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

                                                                EXHIBIT 23.0




The Board of Directors
RedFed Bancorp Inc.:

          We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 33-86846, 33-86848, and 333-4580) on Forms S-8 of RedFed Bancorp
Inc. of our report dated January 29, 1997, relating to the consolidated
statements of financial condition of RedFed Bancorp Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1996, and 1995, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1996, which report appears in the December
31, 1996, annual report on Form 10-K of RedFed Bancorp Inc.



KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Orange County, California
March 28, 1997
Eullis Monroe GOODWIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6447.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Sally D. VILLAVERDE, petitioner, v. Greg SMITH, Warden, et al.

No. 18-6126.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20012 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERTO RIOJAS, JR.; DAVID CANTU; PEDRO MORENO; RAMIRO RIOJAS; LUIS MORENO; LAZARO MORENO; IRELA YVETTE RIOJAS GONZALEZ; MELBA RIOJAS MORENO; ROSANNA RIOJAS GUERRERO; JOSE LUIS CANTU; EDUARDO MORENO; RENE GONZALEZ; CESAR MORENO, SR.; RENATO RIOJAS; a/k/a Renato Riojas-Sandoval, Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-95-CR-142

- - - - - - - - - - July 11, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS, PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Irela Yvette Riojas Gonzalez and Rene Gonzalez appeal from the district court’s order revoking the magistrate judge’s order of release pending trial. The district court’s decision rests on its conclusion that both Irela Yvette Riojas Gonzalez and ReneNo. 97-20012 -2- Gonzalez present a danger to the community and no conditions will reasonably assure safety, and that they present a risk of flight and no conditions will reasonably assure their appearance as required. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)-(g). The district court’s conclusions are supported by the record. See United States v. Rueben , 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court’s detention order as to Irela Yvette Riojas Gonzalez and Rene Gonzalez is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer ofAffinity Group, Inc., certify that:

 

1.  I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Affinity Group, Inc.;

 

2.  Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.  Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

 

4.  The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures, (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant, and we have:

 

(a)   Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and

 

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

 

5.  The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

(a)   Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)   Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.

 

 

| Date: June 5, 2009 | /s/ Michael A. Schneider              |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                    | Michael A. Schneider                  |
|                    | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 13a-14(a)/15D-14(a) 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James R. Maronick, certify that:

1.          I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Solitario Resources Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2003;

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 we 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) 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

               c) 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

JERRAL W. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. 

ALEXANDRA DAVIS, CYNTHIA 

DAVIS f/k/a CYNTHIA DAVISSPENCER

Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-00032-RWS

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Alexandra Davis’s Motion to Partially Strike Docket No. 

125 and Strike Docket No. 128 (Docket No. 162). Having reviewed Davis’s opposed motion, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff Jerral W. Jones shall file a response to Davis’s motion (Docket 

No. 162) no later than Friday, June 28, 2024. Davis shall file her reply no later than Monday,

July 1, 2024. It is further 

ORDERED that this matter is SET for a hearing on Tuesday, July 2, at 10 a.m. in 

Texarkana, Texas. 

.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of June, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 163 Filed 06/24/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 3022
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

No. 6:23-cv-00154

James Anthony Hunter,

Plaintiff,

v.

Officer Boller et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff James Anthony Hunter, an inmate of the Smith 

County Jail proceeding pro se, filed this civil action complaining 

of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. The case was

referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell. 

Plaintiff complains of two alleged uses of force, on November 

18, 2022, by Officers Mitchell and Taylor and on January 17, 2023,

by Officer Boller. Doc. 9. Defendants filed a motion for summary 

judgment (Doc. 45), to which plaintiff filed a response (Doc. 46).

After review of the pleadings and the summary judgment evidence, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied. Doc. 65. 

No objections have been filed to the report. 

When there have been no timely objections to a magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for 

clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 

1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court 

accepts its findings and recommendation. Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment (Doc. 45) is denied. 

So ordered by the court on July 25, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00154-JCB-KNM Document 75 Filed 07/25/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 432
- 2 -

Case 6:23-cv-00154-JCB-KNM Document 75 Filed 07/25/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 433
AVIATION & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-1673.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
                           EXHIBIT 27
                                
                AMENDED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
            (in thousands except per share amounts)
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         $    1,042 
<SECURITIES>                                            0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0 
<INVENTORY>                                             0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    2,110 
<PP&E>                                            383,433 
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (7,379)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    385,253 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              12,727 
<BONDS>                                           158,099 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0 
<PREFERRED>                                        50,000 
<COMMON>                                              223 
<OTHER-SE>                                        160,649 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      385,253 
<SALES>                                                 0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   32,689 
<CGS>                                                   0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   13,192 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  5,909 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    24,296 
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                24,296 
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0 
<CHANGES>                                               0 
<NET-INCOME>                                      $24,296 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $  2.00 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $  1.64 
        

</TABLE>
Cindy OMIDI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-411.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
James P. ARLOTTA, petitioner, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.; and James P. Arlotta, petitioner, v. Diocese of Buffalo, et al.

No. 17-9078.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                              116,918                 144,564
<SECURITIES>                              0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                       116,660                   4,999
<ALLOWANCES>                          2,991                       0
<INVENTORY>                               0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    284,053                 163,059
<PP&E>                              268,691                 125,009
<DEPRECIATION>                      124,687                  58,539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,314,186                 229,529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,657,306                 328,155
<BONDS>                              12,318                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                       0
<PREFERRED>                               0                       0
<COMMON>                          7,063,915               2,997,112
<OTHER-SE>                      (7,419,353)             (3,095,738)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      1,314,186                 229,529
<SALES>                                   0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    191,191                  18,404
<CGS>                                     0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       682,575                 473,665
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  3,505,862                 630,479
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  436,025                  10,373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (4,482,515)             (1,082,613)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (4,482,515)             (1,082,613)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                       0
<CHANGES>                                 0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (4,482,515)             (1,082,613)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (1.09)                  (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0                       0


</TABLE>
1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD;

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.; and SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO. LTD.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-CV-00103-JRG-RSP

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Notice is hereby given that Grant Schmidt, of the law firm Hilgers Graben PLLC, enters

his appearance for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,

and Samsung Display Co. Ltd., and consent to electronic services of all papers in this action. 

Dated: April 19, 2023 Respectfully,

/s/ Grant K. Schmidt

Grant K. Schmidt

Texas Bar No. 24084579

gschmidt@hilgersgraben.com

HILGERS GRABEN PLLC

7859 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 335

Dallas, Texas 75230

Telephone: (469) 751-2819

Attorney for Defendants Samsung 

Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics 

America, Inc. and Samsung Display Co. Ltd.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 21 Filed 04/19/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 862
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document has been served on April 19, 2023, to all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). 

/s/ Grant K. Schmidt

Grant K. Schmidt

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 21 Filed 04/19/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 863
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 09/11/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       29,719
COMMITMENTS
   3,504   19,271    1,277   24,766    9,018   29,547   29,566      172      153

CHANGES FROM 09/04/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,957)
     680    3,260     -130    3,564      908    4,114    4,038     -157      -81

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    11.8     64.8      4.3     83.3     30.3     99.4     99.5      0.6      0.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       33)
      10        6        4       14       13       24       23`

---

Updated September 14, 2012
Justin MAXWELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8418.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Order entered May 30, 2012

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 00575
- CV
BETTER BUSINESS BURE AU OF METROPOLITAN D ALLAS, INC., Appellant
V. LLOYD WARD, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas Coun ty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 11
- 03357
- C 

### O RDER The Court has before it appellee Lloyd Ward’s May 29, 2013 unopposed “Motion to Enlarge Time to File Motion for Rehearing.” The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that any motion for rehearing shall be filed by appellee on or before June 14, 2013

.
/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
**Exhibit 14.2**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 To the Board of DirectorsSilicom Connectivity Solutions, Inc.(A wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Silicom, Ltd.)Mahwah, New Jersey 

 We have audited the statements of operations, accumulated deficit and cash flows of Silicom Connectivity Solutions, Inc. (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Silicom, Ltd.) for the year ended December 31, 2002. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. 

 We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

 In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the results of operations and cash flows of Silicom Connectivity Solutions, Inc. (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Silicom, Ltd.) for the year ended December 31, 2002 in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. 

 The Company’s parent company has expressed both its ability and its intent to continue providing financial support to assure that Silicom Connectivity Solutions, Inc. will continue in operation. 

Stamford, Connecticut January 6, 2003 

 

McGladrey & Pullen, LLP is a member firm of RSM International, an affiliation of separate and independent legal entities. 

----