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


Bedrijfsrevisoren
              PKF
      Business Advisers







CONSENT
OF


PKF
BEDRIJFSREVISOREN, ANTWERP, BELGIUM


INDEPENDENT
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





Remedent,
Inc.


Xavier de
Cocklaan 42


9831
DEURLE, Belgium





We
consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(File Numbers 333-134994 and 333-71626) and the use of our report dated June 25,
2009,  with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Remedent, Inc. as of March 31, 2008 and March 31, 2009 and for the years then
ended, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31,
2009.





Antwerp -
Belgium, June 25, 2009





PKF
bedrijfsrevisoren CVBA


Statutory
Auditors


Represented
by





/s/ Ria
Verheyen





Ria Verheyen


Registered
Auditor | Partner





Tel +32
(0)3 235 66 66 | Fax +32 (0)3 235 22 22 | antwerpen@pkf.be |
www.pkf.be


PKF
bedrijfsrevisoren CVBA | burgerlijke vennootschap met handelsvorm


Potvlietlaan
6 | 2600 Antwerpen | BTW BE 0439 814 826 | RPR Antwerpen





The PKF
International Association is an association of legally independent
firms.
Back to Contents

EXHIBIT 31.2

**CERTIFICATION**

**I**, Gary T. Knisely, certify that:

     1.     I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Hanover Foods Corporation;

     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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

     4.     The registrant'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 registrant 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 registrant, 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)     (Intentionally Omitted)

          c)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’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;

          d)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and;

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

| Date:  April 14, 2004 | /s/ Gary T. Knisely     |
|-----------------------|-------------------------|
|                  | Gary T. Knisely         |
|                  | Chief Financial Officer |

31

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.0


                     PAMRAPO BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                 -----------------------------------------------

                                                            Three Months Ended
                                                              March 31, 2003
                                                          ----------------------

Income available to common stockholders                        $ 1,846,718

Weighted average shares outstanding                              5,145,986

Basic earnings per share                                       $      0.36

Income for diluted earnings per share                          $ 1,846,718

Total weighted average common shares and equivalents
  outstanding for diluted computation                            5,145,986

Diluted earnings per share                                     $      0.36
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40028 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE LUIS ROMERO-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Jesus Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-99-CR-676-1

-------------------- April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis Romero-Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Romero-Rodriguez received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but did not file a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses one possible nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Romero-Rodriguez’s offense level and sentence were increased for his having been deported after a prior aggravated-felony conviction which was notNo. 00-40028 -2- alleged in his indictment. An argument that the prior conviction should have been alleged in the indictment is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). However, the continuing validity of Almendarez-Torres has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). See id . at 2362 (finding it “arguable that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided”). Counsel could have raised the issue on appeal in order to preserve it for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi

. Because our independent review of the record has revealed this possible nonfrivolous issue for appeal, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. By our denying the motion to withdraw, Romero-Rodriguez preserves the Almendarez-Torres issue for further review. We pretermit further briefing, however, and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court because Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See id. , 120 S. Ct. at 2362; see also United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000)(noting that the Supreme Court in Apprendi expressly declined to overrule Almendarez-Torres ), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). This court must follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is DENIED, and the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.01



Certification of Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
Interpore International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |  |  |                                                                  
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | 
|Dated: May 7, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    David C. Mercer                                           
|                   |  |  |  |                                                                  
|                   |  |  |  | David C. Mercer Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
Release:#4026-97

For Release:June 5, 1997

CFTC FILES ACTION AGAINST MICHAEL MYATT, PRAGMACAPITAL CORPORATION,
    AND THE BERKSHIRE INTERNATIONAL HEDGE FUND L.P. II, ALL OF BEAVERTON,
    OREGON, SEEKING PERMANENT INJUNCTION

CFTC Charges Defendants With Fraud and Unlawfully Acting as
    Unregistered Commodity Pool Operators

Defendants Consent to Entry of a Preliminary Injunction Freezing $1.9
    Million of Customer Funds

WASHINGTON- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced
    today the filing of a three-count civil injunctive complaint in the U.S.
    District Court for the District of Oregon against Michael Myatt, PragmaCapital Corporation, and the Berkshire International Hedge
    Fund L.P. II, all of Beaverton, Oregon. None of the defendants has ever
    been registered with the Commission in any capacity.

The complaint, filed on June 4, 1997, alleges that from at least January
    1996, Myatt, PragmaCapital Corporation, and the Berkshire International
    Hedge Fund L.P. II engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with their
    activities as unregistered commodity pool operators, in violation of the
    Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants solicited
    subscribers to the Berkshire Fund by representing that the fund would
    engage in the speculative trading of securities and commodity interests,
    including futures contracts and options on futures contracts. The complaint
    charges that defendants, among other things, fraudulently represented that
    they were earning profits of between 5 percent and 15 percent per month
    when, in fact, their trading was unprofitable, and customer funds were
    being misappropriated by the defendants.

Furthermore, the complaint charges that the defendants took in
    approximately $3.5 million from over 200 investors, and that they have lost
    in excess of $1.5 million in customer funds through trading, expenditure,
    or misappropriation.

Under the terms of a consent preliminary injunction entered by U.S.
    District Judge Malcolm F. Marsh on June 5, 1997, approximately $1.9 million
    dollars of customer funds have been frozen by court order, and the
    defendants have been ordered to provide to the court within 30 days a full
    accounting of all funds taken in and their disposition.

The CFTC's complaint ultimately seeks the entry of a permanent
    injunction prohibiting the defendants from violating the provisions of the
    CEA as charged, as well as other remedial relief, including an accounting,
    disgorgement of benefits, restitution to customers, and a civil monetary
    penalty of up to $110,000 ($100,000 for each violation occurring prior to
    November 27, 1996) or triple the monetary gain to each defendant for each
    violation of the CEA.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# TIME AND DATE:

10:00 a.m., Thursday, April 21, 2022.

# PLACE:

                        Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the meeting will be open to the public via live webcast only. Visit the agency's homepage (                        *www.ncua.gov*) and access the provided webcast link.                    

# STATUS:

This meeting will be open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Board Briefing, Cybersecurity Update.

2. Board Briefing, NCUA's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Program Update.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2022-08413 Filed 4-15-22; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael W. Rogers, Chief Financial 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, that to the best of 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.



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Michael W. Rogers  
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 2, 2008
Milton PAVON, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-8622.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, First District denied.
#### Jack Gordon and Donald Stoneburner, *Plaintiffs in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Opinion filed May 13, 1929.

*Price, Price, Kehoe & Eassewits,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Frecl H. Davis,*Attorney General, and *Boy Cmvffbell,*Assistant, for the State.

Buford, *J.*

The defendants were charged by information in two counts. The first count charged them jointly with the crime of larceny of a certain boat by name of “Calobar.” The second count charged them jointly with the crime of receiving and aiding in the concealment of the same boat. Both offenses were charged to have been committed on the same day. There was a general-verdict of guilty. Motion for new trial was made and denied. Judgment of conviction and sentence was entered and writ of error sued out.

The first question raised by the assignments of error is whether or not a judgment of conviction may stand upon a general verdict of guilty under an information charging the two offenses in separate counts as was charged in this case.

*807This question is definitely answered in this jurisdiction by the language of the opinion in the case of Bargesser v. State, 95 Fla. 404, 116 So. R. 12, in which the Court say:

> Where an accused is charged in one count of an information with the larceny of an automobile, and in another count with receiving the same automobile as stolen property knowing it to be stolen, only one larceny of the automobile being involved, a verdict which in effect finds the accused guilty both as a principal in the larceny and as receiver of the same goods is inconsistent in law, and no judgment can be entered thereon.

The judgment must be reversed and it is so ordered.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J., concur.

Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, petitioner, v. GREENE'S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, et al.

No. 16-712.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Motion of Houston Intellectual Property Law Association on for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* in support of neither party granted.
Marco D. DUNCAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7796.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel;  NIAID Investigator Initiated Program Project Applications (P01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         May 12, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health,  5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70A,  Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Annie Walker-Abbey, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer,  Scientific Review Program,  Division of Extramural Activities,   National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health,  5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70A,  Rockville, MD 20852, 240-627-3390,                         *aabbey@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 12, 2022. 

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-08204 Filed 4-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Thomas RUMPH, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 17-5813.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 6, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District denied.
Stephen Sylvester WALKER, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8806.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Xstream Beverage Group, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Barry Willson,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. '1350, as
adopted pursuant to '906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

1.1      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

1.2      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.



/s/ Barry Willson
---------------------
By: Barry Willson, Chief Executive Officer

Dated: November 13, 2003
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-145047) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-148364; 333-112704; 333-73842; 333-41880; 333-95647; 333-90971 and 333-88131) of NetScout Systems, Inc. of our reportdated May 27, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Boston,Massachusetts 

May 27, 2011