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


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                         -----------------------------


The Board of Directors
CellStar Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form 
S-8 (Nos. 33-87754 and 333-23381) and Form S-3 (No. 333-41753) of CellStar 
Corporation of our report dated January 13, 1998, relating to the consolidated 
balance sheets of CellStar Corporation and subsidiaries as of November 30, 1997 
and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' 
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended 
November 30, 1997, and the related schedule, which report appears in the 
November 30, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of CellStar Corporation.


                                              /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Dallas, Texas
February 27, 1998
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 v. No. 32,841 4 RAUL PERALES, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY 7 Freddie J. Romero, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Acting Chief Public Defender 12 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 172 {1}Defendant-Appellant Raul Pe rales appeals his conviction for criminal sexual 1 penetration of a minor (CSPM). We prev iously issued a notice of proposed summary 2 disposition, proposing to affirm. Defe ndant has filed a memorandum in opposition, 3 which we have duly considered. Because we remain unpersuaded, we uphold the 4 conviction. 5
{2} Defendant has challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. As we previously 6 described at greater length in the notice of proposed summary disposition, the State 7 presented compelling evidence in support of eachof the elements of the offense. We 8 therefore reject Defendant’s sufficiency challenge. 9
{3} In the memorandum in opposition, Defendantmakes clear that he does not deny 10 that the sexual encounter occurred. [MIO 3] Instead, he continues to assert that the 11 encounter was consensual. [MIO 3-4] Howeve r, in this context, given the age of the 12 victim and the nature of the charge, consent is “legally irrelevant.” State v. Perea , 13 2008-NMCA-147, ¶ 11, 145 N.M. 123, 194 P.3d 738. 14
{4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed 15 summary disposition, we affirm. 16
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 19 WE CONCUR: 203 1 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 2

3 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 4
#### § 27.3 The General Counsel.

The Chair shall select an individual and the Comptroller General shall appoint the individual selected by the Chair to serve as the General Counsel of the Board. The General Counsel, at the request of the Board, shall investigate matters under the jurisdiction of the Board, and otherwise assist the Board in carrying out its functions.

[58 FR 61992, Nov. 23, 1993, as amended at 68 FR 69297, Dec. 12, 2003]
# C_2012258EN.01001702.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Commission v Nanopoulos

(Case T-308/10) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Duty to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Non-contractual liability - Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations - Damages claim to be submitted within a reasonable time - Time-limit for reply - Institution of disciplinary proceedings - Criterion requiring a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ - Personal data leaked to the press - Failure to assign tasks corresponding to an official’s grade - Amount of damages)

2012/C 258/29

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, E. Bourtzalas and E. Antypas, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Fotios Nanopoulos (Itzig, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 11 May 2010 in Case F-30/08 Nanopoulos v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking, first, to have that judgment set aside and, second, if the judgment is to be upheld, to have the exact amount of damages set.

Nanopoulos

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Nanopoulos in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Nanopoulos in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.

1

---
# C_2010195EN.01002101.xml

| 17.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/21

---

Action brought on 3 May 2010 — Strålfors Aktiebolag v OHMI (ID SOLUTIONS)

(Case T-211/10)

2010/C 195/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Strålfors AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M. Nielsen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 January 2010 in case R 1111/2009-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 January 2010 in case R 1111/2009-2;

| — | Approve for registration the Community trade mark application No 8235202 ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ for ‘labels and boxes made from paper and cardboard (not for identification of individuals); bookbinding material; adhesives for stationery or household purposes, artists’ materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in class 16; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Approve for registration the Community trade mark application No 8235202 ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ for ‘labels and boxes made from paper and cardboard (not for identification of individuals); bookbinding material; adhesives for stationery or household purposes, artists’ materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in class 16; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ for goods in class 16 — Community trade mark application No 8235202

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Partially refused registration of the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and confirmed the contested decision

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the Community trade mark application No 8235202 ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ should be allowed for registration for goods in class 16 because ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ is distinctive for these goods and thus meets with the requirements according to Article 4 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
Grafe, Jerome (DEP) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Mary Ellen Welch [maryellen225@yahoo.com] 

Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:30 PM 

Grafe, Jerome (DEP) 

Red Blue Line Connector 

Dear Jerome, 

Because I am so bad at the computer I am writing to you once again. I think I got your computer address 

wrong on the first letter.So I will try one more time !Hopefully this one will reach you for the record. 

My request is that the D.E.P. support the design and construction of the Red- Blue Connector.Over many 

years I have worked to see the mitigation proposal for the Big Dig become a reality. Way back when the Big 

Dig was still in the design stage many community activists were involved in the process of making sure that 

any adverse impacts from the Big Dig were mitigated in a package that was mandated as part of the project 

approval. We worked with the state officials,the politicians,the C.L.F and all other interested parties to make 

sure this was part of the proposal. 

Several times we had to speak up and defend the mitigation when some people tried to get rid of it or 

dismantle it. Some didn't want another construction project happening on that side of Beacon Hill. Some 

thought it was superfluous and not a meaningful measure. Of course some thought it was too costly.However 

the advantages of this connector are well worth the expense 

For those of us who live in East Boston and on the North Shore this connection will be a huge help to 

access the hospitals like M.G.H. Another positive is that people from this side of the world will be better able to 

get to work or get a job in the Cambridge and use simple mass transit to get there. 

A really big advantage is that travelers to and from the airport will have a direct connection to the Logan 

without changing ae Park Street. This is especially helpful when the passenger has luggage.In addition, this 

transit will reduce pollution and traffic in and around East Boston. And the Port Authority won't have to 

provide parking for this segment of the passengers. 

So, this is my long winded effort to urge the State to design and construct this good project. The expense 

will be well worth it in terms of a better environment. 

Sincerely, 

Mary Ellen Welch, East Boston 

l
### §3710d. Employee activities

#### (a) In general

If a Federal agency which has ownership of or the right of ownership to an invention made by a Federal employee does not intend to file for a patent application or otherwise to promote commercialization of such invention, the agency shall allow the inventor, if the inventor is a Government employee or former employee who made the invention during the course of employment with the Government, to obtain or retain title to the invention (subject to reservation by the Government of a nonexclusive, nontransferrable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice the invention or have the invention practiced throughout the world by or on behalf of the Government). In addition, the agency may condition the inventor's right to title on the timely filing of a patent application in cases when the Government determines that it has or may have a need to practice the invention.

#### (b) "Special Government employees" defined

For purposes of this section, Federal employees include "special Government employees" as defined in section 202 of title 18.

#### (c) Relationship to other laws

Nothing in this section is intended to limit or diminish existing authorities of any agency.

(Pub. L. 96–480, §15, as added and renumbered §14, Pub. L. 99–502, §§8, 9(e)(1), Oct. 20, 1986, 100 Stat. 1794, 1797; renumbered §15, Pub. L. 100–418, title V, §5122(a)(1), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1438; amended Pub. L. 104–113, §6, Mar. 7, 1996, 110 Stat. 779.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–113 substituted "ownership of or the right of ownership to an invention made by a Federal employee" for "the right of ownership to an invention under this chapter" and inserted "obtain or" before "retain title to the invention".
Eric J. Fygi Deputy General Counsel Department ofEnergy Washington, D.C. 20585 

## u.s. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division WILLIAM J. BAER Assistant Attorney General Main Justice Building 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2401/ (202) 616-2645 (Fax) November 12,2013

Re: Walk In Coolers & Freezers Energy Conservation Standards Dear Deputy General Counsel Fygi:
I am responding to your September 10, 2013 letter seeking the views ofthe Attorney General about the potential impact on competition ofproposed energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and refrigerators. Your request was submitted under Section 325(0)(2)(B)(i)(V) ofthe EnergyPolicy and Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C. 6295(0)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to make a determination ofthe impact ofany lessening ofcompetition that is likelyto result from the imposition ofproposed energy conservation standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from other departments about the effect ofa program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR § 0.40(g). In conducting its analysis the Antitrust Division examines whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by substantially limiting consumer choice, byplacing certain manufacturers at an unjustified competitive disadvantage, orby inducing avoidable inefficiencies inproduction or distribution ofparticularproducts. A lessening ofcompetition could result inhigherprices to manufacturers and consumers, and perhaps thwart the intent ofthe revised standards by inducing substitution to less efficient products. We have reviewed the proposed standards contained inthe Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (78 Fed. Reg. 55781, September 11, 2013) (NOPR). Wehave also reviewed supplementary information submitted to the Attorney General bythe Department of Energy, including a transcript ofthe public meetingheld on the proposed standards on- ---- --------------------------------------------------



### October 9,2013. Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and freezers are unlikelyto have a significant adverse impact on competition.

Sincerely, c· /

. I 

### William J.**Ba~** 

### -

Enclosure
### §4102. Penalty

Whoever, without proper authority, flies from any building, aircraft, motorboat, yacht, or other vessel, any flag or pennant or displays any identifying insignia or wears any uniform or insignia of the Reserve or the Auxiliary shall be fined not more than $500.

(Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, 63 Stat. 557, §892; renumbered §4102, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §120(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4237.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 14, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §352 (Feb. 19, 1941, ch. 8, title III, §302, 55 Stat. 13; Sept. 30, 1944, ch. 453, §9, 58 Stat. 761).

Said section has been divided. The last sentence is placed in this section. The first two sentences are placed in section 891 of this title. 81st Congress, House Report No. 557.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 892 of this title as this section.
§ 385.1301 Policy (Rule 1301). ( a ) The Federal Power and Natural Gas Acts, sections 209 and 17, respectively, authorize cooperation between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the State commissions of the several States in the administration of said Acts, which include authorization for: ( 1 ) Reference of any matter arising in the administration of these Acts to a board to be composed of a member or members from a State or States affected, or to be affected, by the particular matters pending before the Commission;
( 2 ) Conferences with State commissions regarding the relationship between rate structures, costs, accounts, charges, practices, classifications, and regulations of public utilities or natural gas companies subject to the jurisdiction of such State commissions and of the Commission; and
( 3 ) Joint hearings with State commissions in connection with any matter with respect to which the Commission is authorized to act.
( b ) The matters that should be the subject of a conference referred to a board, or heard at a joint hearing of State commissions and the Commission, obviously, cannot be determined in advance. It is understood, therefore, that the Commission or any State commission will freely suggest cooperation with respect to any proceeding or matter affecting any public utility or natural gas company subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission and of a State commission, and concerning which it is believed that cooperation will be in the public interest.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Form 10-K”) of Middleburg Financial Corporation (the “Company”), I, Rodney J. White, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(a)    the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(b)           the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.

 

 
| Date:  March 16, 2009 | /s/ Rodney J. White               |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  | Rodney J. White                                                                                         |  
Senior Vice President

 

and Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

 

  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                      10,820
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               88,107
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                367,946
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           503,383
<PP&E>                                   1,140,798
<DEPRECIATION>                             351,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,349,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      646,551
<BONDS>                                    350,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          533
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     4,034
<OTHER-SE>                                 315,427
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,316,545
<SALES>                                  1,212,490
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,212,490
<CGS>                                    1,048,070
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,048,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           223,638
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,163
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (68,381)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     0
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.01)


</TABLE>
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.26
Compensation Arrangements for the Executive Officers
Set forth below is a summary of the compensation by SEACOR Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) to its executive officers in their positions as of the date of filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Form 10-K”). All of the Company's executive officers are at-will employees whose compensation and employment status may be changed at any time in the discretion of the Company's Board of Directors.
Base Salary.  Effective January 1, 2016, the executive officers are scheduled to receive the following annual base salaries in their current positions:
	
					
	Name and Current Position
	 
	Base Salary

	Charles Fabrikant, Executive Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
	 
	$
	700,000
	


	Matthew Cenac, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 
	$
	450,000
	


	Eric Fabrikant, Chief Operating Officer, Transportation Services
	 
	$
	450,000
	


	John Gellert, Chief Operating Officer, Offshore Marine Services
	 
	$
	450,000
	


	Paul Robinson, Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary
	 
	$
	450,000
	


	Bruce Weins, Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer
	 
	$
	245,000
	





Cash Bonus and Share Incentive Plan.  In their current positions, the executive officers are eligible to:
		
	•
	Receive an annual cash incentive award subject to the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.


		
	•
	Participate in incentive programs, which currently involve awards of restricted stock and stock options pursuant to SEACOR Holdings Inc.'s 2014 Share Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10.28 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K).


Benefit Plans and Other Arrangements.  In their current positions, the executive officers are eligible to participate in the Company's broad‐based benefit programs generally available to its salaried employees, including health, disability and life insurance programs, a qualified 401(k) plan, and the employee stock purchase plan.