alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                              Consent of KPMG LLP

The Board of Directors
Bone Care International, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 333-23885) on Form S-8 of Bone Care International, Inc. of our report
dated August 6, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Bone
Care International, Inc. and subsidiary as of June 30, 1999, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows
for each of the years in the two-year period ended June 30, 1999, which report
appears in this 2000 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Bone Care International,
Inc.

Our report dated August 6, 1999, contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that Bone Care International, Inc. has suffered recurring losses from operations
that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.
The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
result from the outcome of that uncertainty.


/s/ KPMG LLP

    KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
December 4, 2000
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3068

JOHN-PIERRE BANEY

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in DA3443080404-I-1.

ON MOTION

Before DYK, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The Department of Justice moves without opposition to reform the official caption

to designate the Merit Systems Protection Board as respondent.

John-Pierre Baney filed an appeal with the Board alleging that the Department of

Justice unlawfully placed him in leave without pay status for eight hours during which he

participated in a Board hearing involving a USERRA claim. The Board concluded that it

did not have jurisdiction over Baney's claim, finding that Baney's appeal was barred by

collateral estoppel because he had previously filed an identical claim, which was fully

adjudicated.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is designated as the respondent

when the Board's decision concerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. In this
case, the Board's decision was in part a decision on the merits. See Mindana v. Office of

Personnel Management, 985 F.2d 1070 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the Department of

Justice is the proper respondent in this petition for review.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Department of Justice's motion to reform the official caption is denied.

The Department of Justice's brief is due within 21 days of the filing of this

order.

FOR THE COURT

FEB 2 5 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk	rub

Oa COPT OF APPEALS P811 THE hEDERAL CIRCUIT

FEB 2 5 2009

JAW HORBALY

CLERK

cc:	John-Pierre Baney

Ronald G. Morgan, Esq.

Raymond D'Angelo, Esq.

s20

2009-3068	 2
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2370

To designate the Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street in New York

City, New York, as the ‘‘Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 6, 2000

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. ROTH, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr.

BAUCUS, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. HATCH, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. LOTT, Mr.

AKAKA, Mr. BAYH, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr.

BREAUX, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. BYRD, Mr. DODD, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. DURBIN,

Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERRY, Mr. KERREY, Mr. KOHL,

Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. REED, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBB, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr.

WYDEN, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BOND, Mr. L. CHAFEE, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr.

COVERDELL, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. HELMS, Mrs.

HUTCHISON, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. WARNER, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. GORTON, and

Mr. GRAMS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street

in New York City, New York, as the ‘‘Daniel Patrick

Moynihan United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 2370 IS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN

2 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

3 The Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street in

4 New York City, New York, shall be known and designated

5 as the ‘‘Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Court6 house’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

10 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

11 a reference to the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States

12 Courthouse.

Æ
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JIMMY J. MAXENAT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2862

[April 30, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 01-018748-CF10A.

Jimmy J. Maxenat, Crestview, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: COOLIT SYSTEMS, INC.,

Appellant

______________________

2022-1221

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-

00747.

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

ASETEK DANMARK A/S,

Appellant

v.

COOLIT SYSTEMS, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2022-1259

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-

00825.

______________________

ON MOTION

Case: 22-1221 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 11/30/2022
2 IN RE: COOLIT SYSTEMS, INC.

______________________

Before STARK, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the parties’ joint motion to voluntarily dismiss Appeal No. 2022-1259, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), and Asetek 

Danmark A/S’s unopposed motion to withdraw from Appeal No. 2022-1221,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted. Appeal No. 2022-

1259 is dismissed. 

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs as to Appeal No. 

2022-1259.

(3) The motion to withdraw is granted. Asetek Danmark is withdrawn from Appeal No. 2022-1221. The revised official caption and short caption for Appeal No. 2022-

1221 are reflected in this order.

(4) The United States Patent and Trademark Office 

(PTO) is directed to inform the court within 30 days of the 

date of filing of this order whether it intends to intervene 

in Appeal No. 2022-1221.

(5) If the PTO elects to participate as intervenor, its 

brief is due within 40 days of the date of filing of its notification of election. CoolIT Systems, Inc. may file its reply 

brief within 21 days of the date of filing of the PTO’s brief. 

(6) If the PTO elects not to participate, CoolIT shall file 

its appendix within 10 days of the date of filing of the PTO’s 

notice.

Case: 22-1221 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 11/30/2022
IN RE: COOLIT SYSTEMS, INC. 3

(7) The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this order to the merits panel assigned to Appeal No. 2022-1221.

November 30, 2022

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

cc: United States Patent and Trademark Office

ISSUED AS A MANDATE (AS TO 2022-1259 ONLY): 

November 30, 2022

Case: 22-1221 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 11/30/2022
**Exhibit
31.1**
 
 **Rule
13a-14(a) / 15d-14(a) Certification of Chief Executive
Officer**
 
 I, Dr.
Ramesh Zacharias, certify that:
 
 1. I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Med-Emerg International 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 consolidated 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 and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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)
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
 
 c)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fiscal year that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 
 5. The
registrant's other certifying officer 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: 
March 30, 2005
  /s/
      Dr. Ramesh ZachariasDr.
      Ramesh ZachariasChief
      Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1
------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Annual Report of  Peoples-Sidney  Financial  Corporation
(the  "Corporation")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2004,  as filed
with the  Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date of this  Certification
(the "Report"), I, Douglas Stewart, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
the  Corporation,  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 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 Corporation.


/s/ Douglas Stewart
------------------------------
Douglas Stewart, President and
Chief Executive Officer

Date: September 28, 2004

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


                                                                             49.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

RIAZ A. KHAN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0499-08-4 PER CURIAM 

JULY 15, 2008 

AEROLINK TRANSPORTATION AND 

 HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY 

 OF THE MIDWEST 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Riaz A. Khan, pro se, on brief). 

 (John T. Cornett, Jr.; Daniel E. Lynch & Associates, P.C., on brief), 

for appellees. 

 Riaz A. Khan appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission dismissing 

his January 22, 2004 claim. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and 

find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

commission in its final opinion. See Khan v. Aerolink Transportation, VWC File No. 

217-34-72 (Jan. 28, 2008). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.1

Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 Appellees’ Motion to Exclude Medical Evidence Submitted by Appellant on Appeal is 

granted. In rendering our decision, we have only considered the record that was properly before 

the commission when it rendered its decision.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 28, 2010 

Order 

 

April 28, 2010 

139647(36)(39) 

MOHAMED MAWRI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 SC: 139647 

v COA: 283893 

Wayne CC: 06-617502-NO 

CITY OF DEARBORN, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, motions by John A. Braden and the Michigan 

Municipal League and others for leave to file briefs amicus curiae are considered, and 

they are GRANTED.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-43,179-03

EX P ARTE SHE LDON MOSLE Y, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 95-CR- 3738-A IN THE 28th DIST RICT COURT

F ROM NUECES COUNTY

Per curiam . K

E L L E R , P .J., fi led a dis senting opi nion in w hich K E A S L E R , H E R V E Y , and A L C A L A , JJ., joined. O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texa s C o d e o f Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of three counts of ag g rava ted sexual assault of a child and sentenc ed to six ty y ear s’ imprisonment in eac h count. The Thirteen Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Mosley v. State, No. 13-96-00129- CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, delivered January 23, 1998, no pet.). Applicant contends that he is actua lly innocent based upon newly discovere d evidenc e of a

rec antation m ade by the complainant in this case . We rema n d ed this application to the t rial court2

for f indings of f

act a nd conclusions of law

. The trial c ourt conduc ted a live e videntiary hear ing w here sever al witnesses, including the complainant, testified reg arding Applicant’s claim of actua l innocenc e. Ba sed on the testimony g iven at the he aring , the trial cour t determined tha t no rea sonable jury would convict Applica

nt in light of the newly discovere d evidenc e. We ag ree . The Applicant has established a claim of actua l innocenc e that war

rants habea s corpus relief

. Ex parte Thompson , 153 S.W .3d 416 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Relief is g rante d. The judg ment in Cause No. 95-CR-3738A in the 28th District Court of Nuec es C o u n t y i s s et aside, and Applicant is rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of Nuec es County to answe r the char g es as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any nece ssary bench w arr ant within 10 day s after the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this op in io n s h a ll b e s e n t to th e Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: September

11, 2013 Do not publish
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Spartan Motors, Inc. (the "Company"), pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:

| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three-month period ended September 30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition at the end of such period and results of operations of the Company for such period.                                           

|Dated:  November 6, 2008 | /s/ John E. Sztykiel                                           
|------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|                         | John E. Sztykiel
President and Chief Executive Officer         
|                         |                                                                
|                         |                                                                
|                         |                                                                
|Dated:  November 6, 2008 | /s/ James W. Knapp                                             
|                         | James W. Knapp
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40814 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL MANCILLAS-ZARATE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-98-CR-71-1

- - - - - - - - - - January 6, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Miguel Mancillas-Zarate (“Mancillas”) appeals the sentence he

received follow ing his guilty-plea conviction for attempting to

illegally reenter the United States after deportation, in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that the district court erred and

act ed in violation of his right to due process by imposing a

sixteen-point enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b) (1)(A), for his prior Texas felony conviction for

possession of cocaine.No. 98-40814 -2-

Because he raises these argu ments for the first time on

appeal, they are reviewed for plain error. S ee United States v.
Spires

, 79 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir. 1996); see also United States

v. Knowles
, 29 F.3d 947, 950-51 (5th Cir. 1994). Mancillas has not

demonstrated any error, plain or otherwise, arising out of the

district court’s application of

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). S ee United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez

, 130 F.3d

691, 694 (5th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. P earson , 910

F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1991).

Mancillas also argues that due process requires the Government

to prove the aggravat ed felony sentencing enhancement by proof

greater than a prepondera nce of the evidence, either beyond a

reason able doubt or by clear and convincing evidence. However,

Mancillas does not challenge the existence of his prior conviction

or the Government’s ability to prove that conviction under a

heightened standard of proof and thus has failed to de monstrate

that the district court’s finding that the conviction was
sufficiently proved, irrespec tive of what evidentiary burden was

required, was clear error. See United States v. Palmer , 122 F.3d

215, 222 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000743457
<NAME> 83B
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         260,435
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  285,146
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               545,581
<PP&E>                                      19,505,691
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,669,231
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,382,041
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,858
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,317,183
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,382,041
<SALES>                                      1,095,887
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,110,327
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  567,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                543,081
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            543,081
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   543,081
<EPS-BASIC>                                      17.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>