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














Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








The Board of Directors


RehabCare Group, Inc:





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement Nos. 333-160574, 333-162406, We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement Nos. 333-160574, 333-162406, and 333-163074 on Form S-3 and Nos. 33-67944, 33-82106, 33-82048, 333-11311, 333-120005, and 333-138628 on Form S-8 of RehabCare Group, Inc. (the Company) of our report dated February 28, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which report appears in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of the Company.




Our report refers to the adoption of FASB Financial Accounting Standard No. 141(R), Business Combinations (included in FASB ASC Topic 805, Business Combinations), effective January 1, 2009.







/s/ KPMG LLP





St. Louis, Missouri


February 28, 2011
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### N OTICE OF 

### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 13

- 00179

- CV

Style: Linda Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Javier Vasquez, Claudia Gil, Raul Vasquez and

Virginia Vasquez

v Abraham, Watkins, Nichols Sorrels & Friend, A Texas General Partnership, Randall

Sorrels and Bernardino Agosto, Jr.

Date motion filed * : June 19, 2013

Type of motion: Motion to Exceed Word Limit in Appellants’ Brief

Party filing motion: Appellants

Document to be filed: Brief

If motion to extend time:

Deadline to file document: July 1, 2013

Number of previous extensions granted:

Length of extension sought:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted in part

If document is to be filed, document due:

 The Clerk is instructed to file the document as of the date of this order

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend

time

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Appellants’ brief may not exceed 17,500 words. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.4(i)(2) (B) , (i)(4). The

aggregate of all briefs filed by appellants must not exceed 27,000 words. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

9.4(i)(2) (B)

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

______________________________ .

Date: June 25, 2013
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONGLIANG WANG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-73103

Agency No. A200-788-385

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 21, 2015** 

Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Dongliang Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen and rescind his in absentia

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

FILED

JUL 27 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400

F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review. 

 The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Wang’s motion to reopen

on the ground that notice of his hearing was proper, where notice of his hearing

was sent by regular mail to the address he provided, was not returned as

undeliverable, and Wang failed to overcome the presumption of effective service

by regular mail. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (a motion to reopen to rescind an

in absentia removal order may be “filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that

he or she did not receive notice” of the hearing); Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d

981, 986 (9th Cir. 2007) (describing evidence sufficient to overcome presumption

of effective service by regular mail).

Nor did the agency violate Wang’s due process rights, as notice of his

hearing was reasonably calculated to reach him. Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890,

897 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Due process is satisfied if service is conducted in a manner

reasonably calculated to ensure that notice reaches the alien,” even if the alien does

not actually receive the notice. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). 

2 12-73103
To the extent Wang challenges the agency’s decision not to reopen sua

sponte, we lack jurisdiction to consider that contention. See Mejia-Hernandez v.

Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).

Wang’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 12-73103
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 14a0827n.06

No. 14-1067

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

TERRIE M. HEIBEL, JOSEPH T. KRYWICKI, and 

SUSAN C. KRYWICKI,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 

ASSOCIATION, 

Defendant-Appellee,

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY,

Intervenor-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE WESTERN 

DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BEFORE: GIBBONS and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; and DOW, District Judge.

PER CURIAM. In 2008, Terrie Heibel and Joseph Krywicki signed a note and 

mortgage to purchase a house in Holland, Michigan, in which their daughter and grandchildren

could live. After default and foreclosure on the home, the foreclosing creditor assigned its 

interest in the property to the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), which by 

that time had been placed into conservatorship by the Federal Housing Finance Agency 

(“FHFA”). Fannie Mae then brought an action to evict the daughter from the residence. In 

response, Heibel, Krywicki, and their daughter initiated a separate state court action against 

 



The Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern 

District of Illinois, sitting by designation. 
No. 14-1067

Heibel, et al. v. Federal National Mortgage Association

-2-

Fannie Mae and its predecessors in interest, alleging violation of their constitutional due process 

rights. After defendants removed and FHFA intervened as conservator, the district court held

that Fannie Mae was not a government entity subject to such a constitutional limitation and 

dismissed the due process claim. Heibel and her family ask us to review that decision, and 

whether Fannie Mae is a government actor presents the sole question in this appeal.

We have recently answered that exact question in the negative, fully cognizant of 

FHFA’s conservatorship. See Rubin v. Fannie Mae, No. 13-1010, 2014 WL 4800282, at *1–2 

(6th Cir. Sept. 29, 2014); Bernard v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, No. 13-1477, 2014 WL 4800123, 

at *4 (6th Cir. Sept. 29, 2014). We have similarly rejected arguments that Fannie Mae’s twin, 

Freddie Mac, is a government actor for the purpose of constitutional claims. See Fed. Home 

Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Gaines, No. 13-1249, 2014 WL 4815274, at *1–2 (6th Cir. Sept. 30, 2014); 

Mik v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 743 F.3d 149, 168 (6th Cir. 2014). Given the full 

reasoning of those cases, no more explanation is necessary here. We agree with the holding of 

the district court and affirm its judgment.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Robert J. Terrano, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Del Taco Income Properties IV, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Del Taco Income
Properties IV;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we
have:  a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report
is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
report (the Evaluation Date); andc)
    
    presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses
in internal controls; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal controls; and




---



##### 



6.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses. Date:  March 30, 2004
    /s/ Robert J. TerranoRobert J. TerranoExecutive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer 2
**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**

| (1)   | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                November 19, 2007 | By:    | **/s/                Barry Schwartz**                                                                                                              |
|----------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                   |   | Barry                Schwartz                                                                                                                      |
|                                   |   | President,                Chief Executive Officer, Director,Principal                Accounting Officer and Chief Financial                Officer |
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 14-1670

___________________________ Guillermo Quinones lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________ Submitted: September 17, 2014 Filed: September 23, 2014 [Unpublished]

____________ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Guillermo Quinones appeals the district court’s 1 order dismissing his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act for lack of jurisdiction. After careful review, see 1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.Appley Bros. v. United States , 164 F.3d 1164, 1169-70 (8th Cir. 1999) (findings of fact are reviewed for clear e rror and application of law is reviewed de novo), we agree with the district court that Quinones faile d to timely present his claim to the Bureau of Prisons, and thus dismissal was proper. See28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); Motley v. United States , 295 F.3d 820, 822 (8th Cir. 2002); K.E.S. v. United States , 38 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Quinones’s appellate motion.

______________________________

-2-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0007

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

TRAVIS CLINTON PLANTIKO,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 26, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 20 2024

07/22/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0007
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 Quarterly Report of Tianyin Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Guoqing Jiang, 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 results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.




Date:  November 14, 2011




/s/ Guoqing JiangGuoqing JiangChief Executive Officer & Chairman, Chief Accounting Officer
#### Sylvia Weitz, Respondent, v Melvin Weitz, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 434]

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Austin, J.), entered July 11, 2005, which, upon a prior order of the same court dated September 4, 2003, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and after a hearing on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $4,246,859.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the trial court, in its September 4, 2003 order, properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, while ordering a hearing on the issue of damages. In response to the plaintiffs prima facie showing that a $5,406,503 reduction in the sale price of the parties’ supermarket business was not authorized by the parties’ marital settlement agreement, the defendant made only conclusory allegations, which were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Further, a hearing was necessary to consider extrinsic evidence as to whether certain other adjust*793ments to the sale price were proper *(see Bianco v Bianco,*21 AD3d 918 [2005]; *Laing v Laing,*282 AD2d 655 [2001]). The hearing court properly found, on the evidence presented, that the adjustments were not authorized by the parties’ marital settlement agreement, and that the cost of those adjustments could not be imposed on the plaintiff, regardless of any purported unfairness to the defendant resulting from that determination *(see Reiss v Financial Performance Corp.,*97 NY2d 195, 199 [2001]; *Kailasanathan v Mysorekar,*234 AD2d 425 [1996]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40851

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Cipriano Quintero-Barias, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:21-CR-1419-1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Cipriano 

Quintero-Barias has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Quintero-Barias has not filed a 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40851 Document: 00516290194 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2022
No. 21-40851

2

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 21-40851 Document: 00516290194 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2022
Exhibit 99.1







                        President's Written Certification
                             Of Financial Statements
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350



        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies in his
capacity as president of 4net Software, Inc. (the "Company") that (a) the Annual
Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2002
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and (b) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such
period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.






                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6668
STEPHEN L. SKAGGS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM S. HAINES, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-692) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 1, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen L. Skaggs, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Stephen L. Skaggs seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Skaggs v. Haines , No. CA-00-692 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 17, 2002). 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          90,150
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,119
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                     64,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               157,183
<PP&E>                                          33,335
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,216
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 173,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          364,435
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    767,133
<COMMON>                                     2,087,731
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   173,368
<SALES>                                        292,685
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               292,685
<CGS>                                           65,032
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,032
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,332
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (587,007)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (587,007)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (587,007)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13



</TABLE>