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

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report, dated March 15, 2005
(September 30, 2005 as to the effects of the restatement), appearing in this amended
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 2) of Flexible Solutions International, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2004 in the previously filed Registration Statements of
Flexible Solutions International, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-124751) and on Form S-3/A
(File No. 333-124751).

| |                                        
| | ---------------------------------------
| | /s/ CINNAMON JANG WILLOUGHBY & COMPANY,
| | Chartered Accountants                  

Burnaby, British ColumbiaMarch
7, 2006
----

IBI

|   | (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 operation of the      company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      January 15, 2009 |                         |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------|
|                        |                         |   |
|                        |                         |   |
| By:                         | /s/ Richard      Dole        |   |
|                        | Richard      Dole            |   |
|                        | Chief      Executive Officer |   |

----
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Conexant Systems, Inc. on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-68755, 333-69385, 333-84187,
333-91347, 333-92437, 333-32448, 333-37918, 333-39184, 333-42498, 333-42772,
333-42728, 333-48224, 333-48262, 333-44094, 333-54646, 333-54672, 333-68724,
333-70420, 333-73142 and 333-73858) and in the Registration Statements of
Conexant Systems, Inc. on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-70085, 333-30596, 333-32468,
333-38890, 333-42500, 333-48270, 333-61912 and 333-67190) of our report dated
October 18, 2001 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Conexant
Systems, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2001.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
November 30, 2001
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [Report No. 2729] 

Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of these documents is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by November 10, 2005. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired. 

*Subject:*                     In the Matter of the 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission's Rule Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth Stations and Space Stations (IB Docket No. 00-248).                 

In the Matter of Amendment of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Reduce Alien Carrier Interference Between Fixed-Satellite at Reduced Orbital Spacings and to Revise Application Procedures for Satellite Communication Services (CC Docket No. 86-496). 

*Number of Petitions Filed:*                     3.                 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05-21208 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
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 Hill International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report), I, Irvin E. Richter,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Irvin E. Richter

Irvin E. Richter

Chairman and Chief

Executive Officer

Dated: November 4, 2010
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
MIGUEL ANDRES LARA

- UNZUETA,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 10077
D.C. No. 2:19

- cr - 00552

- MTL

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 13, 2021 * * San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and R. NELSON and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Appellant Miguel Andres Lara

- Unzueta appeals the district court’s deni al of
his motion to dismiss his indictment for illegal reentry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

(b)(2). 1 Lara

- Unzueta argues that his underlying 1998 re moval order was invalid
because the Immigration Judge (“ IJ ”) erroneously reject ed his request for a § 212(c) hearing for discretionary relief

. S ee INS v. St. Cyr , 533 U.S. 289, 326 (2001 ) , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Nasrallah v. Barr , 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020)

. But Lara

- Unzueta has not demonstrate d that the deportation proceedings “improperly deprived [him] of the opportunity for judicial review

. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(2). Thus, h e can not collaterally attack the underlyi ng 1998
removal order

. To satisfy 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(2), a defendant “must show an actual or constructive inability to seek judicial review, related to an alleged error or obstacle in the deportation proceedings.” United States v. Gonzalez

- Villalobos , 724 F.3d 1125, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013). On appeal, however, Lara

- Unzueta argues only that (1) the IJ erred ; (2) the record as to his § 212(c) eligibility had not been developed
because of the error ; and (3) he did not understand the requirements for a § 1326
collateral attac k at the time of his 1998 removal. None of these arguments
demonstrate Lara

- Unzueta was actually or constructively “foreclose [d]” from
challen ging the IJ’s decision not to hold a § 212(c) hearing. See United States v.
Mendoza

- Lopez , 481 U.S. 828, 838 (1987) , adopted by statute as stated in United

1 We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss based on 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). United States v. Garcia

- Martinez , 228 F.3d 956, 960 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted)

.3

States v. Gonzalez

- Flores , 804 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2015)

. Lara

- Unzueta did , in fact, appeal the IJ’ s § 212(c) determination to the Board of Immigration Appeals and
could have sought judicial review of the Board’s decision affirm ing Lara

Unzueta ’s ineligibility for statutorily relief.
Without t he requisite showing under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(2), Lara

- Unzuet a cannot collaterally attack his 1998 removal order. 2
AFFIRMED.

2 Because we conclude Lara

- Unzueta has not made the requisite showing under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(2), we need not address the other arguments presented on appeal.
**Exhibit 32.2****CFO CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC §1350, as adopted), DanielJ. Miller, the Chief Financial Officer of PlanetOut Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, tothe best of his knowledge:**1.**The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, and towhich this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and**2.**The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.     **InWitness Whereof,**the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 8th day of November 2006.       /s/ DANIEL J. MILLER Daniel J. Miller    Chief Financial Officer  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is notbeing filed as part of this report. A signed original of this written statement required by Section906 has been provided to PlanetOut Inc. and will be retained by PlanetOut Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of the Custody of CYNTHIA DIANE HOPPER, a Minor Child, and EUGENE THOMAS HOPPER, JR., a Minor Child

No. 7026DC637

(Filed 18 November 1970)

Courts § 11.1; Divorce and Alimony § 22— child custody proceeding in superior court — modification of order by district court — cause not transferred to district court

The district court had no authority to modify a child custody order entered in the superior court where the cause was pending in the superior court when district courts were established in the county, and no order has been entered in the superior court transferring the cause to the district court pursuant to G.S. 7A-259, nor has a motion to transfer been made pursuant to G.S. 7A-258.

Appeal by respondent from *Arbuckle, District Judge,*20 July 1970 Session of Mecklenburg County District Court.

A detailed recital of the facts could serve no useful purpose in the light of our disposition of the appeal. This proceeding was instituted on 10 April 1967 in the Superior Court of Meck-lenburg County. On 25 August 1967 Judge Hasty entered an order awarding custody of two minor children of the parties to their mother, the appellant here. Subsequently district courts were established in Mecklenburg County. On 30 June 1970 appel-lee, the father of the children, filed a motion in the cause seeking a modification of Judge Hasty’s order. On 29 July 1970 District Court Judge Arbuckle entered an order which modified Judge Hasty’s order and placed the children in the custody of their father. The mother appealed to this Court asigning numerous errors in the proceeding before Judge Arbuckle.

*Welling, Miller, Gertzman and Goldfarb by Charles M. Welling for respondent appellant.*

*Hasty and Kratt by John H. Hasty for petitioner appellee.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

This proceeding was pending in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County when district courts were established in that district. There has been neither an order entered in the superior court transferring it to the district court division pursuant to G.S. 7A-259 nor a motion therefor under G.S. 7A-258. The district court judge was, therefore, without authority to *731modify the order of the superior court. *Hodge v. Hodge,*9 N.C. App. 601, 176 S.E. 2d 795.

Several of the appellant’s assignments of error have merit and would compel us to reverse the order appealed from if we dealt with the appeal on its merits. Since they may not recur, we will refrain from discussing them.

The order appealed from is hereby vacated and the cause is remanded to the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County.

Vacated and Remanded.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61260-61261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21114]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


Missile Defense Agency; Membership of the Missile Defense Agency 
Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Missile Defense Agency, DoD.

[[Page 61261]]


ACTION: Notice of Membership of the Missile Defense Agency Senior 
Executive Service Performance Review Board.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of members to the 
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Performance Review Board. The Performance 
Review Board provides a fair and impartial review of Senior Executive 
Service (SES) performance appraisals and makes recommendations to the 
Director, Missile Defense Agency, regarding final performance ratings 
and performance awards for MDA SES members.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 21, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Janice Siemsen, Director, 
Workforce Management, Missile Defense Agency, 7100 Defense Pentagon, 
Washington, DC 20301-7100, (703) 697-6538.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the 
following are the names and titles of MDA career executives appointed 
to serve as members of the MDA Performance Review Board. Appointees 
will serve one-year terms, effective upon publication of this notice.

BG Keith McNamara, USA, Deputy Director, MDA, Chairperson.
Mr. Terry Little, Executive Director, MDA, Member.
Ms. Patricia Sanders, Deputy Director, BMDS Integration, MDA, Member.
Brig Gen Chris Anzalone, USAF, Deputy for Test and Assessment, MDA 
Member.

    Dated: October 17, 2005.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 05-21114 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. (together, the Company), does hereby certify that to the undersigneds knowledge:



1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2005 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 Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |                                                                  
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 16, 2005 |  | /s/ Leigh Ginter                                                 
|                   |  | Leigh Ginter  Chief Financial Officer (Chief Accounting Officer)



A signed original of this written
statement, required by Section 906, has been provided to Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. and will be retained by Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### W. E. “BILL” RUSH, Appellant, *v.*MARGO G. RUSH, Respondent.

No. 4943

February 7, 1966

410 P.2d 757

*Robert L. Gifford, Tad Porter,*and *William R. Devlin,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Calvin C. Magleby,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

*60OPINION

By the Court,

Thompson, J.:

By motion, a former wife sought to modify a divorce decree which approved a written agreement providing for the husband’s future support.1 As in Ballin v. Ballin, 78 Nev. 224, 371 P.2d 32 (1962), the agreement and the decree each expressly directed that the agreement survive divorce. Here, the court also reserved jurisdiction as to alimony. In Ballin, jurisdiction was not reserved. That difference is fastened upon to justify the modification proceeding below. The lower court assumed jurisdiction and granted relief to the former wife. This, we believe, was error.

In Ballin, supra, we sought to make it clear that, where the agreement and decree each direct survival, later controversy regarding support must rest upon the agreement, for the rights of the parties flow from the agreement rather than from the decree approving it. Thus, a motion to modify the decree (as distinguished from an action on the agreement) was there held to be precluded. The same rationale applies here. A purported reservation of jurisdiction as to alimony is ineffectual in these circumstances. Jurisdiction cannot be reserved to deal with a subject over which the divorce court has divested itself of jurisdiction by directing survival. Accordingly, the order modifying the decree is reversed. Cf. Day v. Day, 80 Nev. 386, 395 P.2d 321.

Badt, J., concurs.

[Counsel stipulated to submit this appeal to two Justices.]

1

 An interesting question, briefed and argued, was the validity of a provision in a settlement agreement requiring the wife to pay alimony to the husband. Our disposition of the appeal does not require discussion of that question.
#### HERBERT McKINLEY HILL and wife, EDNA BYRD HILL, Plaintiffs and Third-Party plaintiffs v. ESTHER SMITH, Defendant v. WILLIAM H. ANDERSON and wife, MARGARITA H. ANDERSON, Third-Party Defendants

No. 7718DC1026

(Filed 7 November 1978)

Appeal and Error § 6.8— summary judgment denied — appeal fragmentary

Defendant’s appeal from an order denying her motion for summary judgment is fragmentary and is dismissed.

APPEAL by defendant from *Pfaff, Judge.*Order entered 29 September 1977 in District Court, GUILFORD County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 September 1978.

Plaintiffs instituted an action for summary ejectment claiming that defendant was in unlawful possession of their real property. Defendant answered, contending that she was the owner. The third-party defendants are the predecessors in title to the plaintiffs. Both plaintiffs and defendant moved for summary judgment, and a hearing was held on 26 September 1977. The trial judge concluded that genuine issues of material fact existed and *626denied both motions. Defendant appealed from the denial of her motion for summary judgment.

*Badgett, Calaway, Phillips, Davis & Montaquila, by Chester C. Davis, for plaintiff appellees.*

*O’Connor & Speckhard, by Donald K. Speckhard, for defendant appellant.*

*Jordan, Wright, Nichols, Caff rey & Hill, by Luke Wright, for third-party defendants.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

The right to appeal from a decision of a superior court judge is governed by G.S. 1-277 which, in pertinent part, provides:

> “An appeal may be taken from every judicial order or determination of a judge of a superior court, upon or involving a matter of law or . legal inference, whether made in or out of term, which affects a substantial right claimed in any action or proceeding; or which in effect determines the action, and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken; or discontinues the action, or grants or refuses a new trial.”

Defendant claims that the facts in this case were undisputed and that the refusal of the trial court to determine the questions of law by the denial of summary judgment in effect denied her a substantial right. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that there are genuine issues of material fact.

Generally, orders denying motions for summary judgment are not appealable. In *Motyka v. Nappier,*9 N.C. App. 579, 176 S.E. 2d 858 (1970), this Court stated that the denial of a motion for summary judgment did not affect a substantial right. In *Stonestreet v. Compton Motors, Inc.,*18 N.C. App. 527, 197 S.E. 2d 579 (1973), this Court refused to review a denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment stating that the ends of justice would be met by a full trial. *See also Parker Oil Co., Inc. v. Smith,*34 N.C. App. 324, 237 S.E. 2d 882 (1977). The federal courts have also refused to review a denial of summary judgment. *Valdosta Livestock Co. v. Williams,*316 F. 2d 188 (4th Cir. 1963). The purported appeal is fragmentary and will be dismissed.

Dismissed.

Judges Arnold and Webb concur.
3F* -tS

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 10-14-00028-CR OFFENSE: Indecency with a Child

Jose Carmen Garcia, Jr. v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

TRIAL COURT:

TRIAL COURTS:

TRIAL COURT JUDGE: Hon. Ralph T. Strother

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED

19th District Court

2012-2360-C1

DATE: March 5, 2015

PC

COUNTY: McLennan

S YES

FOR REHEARING IS:

DATE:

JUDGE:

JUSTICE: Scoggins

PUBLISH: DNP: YES

CLK RECORD:

RPTRECORD:

STATE BR:

APP BR:

3/28/2014

9/29/2014

2/3/2015

11/3/2014

SUPPCLKRECORD:

SUPPRPTRECORD:

SUPP BR:

PRO SE BR:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

MOTION

ELECTRONIC RECORD cca# 35t •/a

PRO SEL Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

DATE: OV/jL^7^?/r SIGNED: PC:

JUDGE: ^f\rUc^^- PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR REHEARING IN MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS:

CCA IS: ON

JUDGE:

ON

JUDGE:
<PAGE>



                                                                      EXHIBIT 99

                  WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

      Each of the undersigned, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer and the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Conexant
Systems, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated:  December 17, 2002


/s/ Dwight W. Decker
------------------------------
Dwight W. Decker
Chairman of the Board and
  Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Balakrishnan S. Iyer
------------------------------
Balakrishnan S. Iyer
Senior Vice President and
  Chief Financial Officer