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

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

SiliconGraphics, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (Form S-3 File No. 333-113116, Form S-4 File No. 333-110683, and Forms S-8 File Nos. 333-140243, 333-142169, and 333-149128) on Form 10-K of Silicon Graphics, Inc. of our report datedSeptember 22, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Silicon Graphics, Inc. as of June 27, 2008 (Successor Company) and June 29, 2007 (Successor Company) and the related consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for the year ended June 27, 2008 (Successor Company), the nine months ended June 29, 2007 (Successor Company), the three months ended September 29, 2006 (Predecessor Company), andthe year ended June 30, 2006 (Predecessor Company), the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of June 27, 2008, which reports appear in the June 27, 2008 annualreport on Form 10-K of Silicon Graphics, Inc. 

 

As discussed in Note 24 tothe consolidated financial statements, on September 19, 2006, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed the Company’s Plan of Reorganization (the Plan). The Confirmation Order became a final orderon September 29, 2006 and the Company emerged from Chapter 11 on October 17, 2006. In connection with its emergence from Chapter 11, the Company adopted fresh-start reporting pursuant to Statement of Position 90-7, *Financial Reportingby Entities in Reorganization Under the Bankruptcy Code* as of September 29, 2006 as further described in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements. As a result, the consolidated financial statements of the Successor Company arepresented on a different basis than those of the Predecessor Company and, therefore, are not comparable in all respects. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

Mountain View, California 

September 22, 2008
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Wolf Run Mining Co., Docket No. WEVA 2007-600, et al.              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Wolf Run Mining Co., Docket No. WEVA 2007-600, et al.

argument_013113.pdf

argument_2007-600.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE A. P.
GREEN INDUSTRIES,  INC.  ADJUSTED  QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q/A AS OF AND FOR
THE NINE MONTHS  ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH ADJUSTED REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               5,539
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       46,317
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,600
<INVENTORY>                                         53,648
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   113,710
<PP&E>                                             105,961
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     319,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               44,118
<BONDS>                                             37,279
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             9,014
<OTHER-SE>                                         113,196
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       319,901
<SALES>                                            207,365
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   207,365
<CGS>                                              170,160
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      170,160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      8,036
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2,797
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  5,163
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         5,163
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>
#### Norman A. PELTIER, Appellant, v. Fred A. SEATON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Appellees.

No. 13370.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 6, 1957.

Decided May 23, 1957.

Mr. John Henry Fallon, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. John W. Kern, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for ap-pellees.

Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and PRETTYMAN and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a former fire marshal on the island of Guam, was dismissed in 1951. After long negotiations for a settlement, in the course of which he received encouragement from government agencies, he filed in 1953 and amended in 1954 a complaint alleging his dismissal was illegal and asking to be restored to his position. On the ground of laches, the District Court rendered summary judgment for the defendants. In all 'the circumstances we are unable to agree that the appellant was guilty of laches. We think the amended complaint and the answer, and the conflicting affidavits, raise issues which should be resolved.

Reversed and remanded.
NO. 12-23-00157-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CONNIE L. BRADLEY AND LUCAS 

WILLIAM BRADLEY, 

APPELLANTS

V.

JAMES DENNIS MENIKETTI, 

TRUSTEE OF THE VICTOR T. 

MENIKETTI AND DOROTHY D. 

MENIKETTI TRUST,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 173RD 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b). 

Appellants, Connie L. Bradley and Lucas William Bradley, filed a notice of appeal on June 12, 

2023. The clerk’s record was filed on July 11. On July 13, we notified Appellants that the 

appeal would be submitted on the clerk’s record alone for failure to request the record, unless 

proof of a written request for the record was provided by July 24. Appellants did not respond to 

this Court’s notice or make written request for the record to the court reporter. On July 28, this 

Court ordered that the case be submitted on the clerk’s record alone. Appellants’ brief was due 

on or before August 28. On August 29, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellants that the brief

was past due. We further notified Appellants that the appeal may be dismissed for want of 

prosecution unless a motion for extension of time, containing a reasonable explanation for the

failure to file a brief and showing that Appellee had not suffered material injury thereby, is filed 

no later than September 8. 
2

The September 8 deadline passed, and Appellants have not filed a brief, a motion for 

leave to file a late brief, or a motion for extension of time. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal 

for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). 

Opinion delivered October 6, 2023.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
3

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 6, 2023

NO. 12-23-00157-CV

CONNIE L. BRADLEY AND LUCAS WILLIAM BRADLEY,

Appellants

V.

JAMES DENNIS MENIKETTI, TRUSTEE OF THE VICTOR T. MENIKETTI AND 

DOROTHY D. MENIKETTI TRUST,

Appellee

Appeal from the 173rd District Court

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV18-0407-392)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, 

it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the appeal be, 

and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of prosecution; and that this decision be certified to 

the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
Exhibit 99.1



DIVALL INSURED INCOME PROPERTIES 2

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP



Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Divall Insured Income Properties 2 Limited Partnership (the Company) certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three month period ended June 30, 2003
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                          |  | THE PROVO GROUP, INC., General Partner
|------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|                          |  |                                       
|Dated:    August 14, 2003 |  | By                                    
|                          |  |                                       



This certification is
made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
84 A.3d 323

#### Angelo ARMENTI, Jr., Appellant v. The PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, the Board of Governors’ of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, Guido Pichini, Chairman of the Board of Governors, Individually and in his Official Capacity, and John Cavanaugh, Chancellor, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 21, 2014.

*52
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 21st day of January, 2014, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,008,124               1,008,124
<SECURITIES>                                   331,786                 331,786
<RECEIVABLES>                                  583,522                 583,522
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,923,432               1,923,432
<PP&E>                                      20,846,043              20,846,043
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,638,339               5,638,339
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,131,136              17,131,136
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          270,272                 270,272
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,860,864              16,860,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,131,136              17,131,136
<SALES>                                        680,351               2,081,624
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               693,925               2,211,331
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               232,259                 678,751
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                461,666               1,532,580
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            461,666               1,532,580
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   461,666               1,532,580
<EPS-BASIC>                                       9.88                   32.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     9.88                   32.78


</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
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: October 27, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Richard C. Pfenniger, Jr.RICHARD C. PFENNIGER, JR.President and Chief Executive Office
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION BY LAWRENCE W. SINNOTT PURSUANT TO****SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14**I, Lawrence W. Sinnott, of Versar, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Versar, Inc. (the “Registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: September 6, 2005              /S/ Lawrence W. Sinnott   *Lawrence W. Sinnott*   Executive Vice President,Chief Operating Officerand Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isaiah SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-1003.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 4, 2010.

Decided Nov. 23, 2010.

*91Michelle L. Jacobs, Office of the United. States Attorney, Milwaukee, AVI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard H. Parsons, A. Brian Threlkeld, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Urbana, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge, DIANE P. AVOOD, Circuit Judge, ANN CLAIRE AVILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Isaiah Smith, a member of the Milwaukee street gang “Solid Over Concrete,” was arrested after selling an informant 55 grams of crack for $1,700 during a police sting. Smith was turned over to federal authorities and pleaded guilty to distributing crack. *See*21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). The district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment, which at that time was the mandatory minimum for crack offenses involving 50 or more grams. *See*21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2006).

Smith filed a notice to appeal, but his appointed counsel has concluded that the appeal is frivolous and seeks permission to withdraw. *See Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Smith did not respond to our invitation to comment on counsel’s motion. *See*Cir.R. 51(b). Because counsel’s supporting brief is facially adequate, we limit our review to the one potential issue counsel discusses. *See United States v. Schuh,*289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir.2002).

According to counsel, Smith does not want his guilty plea vacated. Thus counsel appropriately omits discussion about the adequacy of the plea colloquy and the voluntariness of the plea. *See United States v. Knox,*287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir.2002).

Counsel evaluates only one potential argument: whether Smith could challenge the reasonableness of his prison term. At sentencing the district court properly calculated a guidelines imprisonment range of 120 to 150 months and imposed the 120-month statutory minimum. There are two exceptions permitting a district court to sentence below a statutory minimum, but neither applied to Smith: the government did not move for a reduced sentence based on substantial assistance, *see*18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), and Smith’s ten criminal history points made him ineligible for “safety valve” relief, *see id.*§ 3553(f); *see also United States v. Forman,*553 F.3d 585, 588 (7th Cir.2009); *United States v. Simpson,*337 F.3d 905, 909 (7th Cir.2003). Because the district court was constrained from sentencing Smith to anything less than the statutory minimum, we agree with counsel that a challenge to the prison term would be frivolous.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.333-109261 and No. 333-32819 of LOGIC Devices Incorporated on Form S-8 andRegistration Statement No. 333-16591 of LOGIC Devices Incorporated on Form S-3of our report, dated November 29, 2006, relatingto our audits of the financial statements and financial statement schedule,which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of LOGIC Devices Incorporatedfor the years ended September 30, 2006, 2005, and 2004.

 

/s/Perry-Smith LLP

 

 

Sacramento, California

December7, 2006