alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 96-1817

___________ Michael A. Weed, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. International Business * Machines Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 4, 1996 Filed: October 10, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Michael A . Weed filed an action in November 1995, claiming that his 199 1 discharge from International Business Machines Corporation (IBM ) constituted a breach of his employment contract, and that IBM had violated the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (Polygraph Act), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2001-2009 (1994). The polygraph claims were based on events that took place during the discovery stage of an earlier federal lawsuit Weed ha d fil ed against IBM. Weed subsequently filed an amended complaint addin g three additional claims based on the circumstances surrounding hi s sepa ration from IBM. The District Court granted IBM summary judgment
. 1 Weed appeals, arguing that the District Court should not

### -2-

have treated IBM's motion as one for summary judgment; that the Court erre d whe n it held his claims were barred by res judicata and collatera l estoppel; and that he stated a claim under the Polygraph Act.

We conclude the District Court correctly treated IBM's motion t o dismiss as one for summary judgment, because the parties submitted and the Cour t considered materials outside the pleadings. We agree with th e District Court that r es judicata barred Weed's separation-related claims, including those claims he sought to add in his amended complaint. See Wee d v. International Business Machs. Corp. , No. 95-1 099, 1995 WL 437937, at *1 (8thCir. July 26, 1995) (unpublished per curiam) (affirming grants o f summaryjudgment and judgment as a matter of law in case based on Weed's separation from IBM), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 975 (1996). We also agree with the District Court that Weed failed to state a claim under th e Polygraph Act. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20253-BC

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

 v.

WILLIAM STEPHEN TOTH,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on November 18, 2009, by United States Magistrate Judge

Charles E. Binder pursuant to the defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report on

November 18, 2009, recommending that this Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty to count one

of the first superseding indictment. As of today’s date, no party has filed any objections to the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The failure to file objections to the report and

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231,

829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report

releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,

149 (1985).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 15] is ADOPTED.

1:09-cr-20253-TLL-CEB Doc # 17 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 58
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s plea of guilty to count one of the first

superseding indictment is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 14] is taken

UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: December 9, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on December 9, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cr-20253-TLL-CEB Doc # 17 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 59
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Karl A. THOMPSON, Appellant.

Nos. WD 50529, WD 52470.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 28, 1997.

Ellen H. Flottman, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Karl A. Thompson appeals his convictions for first degree burglary, first degree robbery and armed criminal action, and he appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R ECONSIDERATION E N B ANC

Appellate case name: Joseph Michael Nevedomsky v

. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00105

- CR

Trial court case number: 1747280

Trial court: Co unty Crim ina l C our t at Law No

. 10 of Harris County

Date motion filed: March 6, 2013

Party filing motion: Joseph Michael Nevedomsky

It is ordered that the motion for reconsideration en banc is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

Acting Individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack, Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, Sharp,

Massengale, Brown, and Huddle

Date: April 18, 2013
#### Bobby J. HARTSELL, Claimant/Appellant, v. DOE RUN COMPANY, Employer/Respondent.

No. 68720.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 26, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 15,1996.

Application to Transfer Denied June 25,1996.

Thomas E. Fitzgibbons, St. Louis, for appellant.

Robin E. Fulton, R. Scott Reid, Schnapp, Fulton, Fall, McNamara & Silvey, L.L.C., Fredericktown, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals from the Industrial and Labor Relations Commission’s (Commission) award of Workers’ Compensation in the amount of $11,744.78. We affirm. The Commission’s award is supported by substantial and competent evidence on the whole record. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4157 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4157

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the 
   conducting of certain games of chance shall not be treated as an 
                      unrelated trade or business.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 24, 1996

  Mr. Ramstad (for himself, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Luther, Mr. Minge, Mr. 
     Oberstar, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, and Mr. Vento) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the 
   conducting of certain games of chance shall not be treated as an 
                      unrelated trade or business.

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

SECTION 1. CONDUCT OF CERTAIN GAMES OF CHANCE NOT TREATED AS UNRELATED 
              TRADE OR BUSINESS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 513(f) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain bingo games) is amended by 
inserting before the period ``or qualified games of chance''.
    (b) Qualified Games of Chance.--Subsection (f) of section 513 of 
such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Qualified games of chance.--For purposes of paragraph 
        (1), the term `qualified game of chance' means any game of 
        chance (other than bingo) conducted by an organization if--
                    ``(A) such organization is licensed pursuant to 
                State law to conduct such game,
                    ``(B) only organizations which are organized as 
                nonprofit corporations or are exempt from tax under 
                section 501(a) may be so licensed to conduct such game 
                within the State, and
                    ``(C) the conduct of such game does not violate 
                State or local law.''
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The subsection heading of section 513(f) 
of such Code is amended by striking ``Bingo Games'' and inserting 
``Games of Chance''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to games conducted after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
MIED (Rev. 5/05) Statement of Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interest

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Plaintiff(s), Case No. 

v. Judge

Defendant(s).

/

STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE

OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND FINANCIAL INTEREST

Pursuant to E. D. Mich. LR 83.4, 

makes the following disclosure: (NOTE: A negative report, if appropriate, is required.)

1. Is said corporate party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation?

Yes No 

If the answer is yes, list below the identity of the parent corporation or affiliate and the relationship

between it and the named party.

Parent Corporation/Affiliate Name:

Relationship with Named Party:

2. Is there a publicly owned corporation or its affiliate, not a party to the case, that has a substantial financial

interest in the outcome of the litigation?

Yes No 

If the answer is yes, list the identity of such corporation or affiliate and the nature of the financial interest.

Parent Corporation/Affiliate Name:

Nature of Financial Interest: 

Date:

WYETH

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD and

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES

09-11726-LPZ-MKM

Lawrence P. Zatkoff

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES LTD.

February 18, 2010 s/ Mark R. Fox

P-39902

Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C.

124 W. Allegan

Suite 1000

Lansing, MI 48933

(517) 482-5800

mfox@fraserlawfirm.com

Judge

Magistrate Judge
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. B R I AN K. J AC KS ON , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 10014 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 9 -cr-0 0 4 3 8 -JC M -R JJ ME MOR AN DU M *

UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. SH A N N O N PA RSO N S, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 10015 D . C. N o . 2 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 2 9 9 - J CM - LRL



# FI LED FEB 24 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 10014 11- 10015 11- 10016 11- 10088 & 11- 10149 2 UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. WAYN E L AMAR R GA NA WAY, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 10016 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 3 3 2 - J C MG WF

UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. S HA R ON HA MP T ON , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N os . 11- 10088 11- 10149 D . C . N o . 2 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 3 1 6 - J C MG WF

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da J a m e s C . M a han, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ngT he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 11- 10014 11- 10015 11- 10016 11- 10088 & 11- 10149 3 S ubm i tt e d F e bruary21, 2012 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , M cK E O W N , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. In th es e c o n so li d ated ap p ea ls, th e U n it ed S tates ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s o r d e r s d e n y in g th e G o v e rn m e n t’s r e q u e s t f o rc r im in a l f

o r f e itu r e m o n e yju d g m e n ts a ga i ns tS hannon P ar s ons , W ay ne L a m arrG anaw ay , a nd S har on H a m pt on, a nd r e du c in g th e c r im in a l f

o r f e itu r e m o n e yju d g m e n t a g a in s t B r ian K . J a c k s o n . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . I n l i ghtof

ourhol di ng i n U

ni te d States v . N

e w m an , 65 9 F . 3d 12 35 (9th C i r. 20 11 ), w e vac at e the di stri ctcourt ’ s order s denyi ng the i m po si t i on of cr i m i nal f or f e i tur e m one yj udgm e nt s a ga i ns tP ar s ons , G anaw ay , a nd H a m pt on , a nd the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rr e duc i ng J a c ks on’ s c r i m i na l f or f e i tur e m one yj udgm e nt , a nd w e r e m an d . T h e G o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n to v a c a te a n dr e m an df o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s is d e n ie da s m o o t. V AC AT E D a n d RE MAND E D.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FMIO, INCORPORATED, et al,

CIVIL NO. 09-12561

 Plaintiffs,

 vs. HONORABLE BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

 

SUMMERFIELD, TOWNSHIP OF, et al, HONORABLE MONA J. MAJZOUB 

 

 Defendants. /

ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENT

Upon review, the Court Strikes: Defendant’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories

filed November 25, 2009, (docket no. 21).

The Court has determined that this document does not conform with Local Rule 7.1(a)(2)(A).

Therefore, this order shall be put on the docket, and the docket edited to show that the

document has been STRICKEN and deemed not a part of the record in this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 08, 2009 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon Counsel of Record on this date.

Dated: December 08, 2009 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Case Manager

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 23 filed 12/08/09 PageID.120 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit No. 99.2
Form 10-K
Headway Corporate Resources, Inc.
File No. 1-16025

          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 Annual Report of Headway Corporate  Resources,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-K for the period  ending  December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  Philicia  G.  Levinson,  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
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: April 17, 2003                            By:  /s/ Philicia G. Levinson
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Headway  Corporate  Resources,  Inc.  and will be retained by it and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
















                                       E-2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TOOL-PLAS SYSTEMS, INC.

Plaintiff,

v.

CAMACO, LLC,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-12003

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

ORDER

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on June 3, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to an agreement with Defendant, it supplied defendant with

stamping dies “to be used for seating components on a program which Camaco had with Ford

Motor Company,” (Verified Compl. at Para. 8.), and for which Defendant agreed to pay the

amount of $668,510.00 by November 30, 2008. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did pay

$529,714.00, but that Defendant still owes $138,796.00. On May 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed

a complaint for “Breach of Contract” (Count I), “Conversion” (Count II), “Judicial

Foreclosure” (Count III), “Injunctive Relief” (Count IV), and “Declaratory Judgment”

(Count V).

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction filed May 26,

2009. In its motion, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter an order enjoining Defendant from

2:09-cv-12003-PJD-VMM Doc # 8 Filed 06/03/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 98
2

further use of the stamping dies while this matter is pending. Plaintiff acknowledges that the

following factors should be considered by the Court in determining whether a plaintiff is

entitled to preliminary injunctive relief:

(1) whether the movant has shown a strong or substantial likelihood or probability

of success on the merits;

(2) whether the movant has shown that he or she would suffer irreparable harm if

the preliminary relief is not issued;

(3) whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction will not cause substantial harm

to third parties; and

(4) whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of a preliminary

injunction.

(Pl.’s Mot. at 2.) Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion on June 1, 2009, and the

Court held a hearing on the motion on June 2, 2009. 

The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has shown a “strong or substantial likelihood

or a probability of success on the merits” nor has Plaintiff shown that “it would suffer

irreparable harm if the preliminary relief is not issued.” For those reasons and for the reasons

set forth on the record at the hearing on June 2, 2009, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunction is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to:

Stephen P. Dunn, Esq.

John R. Trentacosta, Esq.

2:09-cv-12003-PJD-VMM Doc # 8 Filed 06/03/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 99
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




I, Wayne A. Doss, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Texas Sweet Crude Oil Corp for the 3rd quarter ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Texas Sweet Crude Oil Corp




Date:  June 28, 2010/s/ Wayne A Doss----------------------------------------Wayne A DossPresident, C.E.O. and Director(Principal Executive Officer)
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 31282 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. VERNON HINKLE, III , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:05

- CR

- 222

- 1

Before ELROD, SOUTHWI C K , a nd COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Vernon Hinkle, III , has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hinkle h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the rel evant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 16, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-31282 Document: 00515161460 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2019No. 18

- 31282

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further respo nsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-31282 Document: 00515161460 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2019
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7440

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JASON L. BECKHAM, a/k/a Jay at the Shop , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 3:14

- cr - 00604

- JFA

- 2 ; 3:18

- cv - 02956

- JFA )

Submitted : January 19, 2021 Decided: January 22, 2021

Before AGEE , WYNN , and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jason L. Beckham , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jason L. Beckham seek s to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating tha t reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Beckham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequat ely presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-70432, 333-130520, and 333-42079 on
Form S-8, and in Registration Statement No. 333-151301 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 13, 2009, relating to the financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Power-One, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption of a new
accounting standard for income taxes effective January 1, 2007), and the effectiveness of Power-One, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Power-One, Inc. for the year ended December 28, 2008.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Los
Angeles, California
March 13, 2009

---



QuickLinks