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

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT






Board of Directors
Radica Games Limited


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
33-86960,  333-07000,  333-59737  and  333-61260 on Form S-8,  and  Registration
Statement  Nos.  333-07526  and 333-79005 on Form F-3 of Radica Games Limited of
our report dated  February 18, 2003,  with respect to the  consolidated  balance
sheets of Radica Games Limited and its  subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and
2001 and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity
and comprehensive  income, and cash flows for the years then ended, which report
appears in the  December  31,  2002 Annual  Report on Form 20-F of Radica  Games
Limited.

Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for goodwill in 2002.




/S/ KPMG

HONG KONG
April 10, 2003
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 DSA Financial Corporation (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification
(the "Report"), I, Steven R. Doll, 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 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 results of operations of
        the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to DSA Financial Corporation and will be retained by DSA Financial
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.



                                       /s/ Steven R. Doll
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                       Steven R. Doll
                                       Chief Financial Officer

        Date: November 10, 2004
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWIN GIOVANNI RIVAS BOLVITO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70555

Agency No. A076-858-638

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Edwin Giovanni Rivas Bolvito, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reconsider. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for an abuse of discretion,

FILED

MAR 29 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70555

Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), we deny the petition for

review.

The BIA properly construed Bolvito’s October 10, 2008, filing as a motion

to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793 (9th Cir. 2005). The

agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Bolvito’s third motion to reopen as

untimely because he filed the motion more than nine years after his removal order

was entered, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (motion to reopen must be filed

within 180 days of removal order entered in absentia), and Bolvito failed to show

that he acted with the due diligence required to warrant equitable tolling of the

filing deadline, Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (a petitioner may obtain equitable

tolling based on ineffective assistance of counsel as long as he “act[ed] with due

diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1816

___________

Paul Love, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Curators of the University of *

Missouri; BTi Employee Screening * [UNPUBLISHED]

Services; Bill Mitchell, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 5, 2007

 Filed: August 3, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Paul Love appeals the district court’s1

 order dismissing his action based on the

court’s determination that the parties had reached a settlement agreement. Having

carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that the parties reached

a settlement agreement at their August 23, 2005 meeting, and that the terms of the

agreement are embodied in the transcript of the meeting. See Chaganti & Assocs.,
-2-

P.C. v. Nowotny, 470 F.3d 1215, 1221 (8th Cir. 2006) (appeals court reviews for clear

error district court’s finding that settlement agreement existed), cert. denied, 75

U.S.L.W. 3569 (U.S. June 18, 2007) (No. 06-1377). In addition, we find nothing in

the record to support Love’s unsubstantiated claim that he was coerced into the

agreement.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Keelia M. FAIRCLOTH, Plaintiff, v. Sandy W. FAIRCLOTH, Defendant.

No. COA17-332

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56627-56628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19300]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security.
    Title: National Security and Critical Technology Assessment of the 
U.S. Industrial Base.
    Agency Form Number: N/A.
    OMB Approval Number: 0694-0119.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection of 
information.
    Burden: 24,000 hours.
    Average Time Per Response: 4 hours per response.
    Number of Respondents: 6,000 respondents.
    Needs and Uses: The Department of Commerce/BIS, in coordination 
with other government agencies and private entities, conduct 
assessments of U.S. industries deemed critical to our national 
security. The information gathered is needed to assess the health and 
competitiveness as well as the needs of the targeted industry sector in 
order to maintain a strong U.S. industrial base. Data obtained from the 
surveys will be used to prepare an assessment of the current status of 
the targeted industry, addressing production, technological 
developments, economic performance, employment and academic trends, and 
international competitiveness.
    Affected Public: Individuals, businesses or other for-profit 
institutions.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. (or via Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d6965544348466d49424e034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="296d6150474c42694d464a074e465f">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, e-mail address, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f0b491869994afa29f83849b9582b09f9d92de959f80de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ebaf8a9d828fb4b984989f808e99ab848689c58e849bc58c849d">[email protected]</span></a>, or fax number, (202) 395-7285.


[[Page 56628]]


    Dated: September 22, 2005.
Madeleine Clayton,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-19300 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit
      32**




**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the periodic report of Novint Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Tom Anderson, Chief Executive Officer
      (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
      and Accounting Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
      solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
      Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.






Date:
                August 14,
                2008
              /s/ Tom
                AndersonTom
                AndersonChief
                  Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
                Chief
                  Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
                  Officer)
#### William G. LONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dolph BRISCOE, Individually and as Governor of Texas, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 77-2923

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 1, 1978.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 6, 1978.

William G. Long, pro se.

John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., David M. Kendall, Jr., Joe B. Dibrell, J. E. Seymour, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Before RONEY, GEE and FAY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an order of the district court dismissing the civil rights complaint of this Texas state prisoner. We affirm.

The appellant, convicted of murder, is serving sentences imposed in 1959 totaling 198 years. After parole had been denied seven times, the Parole Board recommended appellant for parole in early 1977. On April 25, 1977, however, the Governor rejected parole for these reasons:

> 1. Criminal behavior pattern

> 2. Nature and seriousness of offenses

> 3. Protest

> 4. Lack of positive parole orientation or motivation

> 5. Assaultive tendencies or potential

Appellant filed his civil rights complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the appellee, individually and as Governor of Texas. He contends that consideration of his past record as an item for parole eligibility is double jeopardy. He also contends that the Governor has given weight to factors which should not have been considered in overriding the decision of the Board. The district court dismissed on the basis of *Cruz v. Skelton,*543 F.2d 86 (5th *1120Cir. 1976), but granted leave to appeal *in forma pauperis.*

This Court has previously held that the participation of the Governor of Texas in the parole process does not present a federal constitutional issue. *Shaw v. Briscoe,*541 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1976), *cert. denied,*430 U.S. 933, 97 S.Ct. 1556, 51 L.Ed.2d 778 (1977). Pursuant to this Court’s opinion in *Brown v. Lundgren,*528 F.2d 1050 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*429 U.S. 917, 97 S.Ct. 308, 50 L.Ed.2d 283 (1976), the factors used to determine federal parole cannot be reviewed in federal court absent a showing of arbitrariness or abuse of discretion. Assuming without deciding that such a standard for federal review could be equally applicable to the Governor in state parole proceedings, appellant has alleged insufficient facts to show arbitrariness or abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56712-56720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19339]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[FDA 225-04-4007]


Memorandum of Understanding between the Food and Drug 
Administration, Forensic Chemistry Center and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of 
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Food and Drug 
Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The 
purpose of this MOU is to establish the general policies and procedures 
that will govern administrative, logistical, and operational support to 
FBI missions including cost reimbursable activities.

DATES: The agreement became effective December 22, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For the FDA: Fred Fricke, Food and Drug Administration, Forensic 
Chemistry Center, 6751 Steger Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45237, 513-679-2700.
    For the FBI: David L. Wilson, Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Laboratory, Chemical Biological Sciences Unit, Quantico, VA 22135, 703-
632-7766.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which 
states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others 
shall be published in the Federal Register, the agency is publishing 
notice of this MOU.

    Dated: September 20, 2005.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

[[Page 56713]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28SE05.031


[[Page 56714]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28SE05.032


[[Page 56715]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28SE05.033


[[Page 56716]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28SE05.034


[[Page 56717]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28SE05.035


[[Page 56718]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28SE05.036


[[Page 56719]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28SE05.037


[[Page 56720]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28SE05.038

[FR Doc. 05-19339 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-C
STATE of North Carolina v. Amy Michelle DANIEL and North River Insurance Company, Surety.

No. COA15-1085.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 15, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Reversed.
## NO. 12

- 23

- 00299

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

EMILY REED , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 173RD

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

A ppellant

, Emily Re ed

, filed a mot ion to withdraw th is appeal

. The mo tion is
electronically signed by Appellan t and h er cou nsel

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2 (a) ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
9.1( c )

. N o decision has be en delivered in t h e appeal

. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion to

dismi ss is gran ted, a nd the a ppeal is dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2 (a).

Opinion delivered April 17, 2024

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. , Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGM ENT

A PRIL 17, 2024

NO. 12

- 23

- 00299

- CR

EMILY REED , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 173rd District Court

of Hend erson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR20

- 0363

- 173 )

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismi ss the appeal herein , and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, A DJU DGED and
DECREED by this Court th at the motion to dismiss b e granted and the app eal b e dismisse d, and

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance

.

By per c uriam opinion

. P anel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
Goodrich v. Goodrich et al.

S16A1341

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: October 17, 2016

**PER CURIAM**.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

*Affirmed without opinion.*

All the Justices concur, except Thompson, C.J., not participating.
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SouthCrest
Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the “ Periodic Report”),
the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies
pursuant to Title 18, Section 1350 United States Code, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his individual
knowledge and belief, that the Periodic Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Dated:
November 14, 2008




/s/
      Douglas J. HerthaDouglas J. HerthaChief
      Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4283 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4283

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 9, 2014

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to authorize the Secretary of 
 the Interior to maintain or replace certain facilities and structures 
  for commercial recreation services at Smith Gulch in Idaho, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MAINTENANCE OR REPLACEMENT OF FACILITIES AND STRUCTURES AT 
              SMITH GULCH.

    Section 3(a)(24)(D) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
1274(a)(24)(D)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
Secretary shall also authorize or continue to authorize maintenance or 
replacement of facilities and structures listed in this subparagraph 
for commercial recreation services at Smith Gulch whose location is 
defined above. The facilities and structures referred to in this 
subparagraph are--
            ``(i) motorized landscaping equipment, such as lawnmowers 
        and weed trimmers;
            ``(ii) chainsaws;
            ``(iii) gasoline-powered electrical generators and 
        associated electrical transmission facilities;
            ``(iv) hydroelectric generators and associated electrical 
        transmission facilities;
            ``(v) gasoline-powered water pumps for fire suppression;
            ``(vi) transition from propane to electrical lighting;
            ``(vii) solar energy systems; and
            ``(viii) 6-volt or 12-volt battery banks for power 
        storage.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 8, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Mary Jo DELAHAYE v. Michael T. DELAHAYE.

No. 2003-CC-2582.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 17, 2003.

In re Delahaye, Michael T.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, Family Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 131,983; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 1953.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.
COURTNEY NC LLC v. BALDWIN

219P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Monette Baldwin, for Baldwin, Monette.

A. Bartlett White, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Stephanie D'Atri, Attorney at Law, for Courtney NC, LLC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of September 2017 by Defendant to Withdraw Appeal to the Right from the Court of Appeals:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."

Beasley, J. and Morgan, J. recused
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




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009
of Pure Biofuels Corp. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
      November 16,
      2009/s/ Alberto PintoAlberto
      Pinto, Chief Executive Officer and
President




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Pure Biofuels Corp. and will
be retained by Pure Biofuels Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE of North Carolina, v. Sylvester Ray ANDREWS, Jr. and Trayvon Markel Powell Moody, Defendants.

No. COA16-925

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

NO ERROR.