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


CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) 
of Genentech, Inc. of our report dated January 17, 1996, included in the 1995 
Annual Report to Stockholders of Genentech, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Genentech, Inc. 
listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's 
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.  
In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when 
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, 
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements pertaining to the 1991 Employee Stock Plan, the 1994 Stock Option 
Plan, the 1990 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, the 1984 Incentive Stock 
Option Plan and the 1984 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, the shares issuable 
to certain warrant holders, the shares issuable to certain convertible 
subordinated debenture holders and the Genentech, Inc. Tax Reduction 
Investment Plan and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated January 
17, 1996, with respect to the consolidated financial statements incorporated 
herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding paragraph with 
respect to the financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report 
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1995.


                                                       Ernst & Young LLP




San Jose, California
March 29, 1996
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<CIK>                                   0000318835
<MULTIPLIER>                            1
<CURRENCY>                              U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                                  529808
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        0
<PP&E>                                  10173452
<DEPRECIATION>                          6272539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          4469563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   0
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            4469563
<SALES>                                 2546164
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        2564306
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         1034203
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     1034203
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            1034203
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                   [LETTERHEAD OF HARRIS BANK APPEARS HERE]



                                                               Exhibit 10(j)(ii)

                                 March 20, 2000



QMS, Inc.
One Magnum Pass
Mobile, Alabama  36618


     Re:  QMS, Inc. (the "Company")/Lease

Gentlemen:

     You have informed us that the Company is currently in default of its
February 18, 1997 Lease Agreement with INK (AL) QRS 12-21, Inc.  We understand
that this Lease is for the Company's use of its principal offices in Mobile.
The Lease is in default as a result of the Company's failure to comply as of
September 30, 1999 with the Lease's requirements in its Section 33 (Exhibit G)
with respect to the Consolidated Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio, Consolidated Net
Worth, Current Ratio and Debt to Equity Ratio.  We will refer to this default as
"Lease Default."

     As you know, the terms of the Company's credit arrangements with us are
governed by its August 19, 1999 Credit Agreement with us (which Credit Agreement
as previously amended, we will for reasons of convenience refer to in this
letter as the "Credit Agreement").  If the Company is in default of the Lease,
it is also (by virtue of Section 9.1(f) of the Credit Agreement) in default of
the Credit Agreement.  You have requested that we waive the Event of Default
which arises under the Credit Agreement by virtue of the Company's default under
the Lease.

     Accordingly, in response to the Company's request, we hereby waive the
Event of Default which arises under clause (i) of Section 9.1(f) of the Credit
Agreement by virtue of the Lease Default if and so long as:

     (a) the Company keeps rent current on the Lease;
<PAGE>

QMS Inc.
March 20, 2000
Page 2



     (b) the landlord under the Lease takes no action to enforce any of its
     rights and remedies under the Lease in respect of the Lease Default,
     including without limitation its rights to evict the Company, accelerate
     repayment of the rent and levy and distrant for unpaid rent, or in the
     event the landlord takes any such action, the default under the Lease
     giving rise to that action is cured within five days to the same extent as
     if it had never occurred (with the enforcement action halted and the Lease
     continuing on in the normal course); and

     (c) Minolta agrees with the Company to provide the Company the funds
     necessary to cure any default under the Lease or to buy the leased
     premises.

     Except as specifically waived hereby, all of the terms and conditions of
the Credit Agreement shall stand and remain unchanged and in full force and
effect.  We are not, for example, waiving any other noncompliance with the
Lease.

                                     Very truly yours,

                                     HARRIS TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK

                                     By:  /s/ James Andricopulos, Jr.
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Its Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                   1301333
<OTHER-SE>                                (1301333)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     0
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               462
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (462)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) 
of Genentech, Inc. of our report dated January 20, 1998, included in the 1997 
Annual Report to Stockholders of Genentech, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Genentech, Inc. 
listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's 
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.  
In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when 
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, 
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements pertaining to the 1991 Employee Stock Plan, the 1996 Stock 
Option/Stock Incentive Plan, the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the 1990 Stock 
Option/Stock Incentive Plan, the 1984 Incentive Stock Option Plan and the 1984 
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, the shares issuable to certain convertible 
subordinated debenture holders, the Genentech, Inc. Tax Reduction Investment 
Plan and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated January 20, 1998, 
with respect to the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein by 
reference, and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to 
the financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) 
for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                                                       Ernst & Young LLP




San Jose, California
February 27, 1998
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC., )

)

 ) CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01532 

Plaintiff, )

 ) Judge: Hon. Edmond E. Chang

 v. ) Magistrate Judge: Hon. Susan E. Cox

 )

DOES 1-54, )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA

Plaintiff HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC., respectfully moves this Court, pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(2)(B), to enter an Order compelling COMCAST 

CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LLC (“Comcast”) to comply with a subpoena duces tecum with 

respect to the above-referenced matter currently pending in this Court. Plaintiff seeks to obtain 

identifying information associated with internet service account subscribers including name, 

current (and permanent) address, telephone number, e-mail address, and Media Access Control 

address pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum served on Comcast on March 13, 2012. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 37.2, after consultation by telephone and good faith attempts to 

resolve differences, the parties resolved one objection by Comcast. The undersigned counsel for

Hard Drive Productions, Inc. and John D. Seiver, counsel for Comcast, held a telephone 

consultation on April 24, 2012 at or around 2:00 p.m. Good faith attempts by the parties were 

able to resolve one of the objections raised by Comcast, but the parties were unable to reach an 

accord on the remaining objections.

Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 13 Filed: 04/24/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:53
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests an order compelling Comcast to comply 

with the subpoena.

Respectfully submitted,

HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC. 

DATED: April 24, 2012

By: /s/ Paul Duffy

Paul Duffy (Bar No. 6210496) 

Prenda Law Inc. 

161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone: (312) 880-9160

Facsimile: (312) 893-5677

E-mail: paduffy@wefightpiracy.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 13 Filed: 04/24/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:54
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on April 24, 2012, all counsel of record who are 

deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing document using the Court’s CM/ECF system, in compliance with Local Rule 5.2(a). 

The undersigned also certifies that on April 25, 2012, he caused a copy of the foregoing 

document to be sent via First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid to:

John D. Seiver 

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Suite 800

1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20006-3401

Attorney for Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 

By: /s/ Paul Duffy

Paul Duffy 

Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 13 Filed: 04/24/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:55
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1998
<CASH>                                         214,126
<SECURITIES>                                    13,503
<RECEIVABLES>                                  326,167
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,409
<INVENTORY>                                    153,192
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               743,777
<PP&E>                                         322,490
<DEPRECIATION>                                 214,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 863,413
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          548,935
<BONDS>                                         95,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           943
<OTHER-SE>                                     168,489<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   863,413
<SALES>                                      2,408,528
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,408,528
<CGS>                                        2,108,115
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,108,115
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               240,308<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,784
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,736
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,563
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,173
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,173
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.47
<FN>
<F1>Other SE includes additional paid-in capital of $880,175, unrealized gain on
investments in equity securities of $30,094, and accumulated deficit of
$741,780.
<F2>Other expenses include Research and Development of $152,401, Selling, General
and Administrative costs of $75,819 and stock compensation expense of $12,088.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# Award Year

# Control by Year

# State by Year

# IHE Participation by State

# Test, Credit by Year

# Control by Test, Credit

# ATB Codes
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Winfield I. Nicholson, Appellant.

Reapplication for assignment of counsel denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Herbert Hawkins, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed and matter remitted to Brie County Court for a hearing in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: The petition alleges facts which entitle the petitioner to a hearing. *(People*v. *Picciotti,*4 N Y 2d 340.) (Appeal from order of Erie County Court denying, without a hearing, motion to vacate a judgment of conviction for grand larceny, first degree, rendered December 31, 1959.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecehio, JJ.
#### Mary E. Moriarty, as Administratrix of the Estate of Gerrard Moriarty, Deceased, Respondent, v. Butler Bin Company et al., Defendants. Hilda G. Schwartz, as Director of Finance of the City of New York, Appellant.

Order, entered on or about January 6, 1964, granting respondent’s application pursuant to (CPLR 1102, svtbd. [b]) to compel the appellant to furnish respondent with a free copy of the minutes of a four-day trial for the purpose of an appeal from the judgment of the trial court which dismissed the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs, and the motion denied. On November 7, 1963 this court granted an application of plaintiff-*866respondent for leave to appeal as a poor person to the extent of permitting her appeal “ to be heard upon a typewritten or reproduced record without printing the same and upon typewritten or reproduced appellant’s points and appendices.” The respondent then made a motion before the trial court for an order directing the appellant to furnish her with a free copy of the minutes of the trial, which relief was granted and is the subject of this appeal. Thereafter, on March 17,1964, the respondent unsuccessfully moved this court for a resettlement of this court’s prior order so as to amend the said order to provide full poor person relief to the respondent. It appears that the trial court was unaware of this court’s refusal to grant respondent permission to proceed as a poor person. In view of the limited permission granted to the respondent by this court’s order of November 7, 1963, the trial court had no power to impose the cost of the stenographer’s minutes upon the city. *(Rocco*v. *City of New York,*283 App. Div. 1056.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Staley, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

CITY OF READING, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 867 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 6th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner is: 

Did the Commonwealth Court err in holding that the City of Reading was 

immune from liability for property damage caused by Reading’s negligent 

conduct despite the [u]tility [s]ervice [f]acility exception to governmental 

immunity contained within the Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §8542(b)(5)?
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 1 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 1

   Approving the location of a memorial to commemorate and honor the 
  members of the Armed Forces who served on active duty in support of 
           Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2017

  Mr. Boozman (for himself and Mr. Donnelly) introduced the following 
joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Approving the location of a memorial to commemorate and honor the 
  members of the Armed Forces who served on active duty in support of 
           Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield.

Whereas section 8908(b)(1) of title 40, United States Code, provides that the 
        location of a commemorative work in Area I, as depicted on the map 
        entitled ``Commemorative Areas Washington, DC and Environs'', numbered 
        869/86501 B, and dated June 24, 2003, shall be deemed to be authorized 
        only if a recommendation for the location is approved by law not later 
        than 150 calendar days after the date on which Congress is notified of 
        the recommendation;
Whereas section 3093 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National 
        Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; 
        Public Law 113-291) authorized the National Desert Storm Memorial 
        Association to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of 
        Columbia, to honor the members of the Armed Forces who served on active 
        duty in support of Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield; 
        and
Whereas the Secretary of the Interior has notified Congress of the determination 
        of the Secretary of the Interior that the memorial should be located in 
        Area I: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the location of a 
commemorative work to commemorate and honor the members of the Armed 
Forces who served on active duty in support of Operation Desert Storm 
or Operation Desert Shield authorized by section 3093 of the Carl Levin 
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2015 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; Public Law 113-291), within Area 
I, as depicted on the map entitled ``Commemorative Areas Washington, DC 
and Environs'', numbered 869/86501 B, and dated June 24, 2003, is 
approved.
                                 <all>
```
#### Abraham Greenfield, Respondent, v. Charles Greenfield et al., Individually and as Executors of Jacob Greenfield, Deceased, Appellants, et al., Defendants. Charles Greenfield et al., as Coexecutors of Jacob Greenfield, Deceased, Appellants, v. Abraham Greenfield, Individually and as Coexecutor of Jacob Greenfield, Deceased, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

In an action pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Law (now *807Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, 'art. 15), to quiet title to real property, in which the defendants Charles Greenfield and Isidore Greenfield, individually and as executors of the estate of Jacob Greenfield, deceased, interposed certain counterclaims and cross claims, said defendants appeal from a judgment and an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, respectively entered October 11, 1963 and December 31, 1963 upon the court’s decisions and opinions after a nonjury trial, in the plaintiff’s favor for the relief demanded in the amended complaint and dismissing said counterclaims and cross claims on the merits. No appeal has been taken from the amended judgment insofar as it preserves the tax liens of the United States of America and the State of New York. Appeal from original judgment of October 11, 1963 dismissed as academic. Amended judgment modified on the law as follows: (a) by striking therefrom the provision that defendants’ counterclaims and cross claims be dismissed on the merits; and (fo) by substituting therefor a provision that they be deemed withdrawn. As so modified, the amended judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact are affirmed. It was agreed on the trial that evidence on defendants’ cross claims and counterclaims would be reserved; that if the trial court awarded judgment to the defendants on the complaint, then the cross claims and counterclaims were to be deemed withdrawn; otherwise they would subsist for further proceedings. Since no evidence with respect thereto had been received, the amended judgment, as respects the cross claims and counterclaims, cannot be considered to have been on the merits *(Mink*v. *Keim,*291 N. Y. 300); and they should be deemed withdrawn. (For companion appeal decided herewith, see *Greenfield*v. *Realty Funds,*21 A D 2d 806.) Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.