alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 15.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-173157) pertaining to the Stock Related Award Incentive Plan of 1999 and the 2010 Stock Incentive Plan of SouFun Holdings Limited of our reports dated April 26, 2012, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of SouFun Holdings Limited, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of SouFun Holdings Limited, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2011.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Ernst & Young Hua Ming          
|                                    
|Shenzhen, Peoples Republic of China
|April 26, 2012
#### Annamarie Swanson, as Administratrix of the Estate of Harold S. Swanson, Deceased, Appellant, v. Evans Oil Inc. et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: In this appeal from a judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint in a death action, the appellant contends that the unanimous jury verdict was prejudicially influenced by improper questions tending to show that the plaintiff was entitled to workmen’s compensation benefits and by statements made by defendants’ counsel in summation that the defendant had been exonerated by the Coroner and the Motor Vehicle Department. There is nothing in the record to justify either the questions or the statements in summation. The attempt to show that the plaintiff was entitled to workmen’s compensation was improper. *(Johnson*v. *Gianino,*279 App. Div. 760; *Lisanti*v. *Kenney Co.,*225 App. Div. 129, affd. 250 N. Y. 621; *Posnick*v. *Crystal,*181 App. Div. 660.) It was likewise error to state that the Motor Vehicle Department had taken no adverse action. *(Tyron*v. *Willbank,*234 App. Div. 335; *Kopp*v. *Hoffman,*280 App. Div. 954.) The improper matter cast upon the defendants the burden of showing that it did not influence the verdict rendered. *(Manigold*v. *Black Riv. Traction Co.,*81 App. Div. 381, 385.) Where counsel propounds a question which he must be assumed to know cannot be properly answered, the error is not cured by the Trial Judge’s ruling sustaining an objection thereto. *(Cosselmon*v. *Dunfee,*172 N. Y. 507.) It was not necessary to move for a mistrial. *(Smith*v. *Majestic Iron Works,*2 N Y 2d 544.) Willfulness is a factor to be considered and is demonstrated by repetition of the error. *(Frahm*v. *Siegel-Cooper Co.,*131 App. Div. 747.) In the present case, it cannot be said that the jury may not have been influenced by the improper matter. The judgment, therefore, should be reversed and a new trial granted. (Appeal from judgment of Cattaraugus Trial Term for defendant for no cause of action in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 710

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 710 appear at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019.

#### § 710.9 Burden of proof.

In any hearing under this part, DFC shall have the burden of proof and must establish substantial evidence of a violation of the statutory or post-employment restrictions.
### §336c. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 30, 1956, ch. 778, §3, 70 Stat. 716, provided that property rights of an entryman making an election under section 336a of this title or whose entry is allowed under section 336b of this title was a personal right, inheritable but not assignable.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs August 2, 2001

LARRY WILLIAMS v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

 Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County

No. 00-1154-I 

No. M2000-02905-COA-R3-CV - Filed August 28, 2002 

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J., concurring.

I concur with the results of the court’s opinion, not because Mr. Williams’s punishment was

not harsh enough to take on a constitutional dimension, but rather because his complaint fails to

articulate a colorable claim that the Department of Correction acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or

illegally by departing from its Uniform Disciplinary Procedures. Willis v. Tennessee Dep’t of Corr.,

No. M2000-01397-COA-R3-CV, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 389, at *57-63 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 5,

2002) (Koch, J., dissenting).

One other point should be made. Less than one month ago, this court upheld a trial court’s

dismissal of a petition for common-law writ of certiorari filed by a prisoner because it was not filed

in the county in which the institution housing the prisoner is located. We construed Tenn. Code

Ann. § 41-21-803 (1997) to require that a lawsuit for a cause of action accruing while a prisoner is

incarcerated must be brought in the county where the facility housing the prisoner is located. 

Hawkins v. Tennessee Dep’t of Corr., No. M2001-00473-COA-R3-CV, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS

536, at *39 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 2002). 

This lawsuit was not filed in the county where the institution housing the prisoner is located.

Accordingly, it was filed in the wrong court based on our interpretation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-

803. If our decision in Hawkins v. Tennessee Department of Correction applied here, the proper

remedy would be to vacate the judgment and remand the case with directions that it be transferred

to the proper court for disposition in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-1-116 (Supp. 2001).

However, as our decision in this case should demonstrate, we have determined that Hawkins applies

prospectively to all cases filed after Hawkins was decided and to all cases filed before Hawkins was

decided in which the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-803 has been raised. It does not apply

to cases filed beforeHawkins was decided in which the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-803

was not raised.

This case was filed before our decision in Hawkins was filed, and neither party raised the

application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-803 either in the trial court or on appeal. Accordingly, we

need not, in the absence of prejudice to the judicial process, grant relief to parties who failed to take

timely, reasonably available action to nullify any harmful effect caused by failing to heed Tenn. Code

Ann. § 41-21-803. 

___________________________________ 

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
###### Editorial Note on Part 30

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 30 appear at 87 FR 8197, Feb. 14, 2022.

#### § 30.100 Settlement of a civil money penalty action.

The officials listed at subpart B of this part, or their designees (or the Mortgagee Review Board, or designee, for violations under § 30.35), are authorized to enter into settlement agreements resolving civil money penalty actions that may be brought under part 30.

[74 FR 2752, Jan. 15, 2009]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Water levels and artesianpressure in observation wells in the United States. Part 4, South-centralstates.**
 
1940 | 1941 | 1942 | 1943 | 1944 | 1945 | 1946 | 1947 | 1948 | 1949
1950 | 1951 | 1952 | 1953 | 1954 | 1955
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.13:
Item Number:0625 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001104680
 
August 22, 2019
### §378. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act June 30, 1906, ch. 3912, 34 Stat. 663, authorized Secretary of the Interior to contract for office accommodations for Bureau of Reclamation in city of Washington. Construction of a building to afford office space for the bureau was authorized by act Mar. 4, 1913, ch. 147, §9, 37 Stat. 880.
#### Universal Vending Service Company, appellee, v. D. Catena, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,603.

Consolidated with No. 28,578 ante. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Per Curiam.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3116 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3116

       To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass articles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 2005

   Mr. Kirk introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass articles.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN GLASS ARTICLES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.09.54      Glass articles      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         valued over $5                                                     31/2008
                         each, whether or
                         not put up in
                         sets, put up for
                         mail order retail
                         sale, and each
                         weighing not over
                         4 kg together
                         with their retail
                         packaging
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         7013.99.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,799,370
<SECURITIES>                                   [BLANK]
<RECEIVABLES>                              302,589,319
<ALLOWANCES>                                   [BLANK]
<INVENTORY>                                    [BLANK]
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               [BLANK]
<PP&E>                                         [BLANK]
<DEPRECIATION>                                 [BLANK]
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             305,889,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,495,821
<BONDS>                                        [BLANK]
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          [BLANK]
<PREFERRED>                                 15,000,000
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                 286,393,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               305,889,155
<SALES>                                        [BLANK]
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,661,511
<CGS>                                          [BLANK]
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  297,305
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,970,872
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               [BLANK]
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             [BLANK]
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,393,334
<INCOME-TAX>                                   [BLANK]
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,393,334
<DISCONTINUED>                                 [BLANK]
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                [BLANK]
<CHANGES>                                      [BLANK]
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,393,334
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                13,933.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  [BLANK]
        

</TABLE>
#### Isabel DeOliviera, Appellant, v Robert M. Manners, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[832 NYS2d 456]

In an action to recover on two promissory notes, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered October 27, 2004, as granted the motion of the defendant Robert M. Manners pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) and (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof granting the motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Robert M. Manners and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion on condition that the United Pentecostal Church in Oyster Bay accepts this matter for determination of the claims and defenses asserted herein, and in the event the matter is not accepted by the United Pentecostal Church in Oyster Bay for determination, the motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Robert M. Manners is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the unique circumstances of this case, where the appellant and the respondent agreed to submit this matter to the United Pentecostal Church in Oyster Bay for a determination, a *696conditional dismissal is appropriate *(see Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States & Canada v Milivojevich,*426 US 696 [1976]; *Maryland & Virginia Eldership of Churches of God v Church of God at Sharpsburg, Inc.,*396 US 367 [1970]; *Lightman v Flaum,*97 NY2d 128 [2001], *cert denied 535 US*1096 [2002]; *Park Slope Jewish Ctr. v Congregation B’nai Jacob,*90 NY2d 517 [1997]; *Mandel v Silber,*304 AD2d 538 [2003]).

The parties’ remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination, and in any event, are without merit. Florio, J.P., Ritter, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
§ 26.19 Request for production of documents. ( a ) *Request to produce.* Any party may serve upon any other party a written request to produce, and permit the party making the request, or someone acting on the requestor's behalf, to inspect, copy, test, or sample any designated documents—including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations stored in any medium from which information can be obtained—translated, if necessary, by the respondent into reasonably usable form, or to inspect, copy, test, or sample any designated tangible things that constitute or contain matters within the scope of § 26.18(a) and which are in the possession, custody, or control of the party upon whom the request is served.
( b ) *Procedure.* The request shall set forth, either by individual item or by category, the items to be inspected, and describe each with reasonable particularity. The request shall specify a reasonable time, place, and manner of making the inspection and performing the related acts. The request may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.
( c ) *Response to request to produce.* The party upon whom the request is served shall serve a written response within 20 days after service of the request. A shorter or longer time may be directed by the hearing officer, or in the absence of such an order, agreed to by the parties in a written document that shall be timely submitted to the hearing officer. The response shall state, with respect to each item or category, whether inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested. If there are any objections to any requests, including objections to the requested form or forms for producing electronically stored information, the response shall state the reasons for such objections. If objection is made to part of an item or category, the part shall be specified and inspection of the remaining parts shall be permitted. If objection is made to the requested format or forms for producing electronically stored information—or if no form was specified in the request—the responding party must state the form or forms it intends to use. The party submitting the request may move for an order under § 26.18(c)(1) with respect to any objection to or other failure to respond to the request or any part thereof, or any failure to permit inspection as requested.
( d ) *Form of production.* Unless the parties otherwise agree, or the hearing officer otherwise orders: ( 1 ) A party who produces documents for inspection shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request;
( 2 ) If a request does not specify the format or forms for producing electronically stored information, a responding party must produce the information in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable; and
( 3 ) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
KDKC Photography & Design

PO Box 300174, Escondido, CA 92030

Petition for Exemption, requesting relief from the FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333.

KDKC photography and design (KDKC) currently, under individual ownership, seeks 

relief from airworthiness certification requirements from the above mentioned 

regulations.

KDKC has been in existence since 6/1/2014 with the purpose of providing photography 

for realtors and private homeowners. We wish to offer aerial photography using UAS.

KDKC is represented by the owner Daniel B. Kirksey, a current licensed private pilot, 

certificate #2925720.

Personal Information of Applicant: Daniel B. Kirksey

PO Box 300174

Escondido, CA 92030

(760)505-1377

dan@kdkcphotos.com

KDKC seeks exemption under the guidelines of Section 333 specifically as it relates to 

the Real Estate Industry in San Diego County under the small UAS rule. We believe 

that we have put together a program as responsible operators of an UAS that will be a 

model for others in the market.

Under the terms of this exemption, it is our intention to safely fly an UAS specifically a 

DJI Inspire 1, with a built in camera and gimbal, 2 operators, 1 flying the craft keeping 

the aircraft in constant line of sight, while the second operator controls the camera, 

independent of flight controls. The aircraft maintains a FPV connectivity with 5.8 GHz 

600mW antenna linked to a monitor allowing the pilot and camera operator to see what 

the camera sees, ensuring a recording of safe and responsible flight.

As air safety is paramount being a private pilot and understanding airspace rules and 

boundaries, KDKC has developed a highly structured pre-flight checklist and safety 

flight manual for the pilot and observer. As recent as the new proposed FAA regulation 

released as of February of 2015, KDKC intends to operate well within the most stringent 

proposal required to operate an unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System 

(NAS). We are prepared to attend any required course of study, participate in flight 

evaluation and pay any required fee(s) that may be instituted. We have many hundreds 

of combined hours of safe flying in the recreational mode.

Sincerely,

Daniel B. Kirksey

Certificate #2925720

KDKC Photography & Design
### **CHAPTER 12B—COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT**

Sec.
620.
Upper Colorado River Basin; purpose of development of water resources; initial units; construction of Wayne N. Aspinall unit contingent upon certification; participating projects; Rainbow Bridge National Monument.
620a.
Priority to planning reports of certain additional participating projects; reports to States; San Juan-Chama project; Juniper project.
620a–1.
Construction of participating projects to be concurrent with Central Arizona Project.
620a–2.
Establishment of nonexcess irrigable acreage for participating projects.
620b.
Congressional intent; additional undesignated projects not precluded; construction not authorized within national park or monument.
620c.
Laws governing; irrigation repayment contracts; time for making contract; contracts for municipal water; payment by Indian lands; restricted delivery of water for excess commodity; apportionments of use.
620c–1.
Laws governing priority of appropriation.
620d.
Upper Colorado River Basin Fund.
620d–1.
Reimbursement of Fund from Colorado River Development Fund; operation of Hoover Dam.
620e.
Cost allocations; Indian lands; report to Congress.
620f.
Powerplant operations.
620g.
Recreational and fish and wildlife facilities.
620h.
Saving provisions.
620i.
Expenditures; units excepted from soil survey and land classification requirements.
620j.
Court decree; effectivity and approval.
620k.
Authorization of appropriations.
620 l.
Net power revenues.
620m.
Compliance with law required in operation of facilities; enforcement of provisions.
620n.
Water quality study and reports.
620n–1.
Top water bank.
620 o.
Definitions.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2776 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2776

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4 [(4 amino phenyl) azo] 
                         benzene sulfonic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2005

   Mr. Clay introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4 [(4 amino phenyl) azo] 
                         benzene sulfonic acid.

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

SECTION 1. 4 [(4 AMINO PHENYL) AZO] BENZENE SULFONIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.41 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 4 [(4 amino phenyl) azo] 
benzene sulfonic acid) is amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
§ 246.12 Preemption of prospective term of lease. ( a ) In those instances where it will take more than 60 days (2 months) for the project to reach the new income levels, HUD preemption of prospective lease terms shall be effective for those new or renewed leases which by regulation of a local rent control board would require the mortgagor to offer a lease for a term in excess of one year.
( b ) As a condition for HUD preemption, the mortgagor must give only one-year leases to tenants whose leases expire during the preemption period.