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






Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm






As
independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-86158 on Form S-8
of our report dated March 28, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of ACME Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and
2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’
equity, and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, which
report appears in this Annual Report on  Form 10-K of ACME
Communications, Inc.


/s/
      MAYER HOFFMAN MCCANN P.C.MAYER
      HOFFMAN MCCANN P.C.
                
                Los
      Angeles, California
                  March 28, 2008
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                        FIDUCIARY CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P.


                         STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET
                          INVESTMENT INCOME PER LIMITED
                                PARTNERSHIP UNIT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     For the Three Months               For the Nine Months
                                                      Ended September 30,               Ended September 30,
                                                -----------------------------    -----------------------------
                                                    1999             1998            1999             1998
                                                ------------     ------------    ------------     ------------
<S>                                             <C>              <C>             <C>              <C>
Net Investment (Loss) Income                    $   (152,757)    $     44,745    $   (199,469)    $    129,001

Percentage Allocable to Limited Partners                 100%              99%            100%              99%
                                                ------------     ------------    ------------     ------------

Net Investment (Loss) Income Allocable
   to Limited Partners                          $   (152,757)    $     44,298    $   (199,469)    $    127,711
                                                ============     ============    ============     ============

Weighted Average Number of Limited
   Partnership Units Outstanding                   1,109,694        1,201,564       1,109,694        1,201,564
                                                ============     ============    ============     ============

Net Investment (Loss) Income Per Limited
   Partnership Unit                             $       (.14)    $        .04    $       (.18)           $. 11
                                                ============     ============    ============     ============
</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 NetNation Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Calvin
Mah, Chief 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 my knowledge:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Calvin Mah
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Calvin Mah
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        February 7, 2003

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to (section) 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
(section) 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


                                     F-23
<PAGE>
**National Institute of Standards and Technology**

**Information Needed for Non-U.S. Citizens**

***(Please print)***

Full Name (as stated on passport):

U.S. Permanent Resident:           yes:no:

If you do not have permanent resident status, please continue to answer the following:

Date of Birth:

Place of Birth (city and country):

Passport No.:Passport Issuing Country:

Citizenship:

Countries of Dual Citizenship (if applicable):

Country of Residence:

Title/Position:Gender:

Organization Name and Address:

Organization Telephone No.:
#### In the Matter of Tamia J. and Another, Infants. Lawrence J., Appellant; The New York Foundling Hospital, Respondent.

[870 NYS2d 914]

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara E Schechter, J.), entered on or about October 17, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from, committed the guardianship and custody of the subject children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While respondent argues that he is available to care for his children, the finding that adoption is in the children’s best interests was supported by a preponderance of the evidence showing that he had not formed a viable plan for them, that the children had been living with their foster mother from a very *581young age and had bonded with her, and that the foster mother wished to adopt the children *(see Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilfredo Velazquez, Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 344]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Knopf, J.), rendered July 17, 2006, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing an indeterminate sentence of 15 years to life imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently with each other.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the adjudication of the defendant as a persistent felony offender, adjudicating him a second felony offender, and reducing his sentences from an indeterminate term of 15 years to life imprisonment to an indeterminate term of 3x/2 to 7 years of imprisonment on the count of burglary in the third degree and from an indeterminate term of 15 years to life imprisonment to an indeterminate term of 3x/2 to 7 years of imprisonment on the count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, to run concurrently with each other.

The totality of the evidence adduced at the persistent felony offender hearing, although warranting the defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender, did not warrant his adjudication as a persistent felony offender *(see*Penal Law § 70.10 [2]; *People v Greene,*57 AD3d 1004 [ 2008]). Accordingly, we reduce the sentences imposed for burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree—both class D felonies—to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 3x/2 to 7 years, which is the maximum permissible sentence for a second felony offender convicted of those crimes *(see*Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [d]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit, do not require reversal, or need not be reached in light of our determination. Mastro, J.E, Fisher, Miller and Garni, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2287 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 

of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Commodity Assistance Program 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 Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 

Commodity Assistance Program for fiscal year 2024. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD 

5 AND NUTRITION SERVICE, COMMODITY AS6 SISTANCE PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for US Department of Agriculture, Food and NutriVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:02 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2287.IH H2287

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2287 IH

1 tion Service, Commodity Assistance Program for fiscal 

2 year 2024 may not exceed $322,139,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### United States *v.*Kee *et al.*

*(District Court, D. South Carolina.*

August 22, 1889.)

1, Obstructing Justice—Intimidating Witness.

Defendant is guilty of violating Eev. St. II. S. § 5399, providing a punishment for intimidating a witness by throats, etc., when he boats one summoned as a witness before a United States commissioner for the, purpose of intimidating or influencing him in giving his testimony.

S. Same.

Where defendant, not knowing that one C. is a witness in a case in which defendant's father is summoned as a witness, threatens and beats C. on ac*604count'of insulting language used *by*him concerning his father in connection, with the case, the beating having no relation to the character of C. as a witness, he is not guilty of a violation of section 5399.

Information for Intimidating a Witness.

*C. M.*Furman, Asst. Dist. Atty.

*J. K.*Henry, for defendants.

Simonton, J.,

*(charging jury.')*You are trying an information against John Kee for violating section 5399, Rev. St.,—that is to say, for threatening, intimidating, impeding, and influencing one Ben Corder, a witness in a cause before a commissioner of this court. In reaching your conclusion you must be satisfied by the evidence that the defendant did threaten and beat Ben Corder in the manner stated by the witnesses for the government. Next, that defendant knew or had reason to know that Corder was a witness for the United States in the case before the commissioner. Then, that he did threaten and beat him because he was such witness, and for the purpose of intimidating, impeding, or influencing him in giving his testimony. The defense is that Corder had stated that the father of defendant, a very old man, who had professed during his whole life to be a “teetotaler,” and of late years a prohibitionist, had secretly purchased whisky from a negro; that defendant had warned Corder if he ever repeated what he styled the “malicious falsehood,” he would punish him; that his father had been summoned before the commissioner to testify to the fact of the sale in a case brought against the negro, and had been so summoned upon the information of Corder, given after the warning, defendant not knowing that Corder was himself a witness. If you are satisfied that the threats and consequent beating were uttered and inflicted because of this insulting charge against the old man, having no relation to the character of Corder as a witness, without knowledge that he was a witness, and induced entirely by the repetition of the insult, you may find the defendant not guilty. If the threats and violence-were intended to prevent Corder from testifying, you may find defendant guilty.
#### Vincent Maisano, Appellant, v McDonald’s Corporation, Doing Business as McDonald’s Restaurant, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[972 NYS2d 795]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered March 21, 2012 in a personal injury action. The order, inter alia, granted that part of the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint with respect to defendant McDonald’s Corporation, doing business as McDonald’s Restaurant.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by dismissing the second amended complaint against defendant McDonald’s Corporation, doing business as McDonald’s Restaurant, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he sustained when he slipped and fell on snow and ice on the sidewalk at a McDonald’s franchise in Buffalo, New York. After plaintiff filed a complaint, an amended complaint, and a second amended complaint, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The order, inter alia, granted that part of the motion with respect to defendant McDonald’s Corporation, doing business as McDonald’s Restaurant (McDonald’s), and dismissed the complaint and amended complaint against it.

Contrary to plaintiffs contention, McDonald’s met its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). McDonald’s submitted evidence demonstrating that it, as a franchisor, lacked day-to-day control over the franchisee *(see Martinez v Higher Powered Pizza, Inc.,*43 AD3d 670, 671-672 [2007]), and that it was an out-of-possession landlord who did *1477not retain control over the premises and was not contractually obligated to repair or maintain the premises *(see Sexton v Resinger,*70 AD3d 1360, 1361 [2010]; *Dalzell v McDonald’s Corp.,*220 AD2d 638, 639 [1995], *lv denied*88 NY2d 815 [1996]). Thus, Supreme Court properly granted the motion with respect to McDonald’s. We note, however, that the court failed to dismiss plaintiffs second amended complaint, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Garni and Lindley, JJ.
# EXHIBIT 11

# TELLABS, INC. 
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

(In millions, except
per share amounts)

|                                                                                                                 | Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------ | ----------------
|                                                                                                                
|
|                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                 |                    |                 
|Numerator:                                                                                                       |                   
|Net earnings/(loss)                                                                                              |                    | $49.6           
|                                                                                                                
|Denominator:                                                                                                     |                    |                 
|Denominator for basic earnings per share-                                                                        |                    |                 
|Weighted-average shares outstanding                                                                              |                    | 416.1           
|Effect of dilutive securities:                                                                                   |                    |                 
|Employee stock options and awards                                                                                |                    | 4.2             
|                                                                                                                
|Denominator for diluted earnings per share-
Adjusted weighted-average shares outstanding and assumed conversions |                    | 420.3           
|                                                                                                                
|Net earnings/(loss) per share - Basic                                                                            |                    | $0.12           
|                                                                                                                
|Net earnings/(loss) per share - Diluted                                                                          |                    | $0.12           
|                                                                                                                

Under GAAP, dilutive securities are
not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share when a company is in a net
loss position.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule for Krupp Associate 1980-1 contains summary financial extracted
from teh financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety be reference to such finanical.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          72,891
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,603
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               197,493
<PP&E>                                       4,977,518<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,812,442)<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,439,063
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,008,033
<BONDS>                                      3,468,841<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   (2,037,811)<F4>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,439,063
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               265,543<F5>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               218,037<F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              89,970
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (42,464)<F7>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F7>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F7>
<FN>
<F7>Net loss allocated ($424) to the General Partners and ($42,040) to the Limited
Partners.
<F6>Total operating expenses of $138,891, real estate taxes of $34,500 and
depreciation and amortization of $44,646.
<F5>Represents total revenue of the Parntership.
<F4>Total deficit of General Partners ($1,286,899) and Limited Partners ($750,912).
<F2>Includes depreciation of ($2,774,040) and amortization of deferred expenses of
($38,402).
<F1>Includes multi-family complex of $4,830,893 and deferred expenses of $146,625.
<F3>Represents mortgage note payable of $2,211,456 and notes to an affiliated party
of $1,257,385.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-12234

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00252-CAR

ABDUL RASHID ISAAC, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WARDEN,

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF GEORGIA, 

Respondents-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(March 19, 2015)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-12234 Date Filed: 03/19/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Abdul Rashid Isaac, a Georgia prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the 

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief from 

his convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping with bodily injury, and kidnapping, 

which resulted in a life sentence. We granted a certificate of appealability on the 

issue of whether the district court failed to comply with our decision in Clisby v. 

Jones, 960 F.3d 925, 936 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc), when it did not address 

Isaac’s due process claim based on Garza v. State, 670 S.E.2d 73 (Ga. 2008). Isaac 

argued in the district court that, under the rule announced in Garza, the state trial

court’s failure to correctly instruct the jury on the kidnapping statute violated his 

due process rights, including the right to “fair warning that his specific 

contemplated conduct is forbidden,” depriving him of a fair trial. See Garza, 670 

S.E.2d at 76 (alteration and quotation marks omitted). The district court did not 

address that argument. 

Clisby requires that a district court resolve all claims for relief raised in a 

§ 2254 petition, regardless of whether it grants or denies habeas relief. 960 F.2d at 

936. Isaac therefore contends (and the state agrees) that the district court 

committed Clisby error when it dismissed his § 2254 petition without resolving 

that Garza claim. He is correct. When a district court fails to address all of the 

claims in a habeas petition, we “will vacate the district court’s judgment without 

prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all remaining claims.” Clisby, 

Case: 14-12234 Date Filed: 03/19/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

960 F.2d at 938. We therefore vacate and remand for further proceedings to 

include the consideration of Isaac’s Garza claim.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 

Case: 14-12234 Date Filed: 03/19/2015 Page: 3 of 3