alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our reports dated November 2, 2001, included in this
Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements Nos. 33-64622, 33-64624, 33-76764, 333-79451,
333-79455, 333-61858 and 333-92665 on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-56775 and 333-79653 on Form S-3.

|                                 |  | /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
|-------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Portland, Oregon,
April 17, 2002 |  |                        

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 99.6





CONSENT OF KAPPES, CASSIDAY & ASSOCIATES.





We refer to our report auditing the resources at the Dolores Gold-Silver Project Chihuahua, Mexico, dated February 27, 2006, (the Report).



We hereby consent to the filing, use, and incorporation by reference of, the Report and the references to our name in the Minefinders Corporation Ltd. Annual Report on Form 40-F to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





Sincerely,





Kappes, Cassiday & Associates





Michael W. Cassiday          .

Michael W. Cassiday





_______________________.

Reno, NV USA





March 31, 2006                    .
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7182

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STERLING WHITAKER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:19-cr-00129-BO-2; 7:21-cv-00033-

BO)

Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sterling Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sterling Whitaker seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Whitaker’s informal brief,

we conclude that Whitaker has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see 

also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an 

important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved 

in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

R.O., :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 256 M.D. 2020

:

Mr. Tyree C. Blocker, State :

Police Commissioner, :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, September 26, 2023, upon consideration of

Petitioner’s application for reconsideration, and Respondent’s answer in 

response thereto, the application is DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney L. Scales, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 541]

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John J. Connell, J.), rendered March 19, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [4]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution because he did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]). In any event, “no factual colloquy was required inasmuch as defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser included offense” *(People v Thelbert,*17 AD3d 1049, 1049 [2005]; *see People v Thousand,*96 AD3d 1439, 1440 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 1002 [2012]).

Defendant further contends that County Court should have afforded him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea *1501because his postplea assertions of innocence cast doubt on whether the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. Defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment on that ground and, thus, that contention is not preserved for our review *(see People v Eagle,*105 AD3d 1453, 1453-1454 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1073 [2013]; *cf. People v Nelson,*66 AD3d 1430, 1430 [2009], *lv denied*14 NY3d 772 [2010]). In any event, that contention lacks merit. “ ‘[A] defendant is not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea based on a subsequent unsupported claim of innocence, where the guilty plea was voluntarily made with the advice of counsel following an appraisal of all the relevant factors’ ” *(People v Alexander,*97 NY2d 482, 485 [2002]; *see People v Gleen,*73 AD3d 1443, 1444 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 773 [2010]).

Present—Smith, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
UNAUDITED  CONDENSED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FILED WITH THE COMPANY'S  MARCH 31,
2000,  QUARTERLY  REPORT ON FORM  10-QSB AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>         0001016028
<NAME>       Cybercosmetics, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1
<CASH>                                        411
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              411
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,010
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      2,042
<OTHER-SE>                                    (2,641)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  411
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              0
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              959
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (959)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (959)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (959)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.00)


</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


                                  EXHIBIT 27.1

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     For purposes of this Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          588,635
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 8,738,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                (1,999,250)
<INVENTORY>                                   8,827,807
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             18,287,515
<PP&E>                                        3,912,622
<DEPRECIATION>                              (2,064,248)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               33,284,143
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        39,571,010
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                     26,574,281
<OTHER-SE>                                  (6,286,866)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 33,284,143
<SALES>                                       9,062,934
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              9,161,386
<CGS>                                         3,702,757
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 3,702,757
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              5,957,608
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              883,935
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (12,043,185)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (12,043,185)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                               (12,043,185)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.54)
        





</TABLE>
Exhibit 3.1 ( c )

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                              NDC AUTOMATION, INC.


     NDC Automation, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

     DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

     FIRST: That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of NDC Automation, Inc.,
and resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment to the
Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to be
advisable and calling a meeting of the stockholders of said corporation for
consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as
follows:

     RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be
amended by changing the Article thereof numbered "1" so that, as amended said
Article shall be and read as follows:

             The name of the corporation is Transbotics Corporation.

     SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors,
the annual meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called and
held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law
of the State of Delaware at which meeting the necessary number of shares as
required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.

     THIRD: That said amendment was dully adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

     FOURTH: That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under or
by reason of said amendment.



                                             By:  /s/ E. Thomas Watson
                                             ---------------------------
                                             E. Thomas Watson, Secretary



<PAGE>

                                    Delaware
                                 The First State




I, HARRIET SMITH WINDSOR, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
OF "NDC AUTOMATION, INC.", CHANGING ITS NAME FROM "NDC AUTOMATION, INC." TO
"TRANSBOTICS CORPORATION", FILED IN THIS OFFICE ON THE TWENTY-FIFTH DAY OF JUNE,
A.D. 2002, AT 2:30 O'CLOCK P.M.

A FILED COPY OF THIS CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE NEW CASTLE COUNTY
RECORDER OF DEEDS.











                                /s/ Harriet Smith Windsor
                                -------------------------
                                Harriet Smith Windsor, Secretary of State
**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7276** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JUAN JOSE VALLADARES

- HELGUERA , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Max O. Cogburn, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:00

- cr - 00130

- MOC

- 3 )

Submitted : December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Juan Jose Valladares

- Helguera , Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublis hed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Juan Jose Valladares

- Helguera appeals the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Valladares

- Helguera , No. 3:00

- cr - 00130

- MOC

- 3 (W.D.N.C. July 24, 2012) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AND  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS  FOUNDED ON PAGES 1-3 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM
10-QSB,  FOR THE  YEAR-TO-DATE  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001016151
<NAME>                                         AMPLIDYNE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     USD
       
<S>                                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                            1,612,061
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       467,931
<ALLOWANCES>                                         40,510
<INVENTORY>                                         298,503
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2,351,675
<PP&E>                                              606,050
<DEPRECIATION>                                      288,646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2,704,079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               516,186
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                450
<OTHER-SE>                                        2,017,902
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2,018,352
<SALES>                                             824,511
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    872,920
<CGS>                                               746,974
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1,011,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    535,330
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    9,785
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (683,334)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            675
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (684,009)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (684,009)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.16)
        



</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERALD J. WILSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

LOPEZ, Sgt.; DIAZ, Lt., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 15-17463 

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00721-JCC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017**

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Gerald J. Wilson appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs arising from 

a bunk assignment. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 16 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 15-17463 

evidentiary rulings. Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1030 (9th Cir.

2008). We affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of 

Wilson’s inmate witness because the witness declared that he lacked personal 

knowledge of the events at issue. See Fed. R. Evid. 701.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting defendants’ 

exhibits into evidence because they were relevant to Wilson’s allegations that he 

had fallen from an upper bunk, and the medical records were admissible under the 

hearsay exception for records of a regularly conducted activity. See Fed. R. Evid. 

401, 803(6). We reject as unsupported by the record Wilson’s contention that the 

district court did not rule on his motion to exclude defendants’ exhibits and trial 

brief.

Wilson’s arguments regarding Dr. Barnett’s expert testimony were not 

raised before the district court and are waived. See Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. 

Quattrocchi, 673 F.3d 1105, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Failure to raise a [Daubert v. 

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993)] challenge at trial 

causes a party to waive the right to raise objections to the substance of expert 

testimony post-trial.”); Price v. Kramer, 200 F.3d 1237, 1252 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(failure to object to evidence at trial on the specific basis raised on appeal results in 

waiver).
 3 15-17463 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Wilson’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . A P
- 7 6 , 5 5 5

E X P A R T E J E S S I C A J A Y N E B A R N E S , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . 2 4 1
- 1 9 5 9
- 0 6
- A I N T H E 2 4 1 D I S T R I C T C O U R T S T F R O M S M I T H C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte
Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicte d o f aggravated assault and sentenc ed to three y ear s’ imprisonment. The Twelfth Court o f Ap p eals aff irmed her conviction. Barnes v. State , No. 12-07-00026- CR (Tex. App.–Ty ler, 2008). Applicant conten d s th a

t h e r a p p e ll a te c o u n s e l r e n d e r e d ineffe ctive assistance beca use counsel failed to timely

notify Applicant that her

conviction had be en af

firmed

. Appellate counsel filed an aff idavit with the trial court. Ba sed on that aff idavit, the trial court2

has enter ed finding s of fac t and conclusions o f l aw t h at appellate counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that her conviction had been aff irmed. The trial court rec ommends that relief be g rante d.
Ex parte W

ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, there fore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionar y revie w of the judgme nt of the Twe lfth Court of Appea ls in Cause No. 12-07-00026-CR that aff irmed her conviction i n Case No. 241-1959-06 f

rom the 241st J udicial District Court of S mith County

. Applicant shall file her petition for discretionary revie w wit h the Twelfth Court o f Ap p ea l s within 30 day s of t he date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Deliver ed: May

11, 2011 Do not publish