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



EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. listed below and in the related
Prospectus of our report dated February
13, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 2003.



| |  | Registration Statement No. 333-45323 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan                             
|- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 
| |  | Registration Statement No. 333-41921 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. Amended and Restated Employee Stock
Purchase Plan
| 
| |  | Registration Statement No. 333-78005 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. Management Incentive Program                     
| 
| |  | Registration Statement No. 333-51851 on Form S-3 pertaining to the Post
effective Amendment No. 3 on Form S-3 to Form S-1 Registration Statement        
| 
| |  | Registration Statement No. 333-58072 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. Amended and Restated Employee Stock
Purchase Plan
| 
| |  | Registration Statement No. 333-85480 on Form S-3 pertaining to the
Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. registration of shares of common stock           



| |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
| |  | ---------------------

Atlanta, Georgia
February 27, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32795-32796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16258]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5526-8]


Amendment to Common Sense Initiative Council Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Amendment to Open Meeting of the Public Advisory 
Common Sense Initiative Council.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, notice is given that the times for the Common Sense Initiative 
Council meeting scheduled for June 27, and June 28, 1996, in 
Alexandria, Virginia, have been amended.

AMENDMENT OF OPEN MEETING NOTICATION: Notice is hereby given that the 
Environmental Protection Agency, has amended an open meeting of the 
Common Sense Initiative Council

[[Page 32796]]

(reference FRN dated June 11, 1996, 61FR29559)scheduled for Thursday, 
June 27 and Friday, June 28, 1996, at the Holiday Inn Hotel and Suites, 
625 First Street, Alexandria, Virginia. The meeting will convene at 
10:00 a.m., EDT, rather than 1:00 p.m., EDT, on June 27, 1996. On June 
28, 1996, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. EDT, as previously 
scheduled, but will end at 12 noon EDT, rather than 1:00 p.m. EDT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For more information regarding the amendment 
of this meeting, please call Prudence Goforth, Designated Federal 
Officer (DFO), at 202-260-7417.

    Dated: June 13, 1996.
Robert English,
Acting Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-16258 Filed 6-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Stephen F. Ghiglieri, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NeurogesX, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this
report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;

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

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

(b) 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 most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting that 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.

Dated: June 13, 2007



By:

/s/ Stephen F. GhiglieriStephen F. GhiglieriChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of KKR Financial Holdings LLC(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),William C. Sonneborn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael R.McFerran, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)                                 The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| November 4,  2010 |                                           |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                   |                                           |
|                   | /S/ WILLIAM C. SONNEBORN                       |
|                   | William C. Sonneborn                           |
| * *               | *Chief Executive Officer*                      |
| * *               | *(Principal Executive Officer)*                |
|                   |                                           |
|                   | /S/ MICHAEL R. MCFERRAN                        |
|                   | Michael R. McFerran                            |
| * *               | *Chief Financial Officer*                      |
| * *               | *(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
#### William TOMPKINS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 350-94.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 14, 1994.

Frank Henderson, Tyler, for appellant.

Jack Skeen, Jr., Dist. Atty., Amy R. Blal-ock, Asst. Dist. Atty., Tyler, and Robert Hut-tash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW*

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Appellant guilty of aggravated sexual assault and the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for forty years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. *Tompkins v. State,*869 S.W.2d 637 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1994). We granted Appellant’s petition for discretionary review in which he alleged the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial.

After further review of the petition for discretionary review and the opinion of the Court of Appeals, we have determined that Appellant’s petition was improvidently granted. Just as in cases where we refuse to grant a petition for discretionary review, this Court’s decision that such a petition was improvidently granted should not be construed as approval by this Court of the language or reasoning used by the Court of Appeals in reaching its decision, or even its holding on a given contention.

Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed.

CLINTON and MILLER, JJ., dissent.
* 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. 05-40131

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICARDO GARCIA ALMANZAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-742-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Ricardo Garcia Almanzan appeals his guilty-plea conviction

of being an alien unlawfully found in the United States after

deportation, having previously been convicted of an aggravated

felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and 1326(b).

Almanzan argues that the felony and aggravated felony

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. 

He concedes that this issue is foreclosed but seeks to preserve

review by the Supreme Court.
No. 05-40131

-2-

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. 

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90 (2000), did not

overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Rivera, 265

F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2001). This argument is foreclosed. 

Rivera, 265 F.3d at 312.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002








The
undersigned, James B. Wiegand, Chief Executive Officer of Rosewind Corporation
(the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Amendment
number one to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the
quarter ended November 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











/s/James B.
Wiegand___________________________
 James B.
Wiegand


Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer


March 11,
2008
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 98 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a vote each 

year on whether to increase Members’ pay. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2009 

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

require a vote each year on whether to increase Members’ 

pay. 

1 Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

2 of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 

3 following new clause: 

4 ‘‘11. (a) During consideration in the Committee of 

5 the Whole of a bill making appropriations for the Depart6 ment of the Treasury for any fiscal year, before consider7 ation of any other amendment, it shall be in order to con8 sider an amendment only proposing to bar the automatic 

9 annual cost-of-living pay adjustment of Members of Con10 gress that would otherwise take effect in such fiscal year. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 98 IH 

1 Such amendment shall be considered as read, shall not 

2 be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a 

3 demand for division of the question in the House or the 

4 Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

5 amendment are waived. 

6 ‘‘(b) During consideration of a bill, conference report, 

7 or amendment between the two Houses making or con8 tinuing appropriations to the end of a fiscal year that in9 cludes appropriations for the Department of the Treasury 

10 for that fiscal year, it shall not be in order to consider 

11 such measure unless (1) the measure includes a provision 

12 to bar the automatic annual cost-of-living pay adjustment 

13 of Members of Congress that would otherwise take effect 

14 in such fiscal year or (2) the rule providing for its consid15 eration allows a vote proposing to bar such automatic an16 nual cost-of-living pay adjustment.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 The Court has considered Defendant Brunst’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of 

Time to Respond to United States’ Motion to Resolve Attorney-Client Privilege Issues 

(Doc. 203), filed on behalf of all Defendants, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for an extension of time (Doc. 203) is 

GRANTED and the deadline for all Defendants to respond to the motion to resolve 

privilege issues is extended to and including July 13, 2018. 

 The Court finds excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) ____ from ____ to 

____. 

 Dated this 2nd day of July, 2018. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 205 Filed 07/02/18 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND VICE

CHAIR OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD
OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

:

:

: NO. 320

DISCIPLINARY BOAR D APPOINTMENT
DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19 th d ay of January , 202 4

, John C. Rafferty, Jr., Esquire

, is

designated as Chair

, and Gretchen A. Mundorff

, Esquire

, is designated as Vice

- Chair

, of

the Disciplinary Board of Pennsylvania , commencing April 1, 202 4

.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

TANG, LAWRENCE, and RUSSELL, 

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Erick D. LARA-RODRIGUEZ

Staff Sergeant (E-6), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 201900188

Decided: 31 October 2019. 

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary.

Sentence adjudged 17 April 2019 by a special court-martial convened 

at Marine Corps Base Camp Butler, Okinawa, Japan, consisting of a 

military judge sitting alone. Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Mark 

D. Sameit, USMC. Sentence approved by the convening authority: reduction to E-1, confinement for nine months, forfeiture of $1,120 per 

month for 12 months, and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: Captain Bree A. Ermentrout, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but 

may be cited as persuasive authority under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2.

_________________________
United States v. Lara-Rodriguez, No. 201900188

2

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. 

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James R. BLANKEN, Appellant. James R. BLANKEN, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 62251, 63806.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 1, 1994.

Sylvester H. Winston, Springfield, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, James Blanken, appeals from his convictions, after a jury trial, for kidnapping and two counts of rape. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of seven years and fifteen years on one count of kidnapping and one count of rape and a consecutive term of seventeen years on the remaining rape count. Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed defendant’s direct appeal. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment of convictions are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

The judgment of the trial court denying defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining tothe 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, 1999 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan and the 1999Employee Stock Purchase Plan; and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the 1999Equity Incentive Plan; and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the 1999 EmployeeStock Purchase Plan and the 2002 CEO Option Plan of Scientific Learning Corporation of our reportdated April 11, 2005 with respect to the financial statements and schedule of Scientific LearningCorporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.
**/s/ Ernst & YoungLLP**
**Walnut Creek,California**
**April 11, 2005**
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Maggie SNYDER, Appellant. Maggie SNYDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 47902, WD 49947.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 21, 1995.

James C. Cox, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Maggie Snyder was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape, § 566.030, RSMo Cum. Supp.1990, and sentenced by the trial court to two consecutive five-year terms of imprisonment. She appeals, contending the trial court erred by admitting into evidence out-of-court statements made by the two child victims and by failing to order a mistrial after the prosecutor improperly paraphrased a response by one of the victims on direct examination. Ms. Snyder also appeals from the order denying relief on her Rule 29.15 motion.

The judgments of the trial court and the motion court are affirmed. Rules 84.16(b) and 30.15(b).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7644

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DALE MCCOURTNEY HODGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:01-cr-00233-HCM, 2:05-cv-00201-HCM) Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 2, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Orlando Broccoletti, ZOBY & BROCCOLETTI, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Dale McCourtney Hodge seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hodge has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED