alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM







We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-134858, 333-90006, 333-43972 and 333-93537 of North Bay Bancorp on Form S-8 of our report, dated March 7, 2007, relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting of North Bay Bancorp, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of North Bay Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2006.





/s/ Perry-Smith LLP







Sacramento, California

March 7, 2007



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
North Bay Bancorp:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-93537, 333-43972, and 333-90006) on Form S-8 of North Bay Bancorp of our reports dated March 15, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of North Bay Bancorp and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2005, which report appears in the December 31, 2006, annual report on Form 10-K of North Bay Bancorp.

/s/ KPMG LLP

San Francisco, California

March 6, 2007
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Carl TERRY, Defendant/Appellant. Carl TERRY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 65067, 67817.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Dec. 26, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 7, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied March 26, 1996.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Kocot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GRIMM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this jury-tried case, defendant was charged with first degree murder* and *341armed criminal action. The jury convicted him of second degree murder and armed criminal action. The trial court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to two consecutive life sentences. Thereafter, defendant filed a Rule 29.15 motion which was denied without an evidentiary hearing. He appeals both judgments.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

*

 The trial court’s written judgment indicates defendant was found guilty of first degree murder. *341This is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict and the court’s oral pronouncement of second degree murder. Pursuant to Rule 30.23, we correct the trial court’s judgment to read second degree murder.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 20287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11308]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

Information Security Oversight Office


National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee: 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
App. 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101-6, announcement is made 
of the following committee meeting:

    Name of Committee: National Industrial Security Program Policy 
Advisory committee (NISPPAC).
    Date of Meeting: May 20, 1996.
    Time of Meeting: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Place of Meeting: Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Building No. 
2050 5555 E. Ironwood Street, Tucson, Arizona 85707.
    Purpose: To discuss National Industrial Security Program policy 
matters. The agenda will include a discussion on the current status 
of the program; discussion and amendment to the NISPPAC bylaws; a 
report on the implementation of the Executive Order 12958 and 12968, 
including the status of the financial disclosure form; an update on 
reporting on security costs; and an update on the most recent draft 
safeguarding directive.
    This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space 
limitations and access procedures, the names and telephone numbers 
of individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the 
information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than May 15, 
1996. Written statements from the public will be accepted in lieu of 
an opportunity for comment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Garfinkel, Director, ISOO, 
National Archives Building, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 100, 
Washington, DC 200408, telephone (202) 219-5250.

    Dated: May 2, 1996.
John W. Carlin,
Archivist of the United States.
[FR Doc. 96-11308 Filed 5-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-M
Exhibit 32.2  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 Derby Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the Report), I, Frank Pioppi, 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: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  Date: May 13, 2011 /s/ Frank Pioppi Chief Financial Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7031

Magna Electronics Technology, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 18

- 00323

- CR

JUSTIN ARTIS , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 440th District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No. 17

- 24299

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this matter, appellant, Justin Allen Michael Artis , filed his notice of appeal

challenging his conviction for assault family violence. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. §

22.01(b)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2018). The trial court’s certification of appellant’s right of

appeal in this case indicates that this “is a plea

- b argain case, and the defendant has NO

right of appeal” and that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.”A rtis v. State Page 2

We must dismiss an appeal “without further action, regardless of the basis for the

appeal” if the trial court’s certification shows there is no right to appeal. See Chavez v.

State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Monreal v. State , 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2003) (holding that an appellant who has executed a waiver of appeal,

whether negotiated or non

- negotiated, could not a ppeal without securing the permission

of the trial court). Because the trial court’s certification indicates that appellant has no

right of appeal, we hereby dismiss this appeal. 1

AL SCOGGINS Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, a nd Justice Scoggins Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed October 24, 2018 Do not publish [CR25]

1 Nevertheless, we note that a motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the judgment or order of this Court is rendered. See id. at R. 49.1. If the appellant desires to have the decision of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discret ionary review, that petition must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days after either the day the court of appeals’ judgment was rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by the court of appeals. See id. at R . 68.2(a).
EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of W.  S.  INDUSTRIES,  INC.  (the
"COMPANY") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  February 28, 2007 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "REPORT"),  I,
James F. Dempsey,  President and Chief Executive Officer,  respectively,  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, 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.

Date:  April 11, 2007

                                             By: /s/ JAMES F. DEMPSEY
                                                 ---------------------
                                                 James F. Dempsey
                                                 Chief  Executive  Officer
**Certification**
I, William J. McGurk, President and Chief Executive Officer of Rockville Financial Inc.,certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rockville Financial, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, basedon such evaluation; and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   May 13, 2005 /s/ William J. McGurk   William J. McGurk President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

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 Derby Resources, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Andrew Niec, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; 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/ Andrew Niec

Chief Financial Officer



Date:  May 16, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41219

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

JOSE GUADALUPE VEGA-ZAPATA, also known as Ricardo Gonzalez, also 

known as Victor Guadalupe Medina, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:15-CR-580-1 

Before KING, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Guadalupe Vega-Zapata pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was 

sentenced to a 36-month term of imprisonment. On appeal, Vega-Zapata 

renews his challenge to application of the eight-level aggravated felony 

enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). The gravamen of his argument is 

that, in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the definition 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 2, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41219 Document: 00513894497 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2017
No. 16-41219

2 

of a crime of violence (COV) in 18 U.S.C, § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague on 

its face. Therefore, he contends, neither his prior Texas conviction for evading 

arrest with a motor vehicle nor his prior Texas conviction for assault of a public 

servant is a COV under § 16(b), and thus neither prior conviction is an 

aggravated felony for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) and 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). 

As Vega-Zapata concedes, his argument is foreclosed by our decision in

United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670, 672-77 (5th Cir. 2016) (en 

banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259), in which we rejected 

a constitutional challenge to § 16(b) as facially vague. Accordingly, VegaZapata’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the district court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-41219 Document: 00513894497 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2017
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40308

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFONSO ZAMORA-ANAYA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CR-920-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Alfonso Zamora-Anaya appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea to illegal reentry into the United States

following deportation. Zamora was sentenced to a term of

imprisonment of 46 months to be followed by a three-year term of

supervised release. 

Zamora argues that in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000), it appears that Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), was incorrectly decided and that,

therefore, the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are
No. 04-40308

-2-

unconstitutional. He contends that the unconstitutional portions

of the statute should be severed and that he should be

resentenced to no more than two years of imprisonment for the

lesser included offense provided under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

Zamora recognizes that his argument is foreclosed by the existing

precedent of the Supreme Court and this court; however, he wishes

to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review.

Almendarez-Torres held that the enhanced penalties contained

in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) were sentencing factors and not elements of

the offense. 523 U.S. at 235. Apprendi did not overrule

Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United

States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court

must follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres unless the

Supreme Court overrules it. Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984. Zamora’s

challenge to the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is

without merit. 

AFFIRMED.
#### CHROMA LIGHTING, a California corporation; and Charles T. Von Der Ahe, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GTE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, et al., Defendants, Sylvania Lighting Services Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 94-55581.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 15, 1997.

Before: BROWNING, NORRIS and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

On June 5, 1997, plaintiffs-appellees Chroma Lighting and Charles T. Von Der Ahe (“Chroma”) filed a motion for attorneys’ fees totaling $ 214,511.00 as prevailing parties in an antitrust case. *See*15 U.S.C. § 15. On August 5, 1997, we called for a response to the motion. In their response, appellant argues that Chroma failed to comply with Ninth Circuit Rules 28-2.3 and 39-1.6, which require that a party seeking attorneys’ fees on appeal include a statement to that effect in its opening brief, and so, is not eligible for attorneys’ fees.

The requirement that parties notify the court of their intention to seek attorneys’ fees in their opening brief was abrogated as of July 1, 1997. *See*9th Cir. R. 39-1.6 (July 1, 1997).1 This rule change effectively overrules *Forrett v. Richardson,*112 F.3d 416 (9th Cir.1997), and applies to all pending cases. *See James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia,*501 U.S. 529, 543, 111 S.Ct. 2439, 2447, 115 L.Ed.2d 481 (1991).

Accordingly, Chroma’s motion for attorneys’ fees is granted. This matter is transferred to the district court for further proceedings. 9th Cir. R. 39-1.8.

1

. In the July 1, 1997 version of this court's rules, this requirement was removed from Circuit Rule 39-1.6. To the extent that this requirement still appears as part of Circuit Rule 28-2.3, it is inadvertent and will be corrected promptly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5

<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                         JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                      0
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            0
<PP&E>                                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      95
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  750
<OTHER-SE>                                               (845)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                0
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            0
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        1,095
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (1,095)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (1,095)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.00)



</TABLE>