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


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in (a) the Registration  Statement
on Form S-8 (No.  333-82959 of Vizacom,  Inc. (the "Company")  pertaining to the
Company's  1994  Long  Term  Incentive  Plan,  (b)  the  Company's  Registration
Statement  on Form S-8  (No.  333-82951)  pertaining  to the  Company's  Outside
Director and Advisor Stock Option Plan, (c) the Company's Registration Statement
on Form S-3 (No. 333-55677) pertaining to the Company's Common Stock and options
to purchase the Company's Common Stock, (d) the Company's Registration Statement
on Form S-3  (No.  333-80181)  pertaining  to the  Company's  Common  Stock  and
warrants to purchase the Company's  Common Stock (e) the Company's  Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-93087)  pertaining to the Company's Common Stock,
(f) the Company's  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-34950) pertaining
to the Company's Common Stock, (g) the Company's  Registration Statement on Form
S-3 (No.  333-47148)  pertaining  to the  Company's  Common  Stock,  and (h) the
Company's  Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-46994) pertaining to the
Company's 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, of our report dated March 23, 2001, except
with  respect to Notes 2 and 17, the date of which is March 31,  2001,  and Note
18,  the  date of  which  is May 23,  2001,  with  respect  to our  audit of the
financial  statements of the Company  included in the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended  December 31, 2000,  filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission.  Our report  contains an  explanatory  paragraph  that
states that the Company has suffered  recurring losses from operations and has a
working capital  deficiency,  which raise substantial doubt about its ability to
continue  as a going  concern.  The  consolidated  financial  statements  do not
include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that  uncertainty.
Our report also contains an explanatory paragraph regarding a federal income tax
matter.

We also  consent to the  reference  to our firm as  experts in the  Registration
Statements on Form S-3.


/s/ Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP
------------------------------------
Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP

New York, New York
March 14, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 46819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21635]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4335-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]


Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4335-DR), dated September 7, 
2017, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 28, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter 
dated September 26, 2017, the President amended the cost-sharing 
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of 
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to Brock Long, 
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of 
Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the 
territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands resulting from Hurricane Irma 
during the period of September 5-7, 2017, is of sufficient severity 
and magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are warranted 
regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. 
(the ``Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declarations of September 7, 2017 and 
September 9, 2017, to authorize a 100 percent Federal cost share for 
debris removal and emergency protective measures, including direct 
Federal assistance, for 180 days from the start of the incident 
period.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-21635 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6202

SAMUEL L. FARNSWORTH, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00183-RBS-TEM)

Submitted: September 26, 2008 Decided: November 5, 2008

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel L. Farnsworth, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Samuel L. Farnsworth seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Farnsworth has not made the requisite showing. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Everette Wilson, Appellant.

[859 NYS2d 165]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Goldberg, J.), rendered January 26, 2007, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in *240the fourth degree and identity theft in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 11⁄2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The hearing evidence supports the court’s finding that the arresting officer was justified in conducting a common-law inquiry. The officer, who was assigned to a subway station and was watching a surveillance video monitor, saw defendant engaged in furtive behavior at a MetroCard vending machine. The officer recognized this behavior, based upon her training and experience *(see People v Valentine,*17 NY2d 128, 132 [1966]), as indicative of criminal activity involving credit cards. Viewed individually and by an untrained observer, defendant’s actions, including rapid purchases of multiple MetroCards with multiple credit cards, might not be suspicious, but when viewed collectively and in the light of the officer’s expertise, they provided the officer with a founded suspicion of criminal activity warranting a level-two inquiry *(see People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]). Defendant’s response to the officer’s questions, and his production of an identification card and a credit card that clearly did not belong to him, provided probable cause for his arrest. Concur—Tom, J.P, Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Renwick, JJ.
#### ROBERT WARD *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 30343)

Beach, Robinson and Schaller, Js.

Argued September 11

officially released October 13, 2009

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2664 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2664

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To require annual oral testimony before the Financial Services 
 Committee of the Chairperson or a designee of the Chairperson of the 
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting Standards 
 Board, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, relating to 
     their efforts to promote transparency in financial reporting.

    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 ``Promoting Transparency in Financial 
Reporting Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Transparent and clear financial reporting is integral 
        to the continued growth and strength of our capital markets and 
        the confidence of investors.
            (2) The increasing detail and volume of accounting, 
        auditing, and reporting guidance pose a major challenge.
            (3) The complexity of accounting and auditing standards in 
        the United States has added to the costs and effort involved in 
        financial reporting.

SEC. 3. ANNUAL TESTIMONY ON REDUCING COMPLEXITY IN FINANCIAL REPORTING.

    The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting 
Standards Board, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board 
shall annually provide oral testimony by their respective Chairpersons 
or a designee of the Chairperson, beginning in 2009, and for 5 years 
thereafter, to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
Representatives on their efforts to reduce the complexity in financial 
reporting to provide more accurate and clear financial information to 
investors, including--
            (1) reassessing complex and outdated accounting standards;
            (2) improving the understandability, consistency, and 
        overall usability of the existing accounting and auditing 
        literature;
            (3) developing principles-based accounting standards;
            (4) encouraging the use and acceptance of interactive data; 
        and
            (5) promoting disclosures in ``plain English''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 9, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2664

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To require annual oral testimony before the Financial Services 
 Committee of the Chairperson or a designee of the Chairperson of the 
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting Standards 
 Board, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, relating to 
     their efforts to promote transparency in financial reporting.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NATIONAL DIAGNOSTICS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,070,589
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,011,942
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,207,550
<PP&E>                                       9,974,924
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,574,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,108,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,398,026
<BONDS>                                        769,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           779
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,059,158)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,108,847
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,942,050
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,331,362
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,851,467
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               347,540
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             694,575
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,910,131)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,910,131)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.60)
        

</TABLE>
#### FRANKENBURG v. UNITED STATES.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

December 5, 1896.)

No. 1,264.

Customs Duties — Notice of Protest.

When the practice at the customhouse permits the giving of notice of a protest by leaving it in a certain office, and such a notice is left in the proper place, after business hours, on the last day but one for giving notice, the last day being a holiday, on which the customhouse is closed by special order, though not by law, and the notice remains in the office during such last day, it is in time, and entitled to consideration.

This was an appeal by H. E. Erankenburg from a decision of the board of general appraisers sustaining the refusal of the collector of the port of New York to entertain a protest against the liquidation of duties on certain merchandise, imported by the appellant, on the ground that notice of such protest was given too late.

Stephen G-. Clarke, for plaintiff.

James T. Van Rensselaer, Asst. U. S. Atty.

WHEELER, District Judge.

The statute requires an appellant to “give notice in writing to the collector,” within 10 days. 26 Stat. 137, § lá. By understanding and practice, this notice is not given to the collector in person, but is left with a clerk or on his desk, where it will be found by him, in a room of the customhouse. In this case the duties were liquidated on October 29th. On November 7th, after business hours and departure of the clerk, a notice was left on his desk. On the 8th, which war. election day, the customhouse was, at the request of the collector, closed for all but special purposes, not concerning this, by direction of the secretary of the treasury, and this clerk was not there. On the 9th he found the notice there, in the proper place, and stamped it as received then. The appeal was rejected, because this was thought to be too late. As the collector consented to take notice in that way, notice given in that way would, if in time, be sufficient. The 8th was in time, and the notice Avas there. That was not a legal holiday, on which the customhouse Avould, as on Sunday, be closed for this purpose, and so not a day on which people would be bound to take any notice that it would be so closed. This closing was, in effect, as if the collector had closed the customhouse, or this clerk had stayed away, for any purpose of his own. The appellant had no occasion to go there on the 8th to leave the notice, for it was already there; and he had a right to act with refer-*607once to it as there. Had he waited till the 8th, and failed to leave it, because the customhouse was so closed, a different question might be presented. Now, the appellant appears to have been in ample lime, and entitled to have his appeal considered. Decision reversed.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

AH/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ELENO COLIN FELICIANO, AKA Eleno

Colin, AKA Dustin Colin AKA Victor

Colin,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50025

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00655-AHM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Eleno Colin Feliciano appeals from the 64-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm

FILED

DEC 14 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
AH/Research 09-50025

and ammunition in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Feliciano contends that his mid-range Guidelines sentence is substantively

unreasonable because: (1) the district court overstated the seriousness of the

offense, (2) the district court ignored mitigating personal information and focused

on recidivism, and (3) the 64-month sentence is greater than necessary to comply

with the sentencing purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C § 3553.

The record reflects that the district court properly weighed and considered

the section 3553 factors. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th

Cir. 2008) (en banc). Under the circumstances of this case, the district court did

not abuse its discretion in imposing a mid-range Guidelines sentence, and the

sentence is not substantively unreasonable. Id. at 993-94; United States v.

Ringgold, 571 F.3d 948, 953 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding the district court’s

sentence and determination that appellant’s prior imprisonment “has not made a

significant impact upon him”).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,122
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               3
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,800
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     15,361
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             500
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               504
<LOANS>                                         67,050
<ALLOWANCE>                                        841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,341
<DEPOSITS>                                      85,657
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                290
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           800
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  94,341
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,940
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  418
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    98
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,456
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,813
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,813
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,643
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       37
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   3
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    490
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         490
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       335
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.49
<LOANS-NON>                                         16
<LOANS-PAST>                                        11
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   826
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       57
<RECOVERIES>                                         2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  841
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            841


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of A.S.V., Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary Lemke, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



                                        /s/ Gary Lemke
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Gary Lemke
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        March 28, 2003