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

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                  CONSENT OF REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Numbers
333-93933, 333-111037, 333-105425, and 333-105424 of Civitas BankGroup, Inc. on
Form S-8 and Registration Statement Number 333-107352 of Civitas BankGroup, Inc.
on Form S-3 of our report dated March 16, 2005, incorporated by reference in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Civitas BankGroup, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2004.

                                        /s/ Crowe Chizek and Company LLC

Brentwood, Tennessee
March 31, 2005
---

EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and
Stockholders of ACME Communications, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference
 in the registration statement (No. 333-86158) on Form S-8 of ACME
Communications, Inc. of our report dated April 7, 2006,
with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of ACME Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31,
2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, and all related financial statement
schedules, which report appears in the December 31, 2005, annual report on Form 10-K of ACME Communications, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP
 Los Angeles, California
April
11, 2006
#### In re: Stanley Reid HENRICKSEN, Debtor, Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, Appellee, v. Stanley Reid Henricksen, Appellant, Nauni Jo Manty, Appellee.

No. 05-2639.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 16, 2006.

Decided: June 21, 2006.

Eric Tostrud, Lockridge *&*Grindal, Margaret Henrietta Culp, Blackwell & Igbanugo, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellees.

Stanley Reid Henricksen, Duluth, MN, pro se.

Nauni Jo Manty, Rider & Bennett, Minneapolis, MN, pro se.

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Debtor Stanley Henricksen (Henricksen) appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (BAP’s) denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. We hold the BAP did not abuse its discretion in denying Henricksen’s Rule 60(b) motion. *See In re Kirwan,*164 F.3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir.1999) (standard review). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.
#### In the Matter of Middletown & New Jersey Railroad, LLC, Respondent, v State of New York Department of Transportation, Respondent. Howard Shapiro, Nonparty Appellant.

[961 NYS2d 783]

In a proceeding pursuant to Railroad Law § 91 to compel the discontinuance of a grade-level railroad crossing, nonparty Howard Shapiro appeals from a determination of the State of New York Department of Transportation, dated December 23, 2010, which changed the status of the grade-level crossing of Hoops Road over the tracks of the Middletown & New Jersey Railroad, LLC, in the Town of Wawayanda, at approximately Mile Fost 4 (USDOT #841 092L), from public to private.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, he received adequate notice of the proceedings, as he was apprised of the time and place for hearing the petition and was provided reasonable notice thereof (see Railroad Law § 91). Moreover, the determination was not founded upon erroneous legal principles or contrary to the clear weight of the evidence *(see*Railroad Law § 91; *Matter of County Exec, of County of Rensselaer v New York State Dept. of Transp.,*189 AD2d 984, 985 [1993]; *Matter of Boston & Albany R.R. Co.,*64 App Div 257, 260 [1901], *affd*170 NY 619 [1902]; *cf.*Railroad Law § 97 [1] [c], [d]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Dickerson and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
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 Annual Report of Wellstone Filters, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Learned J. Hand, Chief Executive and Financial  Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



|Dated:  April 8,2009
By  /s/ Learned J. Hand
-----------------------------
     Learned J. Hand
     Chief Executive and Acting Financial Officer
    (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. KROLICKI WHOLESALE MEATS, INC., Respondent.

No. 84-5682.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued April 30, 1985.

Decided June 5, 1985.

*216Ellen 0. Boardman (argued), Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Howard E. Perlstein, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

David A. McKinnon (argued), Bieber, Brennan, Matranga, McKinnon, Sable & Cross, Mt. Clemens, Mich., for respondent.

Before LIVELY, Chief Judge, JONES, Circuit Judge, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The Union, Local 26 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO, filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board against the employer, Krolicki Wholesale Meats, Inc., alleging a refusal to bargain in good faith and interference with the employees’ rights under the National Relations Act when it discharged five employees after they voiced dissatisfaction with the collective bargaining agreement. The ALJ found that the employer had violated section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. The employer filed exceptions and the ALJ filed his final order affirming his earlier decision. The Board adopted his findings and has petitioned for enforcement of its order.

This Court’s function is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board’s findings. *NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co.,*369 U.S. 404, 405, 82 S.Ct. 853, 854, 7 L.Ed.2d 829 (1962). Having reviewed the record as a whole, we find substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings.

Accordingly, the order of the Board is hereby Enforced.
Exhibit 10.1

 

FIRST LEASE ADDENDUM

 

THIS FIRST LEASE ADDENDUM IS MADE AND ENTERED INTO THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2015, BY AND BETWEEN SUNSET LAND COMPANY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS “LANDLORD”) AND STEADYMED THERAPEUTICS, INC. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS “TENANT”). 

 

IT IS AGREED BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT TO MODIFY THE LEASE DATED MAY 1, 2015 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS “LEASE”) IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 

 

Section 1.      PREMISES. The last two (2) sentences of this Section 1 are hereby deleted and replaced in their entirety by the following: 

 

“Landlord using Landlord’s building standard materials shall provide the work as shown on the attached Exhibit C. Any changes to the plan which have been approved by Tenant and that increase the cost of the work shall be paid for by Tenant within thirty (30) days from receipt of Landlord’s invoice for any such excess cost.” 

 

Section 2.      TERM  

 

Subsection 2.1               Term. The Term of the Lease is hereby changed from three (3) years to four (4) years, and with such change the term is extended. 

 

With the exception of the modifications set out above, all other terms, covenants and agreements of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect. 

 

	
Landlord:
    	
Tenant:
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Sunset Land Company, LLC, 
    	
SteadyMed Therapeutics, Inc. 
    
	
a California limited liability   company
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
DocuSigned by:
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ David Jew
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Jonathan Rigby
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
A4BA5472AB677449
    
	
Title:
    	
VP - Finance 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
CEO
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By: 
    	
/s/ Steven Barale
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
Controller
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date:
    	
5-29-2015
    	
 
    	
Date: 
    	
5/26/2015 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Existing Premises: 

 

Bishop Ranch 3, Building EE 

2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 350 

San Ramon, CA 94583
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

TREBOR J. DUKES, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-0381-CG-B 

) 

YMCA OF SELMA DALLAS 

COUNTY, et al., 

) 

) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

ORDER 

 After due and proper consideration of all issues raised, and there having been 

no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated October 19, 2016, is ADOPTED as the 

opinion of this Court. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike filed 

by Defendant Ann Murray (Docs. 3,12) are hereby GRANTED. 

 DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of November, 2016. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-00381-CG-B Document 25 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR PRIMA ENERGY CORPORATION FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS,
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      15,861,000
<SECURITIES>                                 2,129,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,289,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (45,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,247,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,479,000
<PP&E>                                      99,468,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (44,612,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              81,592,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,559,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       134,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  66,413,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                81,592,000
<SALES>                                     18,962,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,758,000
<CGS>                                        6,233,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,851,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,565,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,570,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,995,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,995,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     
</LEGEND>
<CIK>      0000318245                           
<NAME>     ASSOCIATED MEDIAL DEVICES, INC.                   
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4248
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       44094
<OTHER-SE>                                     (48342)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                        STATE OF           PERCENTAGE
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                   INCORPORATION     OWNED BY SHC CORP.
------------------                  ----------------   ---------------------
<S>                                   <C>              <C>
Payday Check Advance, Inc.              Illinois              80%
Payday Express of American, Inc.        Illinois              100%
Sonoma Financial Corporation            Delaware              100%
Money Market, Inc.                      Indiana               100%
E Star Systems, Inc.                    Illinois              100%
Money Market Payday Franchising, Inc.   Illinois              100%
Millennium Funding LLC                  Illinois              100%
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2070 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2070

  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive 
Office of the President, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator 
                         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 the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive 
Office of the President, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator 
                         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 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF 
              THE PRESIDENT, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT 
              COORDINATOR FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Executive Office of the 
President, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator for fiscal 
year 2024 may not exceed $1,838,000.
                                 <all>
```
1

The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1032

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Victor M. Alvaro-Reyes, also known *

as Cruz De Luna, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 20, 2006

Filed: February 2, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Victor Alvaro-Reyes appeals the 87-month sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. In a brief

filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that AlvaroReyes’s sentence is excessive and unreasonable.
-2-

To the extent counsel is raising an Eighth Amendment challenge to AlvaroReyes’s sentence, we conclude that the argument fails. See United States v. Collins,

340 F.3d 672, 679 (8th Cir. 2003) (Eighth Amendment forbids only extreme sentences

that are grossly disproportionate to crime); cf. id. at 676, 679-80 (imposition of

mandatory life sentence for conspiring to distribute more than 500 grams of

methamphetamine was not cruel and unusual punishment under Eighth Amendment);

United States v. Jones, 2 F.3d 827, 828-29 (8th Cir. 1993) (finding 151-month

sentence for conspiring to distribute phencyclidine not “excessive”).

We further find that Alvaro-Reyes’s sentence--which was imposed at the

bottom of the Guidelines range, and well below the mandatory statutory minimum--is

not unreasonable. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 765-67 (2005)

(appellate courts should review post-Booker sentences for unreasonableness); United

States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range

is presumptively reasonable, and defendant must rebut presumption of

reasonableness), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARY HUMBERTO CLAVIJO CRUZ; 

JHON ERIK CLAVIJO GONZALEZ, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-71183 

Agency Nos. A202-176-681 

A202-176-680 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 30, 2020**

Pasadena, California

Before: BEA and BADE, Circuit Judges, and McCALLA,*** District Judge.

Ary Humberto Clavijo Cruz and his son, Jhon Erik Clavijo Gonzalez 

(collectively “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

*** The Honorable Jon P. McCalla, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

FILED

APR 1 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an

immigration judge’s denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We 

review the agency’s decisions for substantial evidence. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 

755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252, we deny the petition for review.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Petitioners’ claims for 

asylum and withholding of removal because they failed to demonstrate that the 

Colombian government was unable or unwilling to protect them from Los 

Rastrojos, a criminal gang without any political leaning. See Madrigal v. Holder, 

716 F.3d 499, 507–08 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Reyes-Reyes v Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 

782, 788 (9th Cir. 2004). Petitioners’ claims that the BIA failed to consider the 

Colombian government’s ability to protect them, and that the BIA failed to 

consider evidence bearing on that issue, are not supported by the record. 

2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection 

because Petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not that they would be 

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Colombia. See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1034 (Police ineffectiveness is not 

enough to establish an entitlement to relief, “absent evidence of corruption or other 

inability or unwillingness to oppose criminal organizations.”).
3 

3. Substantial evidence in the record supports the conclusion that Petitioners 

can safely and reasonably relocate within Colombia. See Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 

F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Petitioners’ motion for stay of removal is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### In the Matter of Enrique Torres, Petitioner, v New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

[872 NYS2d 215]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Board of Parole which revoked petitioner’s parole.

In March 2001, petitioner was convicted of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree and sentenced as a second vio*1040lent felony offender to concurrent prison terms of five years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Petitioner was released in June 2005 and began serving his period of postrelease supervision subject to various conditions. In May 2006, petitioner, among other things, tampered with his monitoring device, was declared delinquent and subsequently was charged with various violations of his parole. Ultimately, petitioner pleaded guilty to tampering with the monitoring device, whereupon the remaining violations were withdrawn, and the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ), petitioner’s counsel and the parole representative agreed to a joint recommendation for an 18-month hold. The Board of Parole thereafter revoked petitioner’s parole and imposed a 54-month hold. This proceeding to challenge that determination ensued.

Petitioner’s claim that he did not receive the benefit of his plea bargain because his guilty plea was conditioned upon a “promise” of an 18-month hold lacks merit. The record reveals that the ALJ expressly advised petitioner that the Board would make the final decision as to the hold to be imposed and that he could receive “substantially more time” than the 18 months that was being recommended. The ALJ further confirmed with petitioner’s counsel that the suggested 18-month hold was a “recommendation . . . only” and made clear to petitioner that “anything [was] possible.”

As to the length of the hold imposed, it is well settled that any recommendation made by the ALJ is advisory in nature, as the final authority to reincarcerate petitioner and fix a date for his release lies with the Board *(see Matter of Folks v Alexander,*58 AD3d 1038 [2009] [decided herewith]; *Matter of Barner v Alexander,*55 AD3d 1182 [2008]; *Matter of Santiago v Dennison,*45 AD3d 994, 995 [2007]). Under the circumstances presented, we do not view the penalty imposed as either harsh or an abuse of discretion. Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Mercure, J.E, Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.