alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT23.1

THE WARNACO GROUP, INC. CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-108744,333-121771 and 333-125159 of The Warnaco Group, Inc. (the‘‘Company’’) on Form S-8 of our report on theconsolidated financial statements dated March 2, 2006 (September 6,2006 as to the effects of the revisions to the segment informationdiscussed in Note 8, the waiver of debt covenants discussed in Note 15,the SEC inquiry discussed in Note 21, and as to the effects of therestatement discussed in Note 23) (which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to 1)the Company's plan of reorganization and emergence frombankruptcy as a new entity on February 4, 2003, 2) a change in methodof accounting for defined benefit pension plans and 3) the restatementdiscussed in Note 23) and of our report on internal control overfinancial reporting dated March 2, 2006 (September 6, 2006 as toeffects of the material weakness described in Management's AnnualReport on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting (as revised)),(which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting) appearing in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended December31, 2005.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New York, New York September 6,2006

----
Opinion filed October 27 , 2011



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 1 0

- 00336

- C R

__________ OTIS CHAMP ALLEN , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 358th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No . D

- 35,627

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N After a bench trial, the trial court convicted Otis Champ Allen of possession of a
controlled substance and assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of two years

. Specifically, a consensual search of appellant revealed the presence of crack cocaine located within a fanny pack that appellant was wearing. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has2

provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed. 1 Court

- appo inted counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re
Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969);
and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at
409. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4 (“ In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a cop y of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”)

. Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T E X

. R. A PP

. P. 6 8

. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

October 27 , 2011 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Kalenak , J.

1 By letter, this c ourt granted a ppellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.
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 Quarterly Report of Score One, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Hoi-ho Kiu, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Lai Ming Lau, Chief Financial 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/ Hoi-hu Kiu
                                             -----------------------------
                                             Hoi-ho Kiu
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             April 19, 2006



                                             /s/ Lai Ming Lau
                                             -----------------------------
                                             Lai Ming Lau
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             April 19, 2006
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

     Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Gaiam, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Vilia Valentine,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Date:  August 7, 2006 |
|-----------------------|
|                  |
|                  |
|                  | /s/ Vilia Valentine |   |
|                  | Vilia Valentine |
|                  | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Carl Savoy","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/csavoy\/","title":"International Shipping Competition Agencies Meet","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"McQjM5kIFY\"><a href=\"\/international-shipping-competition-agencies-meet\/\">International Shipping Competition Agencies Meet<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/international-shipping-competition-agencies-meet\/embed\/#?secret=McQjM5kIFY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“International Shipping Competition Agencies Meet” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"McQjM5kIFY\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2767 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2767

     To clarify the eligibility for participation of peer support 
specialists in the furnishing of behavioral health integration services 
                      under the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 22, 2021

    Ms. Chu (for herself and Mr. Smith of Nebraska) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 
 and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period 
    to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To clarify the eligibility for participation of peer support 
specialists in the furnishing of behavioral health integration services 
                      under the Medicare program.

    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 Effective and Empowering 
Recovery Services in Medicare Act of 2021'' or the ``PEERS Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFYING THE ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION OF PEER SUPPORT 
              SPECIALISTS IN THE FURNISHING OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH 
              INTEGRATION SERVICES UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Nothing in title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) shall be construed as prohibiting a peer 
support specialist (as defined in subsection (b)) from participating in 
the furnishing of behavioral health integration services under such 
title under the supervision of a physician or other entity billing for 
such services under such title.
    (b) Peer Support Specialist Defined.--For purposes of subsection 
(a), the term ``peer support specialist'' means an individual who--
            (1) is recovering from a mental health or substance use 
        condition; and
            (2) is certified as qualified to furnish peer support 
        services under a certification process consistent with the 
        National Practice Guidelines for Peer Supporters and inclusive 
        of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
        Administration Core Competencies for Peer Workers in Behavioral 
        Health Settings (as established by the State in which such 
        individual furnishes such services or under such national 
        certification process determined appropriate by the Secretary 
        of Health and Human Services).
                                 <all>
```
#### Woody VOINCHE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Glen FINE, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice; John Conyers, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives; James Sensenbrenner, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-30938

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 15, 2008.

*374Woody Voinche, Marksville, LA, pro se.

John A. Broadwell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Woody Voinche of Marksville, Louisiana, sued Inspector General Glen Fine and Congressmen John Conyers and James Sensenbrenner, complaining of a “20 year conspiracy to wiretap his telephones, the use of electronic tracking devices on his vehicle and other electronic surveillance, and release of a toxic substance in his home.” Specifically, Voinche alleged violations of “the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, ..., the Patriot Act, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, ... the Constitution of the United States of America, Misprison of a Felony, ... and Civil Rights.” The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, holding that the defendants enjoyed immunity from Voinche’s lawsuit, that the Freedom of Information Act did not create a cause of action against the Inspector General or members of Congress, and that Voinche lacked standing to force Congressmen Conyers and Sensenbrenner to take any action on his allegations.

On appeal, Voinche argues that the district court erred in dismissing his lawsuit because Inspector General Fine is “statutorily required” to investigate his claims of government abuse and Congressmen Conyers and Sensenbrenner are required to monitor the Inspector General’s investigation. This argument is meritless — none of the statutes Voinche cites impose such duties on the Inspector General or members of Congress. Moreover, the doctrines of sovereign immunity, official immunity, and legislative immunity foreclose Voinche’s lawsuit against the Inspector *375General and the Congressmen for their alleged failure to investigate his claims. The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certificationof CEO and CFO Pursuant to

18U.S.C. Section 1350,

asAdopted Pursuant to

Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CherokeeInternational Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 29,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Jeffrey M. Frank, as President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, and Linster W. Fox, as Executive Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer and Secretary of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

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

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ JEFFREY M. FRANK |                                                                                                             |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:                | Jeffrey  M. Frank                                                                                                |
| Title:               | *President and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)*                                           |
| Date:                | August 12,  2008                                                                                            |
|                 |
| /s/  LINSTER W. FOX  |                                                                                                             |
| Name:                | Linster  W. Fox                                                                                                  |
| Title:               | *Executive Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |
| Date:                | August 12,  2008                                                                                            |
|                      |                                                                                                                  |  |

 

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6312** 

JOHN JAY CARROLL , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 00185

- CMH

- JFA )

Submitted : June 16, 2011 Decided: June 21, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. John Jay Carroll, Appellant Pro Se. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Ri chmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Jay Carr oll seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certifica te of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reason able jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Carroll 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 m aterials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSE D
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 16

- 0905 Filed February 8, 2017

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL MCCARTHY , P etitioner

- Appell ant ,
vs. RENEE WERDEL , Respondent

- Appell ee

.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott C ounty, Nancy S. Tabor, Judge.

Christopher McCarthy appeals the paternity decree provision placing the parties’ three children in Renee Werd el’s physical care. AFFIRMED.

Andrew B. Howie of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P. C., West Des Moines, for appellant.
Michael J

. McCarthy of McCarthy, Lammers & Hines , D avenport , for appellee.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald , JJ. Tabor, J., takes no part.2

DANILSON, Chief Judge. Christopher (Chris) McCarthy and Renee Werdel have three children together, born in 2004, 2005, and 2008 . Renee and Chris began their relationship in 2002. Renee has been the primary caregiver for the children

. After living together for several years, Renee took the children to South Dakota and sought a n emergency protective order. The South Dakota court denied emergency relief , noting Iowa had jurisdiction. The Iowa district cour t considered the parties’ requests for j oint legal custody , each seeking physical care of the children. T he district court entered a paternity decree placing the parties’ three children in Renee ’s physical care. Chris appeals. We review custody actions , which are tried in equity, de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. We give weight to the findings of the trial court

— particularly its credibility findings

— but we are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g). The trial court’s reasons for placing the c hildren in Renee’s physical

care
— a determination of a history of domestic abuse by Chris, the historical role of Renee as primary caregiver of the children , and the children’s strong bond with Renee’s oldest child from another relationship

— are fully suppor ted by our de novo review of the record. We agree with the trial court “ Renee is the best parent to be awarded primary physical care of the three minor children. Over the course of this long

- term relationship, Renee has shown the better ability to identi fy the children’s growing and changing needs and provide proper nurturing of the same. ” Chris testified he and Renee followed “gender role[s]” in their relationship, and it was Renee’s responsibility to cook, clean, and care for the3

children. The evidenc e also supports the court’s findings that Chris was abusive;
the trial court noted several specific findings, which we need not repeat here. Contrary to Chris’s contention that Renee had no support for her allegations, her mother, sister, and a neighbor a ll testified about Chris’s controlling and abusive
nature. T he district court specifically observed : “ Much of Chris’s testimony, demeanor, tone of voice and cavalier attitude , and attitude of he being the victi m husband gives the Court many ‘ tells ’ of his true controlling nature. ”
We find no reason to disturb the trial court’s ruling and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.