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 Registration Statement Nos. 333-133527; 333-146339; 333-153499; and 333-157414 onForm S-8 of our reports dated February 22, 2010, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. andsubsidiaries’ internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Boise, Idaho

February 22, 2010
EXHIBIT 99

                 STRATFORD AMERICAN CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
    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 of Stratford American Corporation and
Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), we, Mel L. Shultz, President and Director of the Company, and Daniel E.
Matthews, Controller, Secretary and Treasurer 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.


/s/ Mel L. Shultz
-----------------------------------------
Mel L. Shultz, President and Director
August 14, 2002


/s/ Daniel E. Matthews
-----------------------------------------
Daniel E. Matthews, Controller, Secretary
and Treasurer
August 14, 2002
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 25, 2011 

d0718 

Order 

 

July 25, 2011 

142977 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142977 

 COA: 302759 

Wayne CC: 10-001461-FH 

DEVON LARAE PAGE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 30, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
SUBROUTINE EXPSF(P,SF)
C
C     PURPOSE--THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES THE SPARSITY
C              FUNCTION VALUE FOR THE EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION
C              WITH MEAN = 1 AND STANDARD DEVIATION = 1.
C              THIS DISTRIBUTION IS DEFINED FOR ALL NON-NEGATIVE X,
C              AND HAS THE PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION
C              F(X) = EXP(-X).
C              NOTE THAT THE SPARSITY FUNCTION OF A DISTRIBUTION
C              IS THE DERIVATIVE OF THE PERCENT POINT FUNCTION,
C              AND ALSO IS THE RECIPROCAL OF THE PROBABILITY
C              DENSITY FUNCTION (BUT IN UNITS OF P RATHER THAN X).
C     INPUT  ARGUMENTS--P      = THE SINGLE PRECISION VALUE 
C                                (BETWEEN 0.0 AND 1.0)
C                                AT WHICH THE SPARSITY
C                                FUNCTION IS TO BE EVALUATED.
C     OUTPUT ARGUMENTS--SF     = THE SINGLE PRECISION
C                                SPARSITY FUNCTION VALUE.
C     OUTPUT--THE SINGLE PRECISION SPARSITY
C             FUNCTION VALUE SF.
C     PRINTING--NONE UNLESS AN INPUT ARGUMENT ERROR CONDITION EXISTS. 
C     RESTRICTIONS--P SHOULD BE BETWEEN 0.0 (INCLUSIVELY)
C                   AND 1.0 (EXCLUSIVELY).
C     OTHER DATAPAC   SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     FORTRAN LIBRARY SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     MODE OF INTERNAL OPERATIONS--SINGLE PRECISION.
C     LANGUAGE--ANSI FORTRAN. 
C     REFERENCES--FILLIBEN, SIMPLE AND ROBUST LINEAR ESTIMATION
C                 OF THE LOCATION PARAMETER OF A SYMMETRIC
C                 DISTRIBUTION (UNPUBLISHED PH.D. DISSERTATION,
C                 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY), 1969, PAGES 21-44, 229-231.
C               --FILLIBEN, 'THE PERCENT POINT FUNCTION',
C                 (UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT), 1970, PAGES 28-31.
C               --JOHNSON AND KOTZ, CONTINUOUS UNIVARIATE
C                 DISTRIBUTIONS--1, 1970, PAGES 207-232.
C     WRITTEN BY--JAMES J. FILLIBEN
C                 STATISTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY (205.03)
C                 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
C                 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20234
C                 PHONE:  301-921-2315
C     ORIGINAL VERSION--JUNE      1972. 
C     UPDATED         --SEPTEMBER 1975. 
C     UPDATED         --NOVEMBER  1975. 
C
C---------------------------------------------------------------------
C
      IPR=6
C
C     CHECK THE INPUT ARGUMENTS FOR ERRORS
C
      IF(P.LT.0.0.OR.P.GE.1.0)GOTO50
      GOTO90
   50 WRITE(IPR,1)
      WRITE(IPR,46)P
      RETURN
   90 CONTINUE
    1 FORMAT(1H ,115H***** FATAL ERROR--THE FIRST  INPUT ARGUMENT TO THE
     1 EXPSF  SUBROUTINE IS OUTSIDE THE ALLOWABLE (0,1) INTERVAL *****)
   46 FORMAT(1H , 35H***** THE VALUE OF THE ARGUMENT IS ,E15.8,6H *****)
C
C-----START POINT-----------------------------------------------------
C
      SF=1.0/(1.0-P)
C
      RETURN
      END
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             870
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,342
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (160)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,815
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,639
<PP&E>                                          12,213
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,346)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,405
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,854
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,157
<SALES>                                         14,989
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,050
<CGS>                                           11,121
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,659
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   116
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    58
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 315
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    781
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (28)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                809
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       809
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-4949

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

THOMAS MATEO, a/k/a Perfecto Mateo-Serrano,

a/k/a Tony Montana,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CR-01-272)

Submitted: July 15, 2003 Decided: August 6, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory John Ramage, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne

Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Tomas Mateo pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute at

least 500 grams of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and using and

carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking

crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000). He was sentenced to 292 months

on Count One, to be followed by sixty months on Count Two. Mateo’s

attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one claim but stating that, in his

opinion, there are no meritorious issues for review. Mateo was

informed of his right to file a pro se brief, but has not filed

such a brief. We affirm.

In the Anders brief, Mateo argues that trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to obtain a more favorable plea agreement

and a more lenient sentence. We note that Mateo pleaded guilty to

two counts of a six-count indictment and the Government dropped the

remaining four counts in exchange for the guilty plea. After

thoroughly reviewing the materials before us, we conclude that

ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear on the face of

the record. Mateo should raise his ineffectiveness claim, if at

all, in a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). See

United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999);

United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). 

We accordingly affirm. We have, as required by Anders,

reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for
3

appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. If Mateo requests that a petition be

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that copy of the motion

was served on Mateo. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 230 (Monday, December 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 71152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28179]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE


Membership of the Performance Review Board (PRB)

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice

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

SUMMARY: The following staff members have been appointed to serve on 
the Performance Review Board:
Performance Review Board (PRB)
Chair: Wendy Cutler
Member: Barbara Weisel
Member: Florizelle Liser
Member: Lewis Karesh
Member: Sharon Bomer-Lauritsen
Executive Secretary: Ronald Nerida

DATES: Effective Date: November 20, 2014

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding this submission 
should be directed to Susan Buck, Acting Director, USTR Office of Human 
Resources (202) 395-7630.

Fred Ames,
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Administration, Office of the 
United States Trade Representative.
[FR Doc. 2014-28179 Filed 11-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3290-F4-P
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 70880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28074]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Peer Review Meeting.
    Date: December 16, 2014.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 4F100, 5601 Fishers 
Lane, Rockville, MD (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Vasundhara Varthakavi, DVM, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 5601 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD, 301-496-2550, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#12647360667a737973647b64527c7b737b763c7c7b7a3c757d64"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="592f382b2d313832382f302f19373038303d77373031773e362f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

     Dated: November 21, 2014.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-28074 Filed 11-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7179

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN W. REEDY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-92-70098-H, CA-96-143-R)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George W. Johnston, III, KUYKENDALL, JOHNSTON, COLEMAN & KUYKENDALL, P.C., Winchester, Virginia; Elton Eugene Gunter, Winchester,

Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Urban Baer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Reedy, Nos. CR-92-

70098-H; CA-96-143-R (W.D. Va. July 3, 1996). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF EARNINGS, AND NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ON PAGES 22, 21 AND 25-31, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE MAY
DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY 1998 ANNUAL REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              15
<SECURITIES>                                        97
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,226
<ALLOWANCES>                                        82
<INVENTORY>                                      2,655
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,987
<PP&E>                                           7,260
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,747
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,059
<BONDS>                                          3,923
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           167
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,533
<SALES>                                         13,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,413
<CGS>                                            9,224
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,224
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 278
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,395
<INCOME-TAX>                                       546
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                849
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       849
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.30
        

</TABLE>
e?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

A FILED

AUG 2 7 2020

THOMAS G, BBUTON

oIERK, U.S. DISTRICT CoURT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KIM

The SPECIAL JANUARY 2020 GRAND JURY charges:

1. On or about July 30, 2020, at Chicago, in the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division,

UMTED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DION LUSTER

DION LUSTER,

defendant herein, did knowingly and intentionally

namely, a mixture and" substance containing a

Schedule I Controlled Substance;

No. 20 CR 442

Tit1e 21, United States Code, Section 8a1(a)(1) sUUuL nLUi[$tJ

distribute a controlled substance,

detectable amount of heroin, a

In violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1).

2. Before DION LUSTER committed the offense charged in this count,

DION LUSTER had a fi.nal conviction for a serious drug felony, namely, a conviction

in Case No. 03CRL2526LL (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois), for calculated

criminal drug conspiracy, in violation of 720ILCS 5701405, for which he served more

than 12 months'imprisonment and for which he was released from serving any term

of imprisonment related to that offense within 15 years of the commencement of the

instant offense.

Case: 1:20-cr-00442 Document #: 10 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:44
A TRUE BILL:

FOREPERSON

signed by Timothy J. Storino on behalf of the

United States Attorney

Case: 1:20-cr-00442 Document #: 10 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:45
Exhibit 10.41


 


Executive Officer Reimbursement Program – Reimbursement of Certain
Legal Expenses


 


On
September 2, 2005, the company’s Board of Directors passed a resolution
authorizing the company to reimburse its executive officers for legal fees
reasonably incurred in connection with the proposed merger with Wachovia.  The fees to be reimbursed may be incurred
through the earlier of (i) the termination of the merger agreement prior
to completion of the merger, and (iii) the effective time of the
merger.  In each case the fees must
relate to (i) legal advice provided by one counsel to the executive
officers, sought by the executive officers at the request of the Board in
connection with the negotiation of the executive officers’ respective
employment arrangements with Wachovia and (ii) matters directly related to
thereto including their description in the company’s Securities and Exchange
Commission filings and other state public statements.
<PAGE>   1



                                  EXHIBIT 11.1


                       PACKAGED ICE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     COMPUTATION OF EARNING PER COMMON SHARE
                          AND COMMON EQUIVALENTS SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                       THREE MONTHS
                                                                                      ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                                                   1998              1997
                                                                               ------------      ------------
<S>                                                                            <C>               <C>          
Net loss                                                                       $(24,178,017)     $   (592,179)
Add interest expense on convertible demand notes                                        505                --
Less dividends on preferred stock:
     Series C                                                                      (616,439)               --
                                                                               ------------      ------------
Loss applicable to common stock                                                $(24,794,456)     $   (591,674)
                                                                               ============      ============

Weighted average common shares outstanding                                        4,395,175         2,827,571


Incremental shares attributable to conversion of demand notes                            --             5,814

 Incremental shares attributable to outstanding stock options and warrants        1,290,042           272,822

                                                                               ------------      ------------
As adjusted for fully diluted calculation                                         5,685,217         3,103,207
                                                                               ============      ============
Loss per common and common equivalent share:
     Primary                                                                   $      (5.64)     $      (0.21)
     Fully-Diluted (1)                                                         $      (4.25)     $      (0.19)
</TABLE>




(1) This calculation is presented in accordance with Regulation S-K; although it
is contrary to paragraphs 13 and 27 of the Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards 128 "Earnings Per Share."