alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

The Board of Directors

Internet Gold Golden Lines Ltd.

 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the registration statement (No. 333-208404) on Form F-3 of Internet Gold Golden Lines Ltd. of our report dated April 18, 2016, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of Internet Gold Golden LinesLtd. as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes inequity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2015, which report appears in theDecember 31, 2015 annual report on Form 20-F of Internet Gold Golden Lines Ltd.

 

/s/Somekh Chaikin

Somekh Chaikin

Certified Public Accountants (Israel)

Member Firm of KPMG International

 

Tel Aviv, Israel

April 18, 2016
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77525-77526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30161]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1124 and 1125 (Review)]


Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From Australia and China

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) 
determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on 
electrolytic manganese dioxide (``EMD'') from Australia would not be 
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an 
industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time and 
that revocation of the antidumping duty order on EMD from China would 
be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury 
within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on September 3, 2013 (78 FR 
54269) and determined on May 19, 2014 that it would conduct full 
reviews (79 FR 30163, May 27, 2014). Notice of the scheduling of the 
Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection 
therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and 
by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on May 27, 2014 (79 FR 
30163). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on October 21, 2014, 
and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear 
in person or by counsel.
    The Commission completed and filed its determinations in this 
review on December 15, 2014. The views of the Commission are contained 
in USITC Publication 4506 (December 2014), entitled Electrolytic 
Manganese Dioxide from Australia and China: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-
1124 and 1125 (Review).

    By order of the Commission.


[[Page 77526]]


    Dated: December 18, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-30161 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Exhibit 32.1





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 Yearly Report of China Yida Holding, Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Chen Minhua, Chief Executive 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) 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 of the Company as of the dates presented and the results of operations of the Company.








/s/  Chen Minhua


Chen Minhua


Chief Executive Officer





Dated: March 16, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 181 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 181

 To promote accountability and transparency in future executive orders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

   Mr. Mann introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To promote accountability and transparency in future executive orders.

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

SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION RESPECTING CERTAIN EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days before issuing a qualifying 
executive order, the President shall transmit to the Congress, and make 
publicly available, a notification with respect to such executive 
order. Such notification shall contain--
            (1) the text of the executive order;
            (2) the Federal law or laws affected by the executive order 
        that is the subject of the notification;
            (3) how the President is working within the parameters 
        specified in Federal law and the Constitution;
            (4) the means by which the executive order will be 
        accomplished, including through any related Federal agencies or 
        departments; and
            (5) a comprehensive list of organizations, businesses, and 
        other parties or entities the President, or the President's 
        designee, engaged with prior to the issuance of such executive 
        order.
    (b) Reports.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter, the President 
shall submit to the Congress a report on the outcome of each qualifying 
executive order issued during the period covered by the report.
    (c) Qualifying Executive Order.--The term ``qualifying executive 
order'' means any executive order (including an executive order that 
revokes or nullifies a previous executive order) issued on or after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, relating to abortion, including the 
prohibition on the use of Federal funds for abortions, as specified in 
sections 506 and 507 of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) (commonly referred to as the ``Hyde 
amendment''), and the right to life guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to 
the Constitution.
                                 <all>
```
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

September 24, 2012

h0917

Order 

September 24, 2012

144349

RUBY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. and DAVID I.

RUBY,

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants/

Respondents-Appellees,

v SC: 144349

COA: 297266

Oakland CC: 2003-054535-NM

GEORGE W. SMITH & COMPANY, P.C.,

GEORGE W. SMITH, and JOYCE W.

MILLER,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs,

and

THE GILES LAW FIRM,

Petitioner-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 4, 2011 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eduardo ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-41143

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 27, 2007.

*702James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Norman J. Silverman, Law Office of Norm Silverman, Houston, TX, for Defendanb-Appellant.

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eduardo Estrada challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. To convict Estrada of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, the Government was required to prove that he (1) knowingly; (2) possessed methamphetamine; (3) with the intent to distribute it. *See United States v. Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d 597, 599 n. 1 (5th Cir.2005). Estrada argues that the evidence does not suffice to allow the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that the van he was driving when he was arrested secreted methamphetamine.

The Government adduced evidence, which, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, established that Estrada was aware that he transported methamphetamine in a secret compartment of the van. *See United States v. Resio-Trejo,*45 F.3d 907, 910 (5th Cir.1995). Trial evidence indicated that Estrada switched lanes several times at the checkpoint after Agent Trevino crossed in front of Estrada’s van. Estrada gave inconsistent statements about his residence and his family. The prior owner of the van did not install the secret compartment; Estrada owned the van when the compartment was added. He had recently purchased the vehicle for $10,000 in United States currency (mostly $100 bills). Estrada did not appear surprised when the agents discovered the methamphetamine. Finally, the methamphetamine was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on where it was sold.

The jury was not required to believe all of the testimony of the only defense witnesses, Estrada’s half-sister and his twen*703ty-two year old brother; and, in any event that testimony does not mandate a not guilty verdict. Taken as a whole, the evidence was more than sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Estrada knew of the presence of the contraband. *See United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez,*319 F.3d 695, 699 (5th Cir.2003); *United States v. Casilla,*20 F.3d 600, 606-07 (5th Cir.1994).

Accordingly, Estrada’s conviction is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under die limited circumstances set fortli in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Peter A. Forman,Chief Executive Officer of Register.com, Inc. (the"Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(i) TheCompany's accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) The information contained in such report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

|        |  |                                        |  |  |  |  |
|--------|--|----------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
|   |  | /s/Peter A. Forman                     |
|   |  | Peter A. Forman ChiefExecutive Officer |
|        |

Dated: May 3,2005

----
Exhibit 10.2


 


FBEC Worldwide Inc.


 





RESOLUTION FROM THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS


 


The undersigned, being members of the Board
of Directors of FBEC Worldwide Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, do hereby declare and state that they consent to and hereby adopt the
following resolutions and/or the following actions:


 


RESOLVED: In connection with the Board
Meeting on July 30, 2015 of FBEC Worldwide Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, the Company decided that in the best interest of growing
its new product line, Wolf Shot Energy Drink, that Jason Spatafora was appointed as the Chief Marketing Officer (“CMO”)
and as a member of the Board of Directors of FBEC Worldwide Inc. for a term of one year, under an Employment Agreement. Mr. Spatafora
will receive an annual salary of One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($180,000) to be paid in monthly increments of $15,000. Mr.
Spatafora will receive a signing bonus of Ten Million (10,000,000) shares of restricted common stock of FBEC.


 


Jason Spatafora, age 36, is a social media
phenom. Mr. Spatafora has greatly impacted the public marijuana sector through his alter ego ‘The Wolf of Weed Street’.
He holds the biggest audiences in the marijuana sector through his twitter handle @wolfofweedst and has gained his notoriety by
beating the Nasdaq in Q1 gains by 3000% when the marijuana craze began in 2014. He is the Co-founder of MarijuanaStocks.com which
has become the premier marketing & advertising platform in the public cannabis space & has been featured in many publications
such as Men’s Journal, Vice and BBC. Beyond that “The Wolf” as he’s called, is the quintessential “Potrepreneur”
by developing and seeding disruptive start-up’s like Wolfofweedstreet.com, BudHub.ca, Potbnb.com FindaMarijuanadoctor.com.
Mr. Spatafora has a double degree in English & Creative Writing from the University of Arizona. Prior to his emergence in the
public cannabis space he was director of sales and marketing for a nation-wide disaster restoration firm.


 


The Board of Directors has received the
resignation of Darren Hamans on July 30, 2015 as a member of the Board of Directors. Mr. Hamans was appointed In connection with
the Board Meeting on May 8, 2015 of FBEC Worldwide Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, the Company had acknowledged that the majority
shareholder and subsequent Board of Directors appointed Darren Hamans as a Director and Member of the Board of Directors of FBEC
Worldwide Inc. The Board of Directors had authorized the Employment Contract for Darren Hamans, inclusive of Salary and Stock.
This Employment agreement has been terminated with no further obligations of any considerations. Mr. Hamans has entered into a
new consulting agreement as an Independent Sales Representative for the HEMP Energy product.


 


I certify that the Corporation is duly
organized and existing and has the power to take action called for by the above Resolution dated July 30, 2015.


 


Acknowledged by:





	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Robert S. Sand, CEO	 	Jason Spatafora, Director
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Darren Hammans, Director
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sheila James, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 776]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered June 10, 2005, convicting her of grand larceny in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Kase, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress her statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the hearing court properly refused to suppress her oral and written statements *(see People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; *People v Stevens,*223 AD2d 609, 609 [1996]).

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s charge was confusing and ambiguous is unpreserved for appellate review as the defense counsel waived any objection by acquiescing to the charge as given *(see People v Tarangelo,*269 AD2d 163 [2000]; *People v Velasquez,*141 AD2d 882, 883 [1988]). In any event, the contention is without merit *(see People v Thomas,*51 NY2d 466, 473-474 [1980]).

The defendant’s contention that her convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review, as defense counsel merely made a general motion for a trial order of dismissal based upon the People’s failure to make out a prima facie case *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Dieppa,*285 AD2d 558 [2001]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Barreau,*183 AD2d 904, 905 [1992]; *People v Frumerin,*121 AD2d 736, 737 [1986]).

Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our *763factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Silvestro,*284 AD2d 418 [2001]). Crane, J.P., Ritter, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                          CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements, Form S-8 No. 333-101121 -- Pactiv Corporation 2002 Incentive
Compensation Plan, Form S-8 No. 333-33484 -- Pactiv Corporation Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, and Form S-8 No. 333-90333 -- Tenneco Packaging Inc. Thrift Plan
for Hourly Employees and Tenneco Packaging Inc. Thrift Plan, of our report dated
January 21, 2004, except for Note 19, as to which date is March 15, 2004, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Pactiv
Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2003.

Ernst & Young LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 15, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dillon J. Kerry, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 731]—

*1024Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered March 29, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and (2) from a judgment of said court, rendered March 29, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to two superior court informations charging him with criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and burglary in the third degree. Pursuant to the plea agreement, if defendant successfully completed the Judicial Diversion Program, he would be sentenced to five years of probation. If defendant failed to successfully complete the Judicial Diversion Program, County Court could impose a prison sentence of up to 11 years. Defendant repeatedly violated the terms of the Judicial Diversion Program, made counseled admissions of his violations and, ultimately, elected to withdraw from the program in exchange for a commitment by County Court to impose concurrent prison terms of 2 to 4 years on the charge of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and 3V2 to 7 years on the charge of burglary in the third degree. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant as agreed and defendant now appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Upon reviewing the records and counsel’s brief, we agree. Accordingly, the judgments are affirmed and counsel’s request for leave to withdraw is granted *(see People v Ovitt,*105 AD3d 1213, 1213-1214 [2013]; *People v Harden,*54 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2008]; *People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

Rose, J.E, Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgments are affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
SCAD-13-0000911

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

RONALD G.S. AU, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC 11–16-8940)

ORDER OF SUSPENSION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.

and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Foley,

in place of Acoba, J., recused)

Upon consideration of the May 17, 2013 Report and

Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of

the State of Hawai#i (hereinafter, “the Disciplinary Board”), the

briefs filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) and the

Respondent, Ronald G.S. Au, and the record, we adopt the

Disciplinary Board’s Report and Recommendation, and, therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Ronald G.S. Au is

suspended for a further five years, effective immediately,

notwithstanding Rule 2.16(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of

the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), in light of the fact Respondent Au

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCAD-13-0000911

21-JAN-2014

10:37 AM
is currently suspended from the practice of law. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Au shall file

with this court, within 30 days after the date of entry of this

order, an affidavit showing compliance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d) and

this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other

requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the

Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i, Respondent Au shall pay

all costs of these proceedings as approved upon the timely

submission of a verified bill of costs by ODC and an opportunity

to respond thereto, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2.3(c).

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Au’s motion for

permission to petition for reinstatement is denied and, further,

that Respondent Au, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.17(b)(3), may not

petition for reinstatement until two and a half years have

elapsed from the date of entry of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 21, 2014.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Daniel R. Foley

2
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements: (1) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-113272) pertaining to the Symbion StockIncentive Plan, Symbion Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan, Symbion Employee StockPurchase Plan, Ambulatory Resource Centres, Inc. Nonqualified Initial Option Plan, andAmended and Restated Ambulatory Resource Centres, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan of Symbion,Inc., and (2) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-136351) pertaining to the Symbion Long TermIncentive Plan of Symbion, Inc.;of ourreport dated March 13, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofSymbion, Inc., our report dated March 13, 2007, with respect to Symbion, Inc. management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting of Symbion, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.                  /s/ Ernst& Young LLP               March 13, 2007