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

INDEPENDENTAUDITORS’ CONSENT

The Board of DirectorsOcean Energy, Inc.:

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the following registration statements of OceanEnergy, Inc. of our report dated January 25, 2001, relating to the consolidatedbalance sheets of Ocean Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, which reportappears in the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Ocean Energy,Inc. 

-       Form S-8, Seagull Thrift Plan (2-72014).       Form S-8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1981 Non-Qualified and Incentive Stock Option Plan   (2-80834).      Form S-8, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company Thrift Plan (33-14463).
-       Forms S-8 and S-3, Seagull Energy Corporation 1983 Stock Option Plan (2-93087).       Forms S-8 and S-3, Seagull Energy Corporation 1986 Stock Option Plan (33-22475).      Form S-8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1990 Stock Option Plan (33-43483).
-       Form S-8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1993 Stock Option Plan (33-50643).       Form S-8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1993 Nonemployee Directors' Stock Option Plan        (33-50645).      Form S-3, $350,000,000 Debt Securities of Seagull Energy Corporation (33-65118).
-       Form S-3, $100,000,000 Debt Securities of Seagull Energy Corporation (333-34841).       Form S-8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1995 Omnibus Stock Plan (33-64041).      Form S-3,  $300,000,000 Debt Securities,  Preferred Stock,  Depositary Shares,  Common Stock or Securities Warrants of Seagull          Energy Corporation (33-64051).
-       Form S-8, Global Natural  Resources Inc. 1989 Key Employees  Stock Option Plan and Global Natural  Resources 1992 Stock Option          Plan (333-13393).       Form S-8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1998 Omnibus Stock Plan (333-71375).      Form S-8, Ocean Energy, Inc. 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan (333-95507).
-       Form S-3,  Ocean Energy,  Inc. $1 Billion Debt  Securities,  Common  Stock,  Preferred  Stock,  Depository  Shares,  Warrants,          Guarantees of Debt Securities (333-79765).       Form S-8, Ocean Energy,  Inc. 1996 Long-Term  Incentive  Plan,  Ocean Energy,  Inc. 1994 Long-Term  Incentive Plan, and United          Meridian Corporation 1994 Outside Directors' Nonqualified Stock Option Plan (333-78255).      Post-Effective  Amendment No. 1 to Form S-4 on Form S-8, Ocean Energy,  Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan, Ocean Energy, Inc.          Long-Term  Incentive Plan For Nonexecutive  Employees,  United Meridian  Corporation 1994 Employee  Nonqualified Stock Option          Plan, and United Meridian Corporation 1987 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan (333-68679).
-       Form S-8, Ocean Energy, Inc. 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (333-49756).  /s/ KPMG LLP  Houston,Texas
Case 1:07-cv-03340-RJH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03340-RJH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03340-RJH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03340-RJH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03340-RJH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03340-RJH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03340-RJH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03340-RJH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03340-RJH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03340-RJH Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 10 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 34 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 34 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 34 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 34 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 34 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 34 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 34 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 7 of 7
#### CRUMPLER v. TURNAGE

No 296 PC

Case below: 47 NC App 374

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 August 1980. Appeal dismissed 15 August 1980.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of The X-Change Corporation on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Michael Sheriff, President of the X-Change Corporation (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (1) The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.August 13, 2007/s/ Michael L. Sheriff
Exhibit 32.2
 

 

 
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,as adopted pursuant toSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Irwin Financial Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the "Report"), I, Gregory F. Ehlinger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:  August 12, 2003
____/s/ Gregory F. Ehlinger___________ 
Gregory F. Ehlinger 
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000052617
<NAME> IRWIN FINANCIAL CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
       
<S>                             <C>        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          51,099
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          10,486
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     29,561
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          39,068
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            39,608
<LOANS>                                        538,299
<ALLOWANCE>                                      7,320
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,234,434
<DEPOSITS>                                     667,180
<SHORT-TERM>                                   316,174
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             71,531
<LONG-TERM>                                      9,789
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           47,919
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,965
<OTHER-SE>                                     104,532
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,234,434
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 27,607
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,237
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                14,580
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                45,425
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,598
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,177
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           25,248
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,692
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 88,981
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,431
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      20,431
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,965
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .95<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     .05<F1>
<LOANS-NON>                                      6,267
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,007
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,745
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,574
<RECOVERIES>                                       209
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,320
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             7,320
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          3,378
        
<FN>
<F1>information not in 1,000
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Eladio ARREDONDO-AGUIRRE; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-74748.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Martin Resendez Guajardo, Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

*867Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Allen W. Hausman, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM***

Eladio Arredondo-Aguirre and Reyna Cecilia Longoria de Arredondo, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying them motion to reopen deportation proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review a denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, *see de Martinez v. Ashcroft,*374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that this Court’s decision in *Vera-Villegas v. INS,*330 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir.2003) did not compel reopening of Petitioners’ case. In *Vera-Villegas,*the BIA denied suspension of deportation for failure to establish seven years of continuous physical presence, *see id.*at 1234-35, whereas here, the BIA declined to reach the issue of continuous physical presence and instead denied suspension for failure to show extreme hardship.

This Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioners’ alternative arguments that they are eligible for repapering and that the stop-time rule was improperly applied in their case because the Petitioners failed to raise these issues before the BIA and, thus, failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 99


                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 on Form 10-Q of Jaclyn, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), the
undersigned each hereby certifies that: (1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated: May 15, 2003                   /s/ ROBERT CHESTNOV
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      Robert Chestnov, President
                                      (Chief Executive Officer)


Dated: May 15, 2003                   /s/ ANTHONY CHRISTON
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      Anthony Christon, Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Jaclyn, Inc. and will be retained by Jaclyn, Inc. and forwarded to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       25
# L_2007169EN.01003501.xml

| 29.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 169/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 169/35

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 745/2007

of 28 June 2007

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 958/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 of 28 June 2006 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2006/2007 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 of 28 June 2006 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2006/2007 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 28 June 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 28 June 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 28 June 2007, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 shall be 38,107 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 29 June 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 June 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 247/2007 (OJ L 69, 9.3.2007, p. 3).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 175, 29.6.2006, p. 49. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 203/2007 (OJ L 61, 28.2.2007, p. 3).

2

---
Debt Management Initiative

In late 2018, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) reviewed debt management 

procedures across DOL’s enforcement agencies. The enforcement agencies – specifically 

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Mine and Safety Health 

Administration, the Wage and Hour Division, and the Employee Benefits Security 

Administration – can levy fines against violators and failure to pay those fines results in 

debt that needs to be managed. The review revealed that there were differing processes 

across enforcement agencies, limited performance metrics at the operational level, and 

inconsistent levels and intervals of engagement with debtors. OCFO also discovered that 

there were highly manual processes leading to human error, other inefficiencies, and 

inconsistent rates of compliance with Treasury mandates. On average, DOL’s collection 

rates were at 58 percent, while the average federal debt collection rate is 67 percent. 

Moreover, OCFO’s workforce analysis revealed that employees in the 

investigator/inspector series spent 18.9 percent of their time on collections activities. This 

equates to an opportunity cost of approximately 20.2 FTEs worth of additional 

investigators.

To address these inefficiencies, the Deputy Secretary requested that OCFO create a 

proposal to establish a dedicated debt management division – consistent with the 

Enterprise-wide Shared Services initiative and the President's Management Agenda. This 

division would allow agencies to focus more time, effort, and resources on their respective 

core missions, rather than administrative tasks. In October 2019, the Deputy Secretary 

issued a memorandum tasking OCFO with centralizing debt management activities across 

the department. 

OCFO’s mission will be to: 

 Improve enforcement debt management processes; 

 Standardize data collection and analysis; 

 Digitize and automate workflows;

 Partner with enforcement agencies and offer high-value-add financial management 

services and guidance; and

 Strengthen the enforcement of labor laws through improved debt collection.

In July 2020, bi-weekly Debt Management Steering Committee meetings began with OCFO, 

the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), and the enforcement agencies. OCFO, in 

conjunction with OCIO and the enforcement agencies, has started the process of refining asis and future state process through working groups. Additionally, OCIO has on boarded a 

contractor and is starting to build a comprehensive, automated debt management system 

that shares information between existing DOL case management systems and Department 

of the Treasury systems. Over the course of the next six months, the project will go through 

the development stage for the system and begin the implementation of on-boarding OSHA.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1364

RONALD SATISH EMRIT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CONGRESSMAN JOE HECK , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Paul W. Grimm , District Judge. ( 8:17

- cv
- 00074

- PWG )

Submitted : June 20, 2017 Decided: June 30, 2017

Before MOTZ , THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Ronald Satish Emrit , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint for improper venue. On appeal, we limit our review to the issues ra ised in
Emrit’s informal brief. Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 201 4 ). We have
reviewed the record in light of these arguments and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district cou rt. Emrit v. Heck , No. 8:17

- cv
- 00074

- PWG (D. Md. Jan

. 26, 2017). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO THE FORM 10-KSB FOR FISCAL
1997.
<MULTIPLIER>1
 
       
<CAPTION>
 
<S>                          <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                               YEAR

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    MAR-31-1997

<PERIOD-START>                        APR-1-1996

<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-1997

<CASH>                                   210,533

<SECURITIES>                           1,012,814

<RECEIVABLES>                            643,609

<ALLOWANCES>                             (39,346)

<INVENTORY>                            1,180,265

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       5,122,894

<PP&E>                                 3,335,330

<DEPRECIATION>                        (1,398,576)

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        11,836,799

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  2,545,045

<BONDS>                                3,834,483

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0

<PREFERRED>                                    0

<COMMON>                                 323,495

<OTHER-SE>                             2,408,544

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          11,836,799

<SALES>                                4,474,925

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      14,567,551

<CGS>                                  4,299,848

<TOTAL-COSTS>                          4,299,848

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0

<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       357,185

<INCOME-PRETAX>                        1,689,722

<INCOME-TAX>                             516,000

<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    1,173,722

<DISCONTINUED>                                 0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0

<CHANGES>                                      0

<NET-INCOME>                           1,173,722

<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 40

<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0


        
<PAGE> 

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. PARTIN

No. 170 PC.

Case below: 46 N.C. App. 122.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 May 1980. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 6 May 1980.