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas, and Mr. 

FARR) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Requesting the Senate to adjust its rules to reflect the intent 

of the framers of the Constitution by amending the Senate’s filibuster rule, Rule 22, to facilitate the consideration of bills and amendments. 

Whereas the Constitution requires a super majority in certain 

circumstances only and, in all other votes, a simple majority was intended to be sufficient; 

Whereas the procedural filibuster rule of the Senate effectively removes the Vice President’s constitutional right to 

cast a vote when the Senate is equally divided; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1018 IH 

Whereas the Senate’s filibuster rule, Rule 22, extends the 

power of individual Senators and the minority in the Senate beyond the power intended by the Constitution; 

Whereas the Constitution does not contemplate in letter or 

spirit allowing a single member of Congress in either 

house, or the party in the minority in either house, to 

prevent votes from being taken on bills and amendments; 

and 

Whereas the Senate’s filibuster rule prevents the majority 

from governing and, therefore, distorts the outcome of 

elections: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives requests 

2 the Senate to adjust its rules to reflect the intent of the 

3 framers of the Constitution by amending the Senate’s fili4 buster rule, Rule 22, to facilitate the consideration of bills 

5 and amendments. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### Saverio C. Pugliese, Respondent, v Ben Mondello, Also Known as Ben R. Mondello, Jr., Appellant.

Submitted March 29, 2010;

decided May 6, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8590
RONALD MURPHY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA95-3367-S) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 7, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. 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. Murphy v. Maryland Parole Comm'n , No. CA-95-3367-S (D. Md. Nov. 14 & 27, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED