alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.       Consent of Experts and Counsel
                  Consents of independent public accountants



G. Brad Beckstead, CPA
G. BRAD BECKSTEAD
Certified Public Accountant
                                              330 E. Warm Springs
                                              Las Vegas, NV 89119
                                                     702.257.1984
                                               702.362.0540 (fax)


                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR



March 25, 2002

To Whom It May Concern:

I have issued my report dated March 25, 2002, accompanying the
financial statements of Edgar Filing.net, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for
the period ended December 31, 2001.  I hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Annual Report of
Edgar Filing.net, Inc. on Form 10-KSB (File No. 000-29449).

Signed,



/s/G. Brad Beckstead, CPA
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mniteb ~tate~ <!Court of §ppeaI~

for tbe jfeberaI ([ircuit

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH OF THE

COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER

EDUCATION (DOING BUSINESS AS UNIVERSITY

OF PITTSBURGH),

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

2012-1575

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Pennsylvania in case no. 08-CV-1307,

Judge Arthur J. Schwab.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Varian Medical Systems, Inc. moves without opposition for a one-month extension of time, until December 3,

2012, to file its principal brief.

Case: 12-1575 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 11/07/2012
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH V. VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS 2

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s21

Case: 12-1575 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 11/07/2012
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of our report dated January 31, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. included in the
LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December
31, 2001 (i) Form S-8 No. 333-78221 pertaining to the LifePoint Hospitals, Inc.
Retirement Plan; (ii) Form S-8 No. 333-78187 pertaining to the LifePoint
Hospitals, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan; (iii) Form S-8 No. 333-78185
pertaining to the LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. Management Stock Purchase Plan and
LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. Outside Director's Stock and Incentive Compensation
Plan; (iv) Form S-3 No. 333-42634, pertaining to LifePoint Hospitals, Inc.; (v)
Form S-8 No. 333-63140 pertaining to the LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. 1998 Long
Term Incentive Plan, as amended and (vi) Form S-8 No. 333-66378 pertaining to
the LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. Executive Stock Purchase Plan.




                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Nashville, Tennessee
March 26, 2002
11729.

#### Hall *v.*The State.

Broyles, C. J.

I. In the state of the record it does not appear that the judge abused his discretion in overruling the defendant’s motion for a continuance of the case.

2. The charge of the court upon the subject of a reasonable doubt was not error for any reason assigned.

3. The remaining special grounds of the motion for a new trial, not having been argued in, the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

4. There was some evidence which authorized the verdict, and, the find*763ing the jury having been approved by the trial judge, this court is without authority to interfere.

Decided November 9, 1920.

Accusation of carrying pistol; from city court of Macon — Judge Guerry. July 2, 1920.

The definition of a “reasonable doubt,” as given in the charge of the court, was complained of in the motion for a new trial, the movant contending that it “was error and that it would, have been better -fox the court not to have defined a reasonable doubt at all, and that the use of the word ‘conjecture’ was error.” The instruction complained of was as follows: “A reasonable doubt, as contemplated by law in the trial of a criminal case, is not a doubt which is a mere conjecture that the defendant may possibly be innocent, but is a doubt as to his guilt which exists after a conscientious effort to ascertain the truth on that question from the evidence, and which is of so serious a nature as to prevent an impartial mind from being convinced by the evidence to a moral and reasonable certainty that the defendant is guilty.”

*Hubert F. Rawls,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. W. Moore, solicitor, H. S. Strozier,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
<PAGE> 15


                                                            EXHIBIT 11
                                                           (Unaudited)


                                 C.M. CORP.
                                 ----------

                          INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                          -----------------------
                 FOR THE CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
                 ------------------------------------------

               (Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                   Three Months Ended      Six Months Ended
                                        June 30,                June 30,
                                   -------------------     ----------------
                                     1998       1997       1998       1997
                                    ------     ------     ------     ------

<S>                                 <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>   
Net income ....................     $    1     $   11     $    1     $   22
                                    ======     ======     ======     ======

Total common shares ...........      1,000      1,000      1,000      1,000
                                    ======     ======     ======     ======

Income per common share .......     $    1     $   11     $    1     $   22
                                    ======     ======     ======     ======


</TABLE>
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

vs. ) Criminal Action No. 10-00099-KD-N 

 ) 

FILI KOITE, ) 

Defendant. ) 

 ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s “Motion for Review of Detention Order 

Pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b)” (Doc. 21) -- which the Court construes as an Appeal of the 

Order of Detention -- and the Government’s Response (Doc. 24). 

In the Order of Detention, Magistrate Judge Nelson found that given the evidence presented 

at the hearing, the Defendant poses a serious risk of nonappearance, noting that because of his 

tenuous ties to the United States there are no conditions or combination of conditions that will 

reasonably assure his appearance. (Doc. 19). 

Pursuant to the Local Rules for the Southern District of Alabama, the District Court reviews 

an order of detention de novo. See LR 72.5(a)(3); United States v. Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir. 

1985). The Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141, governs the release and detention of a defendant 

prior to trial. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(A), the Government may move for detention in a 

case that involves “a serious risk that such person [the defendant] will flee.” When considering pretrial detention, the Court must decide whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably 

assure the appearance of the defendant and protect the safety of any other person or the community. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Factors relevant to this inquiry are: 1) the nature and circumstances of the 

offense, 2) the weight of the evidence, 3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, and 4) the 

Case 1:10-cr-00099-KD Document 26 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

nature and seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant's release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). 

On June 3, 2010, the Magistrate Judge held a detention hearing. At that time, the 

Defendant’s primary contention was that he should be released pending trial because he was facing 

only probation if convicted. However, based on the Government’s accusations, the Defendant’s 

guidelines would not provide for a sentence of probation. 

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the pleadings and the taped recording of the 

detention hearing. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Order of Detention should be 

affirmed. Accordingly, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s decision to detain the 

Defendant pending trial, such that the Defendant’s motion (Doc. 21), construed as an Appeal, is 

DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this the 17th day of June 2010. 

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DUBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:10-cr-00099-KD Document 26 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

VIC T. DYE 

v. Record No. 1971-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

HELEN CREGGER DYE FEBRUARY 13, 1996 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SMYTH COUNTY 

Charles B. Flannagan, II, Judge 

 (Robert Austin Vinyard; Vinyard and Moise, 

on brief), for appellant. 

 (John H. Tate, Jr.; Gwyn & Tate, on brief), 

for appellee. 

 Vic T. Dye (husband) appeals the equitable distribution 

decision of the circuit court awarding Helen Cregger Dye (wife) 

seventy-five percent interest in the marital share of the 

parties' residence. Husband contends the trial court erred when 

it failed to award him a fifty percent interest. Upon reviewing 

the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this 

appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the 

decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. 

 As husband recognizes, Virginia's equitable distribution 

scheme does not provide "a statutory presumption of equal 

distribution." Papuchis v. Papuchis, 2 Va. App. 130, 132, 341 

S.E.2d 829, 830-31 (1986). "Moreover, in reviewing an equitable 

distribution award, we rely heavily on the trial judge's 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

discretion in weighing the particular circumstances of each 

case." Aster v. Gross, 7 Va. App. 1, 8, 371 S.E.2d 833, 837 

(1988). The award "will not be set aside unless it is plainly 

wrong or without evidence to support it." Srinivasan v. 

Srinivasan, 10 Va. App. 728, 732, 396 S.E.2d 675, 678 (1990). 

 The final decree demonstrates that the trial court 

considered the statutory factors and complied with the statutory 

requirements. The real and personal property of the parties was 

classified and valued. The decree expressly noted that the court 

"has considered the factors mentioned in § 20-107.3(E)," and 

referred to the factors "which the Court believes are fully set 

forth" in wife's memorandum. 

 The marital residence had formerly belonged to wife's family 

and wife retained an inherited twenty-five percent interest as 

her separate property. The trial court awarded wife seventy-five 

percent of the remaining share of the residence, which was 

classified as marital property and valued at $22,875.00. While 

wife received a larger share of this piece of realty, another 

piece of real estate was divided equally between the parties. In 

addition, husband received the greater portion of the parties' 

intangible marital property, receiving property worth $16,492.38, 

compared to wife's share worth $11,243.88. 

 The trial court's equitable distribution scheme was not 

plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence. Therefore, we 

cannot say the trial court erred or abused its discretion by 
 3 

awarding wife a greater share of the marital home. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350

 

The undersigned, Michael P. McGee, the Chief FinancialOfficer of International Rectifier Corporation (the “Company”), pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

 

(i)                                     the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company as of, and for the periods presented in theReport.

 
| Dated: May 17, 2006 |                                           |
|---------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                |                                           |
|                |                                           |
|                | /s/ Michael P.  McGee                          |
|                | Michael P. McGee                               |
|                | Executive Vice President  and                  |
|                | Chief Financial Officer                        |
|                | (Principal  Financial and Accounting  Officer) |

 

A signed original of thewritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to InternationalRectifier Corporation and will be furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1942 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1942

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 
              OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Labor, 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration for fiscal year 2024 may 
not exceed $0.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

BULOVA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.

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 Bulova Technologies Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John D. Stanton, Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, 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 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/ John D. StantonJohn D. StantonPrincipal Financial OfficerDecember 30, 2010
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-14-045]

## Change of Time of Sunshine Act Meeting

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

 United States International Trade Commission

# DATE:

 December 29, 2014

# NEW TIME:

 10:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

 Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000

# STATUS:

 Open to the public.

In accordance with 19 CFR 201.35(d)(1), the Commission hereby gives notice that the meeting of December 29, 2014 will be held at 10:00 a.m.

                        In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not                               ( print page 77527)                            disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Earlier notification of this change was not possible.                    

By order of the Commission.

Issued: December 22, 2014.

William R. Bishop,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2014-30292 Filed 12-22-14; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-113272) pertaining to the Symbion Stock Incentive Plan,
Symbion Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan, Symbion Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, Ambulatory Resource Centres, Inc. Nonqualified Initial Option
Plan, and Amended and Restated Ambulatory Resource Centres, Inc. 1997 Stock
Option Plan of Symbion, Inc. of our report dated March 10, 2006, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Symbion, Inc. included herein,
our report dated March 10, 2006, with respect to Symbion, Inc. management's
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of
Symbion, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Symbion, Inc.


                                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


March 10, 2006
Nashville, Tennessee
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIN FENG GUO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72261

Agency No. A097-870-427

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Jin Feng Guo, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

FILED

MAR 14 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72261

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence factual findings. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because the

discrepancy between Guo’s declaration and his testimony regarding whether he

presented a written petition to a government official during the August 15, 2003,

protest march goes to the heart of his claim. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061,

1071 (9th Cir. 2007); Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[s]o long

as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to

the heart of [the] claim of persecution, we are bound to accept the IJ’s adverse

credibility finding.”) (internal quotation omitted). In the absence of credible

testimony, Guo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348

F.3d at 1156. 

Because Guo’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not

credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he

will be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. Farah v. Ashcroft,

348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.