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

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our reports dated March 4, 2008,
accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule and managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Orchid Cellmark Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Orchid Cellmark Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-60582, effective May 18, 2001, File No. 333-85550,
effective April 16, 2002, File No. 333-98825, effective September 9, 2002, File No. 333-105732, effective June 5, 2003, and File No. 333-111892, effective May 27, 2004) and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-53118,
effective January 3, 2001, File No. 333-76744, effective January 15, 2007, File No. 333-126227, effective June 29, 2005, and File No. 333-146002, effective September 12, 2007).



|                                
|--------------------------------
|                                
|/s/ Grant Thornton LLP          
|New York, New York March 4,
2008
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 36190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17336]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER09-561-000; ER06-493-000]


Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Notice of 
Filing

July 14, 2009.
    Take notice that on June 25, 2009, the Midwest Independent 
Transmission System Operator, Inc. filed a notice of withdrawal of 
market participant suspension and termination filings related to 
Revenue Sufficiency Guarantee Resettlements.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e484b5c4d41606267606b5d7b7e7e617c7a4e686b7c6d20696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e6a0a3b4a5a9888a8f8883b5939696899492a680839485c8818990">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 21, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17336 Filed 7-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 on Form 10-Q of TMP Inland Empire IV Ltd.
(the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form
10-Q), we, Daniel L. Stephenson and John Fonseca 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 18(a) or
 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)
The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

`Daniel L. Stephenson
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     November 12, 2002

                                                     /S/DANIEL L STEPHENSON
                                                     ---------------------------




                                                     John Fonseca
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     November 12, 2002

                                                     /S/JOHN FONSECA
                                                     --------------------------`
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T RO BERT W I LLI A M W A LTERS, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. M . E V A N S , W ar d e n ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 15890 D. C. No . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 4 9 2 1 - TE H ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia T he l t on E . H e nde r s on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d Jul y12, 2011 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , A L A R C Ó N , an dL E A V Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R obe rtW i l l i am W a l t e r s , aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m aryj udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng de l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e t o hi s m e di c a l ne e ds . W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . Je t t v. P enner , 43 9 F . 3d 10 91 , 10 96 (9th C i r.



# FI LED JU L 25 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 15890 2 2 0 0 6 ) . W e a f

f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm entbecause W al t er s fai l edt o rai se a g en u i n e d i sp u t e o f m at eri al factas t o w h eth er d efen d an t s’ tr e a tm e n t o f

h is s h o u ld e ran db a c kin ju r ie s c o n s titu te dd e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e to h is m e d ic a l n e e d s . See W

i l son v. Sei ter , 5 0 1 U . S . 2 9 4 , 2 9 8 (1 9 9 1 ) (i n m at e m u st e s tab lis h th a t p r is o n o f

f ic ia ls “p o s s e s s e das u f

f ic ie n tlyc u lp ab le s ta te o f m in d ” to i m pl i cat e the E i gh th A m endm ent ); J e tt , 43 9 F . 3d at10 96 (del i berat e i nd i ff er ence r e qu ir e s “ap u rp o s e f

u l a c t o rf

a ilu r e to r e s p o n dto p a in o rp o s s ib le m e d ic a l n e e d ” ) . W a lte r s ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s ar e u np e r s u a s iv e . AF F I RME D.
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 on Form 10-Q of China Healthcare
Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Steven Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, 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, 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/
      Steven WangSteven
      Wang, Chief Financial OfficerMay
      15, 2009
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 140 (Thursday, July 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 36483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17501]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1412-000]

US Energy Partners LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

July 16, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
US Energy Partners LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is August 5, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail [email protected] or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17501 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
#### Teri Sayegh, Appellant, v Isaac Sayegh, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 887]

The plaintiff was properly awarded an attorney’s fee in the sum of $7,000 pursuant to a stipulation of settlement, incorporated into but not merged with the parties’ judgment of divorce, which provided that an attorney’s fee would be awarded in the event of a breach of the stipulation *(see Mirkin v Mirkin,*43 AD3d 1115 [2007]; *Shanon v Patterson,*38 AD3d 519 [2007]; *Arato v Arato,*15 AD3d 511, 512 [2005]; *Sieratzki v Sieratzki,*8 AD3d 552 [2004]; *Matter of Tito v Tito,*276 AD2d 559 [2000]; *Matter of Curiel v Curiel,*262 AD2d 639 [1999]; *Swift v Swift,*260 AD2d 466 [1999]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 140 (Thursday, July 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36549-36550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17459]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, 
and the Territory of Puerto Rico)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, 
ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Monday, August 17, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sallie Chavez at 1-888-912-1227 or 
954-423-7979.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Monday, August 17, 2009, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone 
conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for

[[Page 36550]]

consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent 
to participate must be made with Sallie Chavez. For more information 
please contact Ms. Chavez at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or write 
TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 
33324, or post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: July 16, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-17459 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

         In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-KSB
(the "Report") of SiteWorks Building & Development Co. (the "Company") for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, I, Carl M. Nurse, 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.

Date: May__, 2006                    /s/ Carl M. Nurse
                                     ------------------------------------
                                     Carl M. Nurse
                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                     Chief Financial Officer

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.
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



Solely for the purposes of complying  with 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I, the  undersigned
Chief  Financial  Officer  of  Speaking  Roses   International,   Inc.,  a  Utah
corporation (the  "Company"),  hereby certify,  based on my knowledge,  that the
Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the three  months ended June
30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

By  /s/ Dan Mumford
--------------------------------
Dan Mumford,
Acting Chief Financial Officer

August 11, 2004
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Intacta Technologies, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement  on Form S-8 (File No. 333- 44310) of our report dated March 25, 2002,
except for Note 2 which is as of April 12,  2002,  relating to the  consolidated
financial  statements  of Intacta  Technologies  Inc.  and  subsidiaries,  which
appears in the Company's  Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2001. Our report contains an explanatory  paragraph  regarding the Company's
ability to continue as a going concern.

                                                        /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
April 15, 2002
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUN 19 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

DERRICK DENNIS LANE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

HAROLD NYE and CARLA J.

STOVALL, Attorney General for the

State of Kansas,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 97-3248

(D. Kan.)

(D.Ct. No. 96-3557-DES)

__________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

__________________________

Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

__________________________

After examining the brief(s) and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Mr. Derrick Lane appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also requests a certificate of

appealability, a prerequisite to our jurisdiction over his appeal. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c). The district court denied Mr. Lane's certificate of appealability. Mr.

Lane claims the retroactivity provision of the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act,

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4724(b)(1) (1995), violates his due process and equal

protection rights under Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Section 21-4724(b)(1) limits retroactive application of the Guidelines to certain

classes of offenders, thereby excluding Mr. Lane. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-

4724(b)(1). Mr. Lane argues all offenders sentenced prior to July 1, 1993, the

effective date of the Guidelines Act, should be afforded retroactive application of

the Guidelines.

Both the Kansas Supreme Court and the federal district court have addressed

and rejected similar arguments. See Chiles v. State, 869 P.2d 707 (Kan.), cert

denied, 513 U.S. 850 (1994); Jones v. Bruce, 921 F. Supp. 708 (D. Kan. 1996). 

Mr. Lane's case is indistinguishable. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in those

cases, we conclude Mr. Lane has not suffered a constitutional violation. 

Consequently, we DENY Mr. Lane's application for a certificate of appealability

because he has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a
-3-

constitutional right," 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and DISMISS his appeal.

Entered by the Court:

WADE BRORBY

United States Circuit Judge
## NO. 12-08-00017-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

KEL LY SMI TH , § APP EAL FRO

M T HE 2 41 ST APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OFTEX

AS, APP ELL EE § SMI TH CO UN TY

, T EXAS MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Ke lly Smith app e a ls his c on vic tio n fo r a ssa ult -f a mil y vio le nc e . Ap pe lla nt e nte re d a gu ilt y plea without bene fit of a plea barga in. T he trial c ourt found him guilty and assessed punishment at fiftee n year s of i mprisonment. In hi s sole issue, Appellant asserts the judgment fails to ref lect the amount of re stitut ion ordere d by the trial court. We modify the judgment a nd aff irm as modified. B ACKG ROUND Appellant plea ded guilty to the offense of assault-family violence. A t t h es e n te n c ing hearing, the tr ia l c ou rt

or a lly pr on ou nc e d pun ish me nt at fi ft e e n ye ars of imp ri so nme nt. Th e c ou rt sp e c if ic a lly stated that no fine is assessed, court costs are order ed paid, and restituti on is order ed in the amount determined to be due b y t h e presentenc e investigation, $709.88, to cover the costs of a mbulance service require d by the victim. T he judgment, instea d of stating the amount of re stitut ion ordere d, states “TO BE DETERMINED.” A N A L Y SIS A defe ndant’s sentenc e must be pronounce d orally in his presenc e. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 42. 03 , § 1( a ) (V e rn on Sup p. 20 08 ). Th e jud gme nt, inc lud ing the se nte nc e a sse sse d, is j us t the written decla

ration and embodiment of that oral pronounc ement. Ta y lor v . St ate , 131 S.W.3d2

497, 5 0 0 (T ex . C ri m . App. 2004). W hen ther e is a c onflict betwe en the or al pronounc ement of sentenc e and the sentenc e in the written judgment, the oral pronounc ement contr ols. Id . This court has the authority to modify incorre ct judgments when the ne cessa ry information is available to do so. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43. 2( b) . He re , th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s or a l pr on ou nc e me nt i nc lud e d r e sti tut ion in the amount of $709.88. There fore , the judgment should ref lect that Appellant is to pay re stitut ion in the amount of $709.88. We sustain Appellant’s sole issue. D I S PO S I T I ON Because the written judgment must conform to the ora l pronounce ment of sentenc e, we modify the trial court’s judgment to state that Appellant is order ed to pay $709.88 in re stitut ion. Th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s jud gme nt i s affirmed a s modified

.

JA M ES T. WOR THEN

Chief Justice Opinion delivere d July 31, 2009. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBLISH)
Exhibit 10.14.3

 




[*] = CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY BRACKETS, IS FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 406 OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED.

 



 

To:          Management Metric Based Bonus (MBB) Participants

 

From:     Jim Lejeal

 

Regarding:            Q3-2011 MBB Algorithm

 

The Rally Management Metric Based Bonus for Q3 2011 will be attached to company performance against total product bookings.

 

The intent is to align the company management with the sales team’s bookings objectives.

 

Goal:   Achieve the Company’s Q3 “assigned quota” Total Product Bookings Sales Goal:

 

Company Quota Amount Budget:

 

	
New Product   Bookings
    	
 
    	
$
    	
[*]
    	
 
    
	
Renewal Product   Bookings
    	
 
    	
$
    	
[*]
    	
 
    
	
Total Product   Bookings
    	
 
    	
$
    	
[*]
    	
 
    


 

Payment Structure:

 

We will continue to have a 90% new bookings threshold as well as a total payment cap of 125%:

 

Anticipated Payout Date:

 

1 month after close of quarter
[No. 23062-7-III.

Division Three.

October 27, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Lilton Lamar Green, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Franklin County, No. 04-1-50070-1, Robert G. Swisher, J., entered May 21, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Thompson, J. Pro Tern., concurred in by Kato, C.J., and Brown, J.