alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
AXCESS Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements Nos.
33-42214 and 33-98160 on Form S-8 and No. 333-10665 on Form S-3 of AXCESS Inc.
of our report dated March 19, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of AXCESS Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998,
which report appears in the December 31, 1998, annual report on Form 10-KSB.

Our report dated March 19, 1999 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the company's recurring losses from operations and resulting continued
dependence upon access to additional external financing raise substantial doubt
about the company's ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated
financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the
outcome of this uncertainty.

                                                                    /s/KPMG LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 30, 1999
#### Nopco Chemical Company, Appellant, v. Nathan Milner et al., Copartners Doing Business as East New York Products Co., Respondents.

In an action to recover the sum of $12,674.57 as the balance alleged to be due for goods sold and delivered, in which defendants asserted a counterclaim for $300,000 based on plaintiff’s alleged breach of contract, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 18, 1960, denying its motion for summary judgment and to strike out defendants’ answer, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted as to its cause of action and as demanded in its complaint, subject to the following conditions: (1) that plaintiff’s cause of action as to which summary judgment is granted, be severed from the cause of action pleaded as a counterclaim by defendants in their answer; (2) that the issues raised by the counterclaim and the reply thereto be determined as though they had arisen in a separate action upon a complaint and answer; and (3) that the entry of the summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on its cause of action be held in abeyance pending the determination of the counterclaim. Plaintiff’s cause of action has been established by admissions in defendants’ answer and in the affidavit submitted by defendants in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Defendants have not submitted any proof of facts which would entitle them to defend against plaintiff’s claim. Nor have defendants submitted any proof in support of the allegations contained in their counterclaim. The mere assertion of the counterclaim, unsupported by proof that it is meritorious, does not bar relief to plaintiff under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice (cf. *Smith*v. *Cranleigh, Inc.,*224 App. Div. 376). In order to defeat plaintiff’s motion, it was necessary for defendants, who had conceded the validity of plaintiff’s claim to assemble and reveal their proof in support of their counterclaim (cf. *Dodwell & Co.*v. *Silverman,*234 App. Div. 362). On the other hand the proof submitted by plaintiff was insufficient to establish that the counterclaim was without merit. Under the circumstances, plaintiff was entitled to judgment as demanded in its complaint, but was not entitled to a dismissal of the counterclaim. Consequently, entry of plaintiff’s judgment should be held in "abeyance pending the determination of the issues raised by the counterclaim and reply (see Rules Civ. Prac., rule 113, subd. 5; cf. *Johnson*v. *Peters,*22 Misc 2d 972). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Limited Competition: Stimulating Access to Research in Residency Transition Scholar (StARRTS) (K38) (Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         February 26, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F30A, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ellen S. Buczko, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F30A Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 669-5028,                         *ebuczko1@niaid.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 19, 2021.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-01559 Filed 1-25-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Charles L. Gallo, Respondent, v. Chester M. Mayer et al., Defendants, and Lehman Bros., Appellant.

In an action for breach of a fiduciary contract (a joint venture agreement) against the individual defendants (first cause) and for conspiracy and fraud against the individual defendants and defendant Lehman Bros, by reason of their participation in alleged wrongful acts which resulted in a loss to plaintiff (second cause), defendant Lehman Bros, appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 12, 1962, as: (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to defer the service of his bill of particulars until after the completion of his examination before trial of the defendant Lehman Bros.; (2) directed that the examination of said defendant before trial shall precede the examination of plaintiff before trial; and (3) denied defendant Lehman Bros.’ cross motion to vacate plaintiff’s notice of examination before trial of said defendant. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, there are special circumstances present justifying the relief granted. The examination of defendant Lehman Bros, shall proceed on 10 days’ notice or on a date to be mutually fixed by the parties. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF BRUNO'S, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JULY 31, 1999, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                         110,231
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                       517
<INVENTORY>                                    160,147
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               303,690
<PP&E>                                         577,339
<DEPRECIATION>                                 322,339
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 571,407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          119,220
<BONDS>                                        400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           255
<OTHER-SE>                                    (556,874)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   571,407
<SALES>                                        814,812
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               814,812
<CGS>                                          624,345
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  624,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               218,440
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,484
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (29,457)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (10,068)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (19,389)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (19,389)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.76)


</TABLE>
22.1010 Notification to interested parties under collective bargaining agreements. ( a ) The contracting officer should determine whether the incumbent prime contractor's or its subcontractors' service employees performing on the current contract are represented by a collective bargaining agent. If there is a collective bargaining agent, the contracting officer shall give both the incumbent contractor and its employees' collective bargaining agent written notification of— ( 1 ) The forthcoming successor contract and the applicable acquisition dates (issuance of solicitation, opening of bids, commencement of negotiations, award of contract, or start of performance, as the case may be); or
( 2 ) The forthcoming contract modification and applicable acquisition dates (exercise of option, extension of contract, change in scope, or start of performance, as the case may be); or
( 3 ) The forthcoming multiple year contract anniversary date (annual anniversary date or biennial date, as the case may be).
( b ) This written notification must be given at least 30 days in advance of the earliest applicable acquisition date or the applicable annual or biennial anniversary date in order for the time-of-receipt limitations in 22.1012-2 (a) and (b) to apply. The contracting officer shall retain a copy of the notification in the contract file.
[54 FR 19816, May 8, 1989, as amended at 71 FR 36934, June 28, 2006]
#### CORSCADDEN v. HASWELL et al., Commissioners.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 17, 1903.)

1. Injunction—Continuance Until Final Judgment—Necessity—Appeal— Harmless Error.

An order continuing a temporary injunction until final judgment entered at the same time as the entry of an interlocutory judgment containing the same injunction, but which authorized defendants to withdraw their demurrer and answer, was, even if unnecessary, harmless.

Appeal from Special Term, Albany County.

Action by John E. Corscadden against Isaac M. Haswell and others, as commissioners of the Albany penitentiary,' and another. From an order continuing a temporary injunction, and from an order denying a resettlement of said order, defendants appeal. Order of continuance affirmed. Order refusing a resettlement reversed, and injunction modified.

Argued before PARKER, P. J., and SMITH, CHASE, CHESTER, and HOUGHTON, JJ.

J. S. Frost (J. Newton Fiero, of counsel), for appellants.

Countryman & Du Bois, for respondent.

SMITH, J.

Upon the opinion in the appeal from the judgment in this case, the order should be modified in the same way as the judgment was therein directed to be modified. The objection made by the defendants to the order continuing the injunction seems to be that as the injunction was included in the interlocutory judgment at that time entered there was no occasion for an order continuing the injunction. The interlocutory judgment authorized the defendants to withdraw their demurrer and answer, and while it contained the injunction clause, the same as provided in effect in the order appealed from, some question might arise as to whether, if the demurrer had been withdrawn and an answer interposed, the interlocutory judgment would not become ineffective, and the injunction therein provided for fail. In any event, the continuance of the temporary in-' junction was provided for simply until the final judgment in the case, and, even if unnecessary by reason of the injunction contained in the interlocutory judgment, it could harm nothing, and should not be reversed. The order, therefore, continuing the injunction should be affirmed, and the order refusing to modify the same should be reversed, and the injunction modified as specified in the opinion, upon the appeal from the judgment. No costs allowed to either party. All concur.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 258]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ258.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 2428]]

Public Law 110-258
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To revise the short title of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and 
Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act 
              of 2006. <<NOTE: July 1, 2008 -  [S. 188]>> 

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    Section 1 of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott 
King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 
(Public Law 109-246) <<NOTE: 42 USC 1971 note.>>  is amended by striking 
``and Coretta Scott King'' and inserting ``Coretta Scott King, Cesar E. 
Chavez, Barbara C. Jordan, William C. Velasquez, and Dr. Hector P. 
Garcia''.

SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

    Paragraphs (7) and (8) of section 4(a), and section 13(a)(1), of the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973b(a), 1973k(a)(1)) are each 
amended by striking ``and Coretta Scott King'' and inserting ``Coretta 
Scott King, Cesar E. Chavez, Barbara C. Jordan, William C. Velasquez, 
and Dr. Hector P. Garcia''.

SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION.

    Title I of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``Sec. 20. <<NOTE: 42 USC 1973q.>>   A reference in this title to 
the effective date of the amendments made by, or the date of the 
enactment of, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, 
Cesar E. Chavez, Barbara C. Jordan, William C. Velasquez, and Dr. Hector 
P. Garcia Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 
shall be considered to refer to, respectively, the effective date of the 
amendments made by, or the date of the enactment

[[Page 122 STAT. 2429]]

of, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting 
Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.''.

    Approved July 1, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 188:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 153 (2007):
                                    Feb. 15, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.
                                                        Vol. 154 (2008):
                                    June 17, considered and passed 
                                        House.

                                  <all>

```
#### 1252.209-71 Limitation of Future Contracting.

As prescribed in 1209.507-270(b), the contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially as follows in solicitations and contracts:

# Limitation of Future Contracting (NOV 2022)

(a) The Contracting Officer has determined that this acquisition may give rise to a potential organizational conflict of interest. Accordingly, prospective offerors are encouraged to review FAR subpart 9.5—Organizational Conflicts of Interest.

(b) The nature of this conflict is [*describe the conflict*].

(c) The restrictions upon future contracting are as follows:

(1) If the Contractor, under the terms of this contract, or through the performance of tasks pursuant to this contract, is required to develop specifications or statements of work that are to be incorporated into a solicitation, the Contractor shall be ineligible to perform the work described in that solicitation as a prime or first-tier subcontractor under an ensuing government contract. This restriction shall remain in effect for a reasonable time, as agreed to by the Contracting Officer and the Contractor, sufficient to avoid unfair competitive advantage or potential bias (this time shall in no case be less than the duration of the initial ensuing contract).

(2) To the extent that the work under this contract requires access to proprietary, business confidential, or financial data of other companies, and if these data remain proprietary or confidential, the Contractor shall protect such data from unauthorized use and disclosure and agrees not to use the data to compete with those other companies.

(End of clause)
#### Marion S. Kruger et al., Appellants, v. Vincent Ciadella et al., Respondents.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed unless typewritten record pursuant to rule V-a of the Rules of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, and supplemental appendix containing “such relevant portions of any testimony '•* * as are necessary for the consideration of the questions involved” are filed by November 2, 1960. Memorandum: In this case, in which the plaintiffs-appellants are proceeding by the alternative form of record on appeal under rule V-a, it appears that proof was taken upon the trial and that the complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiffs’ case for failure to establish a prima facie case. As an appendix to their briefs, plaintiffs should print, in accordance with the rule, all of the testimony which in their judgment establishes the making out of a prima facie case.
#### 207.7001 Definition.

*End item,* as used in this subpart, means a production product assembled, completed, and ready for issue or deployment.
Appeal No. 1965.

#### Lucy Palazzi *et al. v.*State.

*Arcaro, Belilove & Kolodney, Abraham Belilove,*for petitioners. *Richard J. Israel,*Attorney General, *Dorothy A. Carr,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for respondent.

Petition for reargument denied. (Original opinion reported in 113 R. I. 218.)
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATION

I, Robert Drummond,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Key Energy Services, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



By:

/s/ Robert DrummondName:

Robert DrummondTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)


Date: April 20, 2016
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.5

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SPECTRUM LABORATORIES, INC.

In connection with the quarterly report of Spectrum Laboratories, Inc. and its
subsidiaries, SLI Acquisition Corp., Spectrum Europe B.V. and Spectrum
Chromatography (collectively, the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended December 28, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), Brian A. Watts, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

Dated: March 27, 2003


/s/ Brian A. Watts
-------------------------------------

Brian A. Watts
Chief Financial Officer
Spectrum Laboratories, Inc.
1414.407-3 Other mistakes disclosed before award. ( a ) The HCA is authorized to make the administrative determinations under FAR 14.407-3, except as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. This authority is not redelegable.
( b ) The CCO has the authority outlined in FAR 14.407-3(c) to make the written determination permitting a bidder to withdraw a bid, after review by the SOL.
( c ) The CO shall submit a report on suspected or alleged mistakes in bids together with the supporting data to the BPC, who will forward it to the HCA. The CO may also include a report on bids where evidence of the intended bid is clear and convincing but the bidder has not requested permission to correct the bid. Incomplete reports may result in a delay in obtaining a determination.
( d ) The BPC is responsible for maintaining records of administrative determinations.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Joseph E. Washington, Appellant, v. W. Cecil Johnston, as Director of Dannemora State Hospital, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court which dismissed a writ of habeas corpus. Relator contends that he was illegally transferred from Clinton Prison to Dannemora State Hospital, and that he was inadequately represented by assigned counsel during his trial. The transfer to Dannemora State Hospital is authorized by section 383 of the Correction Law. Once a valid commitment has been made the place of detention is an administrative matter not reviewable by habeas corpus. *(People ex rel. Sacconanno*v. *Shaw,*4 A D 2d 817.) Likewise, relator’s contention that he was not adequately represented by assigned counsel at his trial is not subject to review by habeas corpus. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs.