alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.2

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors and Stockholders

Barnes & Noble, Inc.

The audits
referred to in our report dated June 30, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Barnes & Noble, Inc., which is incorporated in Item 8 of this Form 10-K by reference to the annual report to stockholders for the
year ended May 1, 2010 also included the audit of the financial statement schedule listed in the accompanying index. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits.

In our opinion such financial statement schedule, when considered in
relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.



|                    
|--------------------
|/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
|New York, New York  
|June 30, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                         311,441
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,128,743
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,508)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,475,722
<PP&E>                                         177,456
<DEPRECIATION>                               (131,990)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,349,973
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          651,697
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,908
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,609,693
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,349,973
<SALES>                                      2,467,790
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,310,043
<CGS>                                        1,398,449
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,780,783
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,844
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                510,416
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            510,416
<DISCONTINUED>                                 200,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   710,416
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32.1





Form
      10-QSB


Arête
      Industries,
      Inc.


Quarter
      ended
      September 30, 2006








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 Arête Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles L. Gamber,
      Chief Executive 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:





(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:
      November 15,
      2006   By:/s/ Charles
      L. Gamber


Charles L.Gamber, Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,740,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,126,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,270,000
<PP&E>                                     102,630,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,801,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             101,432,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,844,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       20,000,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       172,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,958,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               101,432,000
<SALES>                                     59,611,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            59,993,000
<CGS>                                       50,196,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               50,196,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,636,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,583,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,422,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   466,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            956,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   956,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Michael Jean, Appellant, v Christina Vilar Jean, Respondent.

Submitted May 11, 2009;

decided June 30, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from, affirming an order which denied a motion to amend a prior final determination, does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution (see Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 4:16, at 96 [3d ed rev]).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7029

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MERVYN CLINTON GODDARD, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-4-3, CA-99-234-7) Submitted: October 7, 1999 Decided: October 14, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mervyn Clinton Goddard, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mervyn Clinton Goddard seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Goddard , Nos. CR-93-4-3; CA-99-234-7 (W.D. Va. July 13, 1999). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 67 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide health care practitioners 

in rural areas with training in preventive health care, including both 

physical and mental care, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005 

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide health 

care practitioners in rural areas with training in preventive health care, including both physical and mental care, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Preventive 

5 Health Care Training Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•S 67 IS

1 SEC. 2. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE TRAINING. 

2 Part D of title VII of the Public Health Service Act 

3 (42 U.S.C. 294 et seq.) is amended by inserting after sec4 tion 754 the following: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 754A. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE TRAINING. 

6 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may make grants 

7 to, and enter into contracts with, eligible applicants to en8 able such applicants to provide preventive health care 

9 training, in accordance with subsection (c), to health care 

10 practitioners practicing in rural areas. Such training shall, 

11 to the extent practicable, include training in health care 

12 to prevent both physical and mental disorders before the 

13 initial occurrence of such disorders. In carrying out this 

14 subsection, the Secretary shall encourage, but may not re15 quire, the use of interdisciplinary training project applica16 tions. 

17 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—To be eligible to receive training 

18 using assistance provided under subsection (a), a health 

19 care practitioner shall be determined by the eligible appli20 cant involved to be practicing, or desiring to practice, in 

21 a rural area. 

22 ‘‘(c) USE OF ASSISTANCE.—Amounts received under 

23 a grant made or contract entered into under this section 

24 shall be used— 

25 ‘‘(1) to provide student stipends to individuals 

26 attending rural community colleges or other institu-
3 

•S 67 IS

1 tions that service predominantly rural communities, 

2 for the purpose of enabling the individuals to receive 

3 preventive health care training; 

4 ‘‘(2) to increase staff support at rural commu5 nity colleges or other institutions that service pre6 dominantly rural communities to facilitate the provi7 sion of preventive health care training; 

8 ‘‘(3) to provide training in appropriate research 

9 and program evaluation skills in rural communities; 

10 ‘‘(4) to create and implement innovative pro11 grams and curricula with a specific prevention com12 ponent; and 

13 ‘‘(5) for other purposes as the Secretary deter14 mines to be appropriate. 

15 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

16 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, 

17 $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.’’. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                              15,919
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       10,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,907
<INVENTORY>                                          3,817
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    28,652
<PP&E>                                              24,512
<DEPRECIATION>                                      12,091
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     124,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               25,366
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               40,700
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 1
<OTHER-SE>                                         (7,598)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       124,619
<SALES>                                              1,210
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    10,913
<CGS>                                                1,210
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        5,008
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     8,257
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       243
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,435
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (3,787)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (3,787)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (3,787)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (2.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (2.35)

        

</TABLE>
#### DONNA WORNSTAFF v. DON RAY WORNSTAFF

No. 558A06

(Filed 9 March 2007)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 179 N.C. App. 516, 634 S.E.2d 567 (2006), affirming an order entered on 11 August 2005 by Judge Amber Davis in District Court, Dare County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 February 2007.

*Irvine Law Firm, PC, by Stephanie B. Irvine, for plaintiffappellee.*

*James R. Wills, III for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

*231Justice HUDSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. *See State v. Harrison,*360 N.C. 394, 627 S.E.2d 461 (2006); *Crawford v. Commercial Union Midwest Ins. Co.,*356 N.C. 609, 572 S.E.2d 781 (2002).

AFFIRMED.
#### Bobbitt v. N.C. State Univ.

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 743

No. 601P06

Def-Appellant’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-1548)

Denied 05/03/07

Hudson, J., Recused
Skip to main content An icon that symbolizes the United States Department of Transportation logo. United States Department of Transportation
        Report a Safety Problem

  Toggle navigation
      National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHomepage

    Ratings
                                Recalls
                                Risky Driving
                                Road Safety
                                Vehicle Safety
      
            More Info

                      Briefing Room
          
                        
            Importing a Vehicle
          
                                      
            
            Data
          
                        
            Research
          
                        
            Laws & Regulations
          
                    
                      Vehicle Manufacturers
                      State Governments
                      Enforcement & Justice Mazda Exension Request for PG 5, 6, and 8 - Supplement


Download file: Mazda Exension Request for PG 5, 6, and 8 - Supplement
 NHTSA Information
              
              About NHTSA
          Careers & Internships
          Contact Us
          Recall Information
          Report a Safety ProblemInformation For
              
              Vehicle Manufacturers
          State Governments
          Enforcement & JusticeNHTSA Sites
              
        SaferCar App
          TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov
          EMS.gov
          911.gov
            Website Information
              
        Web Policies & Notices
          Accessibility
          FOIA
          Privacy Policy
          Information Quality
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
          No Fear Act Data
          Ethics
          Civil Rights
          Office of Inspector General
          OIG Hotline
          BusinessUSA
          USA.gov
          WhiteHouse.gov

            National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
              1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
                Washington, D.C. 20590
              888-327-4236888-275-9171 (TTY)
              Twitter
                LinkedIn
                Facebook
                Youtube
                Instagram
        Submit Feedback >
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDONG LI,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 72065 Agency No. A201

- 211

- 488

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016 **

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND , Circuit Judges.
Sandong Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdictio n under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

* 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). 

# FILED

JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 72065

the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1 034,

1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010), and w e d eny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistenc ies between Li’s testimony, his asylum application, and his
daughter’s birth certificate as to her date of birth, the omission of an attempt by
family planning officials to arrest Li’s wife for sterilizatio n , and on Li ’s false

statements to an asylum officer. See id . at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”); Zamanov v. H older , 649

F.3d 969, 973

- 74 (9th Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility determination properly relied

on an omission where the add ed details presented more compelling story of
persecution) ; Singh v. Holder , 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An asylum
applicant who lies to immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the
rest of his story.”)

. Li’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v.

INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We reject Li’s contention that the

agency did not consider his explanation for his misstatements to the asylum officer.
Further, substantial evidence support s the BIA’s finding that Li ’s evidence does

not rehabilitate his credibility

. See Garcia v. Holder , 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.3 14

- 72065

2014). We reject Li’s contention that the BIA should have remanded his case. In

the abs ence of credible testimony, Li ’s asylum and withholding of removal claims

fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7824

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONALD WAYNE JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:96-cr-00070-BR-1)

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 21, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Wayne Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Donald Wayne Jones appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for relief from judgment. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.

Jones , No. 5:96-cr-00070-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 11, 2009). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

**SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE**

Crusade Management Limited

Level 4, 4-16 Montgomery Street

Kogarah, New South Wales 2217 Australia

Re: Assessment of compliance for services provided pursuant to the Servicing Agreement dated March 19, 1998, the Supplementary Terms Notice dated March 13, 2007, between, among others, St.George Bank Limited ABN 92 055 513 070 (the “**Servicer**”), Crusade Management Limited ABN 90 072 715 916 and Perpetual Trustees Consolidated Limited ABN 42 000 001 007 and any other Transaction Document as it relates to the Crusade Global Trust No. 1 of 2007 (collectively, the “**Agreements**”).

The undersigned hereby certifies that:

|   | 1. | I, Peter Clare, am an authorised officer of the Servicer. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period from March 15, 2007 through September 30, 2007 (the “**Reporting Period**”), and of its performance under each of the Agreements has been made under my supervision. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under each of the Agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date:  17 December 2007

|  /s/ Peter Clare |   |
|-----------------------|--------|

Peter Clare

Group Executive

St.George Bank Limited