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

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements:



|(1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-46155) pertaining to the Long-Term Incentive Plan of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc.,
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-88466) pertaining to the 2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc., and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(3) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-144672) of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our report dated February 28, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. and our report dated February 28, 2008 with respect to the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/    Ernst & Young LLP

New Orleans, Louisiana

February 28, 2008
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please

2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated

4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does

5 not include the filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

8 Plaintiff-Appellee,

9 v. NO. 30,713

10 RUSSELL REED,

11 Defendant-Appellant.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY

13 J. Richard Brown, District Judge

14 Gary K. King, Attorney General 

15 Nicole Beder, Assistant Attorney General

16 Santa Fe, NM

17 for Appellee

18 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender

19 Santa Fe, NM

20 Nia Rucker, Assistant Public Defender

21 Carlsbad, NM

22 for Appellant

23 MEMORANDUM OPINION

24 KENNEDY, Judge.

25 Defendant appeals his conviction for aggravated battery on a household
2

1 member. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing summary

2 reversal on a basis that the State offered insufficient evidence to establish victim was

3 a “household member” within the meaning of NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-11(A)

4 (2010). The State has responded that it does not oppose reversal of Defendant’s

5 conviction on that basis. 

6 Accordingly, we reverse Defendant’s conviction. 

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 ___________________________________

9 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge

10 WE CONCUR:

11 ___________________________

12 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

13 ___________________________

14 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
News United States Air Force
 UK rescue squadrons to relocate to ItalyPublished Nov. 6, 2015
                        
                        
                        U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa Public Affairs
                **RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany (AFNS) --**
                The 56th and 57th Rescue squadrons from Royal Air Force Lakenheath, United Kingdom, are relocating to Aviano Air Base, Italy, starting in fiscal year 2017, Air Force leaders announced Nov. 6.About 350 personnel, five HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopters and Guardian Angel weapons systems are expected to relocate in an effort to establish an enduring personnel recovery location within Europe."This relocation of our rescue Airmen places them in a more strategic location to respond across Africa, Europe and Southwest Asia," said Gen. Frank Gorenc, the U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa commander. "We always take a serious, pragmatic look at how we can most effectively meet our commitments and guarantee the shared security of the United States and our allies and partners."The move is expected to take two to three years to complete.During the European Infrastructure Consolidation review, programmers found excess capacity at Aviano. Part of the additional space was designated for the 56th and 57th Rescue squadrons, which deploy around the world to recover personnel from difficult and hostile conditions. Construction decisions and transition milestones for the relocation will take place over the next several years.RAF Lakenheath 



Aviano AB 



rescue
583 A.2d 324

#### ALCIDES FERREIRA v. CITY OF ASBURY PARK.

February 20, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 237 *N.J.Super.*142, 567 A.2d 233)
News United States Air Force
 A prescription for problemsPublished May 18, 2016
                        
                        By Bo Joyner
                        
                        
                        Air Force Reserve Command Public Affairs
                **ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. (AFNS) --**
                Making sure their medical records are up to date and accurate could save Airmen selected for a random drug test a lot of trouble.In addition to testing for illegal substances, random drug tests also screen for a number of prescription medications, including amphetamines and opiates, like morphine or oxycodone, among others.“If (an Airman) pops positive for one of these prescription medications during drug testing, he or she needs to have a valid prescription for it in his or her medical records,” said Dr. Don Jenrette, the Air Force Reserve Command’s Drug Demand Reduction Program manager. “If not, a determination has to be made if the member is taking the drug illegally or if he or she simply does not have the proper documentation in his or her medical records.”Taking the drug illegally can lead to legal action or even discharge from the Air Force. Having to prove that they have a valid prescription can lead to a lot of headaches for Airmen, including possible disciplinary action for not ensuring their medical records are correct, and unnecessary work for the medical squadron.“According to (Air Force Instruction) 48-123, (“Medical Examinations and Standards”) it’s the members’ responsibility to ensure their medical records are up to date and correct,” said Col. June Cook, the chief of professional services within the command’s Medical Services Directorate.“Primarily, making sure your medical records are up to date and correct is a readiness issue,” Cook continued. “Having an accurate picture of a member’s health status enables the medics to give an accurate assessment to the commander of the person’s mission capability. Secondarily, accurate records eliminate a lot of unnecessary work for our people and the member.”It’s a waste of time when medical personnel have to jump through hoops to find out that an Airman had the prescription to begin with, said Chief Master Sgt. Daniel Kupcho, the manager of the command’s Aerospace Medicine Division.“Taking a few minutes to make sure your new prescription gets reported to your medical unit could save you a lot of time and frustration in the future,” he said.The chief said the Air Force has entered into data exchange agreements that allow for some medical information to flow automatically from a civilian health care provider to a military member’s medical unit; but Airmen should always check to make sure the correct information makes its way into their records.For more information, contact a local medical squadron or drug demand reduction office.prescription 



drugs 



testing 



Air Force Reserve Command 



AFRC
#### W. T. Maddox v. J. F. Tierney.

(No. 2874.)

Error from Tarrant County.

*(Transferred from Austin.J*

Pendleton, Chapman & Powell, counsel for plaintiff in error.

Hunter, Stewart & Dunklin, counsel for defendant in error.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 396. *Liability of officer for sale of personal property under order of sede; order of sale does not protect, ivhen; case stated.*Maddox, plaintiff in error, as sheriff of Tarrant county, under a valid order of sale' issued from the district court of said county in the case of Creswell v. Turner, seized and sold certain horses described in said order of sale, and upon which a chattel mortgage had in said suit been foreclosed. At the time of the seizure of said horses by said sheriff they belonged to and were in the possession of defendant in error. Defendant in error brought this suit to recover damages for the wrongful seizure and conversion of said property. Plaintiff in error pleaded, in justification, said order of sale. Judgment for defendant in error for $550 and costs. *Held:*Defendant in error not being the party against whose property the order of sale issued, and being the owner and in possession of the property described therein, the seizure of said property by the sheriff was illegal and wrongful, and not justified by said order of sale. An order of sale affords no greater protection to the officer than would an execution. [R. S. *470arts. 1340, 2292; Rhoades v. Patterson, 3 Cal. 469; Stimpson v. Reynolds, 14 Barbour, 586; Casperton v. Lott, 31 Hun (N. Y.), 349.]

November 28, 1888.

Affirmed.
# **Exhibit 31.1**

# ** **

# **CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Robert N. Wildrick, certifythat:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

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

 

b)             Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting; and

 

5.           The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors:

 

a)              Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)             Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:  September 9, 2004 | By:    | /s/ Robert  N. Wildrick  |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |   | Robert N.  Wildrick      |
|                     |   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

1

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57762-57763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23617]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2546-000]


Greenbelt Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

September 14, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Greenbelt Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is October 4, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC

[[Page 57763]]

Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#460003140509282a2f282315333636293432062023342568212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dc9a998e9f93b2b0b5b2b98fa9acacb3aea89cbab9aebff2bbb3aa">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23617 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 6, 2020 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00572-CV 

TRAM TRAN, Appellant 

V. 

DAVID STIDD, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-06-02457-V 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Whitehill, and Justice Molberg 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

In her pending motion for an extension of time to file her notice of appeal, 

appellant states she appeals from the trial court’s December 17, 2019 dismissal of 

the underlying case. After receiving notice from the district clerk’s office that the 

trial court had not signed a dismissal order, we questioned our jurisdiction over this 

appeal. At our request, appellant filed a letter brief addressing our concern. 

 Generally, this Court has jurisdiction over final judgments and certain 

interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 

S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) 
 –2– 

(listing appealable interlocutory orders). A final judgment is one that disposes of all 

parties and all claims. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. 

In her letter brief, appellant fails to provide any authority demonstrating our 

jurisdiction over this appeal. In the absence of an order to review, this Court lacks 

appellate jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, we deny as moot appellant’s motion for 

an extension of time to file her notice of appeal and dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

200572F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/ 

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

TRAM TRAN, Appellant 

No. 05-20-00572-CV V. 

DAVID STIDD, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-06-02457-

V. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Whitehill and 

Molberg participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

 

Judgment entered October 6, 2020
News United States Air Force
 Arnold test teams prepped F-35 for first external weapons releasePublished Dec. 2, 2015
                        
                        By Deidre Ortiz
                        
                        
                        Arnold Engineering Development Complex Public Affairs
                **ARNOLD AIR FORCE BASE, Tenn. (AFNS) --**
                Testing in the aerodynamic wind tunnels at the Arnold Engineering Development Complex helped prepare the Navy variant of the F-35 Lightning II for its first external weapons release, officials said.During a flight completed by the F-35 Integrated Task Force in September, four 500-pound Guided Bomb Unit-12 laser-guided inert bombs were successfully released from the pylons on wings of an F-35C at a Navy test range in Maryland during test runs.The first F-35 weapon integration tests were conducted at AEDC, said Aerospace Testing Alliance senior engineer David Anderson, who added that the GBU-12 has specifically been tested on six weapon separation or Captive Trajectory Support System tests at the complex."These tests were conducted from the conventional takeoff and landing, short takeoff/vertical landing and carrier variant aircraft variants and obtained separation characteristics of the GBU-12, and various other weapons, from the weapon's bay internal carriage and external wing positions," he said.Based on Anderson's calculations, it's estimated that the 1/15th scale Lockheed Martin F-35 model has been tested in a 4T wind tunnel for more than 3,300 user occupancy hours at a cost exceeding $12 million."I am very proud of the work that we accomplished on the F-35 program in the Tunnel 4T at AEDC,” he said. “The individual tests were long and complex, and in most cases, required the unique capabilities and expertise available only here at AEDC. I believe that through our commitment to meet the customer's expectations, we (helped) deliver a product second to none."According to a statement from the aircraft's joint program office, the recent flight "confirmed the accuracy of the predicted release trajectory."Last November, the Navy successfully landed F-35Cs on an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego, California. The service expects to declare initial operational capability in 2018.bombs 



munitions 



Arnold AFB 



AEDC 



testing 



F-35
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           NATIONAL SUPERSTARS, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of National Superstars, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Peter Porath, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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.


/s/ Peter Porath
Peter Porath

President, Chief Executive Officer
May 18, 2004
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jason Kulas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2011-4 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2.
Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the
distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in
this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an
exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.



| |  |  |  |  |  |                                                    
| |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Jason Kulas                                    
| |  |  |  |  |  | Name: Jason Kulas                                  
| |  |  |  |  |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer Date: March 30, 2012