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




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM




We consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Reg. Nos. 333-12087, 333-68637, 333-94111, 333-42210, 333-56274, 333-90504 and 333-116740)
pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, the Non-Statutory Stock Option, the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, the 1996 Non-Employee Directors Stock
Option Plan, the 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, and Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Reg. Nos. 333-68117,
333-72225, 333-79925, 333-92355 and 333-47680) and in the related Prospectuses of Avigen, Inc. of our reports dated March 10, 2005, with respect to the
financial statements of Avigen, Inc., Avigen, Inc. managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Avigen, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December
31, 2005.




/s/ ERNST & YOUNG
LLP




Palo Alto, California March 14, 2006




1


---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jaime SEGOVIA-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-51131

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jaime Segovia-Castillo (Segovia) appeals the 41-month within-guidelines sentence imposed in connection with his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. He argues that his sentence is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and that he should have been sentenced below the guidelines range. He *15maintains that his offense was merely an international trespass and that his sentence was too severe for the crime. He contends that his sentence fails to account for the age of his prior conviction, his motive for entry, family ties, and work history.

This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). “[A] sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively reasonable.” *United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006).

Segovia argues that this court should not accord his within-guidelines sentence a presumption of reasonableness because the applicable Guideline is not supported by empirical data. This argument is foreclosed. *See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009). He acknowledges this argument is foreclosed but raises the issue to preserve it for possible further review.

This court has determined that the “international trespass” contention raised by Segovia does not justify disturbing an otherwise presumptively reasonable sentence. *See United States v. Aguirre-Villa,*460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir.2006). The record shows that the district court listened to Segovia’s arguments but ultimately determined that a sentence within the guidelines range was appropriate. His arguments are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. *See United States v. Gomez-Herrera,*523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.2008). He has not demonstrated that the district court’s imposition of a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range was an abuse of discretion. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Michael Chavis, Appellant, v New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Decided May 11, 2010

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-233-001]

Take notice that on May 23, 2001, Questar Pipeline Company (Questar) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of March 23, 2001: 

Substitute Sixth Revised Sheet No. 52

Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 56

Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 56A

Substitute Sixth Revised Sheet No. 79

On February 21, 2001, Questar filed tariff sheets in Docket No. RP01-233-000 that were approved by Commission letter order issued March 28, 2001, to be effective March 23, 2001. This filing reflects repagination of tariff sheets due to the inclusion of language approved in two subsequent proceedings.

Questar states that a copy of this filing has been served upon its customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah, and the Public Service Commission of Wyoming.

                    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make prostestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions                           ( print page 30446)                        on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-14204  Filed 6-5-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1





Certification of the Chief Executive Officer


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 Kaiser Federal Financial Group, 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”), I, Kay M. Hoveland, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and2.
The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the company’s financial condition and results of operations.











Date: May 13, 2011
/s/ K. M. HovelandK. M. HovelandPresident and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GIFFORD ROY THOMPSON,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 96-1477

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A40-385-845)

Submitted: March 31, 1997

Decided: April 24, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Curtis Leroy Solomon, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Frank W.

Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David M. McConnell, Assistant

Director, John Andre, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Gifford Roy Thompson petitions this Court for review of the final

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal

from the Immigration Judge's order. We deny Thompson's petition.

Despite two extensions of time in which to file applications

seeking

relief from deportation with the Immigration Judge (IJ), Thompson

failed to timely file original copies of his applications and

supporting

materials. He also failed to file fee receipts or waivers with any

of his

application materials. Thompson does not contest his failure to

file

timely originals, he only asserts that the Immigration Judge's dismissal of his applications for lack of prosecution amounted to a

violation of procedural due process given that he filed timely copies of

these documents.

Immigration regulations require that all "[a]pplications and

petition

forms must be submitted in the original." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(4)

(1996). These regulations also require that a fee receipt or waiver

accompany any application or document requiring payment of a fee.

8 C.F.R. § 3.31(b) (1996). Thompson failed to comply with these

requirements and thus his applications were not properly filed with

the IJ. This failure to properly file within the appropriate time

period

effectively waives his opportunity to file. 8 C.F.R.§ 3.31(c)

(1996).

The administrative record reveals that Thompson was clearly told

what applications and documents he needed to file with the IJ. He

was

also given two extensions of time in which to file these documents.

Accordingly, we find that he had a full and fair opportunity to

file his

applications. We thus find no procedural due process violation in

the

2
Immigration Judge's dismissal of his applications for lack of

prosecution or the Board's decision dismissing his appeal on this same

basis.

We therefore deny his petition for review.

PETITION DENIED

3
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT  I, Francis Mailhot, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB-A/1 of Oro Volcanico Corp. for the period ended September 30, 2007;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and  c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and   6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 14th day of December, 2007.



/s/ Francis Mailhot

Francis Mailhot

President (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dionisio Anibal SAUCEDO, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10165

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

Jeffrey Robert Haag, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, Michael Lowell King, As*14sistant Federal Public Defender, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dionisio Aníbal Saucedo, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed upon his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting the possession of an unregistered firearm. *See*26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). The unregistered firearm at issue was a sawed-off shotgun. Saucedo argues that the sawed-off shotgun should not have been deemed a “destructive device” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3)(B) and that his sentence should not have been enhanced on that basis.

As Saucedo acknowledges, his argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Henry,*417 F.3d 493, 494 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and its alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT
      23.3





**Consent
      of Ralph E. Davis Associates, Inc.**




We
      hereby
      consent to the use of the name Ralph E. Davis Associates, Inc., the reference
      to
      our reserve estimate report for Aurora Oil & Gas Corporation (f/k/a Cadence
      Resources Corporation) (the "Company") dated January 30, 2006, and the use
      of
      information contained therein in the Form 10-K to be filed on or about March
      7,
      2008. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of the Form 10-K
      containing the foregoing into the Form 3 Registration Statements filed by the
      Company on December 21, 2007 (File Nos. 333-129695 and 333-130769) and any
      amendments to these Form 3 Registration Statements.





Houston,
      Texas


March
      7,
      2008


RALPH
                E. DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC./s/
                Joseph Mustacchia, Jr.Joseph
                Mustacchia, Jr.Executive
                Vice President
Amendment to 2004 Restatement of Unfunded Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan



 Exhibit 10 (g)(2) 
  
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 
 TO THE 
 2004 RESTATEMENT OF THE XEROX
CORPORATION 
 UNFUNDED SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN 
  
  
 W I T N E S S E T H: 
  
 WHEREAS, Xerox Corporation (the “Company”) has adopted the Unfunded Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plan, which is presently set forth in the “2004 Restatement of Xerox Corporation Unfunded Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan”, as amended by Amendment No. 1 (the “Plan”), 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan, 

 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

  

	1.	Section 5 shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows: 

  

	“Section	5. Eligibility for Benefits  

  
 (A) Participants must have attained the following age and completed the following Years of Service to be eligible for benefits under the Plan: 

 
 (1)  Grandfathered Officers and Guideline
Employees — age 55, Years of Service — 5. 
  
 (2)  Officers — age 60, Years of Service — 10. 
  
 (3)  Grandfathered Mid-Career Officers — the age set forth opposite their respective names on Schedule A, Years of Service — 5. 
  
 (4)  Mid-Career Officer Hires — the age
determined by the Chief Executive Officer of the Company as reflected in Schedule A, Years of Service — 5. 
  
 (5)  Grandfathered Mid-Career Band A Employees — the age set forth opposite their respective names on the Schedule B, Years
of Service — 5. 
  
 (6)  Mid-Career
Band A Hires — the age determined by the Vice President responsible for Human Resources or his or her delegate as set forth on Schedule C referred to above, Years of Service 5. 
  
 (B) If a Participant who is an employee or former employee of the Company is deemed by the Plan Administrator, in her sole
reasonable discretion, to have engaged in detrimental activity against the Company, such employee or former employee shall not be eligible to receive benefits under the Plan.” 








	2.	The second paragraph of Section 15 shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows: 

  
 “Any amendment, alteration, modification or suspension under subsection (iii) of the preceding paragraph shall be
set forth in a written instrument executed by the Vice President of the Company responsible for Human Resources.” 
  
 3.      Section 12, “Other Plan Provisions”, shall be renumbered Section 13 and former Sections 13 through 18 shall be
renumbered Sections 14 through 19. 
  
  
 This amendment is effective as of the date hereof. In all other respects the Plan shall remain unchanged. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to
be executed on the ________ day of October, 2005. 
  
  
  

			
	 XEROX CORPORATION

		
	 By    
	 	/s/ Patricia M. Nazemetz
	 	 	 Vice President



  
  
  
  

	
	 ATTEST:

	
	/s/ J. Michael Farren
	Secretary

  

 2
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

              We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-87882, 33-87776, 33-89382,
333-02340, 333-06303, 333-16963, 333-20853, 333-52603, 333-80861, 333-39462, and
333-57670) of Applix, Inc. of our report dated January 24, 2001, except for Note
K which is dated March 14, 2001, relating to the financial statements, which is
incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                           /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 30, 2001
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Snyder et al. v. CSC Properties, Inc.

October 10, 1990

Case No. (Law) 92011

By Judge Thomas A. Fortkort

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to defendant’s counterclaim and the opposition thereto. For the reasons specified below, plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

The plaintiffs brought this suit seeking a declaratory judgment that a contract executed by them for the sale of real property owned by them was null, void, and of no effect and alternatively asking for damages for a breach of the agreement by defendant. The defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim seeking specific performance of obligations under the contract. The plaintiffs have asked for summary judgment that the defendant is not entitled to specific performance of the contract.

Ambiguities exist in certain contractual provisions of the contract. These ambiguities must be resolved by the trier of fact by examination of additional evidence not reflected in the suit papers before the Court. More specifically, there is no mutuality of assent in provision 3(a) of the contract which allows the purchaser to waive certain rezoning contingencies and proceed to purchase the property and also allows the seller to declare the contract null and void in the event that the County of Fairfax denied either a master plan amendment or rezoning of the property. According to Rule 3:18 of the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court, summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Because certain ambiguities exist in the contract pertinent to resolution of the motion for summary judgment, the Court will not grant summary judgment.

*533For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied.
No. 108.

#### North American Cement Corp. *v.*Graves et al.

Argued December 8, 1936.

Decided December 21, 1936.

*Messrs. Henry S. Manley*and *Charles J. Tobin*for appellant.

*Mr. Wendell P. Brown,*Assistant Attorney General of New York, with whom *Mr. John J. Bennett, Jr.,*Attorney General, was on the brief, for appellees.

*Per Curiam:*

Judgment affirmed upon the ground that the statute (§ 214, Art. 9-A, of the Tax Law of the State of New York) is valid upon its face and it has not been shown to have been so applied as to violate appellants’ constitutional rights. *Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton, Ltd.*v. *State Tax Comm’n,*266 U. S. 271.
No. —, original.

#### Ex parte Mauro Piergiovanni.

January 4, 1937.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.