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

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Chordiant Software, Inc. 

Cupertino, California 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-91570 and 333-61874) and Form S-8 (Nos.333-100843; 333-83506;333-60156; 333-49032; 333-42844; 333-34502; and 333-110743) of Chordiant Software, Inc. of our reports dated December 8, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of ChordiantSoftware, Inc’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP 

 

San Jose, California

December 8, 2005
Exhibit G 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1267-7 Filed 09/03/21 Page 1 of 3
U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

Paul J. Cambria Jr.

Attorney at Law

Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria,

LLC

42 Delaware Ave, Suite 120 

Buffalo, NY 14202 

(attorney for Michael Lacey)

Gary Lincenberg, Esq.

Ariel Neuman, Esq.

Gopi Panchapakesan, Esq.

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, 

Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & 

Rhow, P.C.

1875 Century Park East

23rd Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

(attorneys for Jed Brunst)

David S. Eisenberg, Esq.

3550 N. Central Ave., 

Suite 1155

Phoenix, AZ 85012

(attorney for Andrew Padilla)

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr., Esq.

Whitney Bernstein, Esq.

Bienert, Miller & Katzman, 

PLC

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350

San Clemente, CA 92673

(attorneys for James Larkin)

Joy Malby Bertrand, Esq.

1826 N. 7th Avenue

Phoenix, AZ, 85007

(attorney for Joye Vaught)

Bruce Feder, Esq.

2930 East Camelback Road, 

Suite 160

Phoenix, AZ 85016

(attorney for Scott Spear)

Michael D. Kimerer, Esq.

1313 E. Osborn Road,

Suite 100

Phoenix, AZ 85014

(attorney for Jed Brunst)

Re: U.S. v. Michael Lacey, et.al.

CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

Dear Counsel:

Pursuant to your request for discovery and the government’s obligations under Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 16 and the stipulated scheduling order in this case, please find via USAfx the government’s twentysixth disclosure. 1 

The Bates range for this disclosure is USAO-BP-0025781 to USAO-BP-0032278. We will 

1 USAfx disclosure for defendants Michael Lacey, James Larkin, and Jed Brunst are being provided 

to Paul J. Cambria Jr., Thomas H. Bienert Jr., and Gary Lincenberg respectively.

Two Renaissance Square Main: (602) 514-7500

40 N. Central Ave., Suite 1800 Main Fax: (602) 514-7693

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408

June 25, 2021

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1267-7 Filed 09/03/21 Page 2 of 3
Lacey, et. al. Discovery Letter 

June 25, 2021

Page 2

circulate an updated index next week. 

Please let us know if you have questions.

Sincerely,

GLENN B. McCORMICK

Acting United States Attorney

s/ Andrew C. Stone

KEVIN M. RAPP

MARGARET PERLMETER

PETER S. KOZINETS

ANDREW C. STONE

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

NICHOLAS L. McQUAID

Acting Assistant Attorney 

General

Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

REGINALD E. JONES

Senior Trial Attorney

Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Enclosure

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1267-7 Filed 09/03/21 Page 3 of 3
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Duane EVANS, Appellant.

No. 62284.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 28, 1995.

Brad B. Baker, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

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

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of two counts of attempted stealing by deceit in violation of §§ 564.011 & 570.030 RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced to two concurrent terms of three years imprisonment. In his sole point on appeal, Defendant asserts error in the *638admission of testimony by two witnesses as to the amount of money involved in the scheme. Defendant claims that such testimony was hearsay and was the only evidence that the amount involved was more than $150.00, a necessary element to raise the offenses to class D felonies.

We have reviewed the record and find that Defendant failed to object to the subject testimony at the time it was offered at trial. Although Defendant did file a pretrial motion in limine seeking to exclude this evidence, the court’s ruling on that motion was interlocutory only and subject to change during the course of the trial. *State v. Arnold,*859 S.W.2d 280, 282 (Mo.App.1993). An objection must be made when the evidence is offered at trial to preserve the issue for appellate review. *State v. Dee,*752 S.W.2d 942, 947 (Mo.App.1988).1 Further, where no objection is made, the admission of hearsay evidence is not plain error. *State v. Lewis,*809 S.W.2d 878, 879 (Mo.App.1991). In view of our determination that Defendant failed to object when the subject testimony was offered, we need not reach the State’s alternative contention that the statements were admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.

Judgment affirmed.

1

. Likewise, absent an objection at the time the testimony is offered, an attempt to renew the pretrial objection after both sides have rested, as Defendant did here, preserves nothing for review.
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF 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 Madrona Ventures Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Reese Baglole,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
7th day of June, 2007.


/s/ Reese Baglole
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
ANNUAL REPORT
Chevy Chase Auto Receivables Trust 1997-2
$ 214,068,614 6.35% Auto Receivables Backed Certificates
For the Year Ended December 31, 1998




         PRINCIPAL    INTEREST      NET       NET        30 +      DELQ.
            DIST        DIST       LOSSES    LOSS %     DELQ.        %
        ____________ ___________ ___________ ________ ____________ _______
 Jan-98   6,515,965   1,906,987   1,260,005    7.27%   13,781,771    7.22%
 Feb-98   6,691,526   1,966,339   1,205,155    8.94%   13,047,220    8.15%
 Mar-98   6,507,274   1,700,337     937,937    8.87%   10,595,081    8.00%
 Apr-98   7,095,017   1,699,773     814,631    7.21%   10,218,397    6.79%
 May-98   6,381,074   1,607,395     679,401    6.53%    9,735,103    6.83%
 Jun-98   5,764,592   1,502,392     498,900    5.67%   10,034,136    6.77%
 Jul-98   5,967,750   1,562,573     308,330    4.35%    9,685,940    7.29%
 Aug-98   5,935,589   1,497,386     261,809    2.81%    9,954,073    7.36%
 Sep-98   5,492,217   1,391,947     540,526    2.50%    9,798,586    7.91%
 Oct-98   5,186,065   1,309,493     503,916    5.39%    8,788,437    8.14%
 Nov-98   5,298,164   1,272,476     418,711    5.26%    8,448,211    7.64%
 Dec-98   5,131,303   1,189,088     548,861    4.57%    8,456,758    7.68%
        ____________ ___________ ___________
 Totals  71,966,535  18,606,189   7,978,183

  **  The date represents the month of the Distribution date, the
      information is from activity of the previous month.
Exhibit 31.1

              Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
                      Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

I, Reese Baglole, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Madrona Ventures
     Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and 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 quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
10th day of March, 2008.


/s/ Reese Baglole
-----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: MICHAEL LACEY; et al. 

______________________________ 

MICHAEL LACEY; et al., 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, 

PHOENIX, 

Respondent, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Real Party in Interest.

No. 20-73408 

D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00422-SMB 

District of Arizona, 

Phoenix 

ORDER

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

This petition for a writ of mandamus raises issues that warrant an answer. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 21(b). Accordingly, within 14 days after the date of this order, 

the real party in interest shall file an answer. The district court may elect to file an 

answer with this court or to issue a supplemental order and serve a copy on this 

court. Petitioners may file a reply within 7 days after service of the answer(s). 

The petition, answer(s), and any reply shall be referred to the next available 

motions panel. See 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 3.3(f).

FILED

DEC 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1102 Filed 12/08/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

The Clerk shall serve this order on the district court and District Judge Susan 

M. Brnovich.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1102 Filed 12/08/20 Page 2 of 2
NO. 07-11-0264-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL A JULY 13, 2012

__________________ ____________ CEDRIZ ALPHONSO BERKLEY, JR., APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

__________________ _______________ FROM THE 27 TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY; NO. 66,650; HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE

__________________ _____________ Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Cedriz Alphonso Berkley, Jr ., pled guilty in open court to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 1 He was sentenced to fift een years confinement. In a single issue, Appellant asserts the trial court erred by includi ng in its written judgment a requirement that he pay $26,383. 94 in restitution when the trial court’s oral sentencing pronouncement did not refer to the payment of any restit ution. The State, with

1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011).2 commendable candor, concedes the trial court er red and asks this Court to modify the judgment by deleting the order fo r payment of re stitution.
The record reflects that, at a punish ment and sentencing hearing held on May 12, 2011, the trial court pr onounced that Appellant was sentenced to fifteen years confinement without any m ention of restitution. The statute authorizi ng restitution, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42. 037(a) (West Supp. 2011) provi des that a trial court may order a convicted defendant to ma ke restitution to a victim of the offense "[i]n addition to any fine imposed by law." An order to pay restitution is part of the convicted defendant's punishment. Weir v. State , 278 S.W.3d 364, 366 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009); Ex parte Cavazos , 203 S.W.3d 333, 338 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (original proceeding); Cabla v. State , 6 S.W.3d 543, 545 (Tex.C rim.App. 1999). A defenda nt’s sentence must be pronounced in the defendant’s pr esence. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.03(a) (West Supp. 2011). When the oral pr onouncement of sentence and the written judgment differ, the oral pronouncement controls. Ex parte Huskins , 176 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). T herefore, an order of restitution must be included in the oral pronouncement of sentence to be included in the written judgment. Lane v. State, No. 12-11-00071-CR, 2012 Tex.App. LEXIS 3389, at *5-6 (Tex.App.--Tyler April 30, 2012, no pet.) (not desi gnated for publication); Sauceda v. State, 309 S.W.3d 767, 769 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2010, pet. ref’d); Alexander v. State, 301 S.W.3d 361, 364 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2009, no pet.). Because the trial court did not include restitution in its oral pronouncement of s entence, it could not assess restitution in its written judgment. Accordingly, we find the trial court erred and “the proper remedy is to3 modify the judgment to delete the order of restitution.” Sauceda, 309 S.W.3d at 769. Appellant’s single issue is sustained.

Conclusion
The trial court’s judgment is modified to delete the portion requiring restitution and, in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Patrick A. Pirtle Justice Do not publish.
**Exhibit 4.28**

 

 

**Supplemental Agreement to the FinancialServices Framework Agreement**

 

 

 

This Agreement isentered into by and between the following parties in            as of ____________:

 

 

 

Party A: China Southern Airlines CompanyLimited (中国南方航空股份有限公司)(hereinafter referred to as “Party A”)

 

Domicile: No. 278, Ji Chang Road, Guangzhou

 

Legal Representative: Si Xianmin

 

 

 

Party B: Southern Airlines Group FinanceCompany Limited (中国南航集团财务有限公司)(hereinafter referred to as “Party B”)

 

Domicile: No. 17, Hangyun South Street,Baiyun District, Guangzhou

 

Legal Representative:

 

  

 

 

Based on the FinancialServices Framework Agreement entered into between Party A and Party B on 8 November 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “OriginalAgreement”), this supplemental agreement is entered into by both parties on the basis of equality and mutual benefit andthrough friendly consultations, the specific terms of which are as follows:

 

1.	Clause1 of Article 8 (the “Transaction Cap”) of the Original Agreement shall be amended as follows: “Both parties tothe Agreement agree that, with effect from the effective date of the Agreement, the balance of Party A’s deposits placedwith Party B (including the corresponding interest accrued thereon) shall not exceed RMB8 billion on any given day, nor shouldthe balance of the outstanding loan provided by Party B (including the corresponding interests payable accrued thereon) exceedthe above-mentioned level on any given day.”

 

 

 

 

2. This supplementalagreement shall be deemed as supplemental to the Original Agreement. In case of any inconsistency between the Original Agreementand this supplemental agreement, this supplemental agreement shall prevail.

 

3. After approvedat the board meeting and general meeting of Party A, this supplemental agreement shall be effective from the date of obtainingapproval at the board meeting and general meeting of Party A and upon being signed and affixed with an official seal by both parties.

 

4. This supplementalagreement is made in four counterparts with two copies held by each party, which shall have the same legal effect.

 

(Remainder of this pageis intentionally left blank)

 

 

 

Party A: China SouthernAirlines Company Limited

 

Authorized Representative:

 

 

 

 

 

Party B: Southern AirlinesGroup Finance Company Limited

 

Authorized Representative:

 

 

2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 970 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 970

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 13, 2010.
Whereas Mark Ingram was raised in Flint, Michigan;
Whereas Mark Ingram attended Grand Blanc Community High School and Flint 
        Southwestern Academy, where he distinguished himself as a running back 
        and cornerback;
Whereas Mark Ingram was a 4-year starter in high school, and rushed for 4,926 
        yards and 58 touchdowns in his final 2 seasons;
Whereas, during his high school football career, Mark Ingram was honored with 
        the Saginaw Valley MVP Award, named Area Player of the Year, and was an 
        All-State selection;
Whereas, in 2009, Mark Ingram led the University of Alabama to the Southeastern 
        Conference (SEC) Championship and rushed 113 yards and scored 3 
        touchdowns in the championship game;
Whereas, in 2009, Mark Ingram broke the University of Alabama single-season 
        rushing record with 1,542 yards, was named the SEC offensive player of 
        the year, scored 18 total touchdowns, and finished the season with 322 
        receiving yards;
Whereas, in 2009, Mark Ingram was named an All SEC First Team Selection, a 
        Walter Camp 1st team All-American, and an American Football Coaches 
        Association All-American;
Whereas Mark Ingram is the first Heisman Trophy winner from the University of 
        Alabama;
Whereas Mark Ingram is only the third sophomore in history to win the Heisman 
        Trophy;
Whereas Mark Ingram has made the Dean's List at the University of Alabama;
Whereas Mark Ingram's Heisman win brings tremendous pride to his hometown of 
        Flint, Michigan;
Whereas, December 12, 2009, has been declared Mark Ingram Day in the City of 
        Flint;
Whereas the sport of football is an important national pastime that helps foster 
        teamwork, leadership skills, sportsmanship, and camaraderie; and
Whereas football can help build self-esteem and promote exercise and a more 
        active and healthy lifestyle: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates Flint native and 
running back Mark Ingram on winning the 2009 Heisman Trophy and honors both his 
athletic and academic achievements.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1








SAVWATT USA, INC.


A Delaware corporation


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In connection with this amended Quarterly Report of SavWatt USA, Inc. ("Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, Isaac H. Sutton, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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; and





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





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentication, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed from within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






Date:  December 9, 2011
By:
/s/ Isaac H. SuttonIsaac H. SuttonPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting, Executive and Financial Officer)
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Diane J. Humetewa Date: September 15, 2023

USA v. Michael Lacey, et al Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-DJH

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Kevin Rapp, Austin Berry, Margaret Perlmeter, Andrew Stone, Peter 

Kozinets

Attorneysfor Defendants: Paul J. Cambria Jr., Retained for Defendant Lacey, present; Bruce S. Feder, 

Retained (Knapp) and Eric W. Kessler, CJA for Defendant Spear, present; Gary S. Lincenberg and Gopi 

K. Panchapakesan, Retained for Defendant Brunst, present; David S. Eisenberg, CJA for Defendant 

Padilla, present; Joy M. Bertrand, CJA for Defendant Vaught, present.

Defendants: ☒ Present ☐ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ

JURY TRIAL (Day 7):

8:33 a.m. Court reconvenes. Discussion held re: Exhibits. The Court rules as set forth on the record.

9:04 a.m. Recess.

9:16 a.m. Court reconvenes. 9:18 a.m. Jury present. Carl Ferrer examined further. Exhibits 1021, 616a, 

73, 643, 605, 1611, 630, 633, 637, and 638 are admitted. 10:39 p.m. Jury exits. 10:40 a.m. Recess.

11:03 a.m. Court reconvenes. Jury present. Witness examined further. Exhibits 1062, 1062a, 

1052(b)(1), 641, 644, 645, 646, 647, 647a-e, 1612b, and 648a are admitted. 12:31 p.m. Jury exits 

courtroom. Discussion held: re: Exhibits. Ms. Bertrand renews the oral Motion for a Mistrial. 

Argument heard. IT IS ORDERED denying the oral Motion for Mistrial. 12:46 p.m. Court in recess 

until Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.

Court Reporter Elaine Cropper

Deputy Clerk Liliana Figueroa

Start: 8:33 AM

Stop: 12:46 PM

Total: 3hrs 38min

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1796 Filed 09/15/23 Page 1 of 1