alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-58657, No.333-04169, No. 333-56593, No. 333-40328, No. 333-64106, No. 33-65724, No. 333-85204, No.333-104462, No. 333-114845 and No. 333-123858 of Quiksilver, Inc. on Form S-8, and in RegistrationStatement No. 333-129307 of Quiksilver, Inc. on Form S-4, of ourreports, dated January 13, 2006,relating to the Financial Statements of Quiksilver, Inc., and management’s report on theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form10-K of Quiksilver, Inc./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPCosta Mesa, California
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Debbie ZIMMERMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-7847.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 29, 2010.

Decided: Jan. 13, 2011.

Debbie Zimmerman, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Debbie Zimmerman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her *67428 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Zimmerman 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.*
Exhibit 10.11



 Exhibit 10.11 
                     , 2007 
 Capitol Acquisition Corp. 
 509 7th Street, N.W. 
 Washington, D.C. 20004 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 Each of the undersigned agrees that it will not transfer its ownership interests in Capitol Acquisition Management LLC to anyone other than the founders of Capitol Acquisition Corp. (“Company”) or entities
of which such founders are the beneficial owners, or beneficiaries, of until the transfer restrictions (as more fully described in the Company’s Registration Statement relating to its initial public offering and in the Escrow Agreement filed as
an exhibit to such Registration Statement) relating to the Company’s securities held by Capitol Acquisition Management LLC are removed.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

KATHY LAMENDOLA BARNARD NO. 2023 CW 0274

VERSUS

PRUDENT ACQUISITIONS, LLC MAY 25, 2023

AND BINNING PROPERTIES, LLC

In Re: Prudent Acquisitions, LLC and Binning Properties, LLC, 

applying for supervisory writs, 21st Judicial District

Court, Parish of Livingston, No. 164007. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., WOLFE AND MILLER, JJ. 

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. This writ application fails to comply

with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 4- 

5( C)( 8). Relators, Prudent Acquisitions, LLC and Binning

Properties, LLC, failed to include a copy of the petition( s), 

the temporary restraining order itself, and any evidence

admitted at the January 23, 2023 hearing. In addition, this

court should be provided with the transcript of the January 23, 

2023 hearing and all evidence introduced therein and advise this

court of the current status of the temporary restraining order. 

Supplementation of this writ application and/ or an

application for rehearing will not be considered. Uniform Rules

of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 2- 18. 7 & 4- 9. 

In the event relators seek to file a new application with

this court, it must contain all pertinent documentation, the

missing items noted above, and must comply with Uniform Rules of

Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 12. 2. Any new application

must be filed on or before June 22, 2023, and must contain a

copy of this ruling. 

JMG

EW

SMM

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

LJ

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
#### Johanis DANUN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-73315.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

Robert G. Ryan, Esquire, Law Offices of Eugene C. Wong, Inc., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Julie M. Iversen, Esquire, OIL, AnhThu P. Mai, Esquire, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*99MEMORANDUM **

Johanis Danun, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Danun established changed circumstances to excuse his untimely filed asylum application. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4); *Ramadan v. Gonzales,*479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Danun’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Danun failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Indonesia. *See Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1067-68.

In concluding Danun did not suffer past persecution, the BIA did not consider the events in the 1950s that the IJ found constituted persecution on account of religion. Therefore, we remand for the BIA to consider these events in the first instance. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

In analyzing Danun’s withholding of removal claim, the agency declined to apply the disfavored group analysis set forth in *Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004). Because intervening case law holds the disfavored group analysis applies to withholding of removal claims, *see Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1062-65, we remand to the agency for reconsideration of Danun’s withholding of removal claim. *See Ventura,*537 U.S. at 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353; *see also Tampubolon*v. *Holder,*610 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir.2010) (“[A]ny reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude on this record that Christian Indonesians are a disfavored group.”).

Each party shall bear their own costs on appeal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
H. R. 3539 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 223 West 

Chalan Santo Papa in Hagatna, Guam, as the ‘‘Atanasio Taitano Perez Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ATANASIO TAITANO PEREZ POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 223 West Chalan Santo Papa in Hagatna, Guam, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Atanasio Taitano Perez 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Atanasio Taitano Perez Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       746
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,433
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,326
<PP&E>                                       3,554
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,243
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               14,537
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,286
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                     15,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,920
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 14,537
<SALES>                                      4,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,267
<CGS>                                        2,629
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           28
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              0
<INCOME-TAX>                                 10
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                 10
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                .001
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .001
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose VALENCIA-MATA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-1614.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 7, 2014.

Filed: Aug. 14, 2014.

F. A. White, Jr., Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Jose Valencia-Mata, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.

Charles E. Ambrose, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Jose Valencia-Mata directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to a drug-conspiracy offense, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that Valencia-Mata’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. Valencia-Mata has filed a pro se brief, suggesting that his guilty plea was involuntary, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that he was entitled to safety-valve relief.

First, we conclude that Valencia-Mata’s challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea is not cognizable because he did not move to withdraw his plea below. *See United States v. Umanzor,*617 F.3d 1053, 1060 (8th Cir.2010) (defendant may not challenge voluntariness of guilty plea for first time on direct appeal if he did not move to withdraw plea in district court). Next, we decline to consider his ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. *See United States v. McAdory,*501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir.2007) (ineffective-assistance claims are ordinarily deferred to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings). Further, after careful de novo review, we enforce the appeal waiver as to the remaining challenges to Valencia-Mata’s sentence. *See United States v. Andis,*333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, plea *549agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result); *see also United States v. Scott,*627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir.2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver). Finally, having reviewed the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 846, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994 Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.

1

. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer 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 Merriman Holdings,
Inc. on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), we, D. Jonathan Merriman and William J. Febbo, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|December 13, 2012 | By: | /s/ D. JONATHAN MERRIMAN   
|----------------- | --- | ---------------------------
|                  |     | D. Jonathan Merriman       
|                  |     | Chief Executive Officer    
|                  |     |                            
|                  | By: | /s/ WILLIAM J. FEBBO       
|                  |     | William J. Febbo           
|                  |     | Principal Financial Officer
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In the Estate of Edna Mae Leonards

, Deceased

Appellate case number: 01

- 20

- 00221

- CV

Trial court case number: P03846A

Trial court: County Court of Chambers County

Th e reporter’s record was due on April 13, 2020

. According to the information provided

to the Court by the court reporter, appellant will not be providing a reporter’s record. If appellant

does not request and make financial arrangements for the filing o f th e reporter’s record, this

Court will consider and decide only those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record

for a decision. 

### See T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P. 37.3(c).

If appellant does plan to provide a reporter’s record, appellant must respond t o th e C ourt

within 10 days of the date of this notice with proof of payment to the court reporter or the Court

will order appellant’s brief filed without the benefit of a reporter’s record.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_________ /s/ Russell Lloyd

_______ _____________ Acting individuall y

Date: April 21, 2020
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-57301,333-116799, 333-105398, 333-105397, 333-103556, 333-65332, 333-52140 and333-59433 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 30, 2007, relatingto the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statementschedule of Georgia GulfCorporation (which report on the consolidated financial statementsexpresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relatingto the adoption by Georgia Gulf Corporation of Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards No. 123(R), *Share-Based Payment*,on January 1, 2006 and the recognition and related disclosure provisionsof Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, *Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and OtherPostretirement Plans*, on December 31, 2006) and our report dated March 30, 2007 relatingto management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Georgia GulfCorporation for the year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/*DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP*

Atlanta, GeorgiaMarch 30, 2007

----
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 3.2 -- CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                             NATIONAL TECHTEAM, INC.


William F. Coyro, Jr. and William D. Hodgman certify that:

1.       They are the President and Secretary, respectively, of National
TechTeam, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation").

2.       Article FOURTH of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation
is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

         "FOURTH: The maximum number of shares of all classes which the
         corporation is authorized to have outstanding is fifty million
         (50,000,000) shares, consisting of forty--five million (45,000,000)
         shares of common stock, all par value $.0l and five million (5,000,000)
         shares of preferred stock, all par value $.0l. The holders of preferred
         stock shall have such rights, preferences, and privileges as may be
         determined, prior to the issuance of such shares, by the board of
         directors."

3.       The foregoing Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation has been duly
approved by the board of directors of the Corporation as of November 27, 1987 in
accordance with Section 141(f) of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

4.       The foregoing Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation has been duly
approved by the required vote of stockholders as of November 27, 1987 in
accordance with Section 228(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The
total number of outstanding shares of the Corporation is 4,107,669. The number
of shares voted in favor of the amendment equaled or exceeded the 50% votes
required.

We further declare under penalty under the laws of the State of California that
the matters set forth in this certificate are true and correct of our own
knowledge.

Dated: November 27, 1987                           By: /s/ William F. Coyro, Jr.
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   William F. Coyro, Jr.
                                                   President


                                                   By: /s/ William D. Hodgman
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   William D. Hodgman
                                                   Secretary
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Telvon TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7572.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

*159Telvon Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. James Andrew Crowell, IV, Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Telvon Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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.*
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*June 26, 2014*

[Cite as *06/26/2014 Case Announcements #3,*2014-Ohio-2780.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2014-1071.

#### Randall v. Randall.

Hamilton App. No. C-130527. This cause is pending before the court as a jurisdictional appeal.

Upon review of the motion for stay of the court of appeals’ judgment, it is ordered by the court that appellee shall file a response, if any, to the motion for stay no later than Monday, June 30, 2014.
Exhibit 21



Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|                                             |  |                      |  |            
|-------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | -----------
|Name                                         |  | Jurisdiction         |  | % Ownership
|BA Acquisition Corp. (d/b/a Snell
Acoustics) |  | Massachusetts        |  | 100%       
|Boston Acoustics Italia, SpA                 |  | Italy                |  | 100%       
|Boston Acoustics Deutschland, GmbH           |  | Germany              |  | 100%       
|Boston Acoustics Asia Pacific, sdn           |  | Malaysia             |  | 100%       
|Boston Acoustics U.K., Ltd                   |  | England              |  | 51%        
|Boston International Corp                    |  | Delaware             |  | 100%       
|Boston Acoustics Middle East                 |  | United Arab Emirates |  | 100%       
|Boston Acoustics Securities, Inc.            |  | Massachusetts        |  | 100%       
|Boston Acoustics Japan Ltd                   |  | Japan                |  | 51%