alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Forms S-8 (No. 333-90163, No. 333-94961, No. 333-33906, No. 333-56148 and
No. 333-69296) pertaining to the InterTrust Technologies Corporation 1992 Stock
Plan, 1995 Stock Plan, 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, 1999 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan, 1999 Non-Employee Directors Option Plan, Options Granted Pursuant to
Written Compensation Agreements, Shares Acquired under Written Compensation
Agreements, the Infinite Ink Corporation 1999 Stock Incentive Plan, the 2000
Supplemental Plan, the PublishOne Inc. 1999 Stock Plan, the Zero Gravity
Technologies Corporation 2000 Stock Incentive Plan, and Shares Acquired Under a
Written Compensatory Agreement with Gregory S. Wood of InterTrust Technologies
Corporation of our report dated January 29, 2002 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of InterTrust Technologies
Corporation, included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2001.

                                          /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Francisco, California
March 29, 2002
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 279 -CR NO. 03-07-00281- CR

K r ist ie Le e King , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee
NO. 03-07-00280- CR

K r ist ie Le e We iss aka K r ist ie Le e King , A ppe lla nt
v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS . 5921 6 , 60589 & 5997 2, HO NORAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
I n cause n u m b er 59216, appellant Kristie L ee K ing w as plac ed on def err ed adjudication super

vision after she plea ded guilty to possessing less than f our g rams of methamphetamine. See Tex. He alth & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (West 2003)
. She later ple aded true to the a lleg ations in the State’s motion to adjudicate, wa s ad j udg ed guilty

by the cour t, and
se nte nc e d to te n y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt.2 I n cause number 59972, appellant plea ded guilty to possessing less than two hundr ed g rams of me thamphetamine. Se e id . She was a djudge d g uilty by the court and sente nced to e ighte en y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt.

I n cause number 60589, appellant pleade d g uilty to cre dit card a buse. See Tex. P enal Code Ann. § 32.31 (West Supp. 2006). She was adjudge d g uilty by the cour t and sentenc ed to two ye ar s i ns t a t e j a i l
. A l l t h r e e s e n t e n c e s r u nc o n c u r r e n t l y. Appellant’s c ourt-appointed attorney filed a brief in each c ause c oncluding that the ap peal is fr ivolous and without merit. The brief s meet the re quirements of A n d e r s v . C a l ifo rn ia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by prese nting a profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord demonstrating why there
are no arguable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 488 U. S. 75 ( 19 88 ); Hi gh v . S tate , 57 3 S.W. 2d

80 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); J ac k so n v . S tate , 4 85 S.W. 2d

55 3 ( Tex
. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Ga ino us v . S tate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant rece ived a copy of counse l’s briefs a nd was a dvised of her

rig ht to examine the appellate r ecor ds and to file a pr o se brief . No pro se br ief ha s been f iled. We have r eviewe d the re cords a nd counsel’s br iefs and a g ree that the a p p eals are fr ivo lou s and

wi tho ut m e ri t. We fi nd

no thi ngin the re c or ds that mig ht argua bly su pp or t the a pp e a ls. The judg ments of conviction ar e af firmed.3 _____________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Waldrop a nd Henson Affir med Filed: Nove mber 15, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh
EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Alan Gold,
certify that: 1.
I have
 reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc.;2.
Based on my
 knowledge, this quarterly report does 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
 quarterly report;3.
Based on my
 knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
 in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
 financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
 as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;4.
I am
 responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
 procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-15e) for the
 registrant and I have:a)
designed
 such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
 relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
 known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period
 in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)
evaluated
 the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as
 of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report
 (the Evaluation Date); andc)
presented in
 this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
 disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
 Evaluation Date;5.
I have
 disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors
 and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons
 performing the equivalent function):a)
all
 significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
 which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
 summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
 auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; andb)
any fraud,
 whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
 a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and6.
I have
 indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant
 changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly
 affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation,
 including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
 material weaknesses.  Date: March
 29, 2008
/s/ Alan
 GoldAlan Gold
 President
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed February 27, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01049-CR

JOHN ALCANTAR ALVA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-31394-I

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Myers, and Lewis

Opinion by Justice Myers

John Alcantar Alva appeals following the adjudication of his guilt for aggravated assault 

with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a) (West 2011). The trial court 

assessed punishment at ten years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in 

which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the 

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional 

evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a 

copy of the brief to appellant.
-2-

Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues After reviewing counsel’s brief, 

appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s 

duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/ Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

131049F.U05
-3-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

JOHN ALCANTAR ALVA, Appellant 

No. 05-13-01049-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 2 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F11-31394-I).

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, 

Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered February 27, 2014.

/ Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
### NUMBER 13

- 1 3

- 00 020

- CR


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ ALONZO GONZALEZ , A ppellant ,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 275 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justic es Rodriguez and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Alonzo Gonzalez , filed a notice of appeal challenging h is conviction for
aggravated sexual assault. Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily
dismiss the appeal because the trial court granted appellant’s motion for new trial.
When the trial court grants a motion for new trial, it restores the case to its position

before the former trial. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 21.9(b). Because there is no conviction to2

be appealed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Waller v. State , 931
S.W.2d 640, 643

- 44 (Tex. App.

B Dallas 1996, no pet.).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the
appellant’s unopposed motion to dismi ss , is of the opinion that the appeal should be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. The appellant’s motion is GRANTED and t he
appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b). D elivered and filed t h e 31st day of January , 20 13

.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

EBATES PERFORMANCE MARKETING, INC., dba 

Rakuten Rewards,

Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES 

CORPORATION,

Appellee

______________________

2024-1459

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-

00890.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of appellee’s motion to withdraw 

from the appeal and appellant’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 42(b)(2) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Case: 24-1459 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 07/11/2024
2 EBATES PERFORMANCE MARKETING, INC. v. IBM

(1) The motions are granted to the extent that the appeal is dismissed. 

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

July 11, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 11, 2024

Case: 24-1459 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 07/11/2024
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, :

 :

Petitioner, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0455-CG-B 

 :

STATE OF ALABAMA, :

 :

Respondent. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of January, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00455-CG-N Document 41 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 1
Lincoln Garage Parking and 

Payment Information

P: The Lincoln Garage at the 

intersection of W. University Drive and 

S. Lincoln Ave.

Parking costs $2.25 and should be 

paid at one of the parking machines 

on the ground floor or near one of 

the parking stairwells of the garage 

just after parking your car. 

Enter your license plate number and 

select “NIST Conference” at the pay 

machine to receive your discounted 

conference rate. 

If you leave the garage for any reason 

and re-enter with your car, you will 

have to get a new parking ticket.

Getting to V1.0 of the NIST Privacy 

Framework: Workshop #3

When: 

July 8, 2019 to July 9, 2019

Where: 

Boise State University, Boise, Idaho

P2

P1

Student

Union 

Building P

W. University Drive

S. Lincoln Ave
Exhibit 32

Section 1350 Certifications

Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Beckman Coulter, Inc.
(the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
the Company for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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 into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.



|                     |  |  |  |                                 
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------
|Date: August 5, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Scott Garrett               
|                     |  |  |  | Scott Garrett                   
|                     |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board, President
|                     |  |  |  | and Chief Executive Officer     



---

Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Beckman Coulter, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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 into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.



|                     |  |  |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 5, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Charles P. Slacik  
|                     |  |  |  | Charles P. Slacik      
|                     |  |  |  | Senior Vice President &
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of 

Spinnaker Exploration Company: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-89894) on Form S-3 and in the registration statements (No. 333-105461,333-89779, 333-36592 and 333-61888) on Form S-8 of Spinnaker Exploration Company and subsidiaries of our report dated February 17, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Spinnaker Exploration Company as of December 31, 2003 and2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the December 31,2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Spinnaker Exploration Company. Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to a change in the method of accounting for asset retirement obligations, effective January 1, 2003, and a change in themethod of accounting for derivative instruments, effective January 1, 2001. 

 

KPMG LLP 

 

Houston, Texas 

March 11, 2004
#### THE STATE v. EDWARD MORRIS, Appellant.

Division Two,

November 17, 1903.

Where, on appeal to the Supreme Court, no hill of exceptions is filed, and there are no reversible errors in the record, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Appeal from Wayne Circuit *Court.*— Eon. *Jno. F. Green,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*Jno. H. Rancy*and *J. C. Carter*for appellant.

*Edward C. Crow,*Attorney-General, and *Bruce Barnett*for the State.

*691BURGESS, J.

Defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Wayne county of manslaughter in the second degree, and his punishment fixed at five years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary, for having assaulted and hilled with a chib, a dangerous and deadly weapon, one John Criswell. He appeals.

Defendant is not represented in this court. We have, however, examined the record as we are required to do by statute under such circumstances, and finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment.

All concur.
Exhibit 10.28


 


SEERGATE, LTD


PROFIT & LOSS - ISRAELI SHEKELS
& US DOLLARS


AS OF MARCH 31, 2015


 


	 	 	Sum
    (ILS)	 	 	Sum
    (USD)	 
		 	Unaudited	 	 	Unaudited	 
		 	 	 	 	 	 
	Operating Costs	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Automotive maintenance	 	$	363	 	 	$	92	 
	Wages	 	 	528,849	 	 	 	133,400	 
	Trips expenses	 	 	37,259	 	 	 	9,301	 
	Financing expenses	 	 	3,880	 	 	 	979	 
	Miscellaneous expenses	 	 	34,866	 	 	 	8,810	 
	Exchange rate adjustments	 	 	577	 	 	 	149	 
	Total
    Operating Costs	 	$	605,794	 	 	$	152,731
Interoperability – The ability of a system to

exchange and make use of information

with other systems or products without

special effort on the part of the user.

Reliability and Connectivity – 100 % 

connectivity for radio, cellular, and wireless 

networks despite geography and 

topography—urban canyons, subways, 

basements, or other dead zones. 

Accountability and Location – Development 

of technology that provides for 

accountability and location tracking of 

the crew, units, 911 callers, and building 

occupants.

Maintenance, Technical Support & 

Training – Minimization of the burden 

and costs of the associated maintenance, 

technical support and training of technology 

imposed on users and departments.

Organizational Policies & Administration – Facilitation 

and promotion of technology adoption by first responders

through policies, procedures, and administration to 

minimize barriers and hindrances to use while supporting

first responders’ primary tasks.

Identified Needs & Requirements

Improve Current Technology – improve functionality 

of what first responders currently have. Make 

technology more affordable and reliable. It is not 

necessarily new technology that first responders want,

but the improvement of current technology that they believe 

is most important.

Reduce Unintended Consequences – develop 

technology that does not interfere with first 

responders’ attention to primary tasks–which can 

cause distraction, loss of situational awareness, 

cognitive overload, and over-reliance on technology.

Recognize “one size does not fit all” – technology 

must accommodate the wide variety of public 

safety needs– across disciplines, personnel, 

departments, districts, contexts of use. All are 

different, requiring easy adaptability and configurability.

Minimize “technology for technology’s sake” – 

develop technology with and for first responders 

driven by their user characteristics, needs, 

requirements, and contexts of use.

Lower Product & Service Costs – develop technology 

at price points that departments can afford, 

lowering costs for technology. Price-points must 

be feasible and scalable for widespread distribution.

Require Usable Technology – know thy user and 

develop ‘Fisher-Price’* solutions – simple, easy to 

use, light, fast, and not disruptive. Technology 

should make it easy for the user to do the right

thing, hard to do the wrong thing, and easy to recover

when the wrong thing happens. 

*Any mention of commercial products within this infographic is for information only: it does 

 not imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST.

Guidelines

Public Safety

Communications

Technology

O peratio nal Enviro n

m

e

n

t

Te ch nolo g ci al e n s de

User

C

h

ara

cteristics

Public Safety Communications Technology

Requirements & Guidance

Based on nation-wide (US) interviews with first responders, 

NIST identified problems and needs with technology and 

opportunities for future research and development. 

Report at: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-37700) pertaining to the Gaiam, Inc. 1999 Long-TermIncentive Plan and the Gaiam, Inc. 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of ourreport dated February 15, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of Gaiam, Inc. included in the Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 
|             | /s/  Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman P.C. |
|------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|             |
| Denver, Colorado |
| March  3, 2005   |

 

----