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

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-34019, 333-01019, 333-52199,333-133389 and 333-133391 on Form S-8 of Calgon Carbon Corporation of ourreports dated April 24, 2007, (with respect to the consolidated balance sheet ofChemviron Carbon Limited as of December 31, 2005, and the related consolidatedstatements of income, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows, for the yearsended December 31, 2005 and 2004 not presented separately herein), which reportappears in the December 31, 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Calgon CarbonCorporation. 

| KPMG LLP                     |
|------------------------------|
| Manchester,   United Kingdom |
| April 24,   2007             |
|                         |
|                              |
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1238 

To provide requirements for Executive agency spending at the end of a 

fiscal year, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 30, 2019 

Ms. ERNST introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide requirements for Executive agency spending at 

the end of a fiscal year, 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 ‘‘End-of-Year Fiscal Re5 sponsibility Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) COVERED PERIOD.—The term ‘‘covered pe9 riod’’ means the 2-month period immediately pre10 ceding the end of a fiscal year. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1238 IS

1 (2) DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS.—The 

2 term ‘‘discretionary appropriations’’ has the mean3 ing given the term in section 250(c) of the Balanced 

4 Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 

5 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)). 

6 (3) EXECUTIVE AGENCY.—The term ‘‘Executive 

7 agency’’ has the meaning given the term in section 

8 105 of title 5, United States Code. 

9 SEC. 3. REQUIREMENTS FOR EXECUTIVE AGENCY SPEND10 ING AT THE END OF A FISCAL YEAR. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 

12 (c), the amount of discretionary appropriations obligated 

13 by an Executive agency during each month of a covered 

14 period may not exceed the average monthly amount of dis15 cretionary appropriations obligated by the Executive agen16 cy during the 10-month period immediately preceding the 

17 covered period. 

18 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after the end 

19 of each fiscal year, each Executive agency shall submit to 

20 Congress and post on a publicly available website an 

21 itemized list of discretionary appropriations obligated by 

22 the Executive agency during the covered period imme23 diately preceding the date on which the report is sub24 mitted. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1238 IS

1 (c) EXCEPTION.—This section shall not apply with 

2 respect to any discretionary appropriations obligated by 

3 an Executive agency for national security-related activi4 ties. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-21-00055-CV

EX PARTE D.A.P.

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20-07-00125-CVK

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 3, 2021

JOINT MOTION GRANTED, REVERSED AND RENDERED

In this restricted appeal, the Texas Department of Public Safety (“the Department”) 

challenges an expunction order signed by the trial court on September 15, 2020. The Department 

and D.A.P. have filed a joint motion asking us to reverse the expunction order in its entirety and 

to render judgment in favor of the Department. The joint motion, which is signed by each party’s 

counsel, states the parties have reached an agreement. We grant the motion. The trial court’s 

September 15, 2020 expunction order is reversed, and judgment is rendered in favor of the 

Department. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A) (providing an appellate court may render judgment 

effectuating the parties’ agreement). 

PER CURIAM
Case 2:11-cv-00427-JLL-MAH Document 78 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 674
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**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 Quarterly Report of Splinternet Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, 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.








Dated: August
      14, 2008


By: /s/
      John
      T. Grippo


John
      T.
      Grippo


Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

|CERTIFICATION OF                             
|---------------------------------------------
|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                      
|AND                                          
|CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER                      
|PURSUANT TO                                  
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                      
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Chris Cooper, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Explortex Energy Inc., (the Company), hereby 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:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for
      the nine months ended January 31, 2007 (the Quarterly Report) fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                     

| | By:    |                            
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| |        | /S/
      Chris Cooper     
| | Name:  | Chris Cooper               
| |        |                            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
| |        | Chief Financial Officer    
| |        |                            
| | Date:  | March 12, 2007             

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. Harris MORGAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-10026.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 28, 2012.

Michelle Lee Schieber, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Macon, GA, Nancy Bailey Allstrom, Medical Fraud Control Unit, Tucker, GA, K. Alan Dasher, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Albany, GA, Michael J. Moore, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Columbus, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Steven H. Sadow, Attorney at Law, Donald F. Samuel, Garland Samuel *&*Loeb, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JORDAN, and HILL, Circuit Judges, and EDENFIELD,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable B. Avant Edenfield, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

After a jury trial, defendant-appellant J. Harris Morgan, Jr. appealed from his conviction on sixty-nine counts of health care fraud. His appeal was placed on a non-argument calendar, and a panel of this court affirmed Morgan’s convictions in an unpublished opinion dated November 30, 2011. *United States v. Morgan,*452 Fed.Appx. 866 (C.A.11 (Ga.)).

Morgan filed a petition for rehearing, and on January 26, 2012, this court granted Morgan’s petition, vacated the prior panel opinion, and set his appeal for oral argument. Having now heard oral argument in this case, and carefully reviewed the record, the briefs, and the arguments of counsel, this court now reinstates the prior panel’s opinion in full, reported at 452 Fed.Appx. 866, affirming Morgan’s convictions on sixty-nine counts of health care fraud.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT OF CONVICTIONS REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED.

*869JORDAN, Circuit Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree with my colleagues that the evidence was sufficient to support Mr. Morgan’s convictions. In my view, however, two combined errors entitle Mr. Morgan to a new trial. First, although there is no per se rule regarding the failure to give a good-faith instruction, *see United States v. Sirang,*70 F.3d 588, 594 (11th Cir.1995), this is one of those cases where the general instruction on the elements of the offense was insufficient. The district court, as I see it, should have given a good-faith instruction. *See, e.g., United States v. Lewis,*592 F.2d 1282, 1286-87 (5th Cir.1979) (holding, in a forgery case, that the jury instructions on intent to defraud failed to adequately convey the defendant’s good-faith defense, and as a result the failure to give a good-faith instruction constituted reversible error). Second, I do not think that the improper admission of the Rule 404(b) evidence was harmless. This was a relatively close case, and the mere fact that the evidence was sufficient to convict does not mean that the error was harmless, particularly in light of the absence of a good-faith instruction. *See United States v. Hands,*184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.1999) (“An error may substantially influence an outcome and thus warrant reversal even if the evidence, had no error occurred, would have been sufficient to support the conviction.”).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

## Board Votes To Close July 15, 2009, Meeting

At its closed session meeting on June 23, 2009, the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to close to public observation its meeting to be held on July 15, 2009, in Washington, DC via teleconference. The Board determined that no earlier public notice was possible.

# Items Considered:

 

1. Financial Matters.

2. Strategic Issues.

3. Pricing.

4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.

5. Governors' Executive Session—discussion of prior agenda items and Board Governance.

# General Counsel Certification:

The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting is properly closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act. 

# Contact Person For More Information:

Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, at (202) 268-4800.

Julie S. Moore,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-16373 Filed 7-7-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-12- P
FILED ELECTRONICALLY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

----------------------------------------------------------- X

KENWOOD APPLIANCES LUXEMBOURG,

S.A.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., CHINA SINGFUN

ELECTRIC GROUP CO., LTD., KENWORLD

INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:10-cv-06356-SRC –

MAS

RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE

STATMENT

----------------------------------------------------------- X

This statement is submitted pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in

order to enable Judges and Magistrate Judges of the Court to evaluate possible disqualification or

recusal. The undersigned counsel of record for defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. certifies that

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Home Depot, Inc., and that no

other publicly-held corporation owns 10% or more of Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael R. Potenza___

Bruce P. Keller

bpkeller@debevoise.com

Michael Potenza

mpotenza@debevoise.com

DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP

919 Third Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Tel: (212) 909-6000

Attorneys for Defendants Home Depot U.S.A.,

Inc.

Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 10 Filed 02/22/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 48
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

----------------------------------------------------------- X

KENWOOD APPLIANCES LUXEMBOURG,

S.A.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., CHINA SINGFUN

ELECTRIC GROUP CO., LTD., KENWORLD

INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -

MAS

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

----------------------------------------------------------- X

I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of February, 2011, I served the Rule 7.1 Disclosure

Statement of Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., electronically on:

John R. Altieri, Esq.

Attorney at Law

25 East Salem Street

P.O. Box 279

Hackensack, New Jersey 07602-0279

Brian Patrick Mitchell

Pino & Associates, LLP

50 Main Street, 16th Floor

White Plains, NY 10606

I hereby certify the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of

the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

/s/ Michael R. Potenza

MICHAEL R. POTENZA

Dated: February 22, 2011

Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 10 Filed 02/22/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 49
Exhibit 15.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-148663, Form S-8 No. 333-142963, Form S-8 No. 333-119616, Form S-8 No. 333-160535 and Form S-8 No. 333-168123) of GigaMedia Limited of our report dated April 30, 2012, on the
consolidated financial statements of Mangas Everest S.A.S. (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Companys ability to continue as a going concern) which appears in this annual report on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011.



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ GHP HORWATH, P.C.
|                     
|Denver, Colorado     
|April 30, 2012
Case 2:11-cv-01021-SDW -MCA Document 4-1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 32
Case 2:11-cv-01021-SDW -MCA Document 4-1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 2 of 15 PageID: 33
Case 2:11-cv-01021-SDW -MCA Document 4-1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 3 of 15 PageID: 34
Case 2:11-cv-01021-SDW -MCA Document 4-1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 4 of 15 PageID: 35
Case 2:11-cv-01021-SDW -MCA Document 4-1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 5 of 15 PageID: 36
Case 2:11-cv-01021-SDW -MCA Document 4-1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 6 of 15 PageID: 37
Case 2:11-cv-01021-SDW -MCA Document 4-1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 7 of 15 PageID: 38
Case 2:11-cv-01021-SDW -MCA Document 4-1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 8 of 15 PageID: 39
Case 2:11-cv-01021-SDW -MCA Document 4-1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 9 of 15 PageID: 40
Case 2:11-cv-01021-SDW -MCA Document 4-1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 10 of 15 PageID: 41
Case 2:11-cv-01021-SDW -MCA Document 4-1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 11 of 15 PageID: 42
Case 2:11-cv-01021-SDW -MCA Document 4-1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 12 of 15 PageID: 43
Case 2:11-cv-01021-SDW -MCA Document 4-1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 13 of 15 PageID: 44
Case 2:11-cv-01021-SDW -MCA Document 4-1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 14 of 15 PageID: 45
Case 2:11-cv-01021-SDW -MCA Document 4-1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 15 of 15 PageID: 46
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SARAH DRAGANI

Plaintiff,

v.

GENESSE VALLEY INVESTORS, LLC, et 

al.,

 Defendants.

11-CV-1193-WJM

 

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action to 

the Superior Court of New Jersey. Also before the Court is Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. A Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) was filed on June 6, 2011 by United 

States Magistrate Judge Mark Falk recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion 

and remand the action to state court. Neither party filed an objection to the R&R.

Where the parties do not object to the R&R, the district court will adopt the report 

and accept the recommendation if it is “satisf[ied] . . . that there is no clear error on the 

face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s Notes (citation omitted); 

Laferta v. Kone Elevator, 2010 WL 2178983, at *1 (D.N.J. May 26, 2010); Peerless Ins. 

Co. v. Ambi-Rad, Ltd., 2009 WL 790898, at *4 (D.N.J. March 23, 2009) (same).

Having examined the R&R and the filings of the parties, the Court is satisfied that 

Judge Falk applied the correct legal standards based on the factual record developed by 

the parties; there is no error. The Defendants, having removed the action, must prove 

Case 2:11-cv-01193-WJM-MF Document 29 Filed 06/20/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 850
diversity of citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence. McCann v. Newman 

Irrevocable Trust, 458 F.3d 281, 286 (3d Cir. 2006). And the Court must resolve all 

doubts in favor of remand. Brown v. Francis, 75 F.3d 860, 864-65 (3d Cir. 1996). Here, 

Judge Falk did not err by finding that Defendants failed to carry their burden because of 

the issues of citizenship created by Plaintiff’s membership in two of the Defendant LLCs. 

The Court must remand.

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown;

IT IS on this 20th day of June 2011, hereby,

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mark Falk 

is adopted as the Opinion of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that this case is remanded to New Jersey Superior Court, Hudson

County; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

/s/ William J. Martini

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-01193-WJM-MF Document 29 Filed 06/20/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 851
PaPS 8
(12/04)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
District of New Jersey

U.S.A. vs. Sutter, Cheryle Docket No. 2:11-00080-003

Petition for Action on Conditions of Pretrial Release

COMES NOW Mertice Evans PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICER, presenting an official
report upon the conduct of defendant Sutter, Cheryle, who was placed under pretrial release
supervision by the Honorable Patty Shwartz sitting in the Court at Newark, on November 30,
2010, under the following conditions:

The defendant was released on a $100,000 unsecured appearance bond cosigned by the
defendant’s mother, Cynthia Sutter with the following conditions to apply:

1) Report to Pretrial Services as directed and advise them immediately of any contact with law
enforcement personnel, including but not limited to, any arrest, questioning or traffic stop.

2) The defendant shall not attempt to influence, intimidate, or injure any juror or judicial officer;
not tamper with any witness, victim or informant; not retaliate against any witness, victim or
informant in this case.

3) The defendant shall be released into the third party custody of Cynthia Sutter.

4) The defendant's travel is restricted to New Jersey unless otherwise approved by Pretrial
Services.

5) Surrender all passports and travel documents as directed by Pretrial Service. Do not apply for
new travel documents.

6) Substance abuse testing and/or treatment as directed by Pretrial Services. Refrain from
obstructing or tampering with substance abuse testing procedures/equipment.

7) Maintain current residence or a residence approved by Pretrial Services

8) Maintain or actively seek employment and/or commence an education program as approved by
Pretrial Services.

9) Maintain residence separate from the co-defendant but visitation with their child is permitted
and may interact concerning their child.

10) The defendant shall not work in an employment situation that provides access to medical
prescriptions.

11) The co-defendants may meet in the presence of counsels to discuss the case.


On September 14, 2011 the defendant pled guilty to count 1 of the Superseding Indictment
before Your Honor. She is scheduled for sentencing on December 19, 2011.

On September 27, 2011, the bail was modified to permit the defendant to live with co-defendant,
Ivan Lugo.

Respectfully presenting petition for action of Court and for cause as follows:

[SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM]

PRAYING THAT THE COURT WILL ORDER THAT RELEASE CONDITIONS BE
MODIFIED TO INCLUDE MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND TREATMENT AS
DIRECTED BY PRETRIAL SERVICES

ORDER OF COURT I declare under penalty of perjury that the

foregoing is true and correct.
Consjfer ordered thj day

of and ordered filed Executed
on / >

Mertice
USS. Pretrfal Services Officer