alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
(Forms S-3, No. 333-15533, 33-58736, 33-60229, 33-78760, 33-72170, 33-68542) and
(Forms  S-8,  No.  33-45348,  33-75466,  33-88826,   333-87153,   333-89308  and
333-123712)  of Enzo Biochem,  Inc. and in the related  Prospectus of our report
dated October 5, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Enzo Biochem, Inc., Enzo Biochem,  Inc.'s management's assessment of
the  effectiveness  of  internal  control  over  financial  reporting,  and  the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Enzo Biochem, Inc.
included  in this Annual  Report  (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended July 31,
2006.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Melville, New York
October 13, 2006
VI 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 559 

For the relief of Alfredo Plascencia Lopez. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2017 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Alfredo Plascencia Lopez. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ALFREDO 

4 PLASCENCIA LOPEZ. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Alfredo Plascencia Lopez shall be 

8 eligible for the issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjust9 ment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 

10 permanent residence upon filing an application for 

11 issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of that 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 559 IS

1 Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of status to lawful 

2 permanent resident. 

3 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Alfredo Plascencia 

4 Lopez enters the United States before the filing deadline 

5 specified in subsection (c), Alfredo Plascencia Lopez shall 

6 be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 

7 shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 

8 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) 

9 as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

10 (c) APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Sub11 sections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application for 

12 issuance of immigrant visas or the application for adjust13 ment of status are filed with appropriate fees within two 

14 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

15 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

16 Upon the granting of immigrant visas or permanent resi17 dence to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez, the Secretary of State 

18 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by one, during 

19 the current or next following fiscal year— 

20 (1) the total number of immigrant visas that 

21 are made available to natives of the country of birth 

22 of Alfredo Plascencia Lopez under section 203(a) of 

23 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

24 1153(a)); or 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 559 IS

1 (2) if applicable, the total number of immigrant 

2 visas that are made available to natives of the coun3 try of birth of Alfredo Plascencia Lopez under sec4 tion 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)). 

5 (e) PAYGO.—The budgetary effects of this Act, for 

6 the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You7 Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the 

8 latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 

9 Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the 

10 Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate 

11 Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been 

12 submitted prior to the vote on passage. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit (3)



           ASSURANCES LETTER CONCERNING THE AUDIT BY ARTHUR ANDERSEN


Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC

May 31, 2002


Dear Sir or Madam,

Asahi & Co. has represented to Ricoh Company, Ltd. that its audit was subject
to the firm's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards and that there was
appropriate continuity of Asahi & Co. personnel working on the audit,
availability of U.S. national office consultation and availability of personnel
at foreign affiliates of Asahi & Co. to conduct the relevant portions of the
audit.

Very truly yours,

                                                   RICOH COMPANY, LTD.
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   (Registrant)


                                                 BY    /s/  Zenji Miura
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   Zenji Miura
                                                   Senior Vice President and
                                                   General Manager of
                                                   Finance & Accounting Division
                                                   Ricoh Company, Ltd.
#### Morris Lipschultz, appellant, v. Security Trust & Deposit Company, appellee.

Gen. No. 29,330.

Assumpsit to recover for money and jewelry lost through negligence of the defendant. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles A. McDonald, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed April 29, 1925.

Rehearing denied May 13, 1925.

Pearl M. Hart and Edwin Terwilliger, Jr., for appellant.

Warren B. Wilson, for appellee; Alvin B. Stein, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 935.51 Motor vehicle violations.

Whoever is found guilty of a violation of subpart N of this part is subject to a fine of not more than $100, imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or suspension or revocation of his motor vehicle operator's permit, or any combination or all of these punishments.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 535 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 535

 To amend the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act to 
 make applicable to the State of South Dakota a provision relating to 
               certain Bureau of Reclamation permit fees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2017

   Mr. Thune introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act to 
 make applicable to the State of South Dakota a provision relating to 
               certain Bureau of Reclamation permit fees.

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

SECTION 1. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DAKOTAS AREA OFFICE PERMIT FEES FOR 
              CABINS AND TRAILERS.

    Section 3601 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the 
Nation Act (Public Law 114-322) is amended by inserting ``or the State 
of South Dakota'' after ``North Dakota''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 989.17 Notice of intent.

The EPF must furnish, through the MAJCOM, to HQ USAF/A7CI the NOI (40 CFR 1508.22) describing the proposed action for congressional notification and publication in the Federal Register. The EPF, through the host base public affairs office, will also provide the approved NOI to newspapers and other media in the area potentially affected by the proposed action. The EPF must provide copies of the notice to the SPOC and must also distribute it to requesting agencies, organizations, and individuals. Along with the draft NOI, the EPF must also forward the completed DOPAA, through the MAJCOM, to HQ USAF for information.

[64 FR 38129, July 15, 1999, as amended at 66 FR 16868, Mar. 28, 2001; 72 FR 37106, July 9, 2007]
14th Amendment

                                  EXHIBIT 3.1

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     OF THE
                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                         ESPEY MFG. & ELECTRONICS CORP.

                Under Section 805 of the Business Corporation Law

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT:

      (1) The name of the  corporation  is Espey Mfg. & Electronics  Corp.  (the
Corporation").  The name  under  which  the  Corporation  was  formed  is "Espey
Manufacturing Company, Inc."

      (2) The  Certificate of  Incorporation  (as amended,  the  "Certificate of
Incorporation") was filed by the Department of State on July 9, 1928.

      (3) Article  SEVENTH of the  Certificate of  Incorporation,  as amended by
Certificate  of Amendment  filed by the Department of State on February 14, 1994
now provides that the number of members of the Board of Directors  shall consist
of nine  persons  and shall be  classified  into  three  classes,  each class to
consist of three directors.

      (4) Article SEVENTH of the Certificate of  Incorporation is hereby amended
to read as follows:

      SEVENTH:  The entire  Board of Directors  shall  consist of not fewer than
      three persons and not more than nine persons, with the actual number to be
      determined in accordance with the by-laws.  The directors shall be divided
      into three classes, Class A, Class B and Class C, and all classes shall be
      as nearly equal in number as possible. At each annual meeting,  successors
      to the class of directors  whose term expires at that annual meeting shall
      be elected for a three-year term. The Class A directors at the time of the
      adoption of this Article SEVENTH, as amended,  have a term expiring at the
      2006 Annual Meeting.  The Class B directors  elected at the meeting of the
      adoption of this Article SEVENTH, as amended, will have a term expiring at
      the 2007 Annual Meeting. The Class C directors at the time of the adoption
      of this  Article  SEVENTH,  as amended,  have a term  expiring at the 2005
      Annual Meeting.

      (5) This amendment to the Certificate of  Incorporation  was authorized by
unanimous vote of the board of directors and was subsequently  authorized by the
majority vote of the shareholders entitled to vote thereon.

      IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  we have  hereunto  subscribed  this  Certificate  of
Amendment this 12th day of November, 2004.


/s/ Peggy A. Murphy                       /s/ Howard Pinsley
--------------------------------          ---------------------------------
Peggy A. Murphy, Secretary                Howard Pinsley, President


                                       13
1009.7005 Solicitation provision. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the provision 1052.209-70, Notice and Consent to Disclose and Use of Taxpayer Return Information, in all IRS solicitations regardless of dollar value, including solicitations for acquisition of commercial items (including Commercially Available Off-The-Shelf items).
### §386g. Repealed. Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 654, §1(10), 65 Stat. 701

Section, act July 7, 1932, ch. 443, §1, 47 Stat. 614, related to transfer or sale of property of Alaska, Guam, and Virgin Islands stations.
#### In the Matter of Thomas Behl, Appellant, v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, Respondent. (And 16 Other Proceedings.)

Motion to consolidate appeals, to dispense with the printing of exhibits and for other relief, denied. With respect to dispensing with the printing of the exhibits, leave is granted to renew on proper papers describing and identifying the exhibits and showing their materiality to the issues to be raised.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Gertrude De Levie, Respondent, v Sam Smith et al., Appellants, and Special Fund for Reopened Cases, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 9, 1976 and June 2, 1977, which ruled (1) that claimant sustained a compensable injury as a result of an industrial accident in July of 1962, and (2) discharged the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from liability. Claimant was employed as a cook when she allegedly injured her back in July of 1962 while lifting a heavy pot. On May 22, 1964, she filed a claim for compensation benefits arising out of the alleged accident which was controverted by the employer. Following a series of hearings, the last of which occurred on September 14, 1971, the case was closed "until claimant is willing to be present with medical evidence.” Following a report from a Dr. Edwards, the claim was restored to the referee’s calendar and claimant was granted a compensation award which was later affirmed by the board. A subsequent referee’s decision holding the Special Fund for Reopened Cases liable for the previous award was reversed by the board. On this appeal, the employer and its carrier argue that the board’s determination that claimant suffered a compensable injury is not based upon substantial evidence in the record as a *936whole. We disagree. Claimant’s own testimony concerning the accident was not contested and the board was within its power in believing her. The contention that claimant did not comply with the notice requirements of section 18 of the Workers’ Compensation Law is similarly without merit. It is conceded that the employer received a registered letter from claimant within 30 days of the accident describing an accidental injury which afforded the opportunity of inquiry to the employer. Further, the board’s decision to discharge the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from liability should be upheld since the determination with regard to the "closing” of a claim for purposes of section 25-a of the Workers’ Compensation Law is one of fact *(Matter of Scalesse v Printing Adv. Corp.,*30 NY2d 234; *Matter of Stoever v Sheraton Astor W. L. Hotel Operating Co.,*29 AD2d 597). The other arguments raised on this appeal have been examined and found to be without merit. Decisions affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents filing briefs against the appellants. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
### SUBCHAPTER VI—ADMINISTRATION
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JAN 13, 2011

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-12677 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-02618-RBP-HGD

RUSSELL FORD,

llllllllllllllllllll Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WILLIE THOMAS,

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA,

llllllllllllllllll Respondents-Appellees.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Northern District of Alabama

 ________________________

(January 13, 2011)

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Russell Ford, a Florida state prisoner proceeding through counsel, appeals

the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as

time-barred. Ford filed a notice of appeal, and the district court granted him a

certificate of appealability (COA) as to whether he had “made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to his claims related to

newly discovered evidence and alleged destruction of evidence.” Ford contends

Alabama’s post-conviction relief procedures are “fundamentally inadequate to

vindicate [his] substantive rights” because the district attorney destroyed evidence,

in bad faith and in violation of the Due Process Clause, which could have

substantiated his claim of actual innocence. 

A federal habeas petitioner must obtain a COA from the district court to

appeal the denial of his § 2254 habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 

However, “[w]hen a district court dismisses a petition as time-barred, it is

inappropriate to grant a COA on the [underlying] constitutional claim . . . .” Ross

v. Moore, 246 F.3d 1299, 1300 (11th Cir. 2001).1

In Ross we vacated the order granting a COA and remanded to the district court “for the 1

limited purpose of considering whether a COA should be granted on the question of whether

appellant’s habeas petition is time-barred.” Id.

2
In light of the district court’s untimeliness ruling, it was inappropriate to

grant a COA on the issue of whether Ford had “made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right with respect to his claims related to newly

discovered evidence and alleged destruction of evidence.” Accordingly, we vacate

the order granting a COA and remand to the district court for the limited purpose

of considering whether a COA should be granted on the question of whether

Ford’s § 2254 petition is time-barred.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

3
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Wayne J. Conner, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Elgin National Industries, Inc., certify that:



| | 1. | This quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Elgin National Industries, Inc. 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Elgin National Industries, Inc.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    WAYNE J.
CONNERWayne J. ConnerVice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer


Date: August 11, 2006
1034.004 Acquisition strategy. ( a ) A program manager's acquisition strategy written at the system or investment level in accordance with FAR 7.103(e) shall include at a minimum: ( 1 ) The relationship of each individual acquisition (Contract, Delivery Order, Task Order, or Interagency Agreement) to the overall investment requirements and management structure;
( 2 ) What work is being performed in-house (by government personnel) versus contracted out for the investment;
( 3 ) A description of the effort, by acquisition, and the plans to include required clauses in the acquisitions;
( 4 ) A timetable of major acquisition award and administration activities, including plans for contract transitions;
( 5 ) An investment/system surveillance plan;
( 6 ) Financial and human resource requirements to manage the acquisition processes through the investment lifecycle;
( 7 ) Consideration of optimal contract types, including considerations of performance based approaches, small business utilization, Section 508, etc.; and
( 8 ) Assurances that the acquisition strategy section and supporting acquisition plans will maximize competition, including enabling downstream competition through avoidance of vendor “lock in”.
( b ) The acquisition strategy shall be approved by a chartered interdisciplinary acquisition team that includes a representative of the procurement organization designated in accordance with bureau procedures.
#### United Services Automobile Association, Respondent, v. Stephen Bass, Respondent, et al., Defendants. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Intervenor-Appellant.

Order, entered on January 14, 1964, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion by appellant for leave to intervene in this action granted, with $10 costs. (See *United Sen. Auto. Assn.*v. *Graham,*21 A D 2d 657.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE HECTOR MANUEL GARCIA

NOYOLA, AKA Hector Garica Noyola,

Petitioner,

 v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-73393

Agency No. A201-032-817

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 7, 2019** 

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. 

Jose Hector Manuel Garcia Noyola (“Garcia Noyola”), a native and citizen

of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his

application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and

FILED

AUG 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Nationality Act (“INA”), and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.

Whether a group constitutes a “particular social group” is a question of law

that we review de novo, Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 2010), but

we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of governing statutes and regulations,

Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827

F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016). 

The BIA did not err in finding that Garcia Noyola has not established

membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125,

1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining cognizability standard) (citing Matter of M-E-GV-, 26 I & N Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Garcia Noyola has not established that

Mexican nationals returning to Mexico after having lived in the United States for

an extended period of time would be perceived by society as a particular social

group. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010)

(returnees from the United States to Mexico is not a particular social group). 

Garcia Noyola also has not established that he would be persecuted on account of a

protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)

(petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or

2
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus,

Garcia Noyola’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief. The

record does not compel the conclusion that Garcia Noyola is “more likely than not”

to be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if he

returns to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see also Aden v. Holder, 589

F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, Garcia Noyola’s CAT claim also fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3