alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-92326, 333-117148, 333-118728 and 333-136845) and Form S-3
(Nos. 333-136046, and 333-136366) of Motient Corporation, of our report dated
March 15, 2007 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Mobile
Satellite Ventures LP included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Motient
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2006.


                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


McLean, Virginia
March 26, 2007
# C_2012331EN.01000701.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-96/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate mouse)

(2012/C 331/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: August Storck KG (represented by: T. Reher and R.W. Staub, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Manea and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2010 in Case T-13/09 Storck v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2008, rejecting the appeal filed against the decision of the Examiners refusing registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a chocolate mouse as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Class 30 — Distinctive character of the mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

---
# C_2011219EN.01001603.xml

| 23.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 219/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/16

---

Order of the General Court of 27 May 2011 — Danzeisen v Commission

(Case T-242/10) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Regulation No 271/2010 - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 219/24

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Werner Danzeisen (Eichstetten, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen, F.W. Bulst and M. Vollkommer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EU) No 271/2010 of 24 March 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, as regards the organic production logo of the European Union (OJ 2010 L 84, p. 19)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.

1

---
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SAMHSA GRANTEES 

HOW TO REGISTER FOR AN eRA COMMONS ACCOUNT 

ALL SAMHSA Grantees need to have an eRA Commons Account. Below is a brief 

overview describing the process and two (2) links that will walk you through 

registration and show you screenshots. 

Below is a brief overview of the steps for Registering Your Organization in eRA Commons 

1. Complete the online Institution Registration form at the link below and click submit:

https://public.era.nih.gov/commons/public/registration/registrationInstructions.jsp

2. eRA will send you an email with the link to confirm your email address.

3. Once email address is verified, NIH will review your request and let you know the

result via email.

4. If your request is denied, you will get an email from NIH notifying you of the reason

for the denial.

5. If your request is approved, you will get an email from NIH with your Commons user

ID and temporary password.

6. You will log into Commons with your temporary password and the system will prompt

you to change the temporary password to a permanent one. The contact Signing

Officials (SOs), Business Officials, or Authorized Representative will be prompted to

electronically sign your registration request. (Please review your registration

information carefully.)

7. Once the contact Signing Official, Business Official, or Authorized Representative

has electronically signed the request, your organization will be active in Commons

and you may create and maintain additional accounts for your staff.

8. The Signing Official, Business Official, or Authorized Representative must create

accounts for the PDs associated with current active grants in order to ensure access

to the grant information in the eRA Commons system. Step-by-step Instructions for

Creating PD accounts (including screenshots):

“https://era.nih.gov/erahelp/Commons/default.htm#Commons/1_Admin/mgacct_crea

te.htm”

Step-by-step Instructions for Registering an Organization (including screenshots): 

“https://era.nih.gov/reg_accounts/register_commons.cfm” 

Finding Help: 

Web site: https://public.era.nih.gov/commonshelp

Hours: Mon-Fri, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Eastern Time, except for Federal holidays 

Toll-free: 1-866-504-9552 

Phone: 301-402-7469 

If you have SAMHSA specific questions about eRA Commons Accounts, please send an 

email to DGMCorrespondence@samhsa.hhs.gov .
#### Samuel Exl, Respondent, *v.*Amos Gordon, Appellant.

Appeal from an order entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 8th day of November, 1907, denying a motion for a change of venue from New York county to Greene county. :

Per Curiam:

This is an action "brought by the husband upon the same transactions made the subject of the action in *Exl*v. *Gordon (ante,*p. 932), and for the reasons set forth in the memoranda handed down in said action the order .appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion for change of venue to Greene county granted, with ten dollars costs to the appellant. Present — Patterson, P. J., Ingraham, McLaughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
# C_2011179EN.01000803.xml

| 18.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/8

---

Appeal brought on 18 March 2011 by IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2011 in Case T-362/08: IFAW v European Commission

(Case C-135/11 P)

2011/C 179/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH (represented by: S. Crosby, Advocaat, S. Santoro, Avvocato)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | find that the contested judgment is vitiated by errors of law and to set it aside accordingly; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the contested judgment is vitiated by errors of law and to set it aside accordingly;

| — | annul the Commission's decision refusing access to the Schröder letter and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision refusing access to the Schröder letter and

| — | order the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs in both proceedings pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs in both proceedings pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant contends that the General Court, in the contested judgment, erred in law by:

| — | not recognizing that the Commission has to conduct a full review of whether the grounds relied upon by the Member State for not disclosing a document fall under one of the exceptions of Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) by testing the exceptions against the content of the document; and |
| --- | --- |

—

not recognizing that the Commission has to conduct a full review of whether the grounds relied upon by the Member State for not disclosing a document fall under one of the exceptions of Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) by testing the exceptions against the content of the document; and

1

| — | ruling that it was able in law to conduct a full review of the refusal to disclose without sight of the document in question. |
| --- | --- |

—

ruling that it was able in law to conduct a full review of the refusal to disclose without sight of the document in question.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, p. 43

1

---
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of CellStar Corporation
(the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2003, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 31, 2003 and Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (collectively, the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below
and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 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 Registrant.
| | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Terry S.
Parker

Terry S. Parker, Chief Executive Officer

Date: April 25, 2003
§ 367.4290 Account 429, Amortization of premium on debt—Credit. ( a ) This account must include the amortization of unamortized net premium on outstanding long-term debt. Amounts credited to this account must be charged concurrently to account 225, Unamortized premium on long-term debt (§ 367.2250).
( b ) This account must be kept or supported so as to show the premium on each class and series of long-term debt.
( c ) This account must include the following items: ( 1 ) Loss relating to investments in securities written-off or written-down.
( 2 ) Loss on sale of investments.
( 3 ) Loss on reacquisition, resale or retirement of service company's debt securities.
( 4 ) Preliminary survey and investigation expenses related to abandoned projects, when not written-off to the appropriate operating expense account.
```

[113th Congress Public Law 290]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 3291]]

Public Law 113-290
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To amend the Act of October 19, 1973, concerning taxable income to 
      members of the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 
            Indians. <<NOTE: Dec. 19, 2014 -  [H.R. 3608]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Grand Portage 
Band Per Capita Adjustment Act.>> 
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 25 USC 1401 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Grand Portage Band Per Capita 
Adjustment Act''.
SEC. 2. EQUAL TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PER CAPITA INCOME FOR PURPOSES 
                    OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.

    Paragraph (4) of section 7 of the Act of October 19, 1973 (25 U.S.C. 
1407(4)) is amended by striking ``pursuant to the agreements of such 
Band'' and inserting ``or the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior 
Chippewa Indians, or both, pursuant to the agreements of each Band''.

    Approved December 19, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3608:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113-625, Pt. 1 (Comm. on Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            Nov. 17, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 16, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 11.21 Penalties.

If any person fails to pay annual charges within the periods specified in § 11.20, a penalty of 5 percent of the total delinquent amount will be assessed and added to the total charges for the first month or part of month in which payment is delinquent. An additional penalty of 3 percent for each full month thereafter will be assessed until the charges and penalties are satisfied in accordance with law. The Commission may, by order, waive any penalty imposed by this subsection, for good cause shown.

[51 FR 24318, July 3, 1986]
10/08/10 1 of 1

B&V E-16 

### PNM Response to EPA Question fr om Joe Kordzi, via email, dated September 29, 2010

Question : “PNM agreed to identify any significant costs not included in previous estimates (PNM).”

Response : The following is a preliminary list of the potential, significant differences from the original cost estimates developed for the June 2007 BART submittal.

 Impact of escalation/de-escalation since May 2007 when the cost estimates were developed. (Changes to labor cost, equi pment costs, commodities costs, etc)

 Impact of the auxiliary power limitations at the San Juan Generating Station –The original BART estimates did not include an y costs for an upgrade to the auxiliary power systems that will be needed to address the increased loads resulting from the addition of SCR and associated equipment. The SCR results in additional parasitic load at the site due to the a dditional fan power needed to overcome the pressure drop associated with the S CR and to provide additional power for ancillary equipment needed to operate the SCR. In the initial 2007 estimate, PNM expected the existing auxiliary power to be sufficient. However, now that the consent decree AQC equipment is in stalled, the current auxiliary power system is not sufficient to power the additional loads that would result from adding SCR and associated equipment.

 Impacts of lead and asbestos abatemen t required during the SCR and associated equipment installation.

PNM is currently in the proce ss of assessing these impacts.
# C_2012379EN.01000901.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad, Varna, Bulgaria) — TETS Haskovo AD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-234/11) (1)

1

(Taxation - VAT - Right of deduction - Contribution in kind - Destruction of property - New buildings - Adjustment)

2012/C 379/14

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad, Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TETS Haskovo AD

Applicant:

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Requirements to adjust input VAT deducted on acquisition of property — National legislation providing for adjustment of input VAT deductions upon destruction of property — Destruction of buildings with sole aim of constructing in their place new buildings fulfilling the same purpose, and used for future supplies giving entitlement to deduction of input VAT

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 185(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the destruction, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of several buildings intended for energy production and their replacement by more modern buildings which fulfil the same purpose as the demolished buildings does not constitute a change, after the VAT return was made, in the factors used to determine the amount of VAT to be deducted as input tax, and, therefore, does not lead to an obligation to adjust the deduction made.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

1

---
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 660 

To address abuse of the Food and Drug Administration’s citizen petition 

process by brand drug manufacturers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 5, 2019 

Mr. BRAUN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To address abuse of the Food and Drug Administration’s 

citizen petition process by brand drug manufacturers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Efficiency and Trans5 parency in Petitions Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CITIZEN PETITION AMENDMENTS. 

7 Section 505(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos8 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(q)) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

10 (A) in subparagraph (A)— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 660 IS

1 (i) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘;’’; 

3 (ii) by redesignating clause (ii) as 

4 clause (iii); and 

5 (iii) by inserting after clause (i) the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(ii)(I) the petition is submitted with8 in 1 year of the petitioner first discovering 

9 the issue that is the basis for submission 

10 of such petition; or 

11 ‘‘(II) the Secretary grants a waiver of 

12 the 1-year period under subclause (I); 

13 and’’; and 

14 (B) in subparagraph (H), by adding at the 

15 end the following: ‘‘Any subsequent petition or 

16 amendment to a petition with respect to the 

17 same application under subsection (b)(2) or (j) 

18 of this section or section 351(k) of the Public 

19 Health Service Act filed by the same person 

20 shall include an explanation of why such person 

21 did not include the information or allegations 

22 contained in the subsequent petition or amend23 ment in the original petition.’’; 

24 (2) in paragraph (3)— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 660 IS

1 (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘; 

2 and’’ and inserting ‘‘, and the basis for the de3 terminations of such number of days;’’; 

4 (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the 

5 period and inserting a semicolon; and 

6 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(E) as applicable, the timing of submis8 sion of the petition in relation to the expiration 

9 of any patents listed under subsection (j)(7) for 

10 a drug approved under subsection (c) of this 

11 section that is referenced in the application 

12 under subsection (b)(2) or (j); and 

13 ‘‘(F) the time the Food and Drug Admin14 istration expended on the petition.’’; and 

15 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(6) PUBLICATION OF PETITIONS.—The Sec17 retary shall annually publish a list of all petitions 

18 that were submitted during the preceding 12-month 

19 period.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 738 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 738

To require the Federal Communications Commission to make the provision 
      of Wi-Fi access on school buses eligible for E-rate support.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2019

    Mr. Udall (for himself, Mr. Gardner, Ms. Cortez Masto, and Mr. 
  Whitehouse) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Federal Communications Commission to make the provision 
      of Wi-Fi access on school buses eligible for E-rate support.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. E-RATE SUPPORT FOR SCHOOL BUS WI-FI.

    (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``school bus'' means a 
passenger motor vehicle that is--
            (1) designed to carry a driver and not less than 5 
        passengers; and
            (2) used significantly to transport early child education, 
        elementary school, or secondary school students to or from 
        school or an event related to school.
    (b) Rulemaking.--Notwithstanding the limitations under paragraphs 
(1)(B) and (2)(A) of section 254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 
(47 U.S.C. 254(h)) regarding the authorized recipients and uses of 
discounted telecommunications services, not later than 180 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications 
Commission shall commence a rulemaking to make the provision of Wi-Fi 
access on school buses eligible for support under the E-rate program of 
the Commission set forth under subpart F of part 54 of title 47, Code 
of Federal Regulations.
                                 <all>
```
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 119 ) ll-E-79 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:07

AM Sheet 119 of264P. 2

w/v-i/o i nc v ±*.D£ rA A tfUO 11 1 22Q Y 0 5 20/9 7 U8:.1 1 ©1919941023 4 WUiSTlGlOU S AC C PES RT PN C 

# To- ' @00 1 [g ] 003/00 3 

### A-94-5 2 

## 11 - E 7 ? Contac t Repor t 

## I Melani e Proctor

J Pacific Environmenta

l Services , Inc . (PES ) From : Date : Octobe r 30,199 6 Contact : Mr . Thoma s Jones , Production Manage r Company : Prestigiou s Accessorie s Telephon e Number : (903 ) 877-209 3 Fa x Number : (903 ) 877-228 7 Contac t Summary : Prestigiou s Accessorie s wa s contacte dt o verif y th e conten

t o f hazardou s ai r

pollutant s (HAP ) i n th e resin s reporte di n a199 3 mdustr y survey . Mr . Marvin Ha n wa s liste do n that surve y a s th e facilit

y contact . However . Mr . Har t wa s no t availabl e a t

th e tim e andI wa s referre d t o Mr . Jone s wh o i s th e productio n manage r a t Prestigiou s Accessories . Mr . Jone s explaine dthat

Prestigiou s Accessorie s use s only tw o resius , whic h contai n 3 1 t o 3 3 percent

HA P b y Weight . One resin , which account s fo r 9 5 percen t

o f al l resi n use da

n th e facility , i s vapor

suppressed . Th e other

xesin , which i s only use dfo r mol dmaking , i s no t

vapo r suppressed . Afte

r receivin g th e resin s fro

mth e supplier , Prestigiou s Accessorie s doe s no t add any additional HAP t o th e resin . INFORMATION S ACCURAT E

MA P Canrcn * IS

O-PPfcOXQ/na+eL 3fe % hy u^ijrTr- ; CLII (dS-kt r

inf o I S C&rr-e-CT. )»^L X