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

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  of PHC,  Inc.  on Form S-3 (No.'s  333-2246,  333-41494,  333-76137,
333-117146 and 333-141431) and Form S-8 (No's  333-102402 and 333-123842) of our
report dated September 27, 2007, with respect to our audits of the  consolidated
financial statements of PHC, Inc. as of June 30, 2007 and 2006 and for the years
then ended,  which is  included  in the Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended June 30, 2007.

We  also  consent  to the  reference  to us as  "Experts"  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-3.

/s/ Eisner LLP



New York, New York
September 27, 2007


                                      186
182 La. 55

#### SUCCESSION OF HARPER.

No. 33096.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 1935.

*19Elmer L. Stewart, of De Ridder, for appellant.

Kay & Kay, of De Ridder, for appellee.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The fund to be distributed in this succession is less’than $2,000. The appeal is from a judgment approving the administrator’s account. The appellant is the widow, claiming that, being in necessitous circumstances, she is a creditor of the succession of her deceased husband, to the extent of $1,000, under the provisions of article 3252 of the Civil Code. The article allows the widow or minor children when left in necessitous circumstances to receive from the succession of the deceased husband or father a sum which, when' added to the value of the property owned by them or either of them, will make up the sum of $1,000, and which shall be paid in preference to all other debts, except a debt secured by a vendor’s lien or conventional-mortgage, or a debt incurred in selling the property.

 Ordinarily, the appellate jurisdiction of this court, in civil suits is limited to cases where 'the amount or value in .dispute or the fund to be distributed exceeds $2,000, exclusive of interest. According to that test this case belongs in the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit. It may be that the appeal was brought to the Supreme Court because of the provision in section 10 of article 7 of the Constitution: “Its appellate jurisdiction shall also extend to all cases involving homestead exemptions irrespective of the amount involved.” We make that suggestion because the privilege granted to widows and minor children in necessitous circumstances, by article 3252 of the Civil'Code,.is sometimes referred to as the widow’s “homestead,” or “homestead privilege,” as in the syllabus of the opinion in Succession of Robertson, 28 La. Ann. 832. But the privilege granted to widows and minor children in necessitous circumstances by article 3252 of the Civil Code (and by sections 2369; 2885 and 3686 of the Revised Statutes) is not a “homestead exemption” in any sense. The homestead exemption which is referred to in the provision of the Constitution extending the appellate jurisdiction of this court “to all cases involving homestead exemptions” is the exemption which is granted by section 1 of article 11 of the Constitution, to every head of a family, or person having some one dependent upon him or her for support. In H. G. Smith & Sons v. Succession of Jenkins, 147 La. 437, 442, 85 So. 68, 69, the court had occasion to observe the distinction, and said: “Although the misnomer ‘homestead exemption’ has been frequently applied to the $1,000 allowed a destitute widow or minor child, there is no reason for a confusion of those separate and distinct rights.”

This case is ordered transferred tó the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, on appellant’s filing the record in that court within thirty days from the day on which this decree shall become final; . otherwise the appeal shall stand dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, I, the undersigned Jeffrey D. Lewis, the Chief
Executive Officer of Malan Realty Investors, Inc (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/Jeffrey D. Lewis
---------------------------
Jeffrey D. Lewis
March 27, 2003
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 19, 2018

No. 04-18-00720-CR

Bruce Ryan GUADIANA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR1151

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

It is so ORDERED on December 19, 2018.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of December, 2018.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Vicki Boynton LAWRENCE, Appellant.

No. WD 51954.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 14, 1997.

Lew Kolias, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

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

Before HANNA, P.J., and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals her conviction of felony criminal nonsupport, § 568.040, RSMo 1994. Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4216

To require that jewelry boxes imported from another country be indelibly

marked with the country of origin.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 1996

Mr. REED introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To require that jewelry boxes imported from another country

be indelibly marked with the country of origin.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MARKING OF IMPORTED JEWELRY BOXES.

4 (a) MARKING REQUIREMENT.—By no later than the

5 date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this

6 Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe and im7 plement regulations that require that all jewelry boxes de8 scribed in subsection (b) that enter, or are withdrawn from

9 warehouse for consumption, in the customs territory of the

10 United States have the English name of the country of
2

•HR 4216 IH

1 origin indelibly marked in a conspicuous place on such

2 jewelry boxes by cutting, die-sinking, engraving, stamping,

3 or some other permanent method. The exceptions from

4 marking requirements provided in section 304 of the Tar5 iff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1304) shall not apply to jewelry

6 boxes subject to this section.

7 (b) JEWELRY.—The jewelry boxes referred to in sub8 section (a) are jewelry boxes provided for in headings

9 4202.92.60, 4202.92.90, and 4202.99.10 of the Har10 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

Æ
Index of Exhibits to

Declaration of William A. Delgado

Exhibit Description

A Letter correspondence from Delgado to Schaefer

B Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena: Facebook

C Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena: Yahoo! (Flickr)

D Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena: Netflix

E Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena: Google (Orkut)

F Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena: Wikimedia Foundation

(Wikipedia)

G Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena: YouTube

H E-mail correspondence from Delgado to Schaefer
#### Dani DALAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD, Director of SCDC; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 03-6854.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 22, 2003.

Dani Dalai, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Dani Dalai seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dalai 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 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4022

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reduce the Medicare

payment for general overhead costs of transplant centers in acquiring

organs for transplant from organ procurement organizations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 4, 1996

Mr. STARK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reduce

the Medicare payment for general overhead costs of

transplant centers in acquiring organs for transplant

from organ procurement organizations.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4022 IH

1 SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN MEDICARE PAYMENT TO

2 TRANSPLANT CENTERS FOR GENERAL OVER3 HEAD COSTS OTHERWISE ALLOCATED TO

4 ORGAN PROCUREMENT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(v)(1) of the Social

6 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(v)(1)) is amended by add7 ing at the end the following new subparagraph:

8 ‘‘(T) In determining such reasonable costs, of a hos9 pital that is a transplant center, for the acquisition of or10 gans for transplant purposes from an organ procurement

11 organization, no administrative and general service costs

12 of the hospital (other than overhead directly attributable

13 to acquiring such organs) may be allocated to the cost cen14 ter for the costs of acquiring such organs.’’.

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

16 subsection (a) shall apply to cost reporting periods begin17 ning on or after October 1, 1997.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4120 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4120

To prohibit further extension or establishment of any national monument 
   in Idaho without full public participation and an express Act of 
                   Congress, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 19, 1996

  Mrs. Chenoweth (for herself and Mr. Crapo) introduced the following 
         bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit further extension or establishment of any national monument 
   in Idaho without full public participation and an express Act of 
                   Congress, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL 
              MONUMENTS IN IDAHO.

    No extension or establishment of a national monument may be 
undertaken in Idaho after the date of enactment of this Act without 
full public participation and an express Act of Congress.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lionel FIKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49585.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 7, 1995.

Emmett D. Queener, 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 FENNER, C.J., P.J., and HANNA and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from the denial of a Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1662
JOSE ALEXANDER ORTIZ URRUTIA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A41-712-565) Submitted: February 24, 2006 Decided: April 12, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jay S. Marks, MARKS & KATZ, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We find that Urrutia has failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling. SeeHarris v. Hutchinson , 209 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2000). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Jose Alexander Ortiz Urrutia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen on the ground that it was untimely filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2005) (establishing a ninety-day time limitation for filing a motion to reopen); INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992) (setting forth standard of review). * Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.2

Certifications of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-K of Samsonite Corporation (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Luc Van Nevel, as Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



|/s/LUC VAN NEVEL |  |                                            
|---------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Name:            |  | Luc Van Nevel                              
|Title:           |  | Co-President and Co-Chief Executive Officer
|Date:            |  | April 8, 2004                              

A
signed original of this written statement required by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 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 § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---

QuickLinks
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 1 0

- 4 0 6 7 7 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. L U I S M A U R I C I O C R U Z

- R A M I R E Z , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 1 : 1 0

- C R

- 6 8 7

- 1

B e f o r e J O N E S , C h i e f J u d g e , a n d S T E W A R T a n d S O U T H W I C K , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t L u i s M a u r i c i o C r u z R a m i r e z h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e

w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f

o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , a n d U n i t e d S t a t e s v
. F l o r e s , 6 3 2 F

. 3 d 2 2 9 ( 5 t h C i r
. 2 0 1 1 )

. C r u z - R a m i r e z h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. W e h a v e

r e v i e w e d c o u n s e l ’s b r i e f a n d t h e r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t e d t h e r e i n
. W e c o n c u r w i t h c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t t h a t t h e a p p e a l p r e s e n t s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w
. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 21 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-40677 Document: 00511515577 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2011N o
. 1 0

- 4 0 6 7 7

i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

.

2 Case: 10-40677 Document: 00511515577 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2011
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Deer Consumer
Products, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), Zongshu Nie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, 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 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o(d)); 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:
      November 10, 2010
                By:
                /s/ Zongshu NieZongshu
      NieChief Financial
      Officer





This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 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
Section 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEVEN WILLIAMS and TANYA

WILLIAMS,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 09-12106

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

JP MORGAN MORTGAGE

ACQUISITION CORP.,

Defendant.

____________________________/

JUDGMENT

This action arises from the foreclosure of real property in Addison Township,

Michigan, owned by Plaintiffs Steven Williams and Tanya Williams (collectively

“Plaintiffs”). In a Complaint filed on May 21, 2009, in the Circuit Court for Oakland

County, Michigan, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant JP Morgan Acquisition Corporation

(“Defendant”) promised that it would modify Plaintiffs loan on the property and delay a

Sheriff’s Sale during the loan modification process. Plaintiffs allege the following

“claims” against Defendant based on these alleged promises: (I) Quiet Title; (II) Unjust

Enrichment; (III) Breach of Implied Agreement/Specific Performance; (IV) Constructive

Trust; and (V) Injunction. Defendant removed the Complaint to this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and 1441 on June 1, 2009, and on January 15, 2010, filed a motion for

summary judgment. In an Opinion and Order entered on this date, the Court held that

Defendant is entitled to summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims.
2

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Judgment is entered in

favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE.

DATE: March 19, 2010 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Darwyn P. Fair, Esq.

Joseph H. Hickey, Esq.

Brandon M. Blazo, Esq.
Case 2:09-cv-13616-AJT-MKM Document 164-16 Filed 12/20/10 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-13616-AJT-MKM Document 164-16 Filed 12/20/10 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-13616-AJT-MKM Document 164-16 Filed 12/20/10 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-13616-AJT-MKM Document 164-16 Filed 12/20/10 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-13616-AJT-MKM Document 164-16 Filed 12/20/10 Page 5 of 5
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 5895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1767]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Region IV North Florida District Advisory Council; Public Meeting

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app.2, 
section10(a)(2), notice is hereby given that the U.S. Small Business 
Administration North Florida District Advisory Council will host a 
public meeting on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 12 p.m. EST. The 
meeting will take place at the Jacksonville Port Authority located at 
9810 August Dr., Jacksonville, FL 32226.
    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss such matters that may be 
presented by members, and staff of the U.S. Small Business 
Administration, or others present. The agenda items will include a 
presentation by JaxPort Executive Director Rick Ferrin as well as 
matters of the SBA including loan reports and goals status for FY 2008. 
Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact 
Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, District Director, in writing by letter or fax no 
later than Monday, February 4, 2008, in order to be placed on the 
agenda. Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, District Director, U.S. Small Business 
Administration, 7825 Baymeadows Way; Suite 100B, Jacksonville, FL 
32256; Telephone (904) 443-1900 or FAX (904) 443-1980.

Cherylyn Lebon,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-1767 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P