alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 19.15.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 333-113789 and Form F-3 (No. 333-182712 and No. 333-182712-02) of AngloGold Ashanti Limited of our report dated 27 March 2015, relating to the financial
statements of Kibali (Jersey) Limited included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2014.



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ BDO LLP       
|                  
|BDO LLP           
|Registered Auditor
|                  
|London            
|United Kingdom    
|27 March 2015     



E-10
**Exhibit 31(a)**
  **CERTIFICATION**
 
 I, Randal J. Kirk, certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 26, 2004 of New River Pharmaceuticals 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;  3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b)
[Omitted in reliance on SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986 Section III.E.]  (c)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  ****Date: November 8, 2004
By:
/s/ Randal J. KirkRandal J. KirkTitle Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal executive officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           6,421
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,753
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,163
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,213
<PP&E>                                         200,520
<DEPRECIATION>                                 119,152
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 189,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,103
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           170
<OTHER-SE>                                    (99,263)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   189,882
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               207,397
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  170,543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,253
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   979
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,010
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,399)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,515
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,914)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-91296) pertaining to the Bull Run Corporation 1994 Long Term
Incentive Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-91298) pertaining
to the Bull Run Corporation Non-Employee Directors' 1994 Stock Option Plan of
our reports dated February 18, 1997 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Bull Run Corporation and our reports dated February 22, 1995 with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Datasouth Computer
Corporation incorporated by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) of Bull
Run Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1996, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.



                                            /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 21, 1997
#### MARVIN MAXEY, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 9634

May 17, 1978

578 P.2d 751

*256
      *Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *Terrence M. Jackson,*Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *H. Leon Simon,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant stands convicted, by jury verdict, of robbery (NRS 200.380) with use of a deadly weapon (NRS 193.165). His principal contention on appeal is that a hypothetical fact situation given by the judge during voir dire as an illustration of circumstantial evidence constituted an improper comment relative to his guilt or innocence.

Although the alleged improper comment was made during voir dire, appellant’s counsel failed to object until after the jury was sworn and both sides had concluded their opening statements. Where, as here, appellant has knowledge of the misconduct, he must assert his right to a mistrial immediately or be deemed to have waived any alleged error. *Cf.*Scott v. State, 88 Nev. 682, 504 P.2d 10 (1972); State v. Hartley, 22 Nev. 342, 40 P. 372 (1895); Horne v. State, 506 S.W.2d 596 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974). Moreover, even assuming error, the record contains overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt and, thus, we deem any such error harmless. NRS 178.598. *See*Jacobs v. State, 91 Nev. 155, 532 P.2d 1034 (1975); Shepp v. State, 87 Nev. 179, 484 P.2d 563 (1971).

Appellant’s other contentions are without merit and, accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5099 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5099

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, as the ``Michael C. 
                         Rothberg Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MICHAEL C. ROTHBERG POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Michael C. Rothberg Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any references in a law, map, regulation, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Michael C. Rothberg Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 23 (Friday, February 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 6040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2160]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--National Registry of Emergency Medical 
Technicians

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 20, 2004, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), National Registry of 
Emergency Medical Technicians (``NREMT'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of 
business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature 
and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications 
were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting 
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: National 
Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians, Columbus, OH. The nature and 
scope of NREMT's standards development activities are: Development of 
uniform standards for training and examination of personnel active in 
the delivery of emergency medical services.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 05-2160 Filed 2-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
**Exhibit      21**

**Subsidiaries      of Registrant**

|  Name                                      | Country/State                ofIncorporation | %                of VotingSecurities                Owned |
|-------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| Visiplex                Instruments Corporation | New                York                      | 100%                                                      |
|                                            |                                         |                                                      |
| Dent-X                International Inc.        | New                York                      | 100%                                                      |
|                                            |                                         |                                                      |
| QR                Imaging USA, Inc.             | New                York                      | 100%                                                      |
| QR                Imaging srl                   | Italy                                        | 100%                                                      |
| QR                srl                           | Italy                                        | 100%                                                      |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6841

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LISA MARIE CASEY, a/k/a Lisa Marie Adams, a/k/a Marie Galliher, a/k/a Lisa 

Marie Graninger,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00071-JPJ-PMS-1)

Submitted: October 21, 2019 Decided: November 6, 2019

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lisa Marie Casey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lisa Marie Casey appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for relief and 

expedited decision. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Casey, 

No. 1:06-cr-00071-JPJ-PMS-1 (W.D. Va. May 28, 2019). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 26, 2010

s0719 

# Order

July 26, 2010

140882

ROBERT VANDYKE, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140882 COA: 286775 Leelanau CC: 07-007700-CD LEELANAU COUNTY AND DAVID GILL, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 23, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
f8k050913ex10i_arista.htm


 


Exhibit 10.1








 


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







Amendment dated as of May 22, 2013 (this “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement dated March 1, 2010, as previously amended on May 17, 2010, by and between Arista Power, Inc. (the “Company”) and Molly Hedges (the “Executive”) (the “Agreement”).


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to modify the terms and conditions of the Agreement on the terms set forth herein.


 


NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


Section 1.  Section 1(a) of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety, with the following:


 


“(a)           The Company hereby agrees to employ Ms. Hedges as its Chief Financial Officer, Controller, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer effective on May 22, 2013.  Ms. Hedges hereby accepts such employment.  Ms. Hedges will report to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer.  Ms. Hedges will perform those duties and have such authority and powers as are customarily associated with her positions and such other duties as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company may reasonably request from time to time.”


 


All of the other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged by this Amendment.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer, and the Executive has signed this Amendment, as of the date first above written.


 


ARISTA POWER, INC.







By:         /s/ William A. Schmitz                                


Name: William A. Schmitz


Title:   Chief Executive Officer












/s/ Molly Hedges                                                    


Molly Hedges
#### CHARLES JOHN HUNTLEY, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7562

May 13, 1974

522 P.2d 147

*188
      *Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Roy A. Woof-ter,*District Attorney, and *Charles L. Garner,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant was ordered to stand trial for robbery (NRS 200.-380), and for murder committed during the robbery (NRS 200.030(2) (b).1

A pretrial petition for habeas corpus contended the state failed to present evidence of robbery at the preliminary examination, thus the robbery charge must fail; and, since the felony-murder charge was conditioned on the robbery, that charge could not stand.

In its return to the habeas petition the state candidly conceded that it had not presented sufficient evidence to establish the robbery charge; however, it moved for permission to file an amended information, charging Huntley with killing the deceased by shooting her “with a firearm.”

*189The trial court granted the motion to file the amended information, concluded the issue in the habeas petition was thus rendered moot, and denied habeas. In this appeal appellant’s central contention argues the state is proscribed from “short circuiting” a valid habeas petition by filing an amended information. Appellant cites no authority in support of this contention; therefore, it is rejected. See Carson v. Sheriff, 87 Nev. 357, 487 P.2d 334 (1971); cf. NRS 173.095.

In the alternative, appellant argues that the quantum of admissible evidence in the transcript of his preliminary examination is insufficient to meet the standard of probable cause contemplated by NRS 171.206. We also reject this contention as we deem the content of the record meets that standard. See State v. von Brincken, 86 Nev. 769, 476 P.2d 733 (1970).

“[W]e are not now concerned with the prospect that the evidence presently in the record may, by itself, be insufficient to sustain a conviction.” McDonald v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 326, 512 P.2d 774 (1973).

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

2OO.tHO provides in part:

2. “Murder of the first degree is murder which is:

(b) Committed in the perpetration of rape, kidnaping, arson, *robbery,*...”
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

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

         I, Stephen Tang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of Financial Telecom Limited (USA), Inc. for the quarter
ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.

         By: /s/ Stephen Tang
         Stephen Tang
         Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
         (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Cleveland, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1212

Issued: September 28, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On August 2, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a December 22, 2020 nonmerit decision

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-1212.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the December 22, 2020 decision was June 20, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until August 2, 2021, more than 180 days after the

December 22, 2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-1212 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered 

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1212 is dismissed.

Issued: September 28, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
EXHIBIT 24
  POWER OF
    ATTORNEY
  and/or Form 10-K
  Signature

Title

Date/s/  D.
    SCOTT MERCERD.
    Scott Mercer

Chairman of the Board and
    Chief Executive Officer
    (Principal Executive Officer)

November 8, 2010/s/  CHRISTIAN
    SCHERPChristian
    Scherp

Co-President

November 8, 2010/s/  SAILESH
    CHITTIPEDDISailesh
    Chittipeddi

Co-President

November 8, 2010/s/  JEAN
    HUJean
    Hu

Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Senior Vice President,
    Business Development
    (Principal Financial Officer)

November 8, 2010/s/  MICHAEL
    ELBAZMichael
    Elbaz

Vice President, Finance and
    Chief Accounting Officer
    (Principal Accounting Officer)

November 8, 2010/s/  WILLIAM
    E. BENDUSHWilliam
    E. Bendush

Director

November 8, 2010/s/  STEVEN
    J. BILODEAUSteven
    J. Bilodeau

Director

November 8, 2010/s/  F.
    CRAIG FARRILLF.
    Craig Farrill

Director

November 8, 2010/s/  BALAKRISHNAN
    S. IYERBalakrishnan
    S. Iyer

Director

November 8, 2010/s/  MATTHEW
    E. MASSENGILLMatthew
    E. Massengill

Director

November 8, 2010/s/  JERRE
    L. STEADJerre
    L. Stead

Director

November 8, 2010