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

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-96889, 333-48560, 333-41648 and 333-88817)
pertaining to the 1996 Stock Plan, 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1999
Directors Stock Option Plan and 2000 Non-Executive Stock Option Plan of Foundry
Networks, Inc. of our report dated January 23, 2003, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Foundry Networks, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2002.



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

Palo Alto,
CaliforniaMarch 27, 2003

73

---
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

S enior Airman RASHAD D

. RAMSEUR

United States Air Force

ACM S 32159

12 February 2014

Sentence adjudged 15 May 2013 by SP CM convened at Nellis Air Force

Base, Nevada . Military Judge: Christopher M. Schumann

.

Approved S entence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 4 months

, and reduction to E

- 1

.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Captain Jeffrey A. Davis

.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Don M. Christensen

.

Before

HELGET

, WEBER

, and PELOQUIN

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release

.



### PER CURIAM :

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occ urred. Articles 59(a)

and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § § 859(a), 866(c); United States v. Reed , 54 M.J. 37, 41

(C.A.A.F. 2000). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
#### Grover & Barker Sewing Machine Co. *v.*N. A. Gibson.

Written Contract — Admissibility of Evidence.

The consideration for the execution of a note may be shown by oral testimony, but such is not admissible to show that an unconditional promise to pay, reduced to writing, was not to be performed in a given state of case, unless fraud in reducing .the contract to writing is alleged and proved.

APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT,

February 13, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Appellee avers that the consideration for the note sued on is a sewing machine, and the promise and agreement upon the part of the agent of the appellant to instruct his wife in the art and mystery of operating the machine. He avers further that the contract was that in case the agent failed to so instruct his wife within six months after the making of the contract, then he was fa> surrender the machine and receive back his note.

This portion of his answer should have been disregarded. It is an attempt to add to a written contract, without an averment of fraud or mistake in reducing it to writing. The consideration for the execution of a promissory note may be shown by oral testimony, but it is not allowable to show by such testimony that an unconditional promise to pay, reduced to writing, was not to be performed in a *362given state of case, unless fraud or mistake in reducing the contract to writing be alleged and proved.

*Thomas E.*W.ard, *for appellant.*

Appellee should have made the partial failure of consideration complained of, a counterclaim. It is not available as a defense, unless it be so relied on. The court erred in permitting the statements of the agent, .Wilson, to be proved. They were no part of the *res gestes.*He was not in the employ of the company when the statements purport to have been made, and they were proved as testimony in chief, and not for the purposes of impeaching his credibility. Judgment *reversed*and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BEVERLY JO JONES :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION: 14-0059-WS-C 

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to 

the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation 

to which objection is made, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED

that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice as frivolous pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

DONE this 8th day of July, 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00059-WS-C Document 18 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 1
Trace Evidence
NIST Trace Evidence

Research Areas

• Qualitative identification

• Quantitative analysis

• Measurement-based comparisons

• Physical and Chemical Properties

• Covering:

• Fire Debris; Paint; Glass; Fiber; Hair...

• Particle Populations (GSR, Soil, Dust, Opioids...)

• Measurement reference materials and databases
NIST Trace Evidence Presentations

• 9:45 – 10:30 A Framework for Optimizing Gas 

Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) Methods 

for Analysis of Ignitable Liquid Residues: Edward Sisco; 

Dennis Leber; Charles Hagwood

• 10:30 – 10:45 BREAK 

• 10:45 – 11:00 Portable Headspace Sampling for Field 

Applications in Forensic Science: Megan Harries 

• 11:00 – 11:15 Human Hair Keratin Extraction and 

Genetically Variant Peptide Detection: Meghan C. Burke

• 11:15 – 11:35 Likelihood Ratio as Weight of Forensic 

Evidence: A Closer Look: Steven Lund 

• 11:35 – 11:45 Q&A SESSION
#### Benito Jerome BOWIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OKLAHOMA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; Oklahoma County Detention Center; Oklahoma County Jail; Shirley Darrell and Harry Currie, Oklahoma County Commissioners, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-6300.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 2, 2001.

Before EBEL, ANDERSON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unani*695mously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Benito Jerome Bowie, an Oklahoma state inmate proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of a magistrate judge to enter summary judgment in favor of defendants.1 We affirm.

Mr. Bowie filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when he was denied access to a law library during the time he was detained at the Oklahoma County Detention Center from January 30, 1996 to January 6, 1998. He also claims defendants engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional rights. He has abandoned on appeal his claims relating to the conditions of his confinement at the jail. The parties are familiar with the underlying facts. Therefore, we do not repeat them.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. *McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp.,*149 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir.1998). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,*477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Because plaintiff is representing himself, his pleadings will be liberally construed. *Haines v. Kerner,*404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs submitted by the parties. Applying the standards set out above, we affirm the judgment for substantially the same reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s July 25, 2000 report and recommendation and the district court’s August 17, 2000 order adopting the recommendation.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the *695case, 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.

1

. The case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72679-72680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28669]


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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Under Title VII

AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

ACTION: State and Local Government Information Report (EEO-4): 
Cancellation of hearing.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Commission is cancelling the 
public hearing on the above proposed information collection--extension 
with change: The State and Local Government Information Report (EEO-4). 
(79 FR 51155, August 27, 2014). No requests to present oral testimony 
at a hearing concerning the information collection were received from 
the public. Therefore, it will not be necessary to hold the hearing.

[[Page 72680]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Edwards, Director, Program 
Research and Surveys Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 
131 M Street NE., Room 4SW30F, Washington, DC 20507; (202) 663-4949 
(voice) or (202) 663-7063 (TTY).

    Dated: November 25, 2014.

    For the Commission.
Jenny R. Yang,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2014-28669 Filed 12-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1457

In re: ROBERTO ANTOINE DARDEN, a/k/a Dizz-e, a/k/a Javon,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:11-cr-00052-AWA-LRL-1)

Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 22, 2017

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roberto Antoine Darden, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roberto Antoine Darden petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district 

court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an 

order from this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does 

not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

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

PETITION DENIED
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                                  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 Annual Report of American Oriental
Bioengineering, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the
date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act oF 2002, that:

         (1)  the Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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/ Shujun Liu
--------------
Name: Shujun Liu
Title:  Chief Executive Officer
March 30, 2006



/s/ Yanchun Li
--------------
Name: Yanchun Li
Title:  Acting Chief Financial Officer
March 30, 2006



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request. This
exhibit is not "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 but is instead furnished as provided by applicable rules of the SEC.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 2388** 

VITO ANTONIO LAERA , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM; PATRICK M. HUNT; JONATHAN GOODMAN; JOAN A. LENARD; WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR.; JULIE E. CARNES; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STANLEY MARCUS , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:15

- cv - 00371

- RJC

- DCK )

Submitted : February 16, 2017 Decided: February 21, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN , Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Vito Antonio Laera, Appellant Pro Se. Tiffany Mallory Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Vito Antonio Laera appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Laera v. Rosenbaum , No . 3:15

- cv - 00371

- RJC

- DCK ( W .D.N.C. Nov. 15, 2016) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
JMK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0423

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RICHARD EDWARD ADSIT, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for an extension of time, and good 

cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including 

May 5, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

March 26 2021

03/26/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0423
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THOMAS CURTIS HINES, #118977, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 11-0644-WS-C

KIM THOMAS, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all the issues raised, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, the 

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated 

June 13, 2013 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE this 12th day of August, 2013.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00644-WS-C Document 28 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 21


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT*
                           ---------------------------



                                                                 State or Other
                                                                Jurisdiction of
                                                                Incorporation or
             Name of Subsidiary                                   Organization
-----------------------------------------                       ----------------

Moore Products Co. (Canada) Inc.                                    Canada


Moore Products Co. (U.K.) Limited                                   England


Moore Products Co. B.V.                                             Netherlands


Moore Products Co. (Italia) S.r.l.                                  Italy


Moore Products Co. (France) SARL                                    France


Moore Products Co. (Australia) Pty. Ltd.                            Australia


Moore Products Co. (S) Pte Ltd                                      Singapore


Moore Products de Mexico S.A. de C.V.                               Mexico


*The names of certain subsidiaries are omitted pursuant to Item 601(b)(21)(ii)
of Regulation S-K.
##### 



Doral Financial Corporation
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
 Nine month period endedSeptember 30, 2005Including Interest on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax income from continuing operations
    
    $
    88,026Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    486,792Total Earnings
    
    $
    574,818Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    483,209Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized
expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    1,363An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    2,220Total Fixed Charges before preferred dividends
    
    
    486,792Preferred dividends
    
    
    24,974Ratio of pre tax income to net income
    
    
    1.534Preferred dividend factor
    
    
    38,318Total fixed charges and preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    525,110Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
    
    
    1.09Excluding Interest on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax income from continuing operations
    
    $
    88,026Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    411,831Total Earnings
    
    $
    499,857Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    408,248Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized
expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    1,363An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    2,220Total Fixed Charges before preferred dividends
    
    
    411,831Preferred dividends
    
    
    24,974Ratio of pre tax income to net income
    
    
    1.534Preferred dividend factor
    
    
    38,318Total fixed charges and preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    450,149Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
    
    
    1.11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JERMESHIA M. DALE, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-0227-M

 :

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Commission of Social Security, :

 :

Defendant. :

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be entered in favor 

of Plaintiff Jermeshia M. Dale and against Defendant Carolyn W. 

Colvin. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff be AWARDED an EAJA 

Attorney’s fee in the amount of $3,991.89.

DONE this 13th day of April, 2015.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00227-M Document 26 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0432 

## L, FEB 08 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: W.J.P.M., A Youth in Need ofCare. Bowen Cirerivvood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Counsel for the appellant mother ofW.J.P.M. filed a motion and briefasking to be allowed to withdraw from this appeal on grounds that she has been unable to find any nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The mother responded to counsel's brief and objected to counsel's motion. The Court has now independently examined the record pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA,andAnders. Wehave consideredtheargumentsraised by counsel andby themother in her response. We conclude there are no arguments with potential legal merit that could be raised in the mother's appeal in this case. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord and to the appellant mother personally. DATED this riay ofFebruary, 2022.

ChiefJustice 02/08/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0432

# 6 1 4

Justicest
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOTITLE 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 Enzo Biochem, Inc., and
Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2011
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Elazar Rabbani, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.

Dated: June 9, 2011

| |     |                                                             
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ Elazar
Rabbani, Ph.D.                                   
| |     |                                                             
| |     | Elazar Rabbani,
Ph.D.                                       
| |     | Chairman of the
Board, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary

---