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

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

Adolor Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (No. 333-134647, No. 333-51222, No. 333-62428, No. 333-100585, and No. 333-105912) on Form S-8 and registration statement (No. 333-131765 and No. 333-107998) on Form S-3 and registrationstatement (No. 333-64298) on Form S-1 of Adolor Corporation of our reports dated February 27, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Adolor Corporation and subsidiary as of December 31, 2006 and 2005 and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the year in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, and for the period from August 9, 1993 (inception) to December 31, 2006, andmanagement’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which reports appear in the December31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Adolor Corporation. 

Our report dated February 26, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of AdolorCorporation and subsidiary as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006,and for the period from August 9, 1993 (inception) to December 31, 2006, contains an explanatory paragraph that describes Adolor Corporation’s adoption of the fair value method of accounting for the stock-based compensation as required byStatement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R).*Share-Based Payment*. 

Philadelphia Pennsylvania 

February 26, 2007
John POWELL, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 16-9637.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

*173Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
Case 1:18-cv-00346-LY Document 43 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FORTHEWESTERNDISTRICTOFTEXA~4 !l.]'.i°' ln ru r·.:".'l, 

AUSTIN DIVISION l i 1: ·' 1 - 'J 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

PLAINTIFF, 

V. CAUSE NO. 1:18-CV-346-LY 

CHARLES H. MCALLISTER, 

DEFENDANT. 

FINAL JUDGMENT 

Before the court is the above-styled and numbered cause. On this date, the court granted 

the parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Order filed August 16, 2021 (Doc. #41 ). The motion 

stated that "[t]he proposed Consent Order, if approved and adopted by the Court, resolves all 

aspects of Plaintiffs case against Pro Se Defendant Charles H. McAllister." As nothing remains 

to resolve, the court renders the following Final Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 58. 

IT IS ORDERED that the case is hereby CLOSED. 

SIGNED this /Jtf, day of August, 2021.
II-00888

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Travis Van Brasch <gooddogsnapper@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:19 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Travis Van Brasch

1 Longview Court

San Francisco, CA 94131
Robert KARBAN, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-630.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Joseph GENTILE, petitioner, v. NEW YORK.

No. 17-7776.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34696-34697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16343]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Cancer Institute.
    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of 
individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National 
Cancer Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications 
and performance and the competence of individual investigators, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, National 
Cancer Institute, Subcommittee A-Clinical Sciences and Epidemiology.
    Date: July 23, 2001.
    Time: 9 am to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.

[[Page 34697]]

    Place: National Cancer, Institute, Building 31, C Wing, 6th 
Floor, Conference Rooms 6, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Abby B. Sandler, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Institute Review Office, Office of the Director, 
National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 
Executive Boulevard, room 7031, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 496-7628.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 20, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-16343 Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50815

DARRYLL TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DUVELZA B. URESTE; DANIEL MCQUARY; MICHELL BIESE; MARIA D. 

AGREDANO; CHERYL LAWSON; STEVEN R. SWIFT,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-98

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Darryll Taylor, Texas prisoner # 1569309, has filed a motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his civil 

rights complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). By moving for 

IFP status in this court, Taylor is challenging the district court’s certification 

that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 

202 (5th Cir. 1997); § 1915(a)(3).

* 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

April 28, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50815 Document: 00512609820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2014
No. 13-50815

Taylor argues that (1) he is indigent; (2) his claims of constitutional 

violations have merit and are supported by unspecified controlling caselaw 

from this court and the Supreme Court; and (3) because he did not receive a 

report of the magistrate judge recommending the denial of IFP, he was unable 

to file objections and was deprived of de novo review regarding the denial of 

IFP. Although Taylor references generally his civil rights claims, he has 

abandoned the claims by failing to brief them. See Brinkmann v. Dallas 

County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. 

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Taylor has not shown that his “appeal involves legal points arguable on 

their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 

(5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Taylor’s 

motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is denied, and his appeal is dismissed 

as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Taylor’s complaint as frivolous counts as 

a strike under § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th 

Cir. 1996). This court’s dismissal of this appeal also counts as a strike. See id.

Taylor is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he 

will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is 

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; APPEALS DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 

SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2

 Case: 13-50815 Document: 00512609820 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2014
# C_2009141EN.01004401.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/44

---

Action brought on 20 March 2009 — La Sonrisa de Carmen and Bloom Clothes v OHIM — Heldmann (BLOOMCLOTHES)

(Case T-118/09)

2009/C 141/94

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: La Sonrisa de Carmen SL (Vigo, Spain), Bloom Clothes SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Mígel Pereira, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Harald Heldmann (Hamburg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 8 January 2009 in Case R 695/2008-2 and order the registration of the mixed mark BLOOMCLOTHES as a Community trade mark in classes 25 and 35. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 8 January 2009 in Case R 695/2008-2 and order the registration of the mixed mark BLOOMCLOTHES as a Community trade mark in classes 25 and 35.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: La Sonrisa de Carmen SL

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Mixed mark consisting of the term ‘BLOOMCLOTHES’ with the figurative element of a toadstool (Application No 5 077 128) for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 35.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Harald Heldmann.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘BLOOM’ (German trade mark No 30 439 990) for goods in class 25.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2009090EN.01003002.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/30

---

Action brought on 11 Februar 2009 — XXXLutzMarken v OHIM — Natura Selection (Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil)

(Case T-54/09)

2009/C 90/48

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: XXXLutzMarken (Wels, Austria) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Natura Selection SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2008 in Case R 1787/2007-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2008 in Case R 1787/2007-2;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: XXXLutzMarken

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘LineaNatura Natur hat immer Stil’ for goods in Classes 8, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 27 (Registration No 4 626 693)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Natura Selection S.L.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘natura selection’ (Community trade mark No 2 016 384) for goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 16, 20, 25, 35, 38, 39 and 42, and further Community trade marks and Spanish mark comprising the word ‘natura’, for goods and services in Classes 3, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 35, 39 and 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholding the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/941 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

1

---
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1632 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require officers 

and employees of the House to read the Constitution of the United 

States each year. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 

Mr. CONAWAY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

require officers and employees of the House to read 

the Constitution of the United States each year. 

Whereas the United States Constitution articulates principles 

envisioned by the Founding Fathers; 

Whereas the United States Constitution is the written set of 

the fundamental principles by which the United States is 

governed; 

Whereas Article I of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch; 

Whereas the United States Constitution is the supreme law 

of the land; 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1632 IH 

Whereas the United States Constitution is the world’s oldest 

written national constitution; 

Whereas the United States Constitution confers honor and 

responsibility upon Members of Congress; 

Whereas the United States Constitution should be known by 

those who legislate; and 

Whereas the United States Constitution is a dynamic governing document of and for the people of the United 

States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

3 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘A Modest Effort 

4 to Read and Instill the Constitution Again Resolution of 

5 2010’’ or the ‘‘AMERICA Resolution of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

7 It is the sense of the House of Representatives that 

8 Members of Congress, who swear to uphold the Constitu9 tion of the United States and are responsible for writing 

10 laws regarding the powers granted to the Government and 

11 proposing constitutional amendments, should read this im12 portant document, including its amendments. 

13 SEC. 3. ANNUAL READING OF THE CONSTITUTION RE14 QUIRED FOR HOUSE OFFICERS AND EMPLOY15 EES. 

16 Clause 3(a) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 

17 Representatives is amended by adding at the end the fol18 lowing new subparagraph: 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1632 IH 

1 ‘‘(7)(A) The committee shall provide a copy of 

2 the Constitution of the United States to each new 

3 Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 

4 and employee of the House. 

5 ‘‘(B) Not later than January 31 of each year, 

6 each officer and employee of the House shall file a 

7 certification with the committee attesting that the 

8 officer or employee has read the Constitution of the 

9 United States in its entirety in the previous year.’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
State of MISSOURI, et al., plaintiffs, v. State of CALIFORNIA.

No. 148, Original.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
Juan ESQUIVEL-QUINTANA, petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General.

No. 16-54.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

RODERICK WHITE

NO. 2021 KW 1417

JANUARY 11, 2022

In Re: Roderick White, applying for supervisory writs, 19th

Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 

No. 01- 16- 0114. 

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., HOLDRIDGE AND PENZATO, JJ. 

WRIT DENTED. 

VGW

AHP

Holdridge, J., dissents in part. For the reasons more

fully expressed in my dissent in State v. Armentor, 2019- 1267

La. App. 1st Cir. 7/ 31/ 20), 309 So. 3d 762, writ denied, 2020- 

01032 ( La. 2/ 17/ 21), 310 So. 3d 1149. T would grant the writ for

the sole purpose of remanding it to the district court for a

full evidentiary hearing on relator' s claim that he was denied a

fair trial because individuals who were born after June 2, 1993, 

were excluded from participating in the jury venire. See State

v. Cannon, 2019- 590 ( La. 4/ 18/ 19), 267 So. 3d 585, 585- 86 ( per

curiam). In all other respects, I would deny the writ

application. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPU4YLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
Edward Allen COVINGTON, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-7400.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1289

In R e: JAMES ERIC JONES , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. ( 4:06

- cr
- 01238

- TLW

- 1 ; 4:16

- cv
- 01447

- TLW )

Submitted : June 20, 2017 Decided: June 27, 2017

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

James Eric Jones , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James Eric Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. T he present record does not rev eal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. We also deny Jones’ motion for bail without prejudice. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Stacy Enid Lebow SIEGEL.

No. D-3013.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Stacy Enid Lebow Siegel, of Towson, Maryland, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Exhibit 32.1

SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORTS, INC.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, O. Bruton Smith, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |     |  |                                     
|------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: March 9, 2011 |  | By: |  | /s/    O. BRUTON
SMITH              
|                    |  |     |  | O. Bruton Smith                     
|                    |  |     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to, and will be retained by, Speedway Motorsports, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michael WINANS, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-1346.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Geno T. JACKSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6914.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.