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


Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

We have issued our reports dated February 15, 1999 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Michael Foods, Inc. and subsidiaries which
are incorporated by reference or included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Michael Foods, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998. We hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of
Michael Foods, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-31914 effective November 21, 1989,
and March 25, 1997 as amended; File Nos. 33-64076 and 33-64078 effective June 9,
1993, and March 25, 1997 as amended; File No. 33-57969 effective March 7, 1995,
and March 25, 1997 as amended; and File No. 333-23949 effective March 25, 1997).

                                                  /s/GRANT THORNTON LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
February 15, 1999
#### Frances Rooney, Individually and as Limited Administratrix of the Estate of John J. Rooney, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. S. A. Healy Co. et al., Defendants. Thomas Adair Contracting Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of New York, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

*733— In a negligence action, Thomas Adair Contracting Corp., a defendant and third-party plaintiff, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated November 15, 1962, which dismissed its third-party complaint against the City of New York on the ground that it appeared on the face of such complaint that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 106, subd. 4). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The main complaint seeks damages from Adair and other defendants for the death of plaintiff’s intestate which allegedly resulted from the defendants’ negligence in connection with the construction of a sewer for the City of New York. Adair, a subcontractor engaged in the construction work, is charged with performing a portion of its work improperly. It served a third-party complaint on the city, seeking indemnity on the ground, in substance, that its work was done in accordance with the city’s requirements. In our opinion the third-party complaint was properly dismissed. Under the allegations of the main complaint, Adair could be held liable to plaintiff only upon a showing that it was guilty of active negligence (cf. *Cochran*v. *Sess,*368 N. Y. 372, 375, 376-377; *Ryan*v. *Feeney & Sheehan Bldg. Co.,*239 N. Y. 43, 46). It was not, therefore, entitled to indemnity from a joint tort-feasor (cf. *Rufo*v. *Orlando,*286 App. Div. 88, affid. 309 N. Y. 345; *Bush Term. Bldgs. Co.*v. *Luclcenbaeh S. S. Co.,*9 N Y 2d 426, 430; *Colon*v. *Board of Educ. of City of N. Y.,*11 N Y 2d 446, 453). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
### 636 OFFICE OF THE ACTORNEY **GENERAL** OF TEXAS AUSTIN Ronorable J. M. Alla CoURt: y AuQl.tor Hunt aolmty &wnrille, Texar 

### Dear Slrr

oaunty hare the aut 

### a term OS one

tlon to a t

Zbat statute, htmefer, oontatnr Xi5**zUthOTlPotlQl3** ***hatever** tar hlaltlng the 

### durrtlon of a ooXUO?.ldatlOnbut sohoot di6trbte oensolldatea therslmder 

### aM oansollduteQ for all intents euid~ pwpoaes wlt.hOut qaal~,fl~&ti~~ OF

### HonorableJ. M. Allen, 

### Page2

11mltation. The only method whrrebr oonoolidateil dlstriotr may be diasolwd and restored to their original **rtatur ta:**  that provided in Artlole N.6. R. C. 8.. ,iQ&5, vhfoh rrauirea anl liotllon ln the mamemanned aa is ptivided-for ,their-oonrolldatlon under Artiole 2806. tire. Your quertion 1s therefore anrwored Sn the nrgaYour8 very tmly AmmY QEUERbLOF TEXAS
4CotW EmLo8URJc6 APPROVEDAPR 1, 1941

-,.-wJ ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS
# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it
No. 10-2262 ASHLEIGH PRUELL, on behalf of herself and all other employees similarly situated; AMY GORDON, on behalf of herself and all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v. CARITAS CHRISTI; CARITAS CHRISTI NETWORK SERVICES; CARITAS GOOD SAMARITAN MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; CARITAS NORWOOD HOSPITAL, INC.; CARITAS SOUTHWOOD HOSPITAL, INC.; CARITAS ST. JOHN OF GOD HOSPITAL, INC.; SAINT ANNE'S HOSPITAL CORPORATION; RALPH DE LA TORRE, M.D.; RICHARD KROPP; CARITAS CARNEY HOSPITAL, INC.; CARITAS HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL, INC.; CARITAS ST. ELIZABETH'S MEDICAL CENTER OF BOSTON, INC., Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA The opinion of this Court, issued on J u l y 14, 2011, should be amended as follows. On page 3, line 4 of 2nd full paragraph, insert a comma after "law". On page 9, line 3 down from top of page, replace "Fleabite" with "Flibotte".
exv10w6



 







EXHIBIT
10.6




[letterhead of International Wire Group, Inc.




March 27, 2006




William Lane Pennington

Suite 260

2431 East 61st Street

Tulsa, OK 74114



Dear Lane:




     We are writing to confirm that your term as Vice Chairman has been extended through December
31, 2006. Effective as of February 1, 2006, your cash compensation has been increased from
$150,000 to $175,000 annually. Your company-provided medical and other insurance benefits will
continue and your stock options are unaffected.



     If the foregoing is correct, please so indicate by signing this letter in the space provided
below.



[The remainder of this page has intentionally been left blank]




 









 





	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Very truly yours,





INTERNATIONAL WIRE GROUP, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Rodney D. Kent
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Rodney D. Kent 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 



AGREED
AND ACCEPTED



April 4,
2006:


WILLIAM LANE PENNINGTON




/s/ William Lane Pennington
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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Viskase
Companies, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, I, Gordon S. Donovan,
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Viskase Companies, Inc., hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:

(1) such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Viskase Companies, Inc. for the
quarter ended March 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Viskase Companies, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, fairly
represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Viskase Companies, Inc.


Date:  May 15, 2003


                                  /s/ Gordon S. Donovan
                                  ------------------------------------------
                                  Gordon S. Donovan
                                  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
§ 516.16 Individual and supervisory procedures upon commencement of legal proceedings. ( a ) *Individual procedures.* DA personnel served with civil or criminal process concerning a proceeding in which the United States has an interest (§ 516.15) will immediately inform their supervisor and furnish copies of process and pleadings. There is no requirement to notify supervisors of purely private litigation.
( b ) *Supervisory procedures.* When supervisors learn that legal proceedings in which the United States has an interest have commenced, the supervisor will forward a copy of all process and pleadings, along with other readily available information, to the SJA or legal adviser. If no legal officer is available locally, the documents will be forwarded to the SJA or legal adviser of the next higher headquarters.
### §592. Definitions

For the purpose of this subchapter—

(1) "administrative program" includes a Federal function which involves protection of the public interest and the determination of rights, privileges, and obligations of private persons through rule making, adjudication, licensing, or investigation, as those terms are used in subchapter II of this chapter, except that it does not include a military or foreign affairs function of the United States;

(2) "administrative agency" means an authority as defined by section 551(1) of this title; and

(3) "administrative procedure" means procedure used in carrying out an administrative program and is to be broadly construed to include any aspect of agency organization, procedure, or management which may affect the equitable consideration of public and private interests, the fairness of agency decisions, the speed of agency action, and the relationship of operating methods to later judicial review, but does not include the scope of agency responsibility as established by law or matters of substantive policy committed by law to agency discretion.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 388, §572; renumbered §592, Pub. L. 102–354, §2(2), Aug. 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 944.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 1045a. | Aug. 30, 1964, Pub. L. 88–499, §3, 78 Stat. 615. |

Statutes at Large

In paragraph (1), the words "subchapter II of this chapter" are substituted for "the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 1001–1011)" to reflect the codification of the Act in this title. The word "naval" is omitted as included in "military".

In paragraph (2), the words "section 551(1) of this title" are substituted for "section 2(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 1001(a))".

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 592 was renumbered section 582 of this title and was subsequently repealed.

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–354 renumbered section 572 of this title as this section.
#### § 257.2 Applicability.

This rule applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Military Departments.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FR ANC ISC O M U R C IA-NAJAR R O, AKA Franc isc o M urc i a , Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-73983 Age n c y No. A095-013-224 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2014 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd B YB EE, C i rc uit Judge s . Franc isc o M urc ia -Na

ja rro, a native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva d or, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED D EC 15 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. Ze haty ev . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006). W e de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t M urc ia -Na

j arro’ s untim e ly a sy lum a pplic ation wa s file d within a re a sona ble pe riod of tim e from

the de nia l of his a pplic ation for te m

pora ry prote c te d sta

tus. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.4(a)(5); Dhital v . Muk ase y , 532 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th C ir. 2008) (a pplic ation file d 22 m onths a fte r e xpira tion of la wful nonim

m igra nt sta tus wa s not re a sona

ble ). Thus, Murc ia Na ja rro’ s a sy lum

c la im fa i ls. M urc ia -Na

ja rro doe s not c onte nd he suffe re d pa st pe rse c ution. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the

a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t M urc ia -Na

ja rro fa ile d to e sta blish thegove rnm e nt of El Sa lva dor is una ble or unwilling to c ontrol the pe ople he fe a

rs. Se eTruong v . Holde r , 613 F.3d 938, 941-42 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam ); N

ahrv ani v . Gonzale

s , 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th C ir. 2005) (re c ord did not c om pe l finding pe titione r fa c e d pe rse c ut ion by the gove rnm e nt or forc e s the gove rnm e nt wa s unwilling or una ble to c ontrol). Thus, M

urc ia -Na ja rro’ s withholding of rem o v a l c la im fa ils. Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of M urc ia Na ja rro’ s C AT c la im

be c a use he fa ile d to show tha

t it is more like ly

tha n not tha t 2 1 1 - 7 3 9 8 3he would betorture d by or with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to El Sa lva dor. S e eSilay a v . Muk

ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3 1 1 - 7 3 9 8 3
§ 705.26 Exhibit availability report. ( a ) A center index of exhibits which are available at the local level in each Naval District is maintained by the exhibit center. To achieve maximum effectiveness for an overall integrated program, an up-to-date registry of all exhibits is required.
( b ) A current inventory of exhibits headquartered in Washington, DC, and managed by the Navy Recruiting Exhibit Center for scheduling purposes may be obtained by writing to: Officer-in-Charge, Navy Recruiting Exhibit Center, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC 20374.
[41 FR 29101, July 15, 1976, as amended at 44 FR 6391, Feb. 1, 1979]
#### § 339.12 Exigent circumstances.

In emergency situations or when the proposing component is required by statutory deadline, court order, or executive order to act more quickly than normal review procedures allow, the proposing component shall coordinate with OGC and the appropriate DoD or OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer to notify OIRA as soon as possible and, to the extent practicable, shall comply with the requirements of this part at the earliest opportunity.
#### § 720.10 Members released by civil authorities on bail or on their own recognizance.

A member of the Navy or Marine Corps arrested by Federal or State authorities and released on bail or on his own recognizance has a duty to return to his parent organization. Accordingly, when a member of the Navy or Marine Corps is arrested by Federal or State authorities and returns to his ship or station on bail, or on his own recognizance, the commanding officer, upon verification of the attesting facts, date of trial, and approximate length of time that should be covered by the absence, shall grant liberty or leave to permit appearance for trial, unless this would have a serious negative impact on the command. In the event that liberty or leave is not granted, a judge advocate of the Navy or Marine Corps should immediately be requested to act as liaison with the court. Nothing in this section is to be construed as permitting the member arrested and released to avoid the obligations of bond or recognizance by reason of the member's being in the military service.
#### In the Matter of John J. Delfino et al., Appellants, v. Ewald B. Nyquist, as Acting Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, Respondent, and Iris C. McKay et al., Constituting the Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 4, Town of Rye, Intervenors-Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term which dismissed the petition in a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination by the Commissioner of Education which held valid a special meeting of the school district and the adoption thereat of a proposition for the *688acquisition of a new school site previously designated by the Board of Education, the construction of a new school building thereon and the financing thereof by levy of taxes and issuance of bonds. The construction of subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 401 and subdivision 6 of section 1709 of the Education Law is dispositive of the issues presented by this appeal, as defined in appellants’ brief. Inasmuch as the population of the district exceeded 5,000, the Board of Education had power to designate the site; and submission of the designation to a vote of the district meeting was not required, as a prerequisite to further action or for any other purpose. *(Corbett*v. *Union Free School Dist. No. 21, Town of Hempstead,*199 Mise. 930, 933, affd. 278 App. Div. 960, motion for leave to appeal denied 303 N. Y. 1012; and see 1952 Report of N. Y. Law Rev. Comm., p. 462.) Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
#### § 536.1 Purpose of the Army Claims System.

This part sets forth policies and procedures that govern the investigating, processing, and settling of claims against, and in favor of, the United States under the authority conferred by statutes, regulations, international and interagency agreements, and Department of Defense Directives (DODDs). It is intended to ensure that claims are investigated properly and adjudicated according to applicable law, and valid recoveries and affirmative claims are pursued against carriers, third-party insurers, and tortfeasors.
H. Res. 1366 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 22, 2024. 

Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a 

Representative from the State of Texas. 

Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions 

to the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of 

the deceased. 

Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### § 942.785 Requirements for permits for special categories of mining.

Part 785 of this chapter, *Requirements for Permits for Special Categories of Mining,* shall apply to each person who makes application for a permit to conduct certain categories of surface coal mining and reclamation operations as specified therein.
§ 21.560 Must DoD Components assign numbers uniformly to awards? Yes, DoD Components must assign identifying numbers to all awards subject to this subpart, including grants, cooperative agreements, and technology investment agreements. The uniform numbering system parallels the procurement instrument identification (PII) numbering system specified in 48 CFR 204.70 (in the “Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement”), as follows: ( a ) The first six alphanumeric characters of the assigned number must be identical to those specified by 48 CFR 204.7003(a)(1) to identify the DoD Component and contracting activity.
( b ) The seventh and eighth positions must be the last two digits of the fiscal year in which the number is assigned to the grant, cooperative agreement, or other nonprocurement instrument.
( c ) The 9th position must be a number: ( 1 ) “1” for grants.
( 2 ) “2” for cooperative agreements, including technology investment agreements that are cooperative agreements (see Appendix B to 32 CFR part 37).
( 3 ) “3” for other nonprocurement instruments, including technology investment agreements that are not cooperative agreements.
( d ) The 10th through 13th positions must be the serial number of the instrument. DoD Components and contracting activities need not follow any specific pattern in assigning these numbers and may create multiple series of letters and numbers to meet internal needs for distinguishing between various sets of awards.
---

---

EXHIBIT 14(a)(4)

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-34233, 33-46861, 33-87614, 33-97622, 33-97624,
and 33-39364 of Scitex Corporation Ltd. (Scitex) on Form S-8 of our report on
the financial statements of Scitex Vision America, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of
Scitex Vision Ltd.) dated February 7, 2005, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A
of Scitex for the year ended December 31, 2004.

| |  | /s/ Frazier & Deeter, LLC
Frazier & Deeter, LLC
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

Atlanta, Georgia, United
StatesSeptember 19, 2005

| |  | 
| |  | 



---

---
#### STATE v. MEDLEY

No. 460P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 398

347 N.C. 273

Petition by defendant for writ of supersedeas denied 6 November 1997. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied and temporary stay dissolved 6 November 1997.
EXHIBIT 10.36

                           ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND CONSENT
                           --------------------------


         The undersigned hereby consents to the execution and delivery by LEVCOR
INTERNATIONAL, INC. ("Levcor") of Endorsement No. 5. dated March 16, 2006 (the
"Endorsement") to the Promissory Note, dated May 3, 2002 made by Levcor to
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., formerly known as JPMorgan Chase Bank (the "Bank") in
the principal amount of $3,000,000, as amended from time to time (the "Note")
and acknowledges and agrees that the execution and delivery by Levcor of the
Endorsement to the Note shall have no effect upon (a) the undersigned's
Guaranty, dated April 30, 2002 (the "Guaranty") of Levcor's obligations to the
Bank pursuant to the Note, (b) the undersigned's Pledge Agreement, dated January
24, 2003 (the "Pledge Agreement") granting to the Bank a security interest in a
certain collateral securities account maintained at LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. ("LBI")
and (c) the Pledged Collateral Account Control Agreement, dated as of April 29,
2002 (the "Control Agreement"), executed by the undersigned, LBI and the Bank,
each of which shall remain in full force and effect. Undersigned further
confirms that no Default or Event of Default has occurred or is continuing
pursuant to the terms of the Note, the Guaranty or the Control Agreement.


                                       /s/ ROBERT A. LEVINSON
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Robert A. Levinson
#### M & S Gasoline Service, Inc., et al., Respondents, v. Texas Company et al., Appellants.

Orders, entered on February 11, 1964, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, the motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution *645granted, with $10 eosts. This action was commenced in May, 1957, and issue joined in September, 1957. Activity has been intermittent and occasional. In June, 1962, there was a substitution o£ plaintiffs’ attorney and there the matter rested until December, 1963, when there was service of a note of issue and statement of readiness. Ho reasonable excuse is shown for the delay and for the failure to prosecute. (CPLR 3216; *Sortino*v. *Fisher,*20 A D 2d 25.) Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.