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

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

Implant Sciences Corporation

Wakefield, MA

 

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(No.’s 333-109678, 333-111434, 333-117366) and Form S-8 (No. 333-111117) ofImplant Sciences Corporation of our report dated September 21, 2004, relatingto the financial statements which appears in this Form 10-KSB.

 

 
| /s/ BDO  Seidman, LLP |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
| Boston, MA            |

 
|                    |
|-------------------------|
| October   11, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

DACIA ARGENTINA AYALA SUM,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70342

Agency No. A071-584-892

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 16, 2010** 

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Dacia Argentina Ayala Sum, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal

from an immigration judge’s (”IJ”) order denying her motion to rescind a

deportation order entered in absentia and reopen her deportation proceedings to

FILED

NOV 10 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70342

apply for adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.

2002), we dismiss in part and grant in part the petition for review and remand for

further proceedings.

As we determined in our previous Order of November 18, 2010, we lack

jurisdiction to consider Ayala Sum’s challenges to the IJ’s determinations that she

failed to demonstrate that she did not receive proper notice of the hearing and that

she warranted equitable tolling of the 180-day filing deadline because Ayala Sum

failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678

(9th Cir. 2004); see also Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207-08 (9th Cir.

2009) (en banc) (per curiam) (petitioner will be deemed to have exhausted only

those issues raised and argued in her brief before the BIA.). 

Although we uphold the agency’s conclusion on rescission, rescission is not

necessary to reopen proceedings. See Matter of M-S-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 354-55

(BIA 1998) (en banc). As the agency decisions do not address Ayala Sum’s

eligibility for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief

Act, we remand for further proceedings. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d

1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (The agency is “not free to ignore arguments raised by

[a party].”). 
3 08-70342

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.
#### ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORPORATION, Appellee, v. COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants.

No. 538, Docket 71-1981.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued March 1, 1972.

Decided March 3, 1972.

Richard Lipsitz, Buffalo, N. Y. (Lip-sitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Schuller & James, Lawrence A. Schulz, Buffalo, N. Y., on the brief), for appellants.

Eugene D. Ulterino, Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, Rochester, N. Y., for appellee.

*1058Before MURRAH,* KAUFMAN and OAKES, Circuit Judges.

*

 Senior Judge of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The court below, after denying a preliminary injunction to enjoin a strike sought by appellee on *Boys Markets*grounds [Boys Markets, Inc. v. Local 770, Retail Clerks, 398 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 26 L.Ed.2d 199 (1970)], enjoined appellant union and unidentified members from intentionally cutting telephone cables and destroying company property. This was done on the court’s own motion and perhaps without requiring the posting of an injunction bond.1 This injunction was plainly issued erroneously, not only because there was no evidence connecting the union or its members with the cable cutting, United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 738-739, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); 29 U.S.C. §§ 106, 107(a), but also because there was no allegation, proof or finding that “. . . the public officers charged with the duty to protect [the company’s] property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.” 29 U.S.C. § 107(e).

Appellee concedes that the injunction was issued improvidently, but argues that the appeal is moot, and has moved to dismiss the appeal, because the strike which gave rise to the injunction ended on September 8, 1971, a new contract has subsequently been ratified and there have been no further incidents of cable cutting or the like. The injunction is still outstanding, however, and even if the only issue related to appellants’ right to damages from its issuance, the case would not be moot. Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U.S. 301, 305-306, 84 S.Ct. 391, 11 L.Ed.2d 347 (1964).

We therefore reverse, vacate the injunction and remand for further determination of the issues (1) whether ap-pellee is responsible to appellants for reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees (29 U.S.C. § 107) in connection with the erroneous issuance of such injunction; (2) if so, to how much appellants are entitled; and (3) whether any surety is legally responsible on any injunction bond covering this injunction.

Judgment for appellants in accordance with the opinion.

1

. Appellee apparently attached a surety bond to its application for injunctive relief, but so far as here appears there is no indication that this bond was filed in respect to the injunction actually issued.
**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 Otelco Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curtis L. Garner, Jr., 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.








/s/
      Curtis L. Garner, Jr.





Curtis
      L.
      Garner, Jr.


Chief
      Financial Officer


August
      9,
      2007
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60371-60372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20776]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission


Record of Vote of Meeting Closure (Pub. L. 94-409) (5 U.S.C. 
552b)

    I, Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Chairman of the United States Parole 
Commission, was present at a meeting of said Commission, which started 
at approximately 5 p.m., on Thursday, October 6, 2005, at the U.S. 
Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, 
Maryland 20815. The purpose of the meeting was to decide two petitions 
for reconsideration pursuant to 28 CFR 2.27. Five Commissioners were 
present, constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was 
submitted.
    Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the 
meeting and certifications of General Counsel that this meeting may be 
closed by vote of the Commissioners present were submitted to the 
Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion 
duly made,

[[Page 60372]]

seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted that the 
meeting be closed: Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Cranston J. Mitchell, Deborah 
A. Spagnoli, Isaac Fulwood, Jr., and Patricia Cushwa.
    In Witness Whereof, I make this official record of the vote taken 
to close this meeting and authorize this record to be made available to 
the public.

    Dated: October 7, 2005.
Edward F. Reilly, Jr.,
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-20776 Filed 10-13-05; 9:48 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE:

REGINALD C. GILBERT §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 22

- 0012 6

- C R

Appeal from the

142 nd Judicial D istrict Court

o f Midland County, Texas

TC # C V 5 8580

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Reginald C. Gilbert, acting pro se , appealed the trial court’s “Order Denying Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Bail Reduction ,” signed on June 6, 2022. 1 On July 22, 2022, this

Court received notice updating the contact and representation information for Gilbert. On

August 31, 2022, Gilbert , through new counsel, filed his “Appellant’s Motion to Voluntarily

Dismiss Appeal” in this Court. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 4 2

. 2 (governing voluntary dismissals in criminal

cases). Gilbert and counsel both signed the written motion. See i d. The motion is granted.

CONCLUSION

The appeal is dismissed.

1 This case was transferred from our sister court, the Eastland Court of Appeals, pursuant to the Texas Supreme

Court’s docket equalization efforts. See T EX .G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Eastland

Court of Appeals to the exten t they mig ht conflict with our own. See T EX .R.A PP .P . 41.3.2

September 13, 2022

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ , Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
CASEY GOODSON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 5593

____________ _________________/

Opinion filed September 14, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Kevin J. Carroll , Judge

.

Jeffrey E. Lewis, Regional Counsel, and Michael Jerome Titus, Assistant Regional

Conflict Counsel, Office of Crim inal Conflict and Civi l Regional Counsel,

Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### RAYVON R. LAWS v. LAWRENCE PALMER, JR.

No. 6925DC24

(Filed 30 April 1969)

Appeal and Error § 39— failure to docket record on appeal in apt time

Where record on appeal was not docketed in the Court of Appeals within 90 days from date of judgment appealed from and no order was entered extending the time for docketing, the C-ourt of Appeals *ex mero motu*will dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the Rules. Court of Appeals Rules Nos. *5*and 48.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Snyder, J.,*at the 5 August 1968 Regular Civil Session of the District Court of Caldwell County.

Plaintiff filed a complaint on 20 July 1967. On 16 August 1967 defendant demurred. The demurrer was sustained on 12 March 1968, and plaintiff was allowed fifteen days “to serve amended complaint.” The plaintiff had theretofore on 28 August 1967 filed an amended complaint which was served on 26 March 1968. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed after the time for answering had expired, reads as follows:

“1. That the plaintiff is a resident of Caldwell County.

2. That the defendant is a resident of Caldwell County.

3. That the defendant has in his possession certain machinery consisting of a tractor, a Bush Hog, 1 Set Rippers, a Disc Harrow, a terracing blade, one set of bottom plows and small tools and attachments for the tractor, etc., of the value of Twelve Hundred Dollars, ($1200.00), the property of plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession of the same, but defendant refuses on demand to deliver the same to plaintiff.

4. That defendant has wrongfully and unlawfully kept posses*511sion of the property mentioned above for some time and has thereby deprived the plaintiff of possession of use of said property to his great damage in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00).

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendant for the recovery of the possession of the property above described and for the sum of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars, together with the costs of this action and for interest.”

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence upon motion of the defendant, judgment of nonsuit was allowed and entered on 9 August 1968. Plaintiff excepted, assigned error, and gave notice of appeal.

*L. H. Wall for ■plaintiff appellant.*

*No brief and no Counsel for defendant in this Court.*

Mallard, C.J.

This case was tried and judgment entered under date of 9 August 1968. The record on appeal was not docketed in the Court of Appeals within the time permitted under Rule- 5 of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals. The ninety days allowed in Rule 5 for docketing the record on appeal in this case expired on Thursday, 7 November 1968. The record on appeal was not docketed until 11 November 1968. No order was entered extending the time in which to docket the record on appeal. Under Rule 48, the case is subject to dismissal and should be and is dismissed by this Court *ex mero motu*for failure to comply with the rules.

However, we have also reviewed the record before us and find no prejudicial error. We think the judgment of the District Court is correct.

Appeal dismissed.

Britt and Pareer, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5017 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5017

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To ensure the availability of loan guarantees for rural homeowners.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Housing Preservation and 
Stabilization Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. LOAN GUARANTEE FEES.

    (a) Up-front Fees.--Paragraph (8) of section 502(h) of the Housing 
Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(8) Guarantee fees.--With respect to a guaranteed loan 
        under this subsection, the Secretary may collect from the 
        lender, at the time of issuance of the guarantee, a fee equal 
        to not more than 4.0 percent of the principal obligation of the 
        loan, as determined sufficient by the Secretary to cover the 
        costs (as such term is defined in section 502 of the Federal 
        Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a)) of loan guarantees 
        under this subsection.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 739 of the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriation Act, 2001 (as enacted by Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 
1549A-34) is hereby repealed.
    (c) Authorization of Amount of Loan Guarantees.--Section 513 of the 
Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1483) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection:
    ``(f) Authorization for Loan Guarantees.--The Secretary may, to the 
extent approved in appropriation Acts, guarantee loans under section 
502(h) in aggregate amounts not to exceed $30,000,000,000 for fiscal 
year 2010.''.

SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
Representatives, provided that such statement has been submitted prior 
to the vote on passage.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 27, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20892]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Requirements Agency Information 
Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information 
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR 
describes the nature of the information collections and their expected 
burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was 
published on May 11, 2005 [70 FR 24860]. This is a request for a new 
collection.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 18, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donovan Green, NHTSA, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Room 5307, NVS-122, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Green's 
telephone number is (202) 493-0248.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    Title: Tires and Rim Labeling.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0503.
    Form Number: This collection of information uses no standard forms.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the 
approval date.
    Type of Request: Request for public comment on a previously 
approved collection of information.
    Abstract: Each tire manufacturer and rim manufacturer must label 
their tire or rim with the applicable safety information. These 
labeling requirements ensure that tires are mounted on the appropriate 
rims; and that the rims and tires are mounted on the vehicles for which 
they are intended.
    Affected Public: Tire and Rim Manufacturers.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: $3,611,460.00.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
    Comments Are Invited On:
    <bullet> Whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
Department, including whether the information will have practical 
utility.
    <bullet> Whether the Department's estimate for the burden of the 
proposed information collection is accurate.
    <bullet> Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 
days of publication.

    Issued on: October 7, 2005.
Roger A. Saul,
Director, Office of Crashworthiness Standards.
[FR Doc. 05-20892 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Maxygen, Inc.;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;
 Date: October 24, 2008
    /s/ Russell J. HowardRussell J. HowardChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 12.1

East West Bancorp, Inc.

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

Year Ending December 31,(1)2008

2007

2006

2005

2004(Dollars in Thousands)(Loss) Income before tax

$
(97,168
)
$
262,259

$
233,781

$
170,361

$
121,333Fixed ChargesInterest expense


131,634


124,578


92,303


37,698


15,001Estimate of interest within rental expense


3,574


3,545


3,022


2,298


1,418Preferred dividends


17,928











Fixed charges and preferred dividend, excluding interest on deposits

$
153,136

$
128,123

$
95,325

$
39,996

$
16,419Interest on deposits


178,060


241,035


200,265


93,586


37,896Fixed charges and preferred dividend, including interest on deposits

$
331,196

$
369,158

$
295,590

$
133,582

$
54,315Total earnings, fixed charges and preferred dividends, excluding interest on deposits


55,968


390,382


329,106


210,357


137,752Total earnings, fixed charges and preferred dividends, including interest on deposits


234,028


631,417


529,371


303,943


175,648Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred DividendsExcluding interest on deposits


0.37


3.05


3.45


5.26


8.39Including interest on deposits


0.71


1.71


1.79


2.28


3.23


---



QuickLinks
NUMBER 13-15-00482-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CHARLOTTE P. SOLIZ AND 

JESSE (JESUS) SOLIZ AND IN THE INTEREST OF M.R.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 94th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s motion for extension of time to file 

the brief. Appellant, Jesse (Jesus) Soliz, appearing pro se, appeals from a judgment of 

divorce involving minor children. The record in this matter was filed on December 7, 

2015, and accordingly, appellant’s brief was due on January 6, 2016. On March 3, 2016, 

this Court abated the appeal because appellant filed a motion to appoint counsel. The 

trial court conducted a hearing and made findings that appellant wishes to prosecute the 
2

appeal and although appellant is indigent, he is not legally entitled to court appointed 

counsel. On April 22, 2016 the appeal was reinstated and appellant was notified the 

brief was due on or before May 23, 2016. Appellant has now filed a motion requesting 

until July 7, 2016 to file the appellate brief in this cause.

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant's motion for extension 

of time to file the brief, is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's motion 

for extension of time to file the brief should be granted with order. The Court, however, 

looks with disfavor upon the delay caused by appellant’s failure to have filed a brief in this 

matter. 

Appellant's motion for extension of time to file the brief is hereby granted, and the 

appellant, is hereby ORDERED to file the appellate brief with this Court on or before July 

7, 2016. Further motions for extension of time will not be favorably entertained by the 

Court.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

31

st day of May, 2016.