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 on Form S-3 (No.333-72730) and Form S-8 (No. 333-117007, No. 333-103663, No. 333-61248, No. 333-54976, No.333-52634, No. 333-47020, No. 333-92619 and No. 333-81492) of SonicWALL, Inc. of our report datedMarch 16, 2005, except for the restatement described in Note 13 to the consolidated financialstatements and the matter described in penultimate paragraph of Management’s Report on InternalControl Over Financial Reporting, as to which the date is May 16, 2005, relating to the financialstatements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, which appears in this Form 10-K/A
/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
San Jose, California
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Luis REYES-CARRILLO also known as Juan Ruiz Reyes-Carrillo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4238.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Sept. 11, 2003.

Michael S. Lee, Office of the United States Attorney, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Juan Luis Reyes-Carrillo, Terminal Island, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, McKAY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th *883Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Defendant Reyes-Carrillo appeals the district court’s calculation of his sentencing guideline range. Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The Government filed a Notice of Sentence Enhancement because Defendant had been previously convicted of a felony. Defendant did not object to any of the facts or calculations in the Presentence Report, and he did not file a motion for downward departure.

At sentencing, the district court accepted the calculation of the sentencing range in the Presentence Report and sentenced Defendant to the low end of the sentencing range to a sentence of 57 months of custody and 36 months of supervised release. The sentencing range of 57 to 71 months was based on an adjusted base offense level of 24, decreased three levels for acceptance of responsibility, for a net offense level of 21, and a criminal history category of IV.

This sentence was based on Defendant’s previous convictions of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance in 1990 which resulted in a sentence of 21 months in prison and his conviction for transport/sale of a controlled substance in 1998 which resulted in a sentence of 365 days in jail. Defendant was deported in August 2001, and he had been deported twice before. He later re-entered the United States which resulted in the current arrest.

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief following the mandate of *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This filing included all the appropriate notices to Appellant. Counsel filed a simultaneous Motion to Withdraw. Appellant has not notified this court that he has new counsel nor has he filed a supplemental brief.

Our review of the record and counsel’s *Anders’*brief indicates that the sentence imposed by the district court was at the low end of the correct sentencing guideline range of 57-71 months based on his adjusted offense level of 21 and criminal history category of TV.

Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Cargo Connection Logistics Holding, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ending  December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the  "Report"),  I, Scott Goodman,
Chief Financial Officer certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006,
      fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period
      ending December 31, 2006 fairly presents,  in all material  respects,  the
      financial  condition  of the  Company  as of the dates  presented  and the
      results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 4, 2007


                                       Cargo Connection Logistics Holding, Inc.


                                       By: /s/ Scott Goodman
                                          -----------------------
                                          Scott Goodman
                                          Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# Time and Date:

Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

# Place:

Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

# Status:

Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.

## Matter To Be Considered

*Briefing Matter:*                     Notice of Accreditation Requirements for Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies to Test Children's Sleepwear.                

                    A live Webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at                     *http://www.cpsc.gov/​webcast*.                

For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.

# Contact Person for More Information:

Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

Dated: October 27, 2010.

Todd A. Stevenson,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-27747 Filed 10-29-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF PREMIER NATIONAL BANCORP, INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                             Jurisdiction of                 Name Under Which Subsidiary
Name of Subsidiary           Incorporation                   Conducts Business
------------------           -------------                   -----------------
<S>                          <C>                             <C>

Premier National Bank        United States                   Premier National Bank

Premier National
Investment Company, Inc.     Nevada                          Premier National Investment
                                                             Company, Inc.

Hudson Chartered Realty      New York                        Hudson Chartered Realty
</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Ernst & Young, LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Water Pik Technologies, Inc. pertaining to the Executive Deferred Compensation Plan
(Form S-8 No. 333-30016 and post-effective amendments thereto), Broad-Based Stock Option Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-96447), 1999 Incentive Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-96449), Teledyne, Inc. 401(k) Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-96451 and post-effective amendments thereto), 1999 Non-Employee Director Stock Compensation Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-96455), Employee Stock Purchase Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-96457), Retirement Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-43962), 1999 Incentive Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-54318), Broad-Based Stock Option Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-54320), 1999 Non-Employee Director Stock Compensation Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-60236) and Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(Form S-8 No. 333-60240) of our report dated January 23, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Water Pik
Technologies, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

|/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP |  | 
|--------------------- |  | 

Woodland Hills, California
March 11, 2003

---

QuickLinks
#### Lucio MORALES-CARRERA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-60871

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 30, 2003.

*325Before JOLLY, JONES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lucio Morales-Carrera challenges a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on September 27, 2002. Following an evidentiary hearing, the immigration judge (IJ) found Morales-Carrera removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)© as an alien who had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years of admission. The BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7).**

Morales-Carrera argues that his deferred adjudication was not a criminal conviction for immigration purposes. Morales-Carrera’s argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in *Moosa v. INS,*171 F.3d 994, 1005-06 (5th Cir.1999).

Morales-Carrera argues that his conviction for forging proof of financial responsibility under Tex. Transp. Code § 601.196 (West 1999) was not a crime involving moral turpitude. Forgery and fraud are crimes involving moral turpitude. *See Jordan v. De George,*341 U.S. 223, 232, 71 S.Ct. 703, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951) (fraud); *Balogun v. Ashcroft,*270 F.3d 274, 276, 278-79 (5th Cir.2001) (forgery). Because the offense involved forgery and was fraudulent in nature, the IJ did not err in determining that the crime involved moral turpitude.

Morales-Carrera argues that the BIA violated his right to due process by affirming his appeal without opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7)(ii). After Morales-Carrera filed his brief, this court rejected a due process challenge to the “streamlining” regulation, holding that the summary affirmance procedures do not violate due process and do not deprive the court of a basis for judicial review. *Soad*
      *326
      *jede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

The regulation previously cited as 8 C.F.R. § 3.1 (2002) can now be found at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (2003). Because the parties referred to the 2002 regulation, and because the new regulation is either identical or substantially similar to the older version, we will refer to the 2002 regulation.
#### STATE v. WILLIAMS

No. 303P01

Case below: 143 N.C. App. 570

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 16 August 2001.
Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 25, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20A0997. TRAVIS BILLINGS v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On January 27, 2020, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors 

and a brief no later than February 06, 2020. As of the date of this order, the appellant's 

enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed 

abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate 

review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 

264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995):

This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a 

brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while 

you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's 

failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, 

you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time 

appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will 

have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the 

trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the 

trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days 

from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a 

notice of appeal from that order.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 25, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to 

the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy 

of this order to the appellant.
#### JOHNSON v. WRIGHT

No. 371P01

Case below: 143 N.C. App. 715

Petition by defendant (Lenior Memorial Hospital) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 16 August 2001.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

R. WAYNE KLEIN, the court-appointed 

receiver of U.S. Ventures LC, Winsome 

Investment Trust, and the assets of Robert 

J. Andres and Robert L. Holloway, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERTO E. PENEDO, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-4039

(D.C. No. 2:12-CV-00049-DN)

(D. Utah)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before GORSUCH, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Roberto Penedo appeals a $197,000 judgment against him and in favor of 

Receiver R. Wayne Klein. After filing this appeal, Penedo filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy 

and the appeal was abated in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay 

provision.

On March 19, 2015, the Receiver provided the court with a notice of discharge in 

Penedo’s bankruptcy case. The court then directed the parties to file written responses 

addressing the impact of the discharge on the abatement and further proceedings in this 

appeal. This matter is before us on the Receiver’s response to the court’s order. Penedo 

has not responded.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 21, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-4039 Document: 01019418833 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 Page: 1 
2

The Receiver concedes that the bankruptcy discharge voids the judgment at issue 

in this appeal and he is prohibited from collecting on it. See 11 U.S.C. § 524(a); see also 

In re Walker, 927 F.2d 1138, 1141 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the abatement is lifted 

and this appeal is dismissed as moot.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of the court. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Jane K. Castro

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 14-4039 Document: 01019418833 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 Page: 2
NASA Advisory Council Ad Hoc Task Force on

 Science, Technology, Engineering

 and Mathematics (STEM) Education

AGENDA

July 19, 2017

2:15 pm -4:30 pm

NASA Headquarters (Virtual)

Webex and Call In Information Below

2:15 Open Meeting B. Girten

2:20 Opening Remarks by Chair A. Kennedy

2:30 Update on Education Business Service Assessment B. Girten

2:45 Status of Office of Education Budget M. Kincaid

3:00 STEM Education Advisory Panel B. Girten

 

3:15 Finalize Findings and Recommendations Members

4:30 Close Meeting B. Girten

844–467–6272 or toll access number 720–259–6462, and then the participant passcode: 634012followed by the #sign. 

WebEx the link is https://nasa.webex.com/, the meeting number is 998 317 068 and the password is Elaine54$
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reginald Lawrence, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 908]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered September 19, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted promoting prison *886contraband in the first degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement to a prison term of IV2 to 3 years, to run consecutively with the sentence he is currently serving. On appeal, defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel for defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record and defense counsel’s brief, we agree. The judgment is, accordingly, affirmed and defense counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted *(see People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]; *see generally People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK H. ARLINGHAUS, DECEASED.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied. (See 158 *N. J. Super.*139)
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2012 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2004 

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

For the relief of Luay Lufti Hadad. 

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

S 2012 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR LUAY 

2 LUFTI HADAD. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

4 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

5 Act, Luay Lufti Hadad shall be eligible for issuance of 

6 an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of 

7 an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 

8 filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa 

9 under section 204 of that Act or for adjustment of status 

10 to lawful permanent resident. 

11 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Luay Lufti Hadad 

12 enters the United States before the filing deadline speci13 fied in subsection (c), Luay Lufti Hadad shall be consid14 ered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall be 

15 eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 

16 Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of enact17 ment of this Act. 

18 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

19 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap20 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica21 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

22 within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

23 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

24 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res25 idence to Luay Lufti Hadad, the Secretary of State shall 

26 instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the cur-
3 

S 2012 RFH 

1 rent or next following fiscal year, the total number of im2 migrant visas that are made available to natives of the 

3 country of birth of Luay Lufti Hadad under section 

4 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if appli5 cable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 

6 available to natives of the country of birth of Luay Lufti 

7 Hadad under section 202(e) of that Act. 

Passed the Senate October 11, 2004. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Toyota Motor Corporation, a Japanese corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that, to such officers knowledge:

1. The accompanying Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the period ended March 31,

2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



By:

/s/    FUJIO CHOName:

Fujio ChoTitle:

Chairman of the BoardDate: June 26, 2006By:

/s/    MITSUO KINOSHITAName:

Mitsuo KinoshitaTitle:

Executive Vice President, Member of the BoardDate: June 26, 2006


(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Toyota Motor
Corporation and will be retained by Toyota Motor Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.



I, Raju Vegesna, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form
20-F of Sify Technologies Limited for the year ended March 31, 2016, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sify Technologies Limited.



|Date: June 22, 2016 | /s/ Raju Vegesna                        
|------------------- | ----------------------------------------
|                    | Name: Raju Vegesna                      
|                    | Title: CEO, Chairman & Managing Director



The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.