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 on Form S-3 (Nos.333-74704, 333-82350, and 333-84548) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-69318, 333-71504, 333-76042, 333-82348,333-112345, 333-130616, and 333-133959) of our reports dated March 17, 2008 (which reports expressan unqualified opinion and include an explanatory paragraph relating to Regent Communications, Inc.and subsidiaries’ adoption of the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board InterpretationNo. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes*, effective January 1, 2007) relating to thefinancial statements and financial statement schedule of Regent Communications, Inc. andsubsidiaries and the effectiveness of Regent Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries’ internalcontrol over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of RegentCommunications, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPCincinnati,Ohio
APPLICANT MICHAEL LOUIS BRISCO APPLICATION NO. 53.391-06 APPLICATION FOR 11.07 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ACTION TAKEN 

### DISMISSED, SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION. Tex. CodeCrim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 4(a)- (c). JUDGE 

# /Q22/s DATE
# C_2013171EN.01000501.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-109/11) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation authorising persons not subject to taxation to be part of a VAT group)

2013/C 171/08

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, D. Triantafyllou, K. Walkerová and P. Němečková, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by C. Vang, then by V. Pasternak Jørgensen, Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, assisted by G. Clohessy, SC, and by N. Travers, BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent, assisted by M. Hall, QC)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation authorising persons not subject to taxation to be part of a VAT group

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, John Fredriksen, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Frontline Ltd;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material  fact or omit to state a  material  fact  necessary  to make the
     statements made, in light of the circumstances  under which such statements
     were made,  not  misleading  with  respect  to the  period  covered by this
     report;

3.   Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
     information  included  in  this  report,  fairly  present  in all  material
     respects the financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of
     the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The  Company's  other   certifying   officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or caused such
          disclosure   controls  and   procedures  to  be  designed   under  our
          supervision,  to ensure  that  material  information  relating  to the
          Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us
          by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's  disclosure  controls and
          procedures  and  presented  in this report our  conclusions  about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c)   disclosed in this report any change in the Company's  internal control
          over financial  reporting  that occurred  during the period covered by
          the annual  report  that has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably
          likely to  materially  affect,  the  Company's  internal  control over
          financial reporting; and

5.   The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,  based on our
     most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
     Company's  auditors and the audit  committee of the  registrant's  board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a)   all significant  deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation  of internal  control  over  financial  reporting  which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record,
          process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees  who  have a  significant  role  in the  Company's  internal
          control over financial reporting.


Date: June 30, 2006

/s/ John Fredriksen
--------------------------
John Fredriksen
Chief Executive Officer and President
§ 22.10 Sanctions [Rule 10]. ( a ) *Standards.* All parties and their representatives, attorneys, and any experts/consultants retained by them or their attorneys, must obey directions and orders prescribed by the Board and adhere to standards of conduct applicable to such parties and persons. As to an attorney, the standards include the rules of professional conduct and ethics of the jurisdictions in which an attorney is licensed to practice, to the extent that those rules are relevant to conduct affecting the integrity of the Board, its process, and its proceedings. The Board will also look to professional guidelines in evaluating an individual's conduct.
( b ) *Imposition of sanctions.* ( 1 ) When a party or its representative or attorney or any expert/consultant fails to comply with any direction or order issued by the Board (including an order to provide or permit discovery), or engages in misconduct affecting the Board, its process, or its proceedings, the Board may make such orders as are just, including the imposition of appropriate sanctions. The sanctions may include: ( i ) Taking the facts pertaining to the matter in dispute to be established for the purpose of the appeal in accordance with the contention of the party submitting the discovery request;
( ii ) Forbidding challenge of the accuracy of any evidence;
( iii ) Refusing to allow the noncompliant party to support or pose designated claims or defenses;
( iv ) Prohibiting the noncompliant party from introducing in evidence designated documents or items of testimony;
( v ) Striking pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
( vi ) Dismissing the appeal or any part thereof; and/or
( vii ) Imposing such other sanctions as the Board deems appropriate.
( 2 ) Prior to imposing sanctions, the Board will provide the noncompliant party with notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether sanctions should be imposed. The opportunity to be heard does not mean that the party is entitled to a hearing; the opportunity to provide written argument shall satisfy this requirement.
( c ) *Disciplinary proceedings.* In addition to the above procedures, the Board may discipline individual party representatives, attorneys, and experts/consultants for a violation of any Board order or direction or standard of conduct applicable to such individual where the violation affects the integrity of the Board's process or proceedings. Sanctions may be public or private and may include admonishment, disqualification from a particular matter, referral to an appropriate licensing authority, or such other action as circumstances may warrant. The Board, in its discretion, may suspend an individual from appearing before the Board as a party representative, attorney, or expert/consultant if, after affording such individual notice and an opportunity to be heard, a majority of all members of the Contact Appeals Board determines that such sanction is warranted.
```

[113th Congress Public Law 226]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 2113]]

Public Law 113-226
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  100 Admiral Callaghan Lane in Vallejo, California, as the ``Philmore 
 Graham Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 16, 2014 -  [H.R. 5106]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PHILMORE GRAHAM POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 Admiral Callaghan Lane in Vallejo, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Philmore Graham Post Office Building''.
    (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 ``Philmore 
Graham Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 16, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5106:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            Sept. 8, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 3, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 1301.30 Disclosure of record to persons other than individual to whom it pertains.

For purposes of §§ 1301.21 to 1301.34, the parent of any minor or the legal guardian of any individual who has been declared incompetent due to physical or mental incapacity or age by a court of competent jurisdiction may act on behalf of the individual. TVA may require proof of the relationship prior to allowing such action. The parent or legal guardian may not act where the individual concerned objects to the action of the parent or legal guardian, unless a court otherwise orders.

[40 FR 45313, Oct. 1, 1975. Redesignated at 44 FR 30682, May 29, 1979, and further redesignated and amended at 82 FR 51757, 51758, Nov. 8, 2017]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARCH 31,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         143,762
<SECURITIES>                                    47,374
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,003
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,381
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               208,012
<PP&E>                                          59,002
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 297,913
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,839
<BONDS>                                         26,201
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            8,305
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            64
<OTHER-SE>                                     190,531
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   297,913
<SALES>                                         31,369
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,338
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,032
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,236
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,744
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,508)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,508)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011282EN.01001903.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/19

---

Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Cross Czech v Commission

(Case T-252/10) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Letter confirming the findings of an audit report and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure - Contractual and non-decision-making character of the letter - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 282/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cross Czech a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Schollaert, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission letter of 12 March 2010, reference number INFSO-O2/FD/GVC/Isc D (2010) 208676, confirming the findings of financial audit report 09-BA74-006 concerning the financial statements declared by the applicant over the period 1 February 2005 to 30 April 2008 for three contracts concluded between the applicant and the Commission under the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European research area and to innovation (2002-06), and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Cross Czech a.s. is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, including the costs incurred in the proceedings for interim relief. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Cross Czech a.s. is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, including the costs incurred in the proceedings for interim relief.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

)

ELIZABETH LeTOURNEAU, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 12-1644 (RBW)

)

ANTHONY CALANDRA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By order dated February 28, 2013, the plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this 

action should not be dismissed for failure to serve the defendants in a timely fashion under Rule 

4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court set March 22, 2013 as the deadline for the 

plaintiff’s response; to date, the plaintiff has filed neither a response nor a request for additional 

time to do so. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action and plaintiff’s motion to appoint 

counsel will be denied as moot. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

REGGIE B. WALTON

United States District Judge

DATE: March 29, 2013
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

0 avail himexecute an 

~Comptr0ller, and warrat 

t hu0e by the ComptrellrT 

alwe 8oElpeny. we deslro 00 
724 

Eonorablo Jullau Lieatgomwy, Page 2 

Faauranoe? The Department, of 

oourse, oould not pay eny portion 

of the premium. 

92) cprr my potil0n 0r ti ~i0pdt3 

rages or salary, when aasigmant 

hem beea &on. be p a l6 to l OIDI)OIU 

elm? 

“( 3) AzmAmlBg that your answer to the 

aeoond inquiry 18 *yea*, and, that 

mom43 plan 0r group ineuraaoo *aa 

seoounded to the employees or 

the Dopwtandthat several 

th0gaand or OUT cslppiope~ b0uat 

the aorerage and aade asslg0amnts 

authorircm payroll deduotlon; 

thle uould repulra a pat deal 

0r extr.a work on.the part or oar 

aooountants in making up addltioaal payrellr,, eto. Would it. bo 

lo& to aa0 our aooountfats ror 

thirr purpo~.P" 

We are unable to find any reason rby amployaam 

or the Hi&hway Department 8hould net be allowed to .awd.l 

thammltes or group iasaraaoa. This woald be paralp a 

private uudertaking, and there lo nothing in tbair CMployaant by the State oi Tsxae whioh wbuld.,problblt.iiuah 

an enterprise on their part. 

In armor to your quostionu mabared (8) and 

( 3). w6 p a ys p a r tlo ula r a ttentio n to yo ur l tstesa nt that 

the adoption or the plan proposed wald req@re a @peat 

deal or extra nork on tha part or tha aooountants of tba 

x@hway Department. Th6rs is no need or disouqifiag the 

fafmlbillty or lagality of any plan whioh would raqtairs 

the usa or atate amployoos for a private putpo~a. 

nrtiolo xv1, hotion 6, coostitution 0r Texas, 

provide8 : 

90 appropriation for private or irrdivldual~ 

purposes &all bo aads. A ra&.ar etatemant, 

under oath, and by ammxit of Cha rsoeipts and 

expenditures of all pu&lie amnay shall be published annually, in eooh matmet as &al.1 be 
Eonorable Juliau IWitgomery, Page ;5 

presorlbed by law." 

Brom the above quoted provision it may bs aseu 

that the Legislature doss net hara the authority to appropriate money to ba used for a private or Individual 

P-P-.* It therefore to&lous beyond questfon that 

money rhioh the Legislature has appropriated nay not ba 

used ror suoh a purpose. To use state eaployess as aaoouutants ror a group or esiployws taking out group lnsuranae, would be,to usa suoh anployeau for a private 

purpose, and weuld be tha orpenditure of state money 

ror a private purpose. imy plan 0r group lnsuranae 

nhieh ukas this rsquireaaut is unauthorized and my 

not be approved. 

Yours very truly
EXHIBIT 23.1

                          Independent Auditors' Consent



We consent to the use in the Registration Statements and prospectus on Form S-3
dated February 1, 1996 of Koala Corporation of our report dated February 12,
1997, on the financial statements of Koala Corporation for the years ended
December 31, 1996 and 1995, incorporated by reference in the Registration
Statements, and to the use of our name and the statements with respect to us
under the heading "Experts" in such Prospectus.



BLANSKI PETER KRONLAGE & ZOCH, P.A.


Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 25, 1997
Editorial Note on Part 28
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

§ 28.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) The regulations in this part implement the Board's authority with respect to employment practices within the Government Accountability Office (GAO), pursuant to the General Accounting Office Personnel Act of 1980 (GAOPA), 31 U.S.C. 751-755.
( b ) The purpose of the rules in this part is to establish the procedures to be followed by: ( 1 ) The GAO, in its dealings with the Board;
( 2 ) Employees of the GAO or applicants for employment with the GAO, or groups or organizations claiming to be affected adversely by the operations of the GAO personnel system;
( 3 ) Employees or organizations petitioning for protection of rights or extension of benefits granted to them under subchapters III and IV of Chapter 7 of title 31, United States Code; and
( 4 ) The Board, in carrying out its responsibilities under Subchapters III and IV of chapter 7 of title 31, United States Code.
( c ) The scope of the Board's operations encompasses the investigation and adjudication of cases arising under 31 U.S.C. 753. In addition, the Board has authority for oversight of the equal employment opportunity program at GAO. This includes the review of policies and evaluation of operations as they relate to EEO objectives and, where necessary, the ordering of corrective action for violation of or inconsistencies with equal employment opportunity laws.
( d ) In considering any procedural matter not specifically addressed in these rules, the Board will be guided, but not bound, by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
[59 FR 59105, Nov. 16, 1994, as amended at 68 FR 69297, Dec. 12, 2003]
# Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 25, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22

- 735 Lower Tribunal No. 20

- 2537

________________ 

### Manuel J. Menendez, et al. ,

Appellant s ,

vs. 

### Rafael Bonafonte , Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Barbara Areces , Judge. Wasson & Associates, Chartered and Roy D. Wasson; Law Offices of Robert F. Reynolds, P.A., and Robert F. Reynolds (Ft. Lauderdale) , for appellant s

. Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula and W. Aaron Daniel and William D. Mueller , for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and LOBREE , JJ.
PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Archange v. Winn

- Dixie Stores, Inc. , 314 So. 3d 717, 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) ( “ Fratangelo v. Coosemans , 264 So. 3d 1079, 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) ( ‘ When the trial court conducts a full evidentiary hearing on a motion to enforce settlement, “ [t]he findings of the trial court, as the trier of fact, come to this court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and where there is substantial competent evidence to sustain the actions of the trial court, the app ellate court cannot substitute its opinion on the evidence but rather must indulge every fact and inference in support of the trial court's judgment, which is the equivalent of a jury verdict.” ’ (quoting Smiley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. , 704 So. 2d 204, 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998))) .” ).