alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
on Form S-8 (No. 33-36004) of Public Storage,  Inc.,  formerly Storage Equities,
Inc.,  pertaining to the 1990 Stock Option Plan, the  Registration  Statement on
Form  S-8  (No.  33-55541)  pertaining  to  the  1994  Stock  Option  Plan,  the
Registration  Statements  on Form S-3 (Nos.  333-00965  and 33-54755) and in the
related  prospectus and Registration  Statements on Form S-4 (Nos.  33-64971 and
33-49696) and in the related  prospectus  of our report dated  February 26, 1996
with respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements and schedules of Public
Storage,  Inc. for the years ended December 31, 1995,  1994 and 1993 included in
the Annual  Report (Form 10-K) for 1995 filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission.





                                             ERNST & YOUNG L L P
March 22, 1996
Los Angeles, California
                                   Exhibit-23
#### Julia Block et al., Respondents, v. Richard Acerra, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been sustained by plaintiffs by reason of the negligent operation of defendant’s truck in striking the rear of the automobile in which plaintiffs were passengers when the automobile stopped at a red traffic signal, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 25, 1960, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment striking out the defendant’s answer and directing an assessment of damages, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, the record presents triable issues of fact which may not be resolved upon a motion for summary judgment. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
-0325 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. AUSTIN ALLEN MILLARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 13, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 6 2022

04/06/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0325
I n c o r p o r a t i o n b y R e f e r e n ce D o c k e t I D N o
. E P A

- HQ

- O AR

- 2009

- 0924

Ja nu a r y 7 , 2010

T h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e f

o l l o w i n g d o c k e t s a r e h e r e b y i n c o r po r a t e d b y r e f e r e n c e i n t o a n d a r e

c o n s i d e r e d t o b e i n c l ud e d i n , c o n t a i n e d i n a n d t o h a v e b e e n p l ace d i n D o c k e t E P A

- HQ

- O A R2009

- 0924 ( D e t e r mi n a t i o n o f C o n f i d e n t i a l B u s i n e s s I n f

o r m a t i o n u n d e r t h e G r ee n h o u s e G a s M a n d a t o r y R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m ) :

1) E P A

- HQ

- O A R

- 2008

- 0508 ( G r ee n h o u s e G a s M a nd a t o r y R e p o r t i n g ) 2) E P A

- HQ

- O A R

- 2009

- 0923 ( O i l a n d N a t u r a l G a s S y s t e m s ) 3) E P A

- HQ

- O A R

- 2009

- 0925 ( C o r p o r a t e P a r e n t a n d N A I C S c o d e ) 4) E P A

- HQ

- O A R

- 2009

- 0926 ( C a r b o n D i o x i d e I n j ec t i o n a n d G e o l og i c S e qu e s t r a t i o n ) 5) E P A

- HQ

- O A R

- 2009

- 0927 ( A d d it i o n a l S o u r ce s o f F l u o r i n a t e d G a s e s )

A c c e ss i n g d o c k e t s : P ub l i c l y a v a il a b l e d o c k e t m a t e r i a l s a r e a v a i l a b l e e i t h e r e l e c t r o n i c a ll y t h r o ug h

www

. r e g u l a t i o n s

. g ov o r i n h a r d c o p y a t E P A ’ s D o c k e t C e n t e r , P ub li c R ea d i ng R oo m , E P A W e s t B u il d i ng , R o o m 3334

, 1301 C o n s t i t u t i o n A v e n u e , N W

, Wa s h i ng t o n , D C 2000 4

. T h i s D o c k e t F a c il i t y i s o p e n f

r o m 8 : 30 a

. m

. t o 4 : 3 0 p

. m ., M o n d a y t h r o ug h F r i d a y , e x c l

u d i ng l e g a l h o li d a y s

. T h e t e l e p h o n e n u m

b e r f o r t h e P ub li c R e a d i n g R o o m i s ( 202 ) 566

- 1744

, a n d t h e t e l e p h o n e

n u m b e r f o r t h e A i r D o c k e t i s ( 202 ) 566

- 174 2

.
#### Julian L. Hoffman, Appellant, v Lotte Hoffman, Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 6, 1978, which dismissed the husband’s complaint, awarded a judgment of divorce to defendant-respondent on her counterclaim, awarded alimony of $800 per week; awarded joint custody of the 18-year-old son of the parties with a direction that the son, whose physical residence is with his father, spend at least one full month per year with his mother during which the husband is to pay $50 per week for the son’s support; and directed the husband to pay a counsel fee of $10,000 to the wife with credit for $2,250 already paid to one attorney during the course of the trial; unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion to the extent of: vacating the award of joint custody to the wife; striking the provision which directed the husband to pay $50 per week to the wife for the son’s support and reducing the award of alimony from $800 per week to the sum of $500 per week, and is otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. In a matrimonial action where there are cross claims for divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment the court may properly consider and balance the several factors in the case *(Hessen v Hessen*33 NY2d 406). Furthermore, the trial court was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses. Where the testimony on any points is convoluted or contradictory, the trier of the facts has an advantage in being able to observe the *718witness firsthand. Therefore, his conclusions regarding credibility, intelligence, or bias should be given particular consideration. *(McLaughlin v McLaughlin,*53 AD2d 729). It appears the court determined that although both parties contributed to the marital discord, the husband’s conduct alone rose to the level of cruel and inhuman treatment. On this record we are not prepared to hold the court abused its discretion in granting the divorce to the wife and dismissing the husband’s complaint. The award of joint custody and support is unwarranted. The mother has expressed no desire for custody and Peter, at 18, is old enough to choose which, if either parent, he wishes to spend his time with. The record reveals the wife’s actual expenses are closer to $2,100 per month rather than the $3,166 per month which she claims. The award of $800 per week is excessive and alimony in the sum of $500 per week appears to be adequate. Concur—Birns, J. P., Silverman, Evans, Fein and Markewich, JJ.
----

|                                           |   | Year      EndedDecember      31, 2007 |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |
|                                           |   | Shares                                |   |   | EarningsPer      Share |   |
|                                           |   | (In      Thousands)                   |   |
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |
| Basic      Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |   |                                  | 7,189  |   |   | $ | 1.19 |   |
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted                                        |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Average      Shares Outstanding                |   |                                  | 7,189  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Common      Stock Equivalents                  |   |                                  | 8      |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                           |   |                                  | 7,197  |   |   | $ | 1.19 |   |
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                           |   | Year      EndedDecember      31, 2006 |   |
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Basic      Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |   |                                  | 7,177  |   |   | $ | 1.41 |   |
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted                                        |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Average      Shares Outstanding                |   |                                  | 7,177  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Common      Stock Equivalents                  |   |                                  | 1      |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                           |   |                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                           |   |                                  | 7,178  |   |   | $ | 1.41 |   |

----
Publications

Table A-1. Age/length regression equations of best fit for primary target species captured in the National Benthic Surveillance Program, Pacific Coast, Cycles I-V (1984-88).
#### David Cordaro, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Edna Cordaro, et al., Respondents, v. Union Free School District Number 22, Farmingdale, Appellant.

Motion by respondents for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from a judgment entered May 11, 1962, in the District Court of Nassau County upon the decision and order of this court made on October 23,1961. Previously, on December 4, 1961, before the entry of such judgment, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from *the order*of this court had been granted. Leave is now sought to appeal from the judgment subsequently entered. Motion granted. Pursuant to statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 589, subd. 4, par. [a]), we certify that questions of law have arisen which in our opinion ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:12-cv-01555 Document #: 6 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:12
U.S. Department of Education

Discretionary Grants Team

Final Agenda

TRIO Programs

· Branch campuses and different populations (HEOA section 403(a))

· Definitions

· HEOA changes the current Talent Search (TS) required and permissible services

· Outcome criteria 

· Foster care and homeless youth (HEOA section 403(a))

· Required services and permissible services (HEOA section 403) 

· Updates to TRIO Regulations

· Review Process for Unsuccessful TRIO Applicants (HEOA section 403(a))

· Selection Criteria on Applicant and Community Support for TS, EOC, and UB; Plan of Operation for all programs

GEAR UP (HEOA section 404)

· Priority 

· Funding rules 

· Duration of awards

· Revised definition of partnerships

· Changes to matching requirements

· Waiver of matching requirements

· Required and allowable activities 

· Scholarship Component/Funds Held in Reserve for Scholarships 

· Redistribution or Return of Unused Scholarship Funds/Reporting on Scholarship Monies after the Grant Period 

· Continuity of Student Services

Special Programs for Students Whose Families are Engaged in Migrant and Seasonal Farmwork (HEOA section 408)

· High school equivalency program eligibility and activities

· College assistance migrant program eligibility and activities

· Reservation and allocation of funds

PAGE  

2
Exhibit 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Name                                                 State of Formation
-----------------------------------------------      ------------------
Connecticut Storage Fund........................         California
Diversified Storage Venture Fund................         California
PS Co-Investment Partners.......................         California
PS Insurance Company, Ltd.......................          Bermuda
PS Orangeco Holdings, Inc.......................         California
PS Orangeco, Inc...............................          California
PS Partners VIII, Ltd...........................         California
PS Partners, Ltd................................         California
PSA Institutional Partners, L.P.................         California
PSAC Development Partners, L.P..................         California
Public Storage Properties IV, Ltd...............         California
Public Storage Properties V, Ltd................         California
Public Storage Institutional Fund...............         California
Public Storage Institutional Fund II............         California
Public Storage Institutional Fund III...........         California
Public Storage Institutional Fund IV............         California
Public Storage Pickup & Delivery, L.P...........         California
STOR-Re Mutual Insurance Corporation............           Hawaii
Storage Trust Properties, L.P. .................          Delaware

Note:  This  schedule  excludes 15 other  wholly-owned  subsidiaries  which were
excluded in  accordance  with Reg.  S-K,  Item 601.  All of the  entities  above
conduct  substantially  all of their business  activities under the name "Public
Storage".
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 10 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 10

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the final rule submitted by the Secretary of the 
                Interior relating to stream protection.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2017

Mr. McConnell (for himself, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Manchin, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. 
 Hoeven, Mr. Paul, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Blunt, 
  Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Toomey, Mr. 
 Wicker, Mr. Risch, Mr. Flake, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Daines, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
Moran, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Young, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Enzi, Mrs. 
Ernst, and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following joint resolution; which 
  was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the final rule submitted by the Secretary of the 
                Interior relating to stream protection.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
final rule submitted by the Secretary of the Interior relating to 
stream protection (81 Fed. Reg. 93066 (December 20, 2016)), and such 
rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
#### 1952.215-70 Key personnel and facilities.

As prescribed in 1915.106-70 insert the following clause in appropriate contracts:

# Key Personnel and Facilities (FEB 1985)

The personnel and/or facilities listed below (or as specified in the Schedule of this contract) are considered essential to the work being performed hereunder. Prior to removing, replacing, or diverting any of the specified individuals or facilities, the Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer reasonably in advance and shall submit justification (including proposed substitutions) in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the impact on this contract. No diversion shall be made by the Contractor without the written consent of the Contracting Officer; provided, that the Contracting Officer may ratify in writing the change and such ratification shall constitute the consent of the Contracting Officer required by this clause. The personnel and/or facilities listed below (or as specified in the Schedule of this contract) may, with the consent of the contracting parties, be amended from time to time during the course of the contract to either add or delete personnel and/or facilities, as appropriate.

(End of clause)
IP Details for 99.159.16.136

This information should not be used for emergency purposes,

trying to find someone's exact physical address, or other

purposes that would require 100% accuracy. Please read

about geolocation accuracy for more information.

99.159.16.136 Lookup IP Address

Quick Links:

General IP Information

Geolocation Information

Geolocation Map

Comments about this IP address

General IP Information

IP: 99.159.16.136

Decimal: 1671368840

Hostname: 99-159-16-136.lightspeed.wlfrct.sbcglobal.net

ISP: AT&T U-verse

Organization: AT&T U-verse

Services: None detected

Type: Broadband

Assignment: Static IP

Blacklist: Blacklist Check

Geolocation Information

Country: United States 

State/Region: Connecticut

City: West Hartford

Latitude: 41.7527

Longitude: -72.7585

Area Code: 860

Postal Code: 06107

Geolocation Map

Help our friend raise money for the charity: Avon Walk for Breast Cancer.

$450 of $1800 goal raised. Donate as little as $5.

IP Address: 99.159.16.136 http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/99.159.16.136

1 of 2 9/4/2012 9:43 PM

Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14-4 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:304 Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 19-3 Filed: 09/19/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:435
User Comments

No comments. Be the first to add one.

Enter up to 500 characters in your comment about this IP address.

Submit comment

Related Articles

How accurate is geolocation?

How do I hide my IP address?

How do I change my IP address?

What is a proxy server?

© 2000-2012 What Is My IP Address. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy Terms of Use Contact

IP Address: 99.159.16.136 http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/99.159.16.136

2 of 2 9/4/2012 9:43 PM

Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14-4 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:305 Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 19-3 Filed: 09/19/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:436
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 2 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 2

To provide for the counting on January 6, 2017, of the electoral votes 
         for President and Vice President of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2017

Mr. McConnell submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
To provide for the counting on January 6, 2017, of the electoral votes 
         for President and Vice President of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the two Houses of Congress shall meet in the Hall of the House of 
Representatives on Friday, the 6th day of January 2017, at 1 o'clock 
post meridian, pursuant to the requirements of the Constitution and 
laws relating to the election of President and Vice President of the 
United States, and the President of the Senate shall be their Presiding 
Officer; that two tellers shall be previously appointed by the 
President of the Senate on the part of the Senate and two by the 
Speaker on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be 
handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the 
certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral 
votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and 
acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the 
letter ``A''; and said tellers, having then read the same in the 
presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes 
as they shall appear from said certificates; and the votes having been 
ascertained and counted in the manner and according to the rules by law 
provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of 
the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which 
announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, 
if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, 
together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the 
two Houses.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 989.30 Air quality.

Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c), establishes a conformity requirement for Federal agencies which has been implemented by regulation, 40 CFR 93, subpart B. All EIAP documents must address applicable conformity requirements and the status of compliance. Conformity applicability analyses and determinations are developed in parallel with EIAP documents, but are separate and distinct requirements and should be documented separately. To increase the utility of a conformity determination in performing the EIAP, the conformity determination should be completed prior to the completion of the EIAP so as to allow incorporation of the information from the conformity determination into the EIAP. See AFI 32-7040, Air Quality Compliance.[10]

###### Footnotes -
  989.30

[10] See footnote 1 to § 989.1.
#### MANHATTAN YACHT CLUB v. COLEMAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 13, 1903.)

Action by the Manhattan Yacht Club against Maggie A. Coleman.

No opinion. Motion granted, so far as to dismiss appeal, with $10 costs.
5/27/10 Meeting with: Texas Aggregates & Concrete Association, Headwaters Resources, and Hallett Materials At the Office of Resource Conservat ion and Recovery (ORCR), PY North

3 industry representatives present:

Michael K. Stewart, Texas Aggregates & Concrete Association (Tel: 512-451-5100) Bob Sparacino, Headwaters Resources (Tel: 979-255-2513) Frank Johnson, Hallett Mate rials, Porter Texas 77365

EPA/ORCR Staff present:

Alexander Livnat Jesse Miller Steve Souders

Industry is aware of the 2 propos ed options for regulating the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCRs); from their prospective, as long as the disposable portion of CCRs will be regulated under Subtitle C, the stigma won’t be eliminated even if CCRs are considered Special Waste rather than Hazardous Waste.

Industry was adamant about how utilities in their region [Tex as Utilities (TXU) and Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)] will not prov ide CCRs for beneficial use purposes if the Subtitle C option is selected.

- It would be too risky and there would be too much liability under Subtitle C.

- They will not allow CCRs to leav e their facilities and control.

Industry raised the issue of the regulatory status of dust that is generated when fly ash-containing concrete is crushed for reuse.

EPA staff reiterated that, as propos ed, beneficial uses would not be subject to regulations under either of the proposed options

- EPA Staff stated that if a Subtitle C option is finalized, coal ash would be listed under a new waste category as a “special waste.”

Industry stated that 20 – 30% of fly ash is a co mponent of concrete, and that Texas consumes more fly ash than is currently generated in the St ate. If regulated under Subtitle C, then that percentage will have to be repl aced by cement. This will cause:

- More imported cement from countries wher e its manufacturing is poorly regulated

- Increased costs

- Increased greenhouse gases.

Industry stated that Texas utilit ies have phased out wet disposal.