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

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

The Board of Directors: 

Exult, Inc. 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statementson Form S-3 (No. 333-110992) and (No. 333-100927, 333-38384 and 333-38390) on Form S-8 of Exult, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated January 29, 2004, except as to Note 3(b), which is as of July 9, 2004, with respect to the consolidatedbalance sheets of Exult, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended, and the relatedconsolidated financial statement schedule for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2003, which reports appear in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Exult, Inc. and subsidiaries. 

 

Our report dated January 29, 2004, except as to Note 3(b), which is as ofJuly 9, 2004 states that the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule of Exult, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001, and for the year then ended were audited by other auditors who have ceasedoperations. Those auditors expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements in their report dated January 23, 2002. As described in Note 3(b), the 2001 consolidated financial statements have been adjusted to present theGunn consulting business as a discontinued operation. We audited the adjustments described in Note 3 that were applied to adjust the 2001 consolidated financial statements, as well as certain additional disclosures in the 2001 consolidated financialstatements, as described in Note 3 and Note 6. However, we were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the 2001 consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule of Exult, Inc. and subsidiaries otherthan with respect to such adjustments and disclosures. 

 

Asdescribed in Note 3(b), the 2001 consolidated financial statements have been restated to reclassify a non-cash charge of $2.2 million from selling, general and administrative expense to discontinued operations. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Orange County, California 

July 9, 2004 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation ofour reports included in this Form 10-K, into the Company’s previously filed Registration Statements File Nos. 333-38384 and 333-38390. 

 

/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP 

 

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP 

Orange County, California 

March 28, 2002
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 71

To require customer consent to the provision of wireless call location 

information. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2003

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To require customer consent to the provision of wireless 

call location information.

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 ‘‘Wireless Privacy Pro5 tection Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 71 IH 

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE CALL LOCATION INFOR2 MATION CONCERNING WIRELESS CUS3 TOMERS. 

4 (a) INFORMED CONSENT TO PROVISION OF LOCA5 TION INFORMATION.—Section 222 of the Communications 

6 Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222) is amended 

7 (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as sub8 section (i); and 

9 (2) by inserting before such subsection the fol10 lowing new subsection: 

11 ‘‘(h) AUTHORITY TO USE WIRELESS LOCATION AND

12 CRASH INFORMATION.—A customer shall not be consid13 ered to have granted express prior authorization for pur14 poses of subsection (f) unless—

15 ‘‘(1) the carrier has provided the customer in 

16 writing a clear, conspicuous, and complete disclosure 

17 of the carrier’s practices with respect to the collec18 tion and use of location information, transaction in19 formation, and automatic crash identification infor20 mation, before any such information is disclosed or 

21 used, and such disclosure includes—

22 ‘‘(A) a description of the specific types of 

23 information that is collected by the carrier; 

24 ‘‘(B) how the carrier uses such informa25 tion; and 
3

•HR 71 IH 

1 ‘‘(C) what information may be shared or 

2 sold to other companies and third parties; 

3 ‘‘(2) the customer has agreed in writing to the 

4 collection and use of such information, or has agreed 

5 in writing to such collection and use subject to cer6 tain limitations; and 

7 ‘‘(3) the carrier has established and maintains 

8 reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, 

9 security, and integrity of the information the carrier 

10 collects and maintains in accordance with such cus11 tomer consents.’’. 

12 (b) REGULATIONS REQUIRED.—The Federal Com13 munications Commission shall prescribe regulations to im14 plement the amendments made by subsection (a) within 

15 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13736

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

DAWN M. WHITE, 

PATRICK J. WHITE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00667-RAH-CWB

USCA11 Case: 22-13736 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 06/08/2023 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13736

____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and WILSON and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Patrick White, as purported pro se “representative” of his 

wife, Dawn, appeals the dismissal of her amended complaint alleging medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act committed at the Maxwell Air Force Base. The district court ruled that 

Patrick could not represent Dawn without being admitted to practice law. And the district court dismissed Dawn’s complaint because, even though she appeared to have signed it, her complaint

was untimely. Because Patrick also cannot represent his wife on 

appeal, we dismiss this appeal.

Patrick, who is not an attorney, purported to sue on behalf 

of his wife and to represent her legal interests. Federal law allows

parties in federal cases to “plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. But the right to appear pro 

se extends to parties conducting “their own cases,” not to persons 

representing the interests of others. See Devine v. Indian River Cnty. 

Sch. Bd., 121 F.3d 576, 581 (11th Cir. 1997) (determining that, while 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) allows a parent to sue on behalf of their minor 

child, the rule does not allow a non-attorney parent to function as 

legal counsel for the child), overruled in part on other grounds by Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 535 

(2007). 

USCA11 Case: 22-13736 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 06/08/2023 Page: 2 of 3
22-13736 Opinion of the Court 3

We cannot entertain this appeal. Because Patrick was not 

permitted to represent Dawn’s legal interests and disclaimed any 

intent to sue on his own behalf, he could not participate in the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Devine, 121 F.3d at 581. Although Dawn 

and Patrick both signed the notice of appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 

3(c)(1)(A), (c)(2), the unsigned opening brief states that it was submitted only by Patrick as Dawn’s “Pro Se Representative” and reiterates that he “has no right to a claim nor is it his intent to be recognized” as a party. So we cannot consider the legal arguments he 

seeks to raise on her behalf.

We DISMISS this appeal.

USCA11 Case: 22-13736 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 06/08/2023 Page: 3 of 3
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Opinion filed June 2, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00373-CV

IN RE DIOGU KALU DIOGU II, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14-DCV-214343

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 9, 2016, relator Diogu Kalu Diogu II filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable 

Chad Bridges, presiding judge of the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County, to 
2

vacate his September 23, 2015 order that sets aside the default judgment and grants 

a new trial. 

Mandamus review is not available for an order that sets aside a default 

judgment when there has been no jury trial. See In re Cort, No. 14–14–00646–CV, 

2014 WL 4416074, at *2 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 9, 2014, orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.); In re Abrokwa, No. 05–15–01239–CV, 2015 

WL 6520083, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 28, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. 

op.); and In re Procesos Especializados en Metal, S.A. de C.V., No. 04–14–00543–

CV, 2014 WL 4347724, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 3, 2014, orig. 

proceeding) (mem. op.). 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices McCally and Brown.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 2, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                             133
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,355<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (3,676)<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                     43,340
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,185
<PP&E>                                         218,883
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (83,948)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 340,165
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,874
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           133
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   340,165
<SALES>                                         75,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,391
<CGS>                                           64,570
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,570
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,597
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,167
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,943)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,291)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,652)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,652)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.12)
<FN>
<F1>Amounts are reported net of reserves in the Consolidated Condensed Balance
Sheets.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# 2021
Case 3:10-cv-06831-FLW -TJB   Document 8-3    Filed 02/11/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 65

Case 3:10-cv-06831-FLW -TJB   Document 8-3    Filed 02/11/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 66
To: Honorable aaire C. Cecchi Page 2 of 3 2011-12-20 21:55:29 (GMT) 

Joel S. Cohe~ PC 

128Mott Street, Suite 706 

New York, NY 10013 

Tel: 212-571-8899 

Fax: 212-608-0505 

... ~mail;j~~~q99@gmail.com ···--.. . . .•.. .. . · .. ···-... ···· 

December 20, 2011 

The Honorable Claire C. Cecchi 

United States District Judge 

Martin Luther King Building 

& U.S. Courthouse 

50 Walnut Street Room 4015 

Newark, NJ 07101 

Re: United States v. Mou Chor Tung 

Docket No. 11 CR 517;..CCC 

Dear Judge Cecchi: 

From: joel cohen 

On December 12 Your Honor granted the Government's Rule 35{a) 

Motion and re-sentenced Mou Chor Tung to a term of 42 months probation. 

Mr. Tung met with his Probation Officer, USPO Monica Martin earlier today. 

Officer Martin advised him that generally probationers are not allowed to 

leave the state of New Jersey during their first 60 days of supervision. As the 

Court may recall my client has elderly parents that reside in Chinatown in 

Manhattan. He visits them at least once a week, and accompanies them to 

physicians and other appointments as neither ofthem speaks English. While 

on pre-trial release his bail limits permitted to visit them. His present 

inability to travclto M:~nh9-ttan Will create a substantial hardship for th.em. ·~ ~ ''· ····- . . '· 

rve spoken with USPO Martin regarding this matter; she bas no 

objection to Mr. Tung being permitted to travel to New York but advised that 

it would require authorization by Your Honor. Prior to my conversation with 

her, in an abundance of caution, I also raised this issue with AUSA Aaron 

Mendelsohn. Mr. Mendelsohn graciously advised that the Government also 

has no objection to the granting of this request. 
To: Honorable Oaire C. Cecchi Page 3 of 3 2011-12-20 21:55:29 (GMT) 

The Honorable Claire C. Cecchi 

United States District Judge 

Re: U.S. v. Mou Chor Tung 

Page two 

From: joel cohen 

I therefor respectfully request that you grant Mr. Tung~s request to 

expand his travel limits during the first 60 days of probation supervision to 

include New York City by So Ordering this letter. Thank you. 

cc: USPO Monica Martin 

AUSA Aaron Mendelsohn 

The abpye application i~ h~reby: 

Granted: / ~ ~- • ~ 

Denied: ____ _ 

Claire C. Cecchi 

United States District Judge 

Very truly yours, 

D.···~ 

1 S. Cohen QC6998)
|NORTHEAST BANCORP                                                
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Exhibit 11. Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings
|                                                                 
|                                                                 
|                                                                 
|EQUIVALENT SHARES:                                               
|                                                                 
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding                              
|                                                                 
|Total Diluted Shares                                             
|                                                                 
|Net Income                                                       
|                                                                 
|Basic Earnings Per Share                                         
|                                                                 
|Diluted Earnings Per Share                                       
|                                                                 
|                                                                 
|                                                                 
|                                                                 
|EQUIVALENT SHARES:                                               
|                                                                 
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding                              
|                                                                 
|Total Diluted Shares                                             
|                                                                 
|Net Income                                                       
|                                                                 
|Basic Earnings Per Share                                         
|                                                                 
|Diluted Earnings Per Share                                       
|
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 659 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 659

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 13, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend section 242 of the National Housing Act regarding the 
   requirements for mortgage insurance under such Act for hospitals.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hospital Mortgage Insurance Act of 
2003''.

SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING NEED AND FEASIBILITY FOR HOSPITALS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 242(d) of the National 
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-7) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(4)(A) The Secretary shall require satisfactory evidence that the 
hospital will be located in a State or political subdivision of a State 
with reasonable minimum standards of licensure and methods of operation 
for hospitals and satisfactory assurance that such standards will be 
applied and enforced with respect to the hospital.
    ``(B) The Secretary shall establish the means for determining need 
and feasibility for the hospital. If the State has an official 
procedure for determining need for hospitals, the Secretary shall also 
require that such procedure be followed before the application for 
insurance is submitted, and the application shall document that need 
has also been established under that procedure.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--The amendment made by this subsection (a) 
        shall take effect and apply as of the date of the enactment of 
        this Act.
            (2) Effect of regulatory authority.--Any authority of the 
        Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to issue regulations 
        to carry out the amendment made by subsection (a) may not be 
        construed to affect the effectiveness or applicability of such 
        amendment under paragraph (1) of this subsection.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 12, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ELGIN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS AT AND FOR
THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         144,839
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,194,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,603,391
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,020,292
<PP&E>                                          53,818
<DEPRECIATION>                                 128,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,222,213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,292,362
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           16,723
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,086,872)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,222,213
<SALES>                                      7,423,771
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,423,771
<CGS>                                        6,956,921
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,494,628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                89,091
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,116,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,276,594)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,276,594)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)


</TABLE>
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 Amended Annual report of Quintek Technologies, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James
      Kernan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      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 and 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Quintek Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Quintek Technologies, Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.


Date:
                October 3, 2007
            By:
            */s/
                JAMES KERNAN*James
                KernanChief
                Executive Officer