alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.1**
**Consent of Independent Auditors**
We consent to the incorporation by reference of our reports dated January 7, 2005, with respect tothe consolidated balance sheets of Vasogen Inc. as at November 30, 2004 and 2003, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations and deficit and cash flows for each of the years in thethree-year period ended November 30, 2004 and for the period from December 1, 1987 to November 30,2004, and Comments by Auditors for United States Readers on Canada – United States ReportingDifference in the following:
 (i)  the annual report on Form 40-F of Vasogen Inc. (the “Company”) for the yearended November 30, 2004,
 (ii)  the Registration Statement on Form F-10 of the Company, filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2003 (File No. 333-109782); and
 (iii)  the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of the Company, filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2004 (File No. 333-115701)
Our reports appear in the Form 6-K of Vasogen Inc. dated January 18, 2005.
/s/ KPMG LLP
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James T. EDGAR, Appellant. James T. EDGAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 49661, WD 51533.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 10, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 28, 1997.

Application to Transfer Denied March 25, 1997.

Susan L. Hogan, Assistant Public Defender, Kansas City, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Kurt U. Schaefer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and BERREY and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*399
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from judgment of conviction for one count of sodomy, § 566.060 RSMo Cum. Supp.1991, and order denying Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

Judgment of conviction and order denying Rule 29.15 motion affirmed. Rule 30.25(b); and Rule 84.16(b).
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 16 - 00257 - CV SANDRA KELLEY, APPEL LANT V. FIRST BANK & TRUST C OMPANY, APPELLEE On Appeal from the County Court Hill County, Texas Trial Court No. 53,205, Honorable Justin W. Lewis, Presiding



### September 1 5 , 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant , Sandra Kelley , appearing pro se , filed a notice of appeal on May 31 , 2016. The clerk’s record was due July 2 2 , 2016. On August 1 , 2016, the district clerk notified us that Kelley had n ot paid n or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 35.3(a)(2). By let ter dated August 1 , 2016, we directed Kelley to make payment arrangements acceptable to the district clerk by August 16 , 2016. Failure to do so, we advised, would result in dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 37.3(b).2

To date, Kelley has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record nor has s he filed any response to the C ourt’s letter. The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of prosecution, Kelley’s failure to comply with requirements of the Appellate Rules, and Kelley’s failure to comply with this C ourt’s order. T EX . R. A PP . P . 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c). Per Curiam
#### In the Interest of A.J.K., B.A.K, and M.J.K, Minors, Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. R.D., Natural Mother, Appellant.

Nos. WD 49130, WD 49131 and WD 49132.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 18, 1994.

Kevin Thomas, Independence, for appellant.

Lori Stipp, Kansas City, for Respondent Juvenile Officer.

David A. Burns, Kansas City, for GAL.

Before FENNER, C.J., and LOWENSTEIN and SPINDEN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

R.D. appeals from an order of the trial court terminating her parental rights pursuant to section 211.447, RSMo Supp.1993.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
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





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Lightlake Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company") for the three month ended January 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dr. Roger Crystal, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.








Date: 11/10/11                           By: /s/ Dr. Roger Crystal


Dr. Roger Crystal


Chief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original 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.
#### Emma YOUNG, Appellant, v. JONES LUMBER COMPANY, Appellee. Emma YOUNG, Appellant, v. DEER PARK LUMBER COMPANY, Appellee.

Nos. A14-89-022-CV, B14-89-023-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

Jan. 18, 1990.

*950E. Ed. Todd, Jr., Houston, for appellant.

Jill A. Schaar, Houston, for appellee.

Before J. CURTISS BROWN, C.J., and JUNELL and DRAUGHN, JJ.

OPINION

J. CURTISS BROWN, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment which found a wrongful death and survival suit barred by the statute of limitations. Appellant argues that a discovery rule ought to have tolled the running of the statute, and that a holding to the contrary would violate the Texas constitutional guarantee of open courts. We affirm the summary judgment.

There is no dispute over the operative facts. Appellant’s decedent died of myologenous leukemia at the end of February 1984. More than four years later appellant brought this action against appel-lees. The trial court rendered a take nothing summary judgment on the basis of the relevant statute of limitations, which provides:

> A person must bring suit not later than two years after the day the cause of action accrues in an action for injury resulting in death. The cause of action accrues on the death of the injured person.

Tex.Civ.PRAc. & Rem. Code § 16.003(b). Appellant advocates the use of a discovery rule. Appellees rely on the latter sentence of the statute for the proposition that the cause of action’s accrual date has been fixed by the legislature; thus the courts are not free to ignore that determination by searching for some later date.

We agree with appellees. In order to locate the accrual point at a subsequent time, when the legislature has provided otherwise, we would have to pretend that the second sentence of § 16.003(b) simply did not exist. And not even that leap could complete the job, because we would then need to go further by inserting our own preference for what the legislature *should*have said but did not. The only possible way to get around the plain meaning of the law would be to strike it down outright, as appellant asks us in her alternative contention.

That claim invokes the open courts provision as authority for saving appellant’s cause of action from the statute. Tex. Const, art. I, § 13. Proper analysis under that clause requires us to apply a two part test: first, the law must restrict a well-established common law cause of action; second, it must pose an unreasonable or arbitrary restriction. *See Lucas v. United States,*757 S.W.2d 687, 690 (Tex.1988); *Nelson v. Krusen,*678 S.W.2d 918, 922 (Tex.1984); *Sax v. Votteler,*648 S.W.2d 661, 666 (Tex.1983). There is no need to address the latter prong, given appellant’s inability to satisfy the former. It is self-evident that the wrongful death statute is a statute; Texas has not now, and has never had, a common law cause of action for wrongful death. *Witty v. American Gen. Cap. Dist.,*727 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Tex.1987). It follows that art. I, § 13 presents no impediment to operation of the statute of limitations, because no common law cause of action is affected. Both points of error are overruled.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3589 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3589

 To amend title 13, United States Code, to make clear that no sampling 
  or other statistical procedure may be used in determining the total 
       population by States for purposes of the apportionment of 
                      Representatives in Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 1996

  Mr. Petri introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 13, United States Code, to make clear that no sampling 
  or other statistical procedure may be used in determining the total 
       population by States for purposes of the apportionment of 
                      Representatives in Congress.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. USE OF SAMPLING PROCEDURES NOT PERMITTED IN DETERMINING 
              TOTAL POPULATION BY STATES FOR PURPOSES OF THE 
              APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 141 of title 13, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ``(b)'' and inserting ``(b)(1)'' 
and by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) In no event may any sampling or other statistical procedure 
be used in determining the total population by States under subsection 
(a) of this section for purposes of the apportionment of 
Representatives in Congress among the several States.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (a) of section 141 of title 
13, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``(except as provided 
in subsection (b)(2))'' after ``sampling procedures''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

CASE NO: 08-20665

vs.

DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

WYMAN WRIGHT MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

/

ORDER REVOKING BOND

When this Defendant was released on bond, an arrest warrant was provided to Pretrial

Services that they could execute at any time there was a violation of any bond condition. On

April 8, 2009, Pretrial Services executed that arrest warrant, and the Defendant is before the

Court today based on information that the Defendant has become a danger to himself.

After consideration of the evidence presented, I find that Defendant knowingly violated

the bond condition requiring him to consult with a psychiatrist. I further find that the evidence

from a number of sources, both lay and medical, substantiates a continuing pattern of

unstable behavior on the part of the Defendant, and that the Defendant remains at

considerable risk for suicide.

Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3142, I find that there are no conditions, nor any

combination of conditions, that will reasonably assure either the safety of the community or of

the Defendant himself. See also United States v Schrock, 2008 WL 4772232 (N. D. Iowa,

2008).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s bond is REVOKED and the Defendant

is immediately remanded into the custody of the U.S. Marshal’s Service.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Pretrial Services Officer is authorized to enter

Defendant’s home, accompanied by a Deputy U.S. Marshal, for the purpose of retrieving

radio electronic monitoring equipment presently located in the home. The Pretrial Services

1:08-cr-20665-TLL-CEB Doc # 10 Filed 04/10/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 24
Officer shall notify Defendant’s attorney of when the entry is to take place so that he may be

present, should he choose to do so. 

Review of this Order is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and E.D. Mich. LR

72.1(d)(1). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon

this Magistrate Judge. 

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: April 10, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically filed this date, electronically served

on Shane Waller and George Bush, served on Pretrial Services and the U.S. Marshal’s

Service by other electronic means, and on District Judge Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: April 10, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

1:08-cr-20665-TLL-CEB Doc # 10 Filed 04/10/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 25
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

Vignette Holdings, L.L.C., organized under the laws of Delaware. 

 

Vignette International, Inc., incorporated under the laws of Delaware.

 

Vignette Public Sector & Education, Inc.(formerly known as Vignette Federal Corporation), incorporated under the laws of Delaware. 

 

Vignette Europe Limited, organized under the laws of the United Kingdom. 

 

Vignette SARL, organized under the laws of France. 

 

Vignette Deutschland GmbH, organized under the laws of Germany. 

 

Vignette Management Pty Limited (formerly known as Vignette Australia Pty Limited), organized under the laws of Australia. 

 

Vignette Hong Kong Limited, organized under the laws of Hong Kong.

 

Vignette Asia Pte Ltd., organized under the laws of Singapore.

 

Vignette Iberica S. L., organized under the laws of Spain.

 

Vignette Italia Srl, organized under the laws of Italy.

 

Vignette Nordica AB, organized under the laws of Sweden.

 

Vignette India, PvT Ltd., organized under the laws of India.

 

Vignette Software New Zealand Limited, organized under thelaws of New Zealand. 

 

Vignette Software (Switzerland) GmbH,organized under the laws of Switzerland. 

 

Vignette de Mexico,S. de R.L. de C. V., organized under the laws of Mexico. 

 

Vignette do Brasil Ltda., organized under the laws of Brazil. 

 

Vignette de Argentina, organized under the laws of Argentina. 

 

Vignette B.V. (formerly known as OnDisplay Benelux B.V.), organized under the laws of Holland. 

 

Vignette Canada Corporation, organized under the laws of Canada. 

 

Epicentric (BVI), Inc., incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. 

 

Intraspect Software, Inc. incorporated under the laws of Delaware. 

 

Intraspect France SARL organized under the laws of France. 

 

Vignette Pty Limited, organized under the laws of Australia. 

 

Tower Technology, Inc., incorporated under the laws of Massachusetts.

 

Copper Australia Pty Limited, organized under the laws ofAustralia. 

 

Tower Technology Limited, organized under the lawsof the United Kingdom. 

 

Tower Technology SARL, organized underthe laws of France. 

 

Tower Technology GmbH, organized under thelaws of Germany. 

 

Tower Technology BV, organized under the lawsof Holland.
Fialka

Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 39 Att. 36

Dockets.Justia.com
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16051]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Submission of OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Objective Work Plan, ANA Program Narrative, Application for 
Federal Assistance.
    OMB No.: 0980-0204.
    Description: The information collected by Program Narrative; 
Application for Federal Assistance, the Objective Work Plan, is needed 
to properly administer and monitor the Administration for Native 
Americans' (ANA) Program's competitive areas--Social and Economic 
Development Strategies (SEDS), ANA Reservation and Enhancement, and ANA 
Mitigation of Environmental Impacts to Indian Lands Due to Department 
of Defense Activities by providing information in an application for a 
grant award. This data is used by legislative-mandated Native American 
review panels, and ANA, as the basis for recommendations for the 
decisions to award competitive ANA grants.
    Respondents: State, Local or Tribal Govt.

                         Annual Burden Estimates                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Average         
                                            Number of   burden    Total 
         Instrument            Number of    responses    hours    burden
                              respondents      per        per     hours 
                                           respondent  response         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OWP.........................        571            1       29.5   17,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 17,800.
    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be 
obtained by writing to the Administration or Children and Families, 
Office of Information Services, Division of Information Resource 
Management Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer.
    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of 
this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of 
publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office 
of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 725 17th Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, Attn: Ms. Wendy Taylor.

    Dated: June 19, 1996.
Larry Guerrero,
Director, Office of Information Management Services.
[FR Doc. 96-16051 Filed 6-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 130 (Friday, July 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 35272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17108]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 40-1341]


Tennessee Valley Authority; Notice of Placing the Edgemont, South 
Dakota, Uranium Mill Tailings Disposal Site in the Custody and Long-
Term Care of the U.S. Department of Energy Under the General Licensing 
Provisions of 10 CFR Part 40.28

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) has accepted the Long-Term Surveillance Plan (LTSP) 
submitted by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), by letter dated June 24, 
1996, for the Edgemont, South Dakota uranium mill tailings disposal 
site. The LTSP was developed by DOE as the long-term custodian of the 
Edgemont site. By accepting the LTSP, the Edgemont site will be 
regulated by NRC under the general licensing provisions of 10 CFR 
40.28, and the Tennessee Valley Authority's Source Material License 
SUA-816 for the Edgemont uranium mill site has been terminated. These 
actions complete all requirements for closure of the Edgemont site 
under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 
1978, as amended.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mohammad W. Haque, Uranium Recovery 
Branch, Division of Waste Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301) 415-6640.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of June 1996.
Joseph J. Holonich,
Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 96-17108 Filed 7-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: March 3, 2016 107071 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RICKY VALLANCE,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: January 6, 2016

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton

(George J. Hoffman Jr. of counsel), for appellant.

Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Ramy Louis of

counsel), for respondent.

__________

Devine, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence

County (Richards, J.), rendered July 17, 2014, which revoked

defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In 2010, defendant pleaded guilty to a superior court

information charging him with driving while intoxicated as a

felony and waived his right to appeal. In exchange, he received

a one-year period of interim probation. County Court (Rogers,

J.) determined in December 2011 that defendant had failed to

comply with the terms of his interim probation in various

respects and imposed a sentence of four months in jail with five

years of probation. 
-2- 107071 

In 2014, a violation of probation petition was filed

alleging that defendant failed to comply with several conditions

of his probation. Defendant admitted to violating his probation

upon the understanding that he would be resentenced to 1 to 3

years in prison. County Court (Richards, J.) revoked defendant's

probation and imposed the promised prison sentence, and defendant

now appeals.

Initially, defendant is correct that his waiver of appeal

in connection with his original guilty plea and sentence does not

preclude his current challenge to the severity of the sentence

imposed upon the revocation of his probation (see People v

McFadden, 127 AD3d 1340, 1341 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 932

[2015]; People v Lavalley, 100 AD3d 1151, 1151 n [2012]). 

Nonetheless, given defendant's lengthy criminal history (see

People v Vallance, 49 AD3d 917 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845

[2008]), his demonstrated inability to comply with the terms of

probation, and County Court's consideration of the relevant and

mitigating sentencing factors, we discern neither extraordinary

circumstances nor an abuse of discretion warranting a reduction

of his agreed-upon sentence in the interest of justice (see

People v Coupe, 124 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2015]; People v Ross, 67

AD3d 1130, 1131 [2009]).

McCarthy, J.P., Garry and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>   1
                         MICHAEL, ADEST & BLUMENKRANTZ
                       ----------------------------------
                       CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, P.C.

                                SEVEN PENN PLAZA
                            NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001
                         212-563-2525 FAX 212-563-3549



              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
              ---------------------------------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference on Form 10K (File No. 0-29346) of
FRM Nexus, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated May 9, 1997, on our audits
of the financial statements and schedules of FRM Nexus, Inc. and Subsidiaries
as of February 28, 1997, February 29, 1996 and for the three fiscal years ended
February 28, 1997, 1996 and 1995, which report is included on Form 10K.

                                        /s/ Michael, Adest & Blumenkrantz

                                        Michael, Adest & Blumenkrantz
                                        Certified Public Accountants, P.C.

New York, New York
June 8, 1998



                                 EXHIBIT 23.01