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


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on form S-8 pertaining to the 1986 Stock
Option Plan of IGENE Biotechnology, Inc. of our report dated
February 23, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of IGENE Biotechnology, Inc. and Subsidiary included
in the annual report (Form 10-KSB) of IGENE Biotechnology, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2000.



                               BERENSON & COMPANY LLP

New York, NY
February 23, 2001

<PAGE>

                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on form S-8 pertaining to the 1997 Stock
Option Plan of IGENE Biotechnology, Inc. of our report dated
February 23, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of IGENE Biotechnology, Inc. included in the annual
report (Form 10-KSB) of IGENE Biotechnology, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2000.

                               BERENSON & COMPANY LLP

New York, NY
February 23, 2001

<PAGE>
                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 pertaining to the issue of up
to 50,000,000 shares of stock upon exercise of 50,000,000
outstanding warrants of Igene Biotechnology, Inc. of our report
dated February 23, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial
statement of Igene Biotechnology, Inc. and Subsidiary included in
the annual report (Form 10-KSB) of Igene Biotechnology, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 2000.


                               BERENSON & COMPANY LLP


New York, NY
February 23, 2001
EXHIBIT 23.1



    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

      We  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the
registration  statements (File Nos. 333-117896,  333-103467,  33-
15894, and No. 33-15895) on Form S-8 of Werner Enterprises,  Inc.
of  our  reports  dated  February  27, 2009, with respect to  the
consolidated  balance  sheets  of Werner  Enterprises,  Inc.  and
subsidiaries  as of  December 31, 2008  and 2007, and the related
consolidated  statements  of  income,  stockholders'  equity  and
comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2008, and related  financial
statement  schedule, and  the effectiveness  of  internal control
over  financial reporting  as of December 31, 2008, which reports
appear  in the  December 31,  2008 annual  report on Form 10-K of
Werner Enterprises, Inc.

                                             KPMG LLP

Omaha, Nebraska
February 27, 2009
§ 1789.152 Policy. ( a ) As provided in this subpart, RUS may, at its discretion, use the services of Consultants funded by a Borrower where such services will facilitate timely action on an Application by such Borrower for financial assistance or other approvals. Such Consultants may provide financial, legal, engineering, environmental or other technical advice and services in connection with the review of an Application.
( b ) With the approval of RUS, a Borrower may fund the cost of consulting services in connection with the review by RUS of an Application by such Borrower. Such funding shall be provided pursuant to the terms of a Funding Agreement between the Borrower and the Consultant designated by RUS.
( c ) RUS may not, without the consent of the Borrower, require, as a condition of processing any Application for approval, that the Borrower agree to pay the costs of a Consultant hired to provide services to RUS.
( d ) The government shall retain sole discretion in the selection of Consultants to provide services to RUS and the form of contract utilized. RUS may either use the services of one or more Consultants retained under Retainer Contracts or the government may elect to retain a Consultant not otherwise on retainer. The government shall have sole discretion to prescribe terms and conditions of Consultant Contracts. The Borrower may bring considerations to the attention of the government which the Borrower deems pertinent to the selection process.
( e ) RUS shall retain sole discretion as to whether to further pursue use of an outside consultant for the relevant application in the event the Borrower does not enter into the agreements referenced in § 1789.158(c)(3)(iii) within 60 days of the government providing to the Borrower the information set forth in § 1789.158(c)(3).
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2074 

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, to submit to Congress, and make available 

to the public on the Internet, a report on the animals killed under 

the Wildlife Services program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2013 

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. MORAN, and Mr. 

CAMPBELL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, to submit 

to Congress, and make available to the public on the 

Internet, a report on the animals killed under the Wildlife Services program of the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transparency for Le5 thal Control Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2074 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON ANIMALS KILLED UNDER WILDLIFE 

2 SERVICES PROGRAM OF THE ANIMAL AND 

3 PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE. 

4 Not later than 90 days after the date of the enact5 ment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 

6 of Agriculture, acting through the Animal and Plant 

7 Health Inspection Service, shall submit to Congress, and 

8 make available to the public on the Internet, a report on 

9 the animals killed under the wildlife services program 

10 under section 1 of the Act of March 2, 1931 (7 U.S.C. 

11 426; 46 Stat. 1468) or by a State or local entity acting 

12 in cooperation with or on behalf of the wildlife services 

13 program during the preceding calendar year, including— 

14 (1) the number of such animals killed, listed by 

15 State, county (or other similar political subdivision 

16 of a State), and municipality; 

17 (2) the species name for such animals; 

18 (3) the method used to kill such animals; and 

19 (4) the reasons that the Secretary determined 

20 that— 

21 (A) the species of such animals were inju22 rious; and 

23 (B) killing such animals was necessary. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 28.179 Lost or damaged samples.

The Program is not responsible for compensating the owner or owner's agent of cotton samples that are lost, damaged or mutilated prior to the Program taking receipt of said samples. The Program shall inform applicants in the event that samples are lost, damaged or mutilated.

[81 FR 7030, Feb. 10, 2016]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1942

#### Editorial Notes:

Nomenclature changes to part 1942 appear at 80 FR 9878, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1942.103 Definitions.

*Agency.* The Rural Housing Service (RHS), an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

*Approval official.* An official who has been delegated loan or grant approval authorities within applicable programs, subject to certain dollar limitations.

*Construction.* The act of building or putting together a facility that is a part of, or physically attached to, real estate. This does not include procurement of major equipment even though the equipment may be custom built to meet the owner's requirements.

*Owner.* An applicant or borrower.

*Processing office.* The office designated by the State program official to accept and process applications for Community Facilities projects.

*Regional Attorney or OGC.* The head of a Regional Office of the General Counsel (OGC).

*Small Community Facilities projects.* Community Facilities loans costing $300,000 and under.

[68 FR 65830, Nov. 24, 2003]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

TURRAY D. JONES

,

Defendant Below

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Plaintiff Below

Appellee. §

§ No. 150 , 2016

§

§

§

§ Court Below

— Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ C r. ID 0804022428

§

§

§

Submitted: August 25 , 2016

Decided: August 31 , 2016

O R D E R

This 31 st day of August 2016 , it appears to the Court that, on August 11

,

2016 , the Chief Deputy Clerk of the Court issued a notice to the appellant to show

cause wh y t his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file his opening

brief and appendix on appeal . The appellant failed to respond to the notice to show

cause within the required ten

- day period; therefore, dismissal of this action is

deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court

Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that th is appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER

Plaintiff, 

vs. CASE NUMBER: 3:20-CV-4698-

TKW-HTC

 

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and

RAYME EDLER, 

Defendants.

 /

MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff, MATTHEW SELOVER, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(2), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby moves to 

dismiss this action, including all claims and causes of action alleged, with prejudice, 

and in support thereof, states as follows:

1. All the parties attended mediation on June 4, 2021. 

2. At the mediation, Plaintiff and Defendant Escambia County Board of County 

Commissioners reached agreement to settle all of Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendant Escambia County Board of County Commissioners.

3. Defendant Rayme Edler is not a party to the settlement agreement. However, 

the only claims that were pending against her were non-monetary claims.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 64 Filed 07/30/21 Page 1 of 3
2

4. Nevertheless, pursuant to the settlement agreement reached with Defendant 

Escambia County Board of County Commissioners, Plaintiff moves for 

dismissal of all claims against Defendant Escambia County Board of County 

Commissioners, and Defendant Rayme Edler, with the parties to bear their 

own fees and costs. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Matthew Selover, respectfully requests this 

Honorable Court to enter an order dismissing the above matter with prejudice, 

including all claims and causes of action, consistent with the relief sought herein, 

and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Dated: July 30th, 2021

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 30th day of July, 2021 a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing Motion was furnished to counsel for the Defendant as listed 

below via CMC/ECF, E-Mail and U.S. Mail.

 

 /s/ Travis P. Lampert

TRAVIS P. LAMPERT, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No. 0099843

Talbott, Lampert & Stoner, PA

900 East Moreno Street

Pensacola, FL 32503

(850) 437-9600 / (850) 437-0906 (facsimile)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

travis@talbottlawfirm.com

civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 64 Filed 07/30/21 Page 2 of 3
3

SERVICE LIST

Stephanie Pidermann, Esquire

Katie Gudaitis, Esquire

Lydecker Diaz

1221 Brickell Avenue, 19th Floor

Miami, FL 33131

sp@lydeckerdiaz.com

kg@lydeckerdiaz.com

ksm@lydeckerdiaz.com

Attorneys for Defendant, Escambia County Board of County Commissioners

Cecily L. Kaffer, Esquire

Pro hac vice

The Kullman Firm

P.O. Box 1287

Mobile, AL 36633

clk@kullmanlaw.com

Attorney for Defendant, Rayme Edler

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 64 Filed 07/30/21 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.2

            CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
         (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)


      In connection with the Annual Report of Werner Enterprises,
Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December
31,  2008, (the "Report") filed with the Securities and  Exchange
Commission,   I,  John  J.  Steele,  Executive  Vice   President,
Treasurer  and  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 to the  best
of my knowledge:

     1.   The  Report  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   the  Report   fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Company.



February 27, 2009                  /s/ John J. Steele
-----------------                  ---------------------------------------
                                   John J. Steele
                                   Executive Vice President, Treasurer and
                                   Chief Financial Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018

3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020.

4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

###### Editorial Note on Subpart G of Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart G of part 2 appear at 60 FR 66713, Dec. 26, 1995.

#### § 2.45 Deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development.

Pursuant to § 2.17(a), subject to reservations in § 2.17(b), and subject to policy guidance and direction by the Under Secretary for Rural Development, the following delegation of authority is made to the Deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development, to be exercised only during the absence or unavailability of the Under Secretary: Perform all the duties and exercise all the powers which are now or which may hereafter be delegated to the Under Secretary for Rural Development.

[85 FR 65516, Oct. 15, 2020]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7274
RUSSELL LEE MCBEE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:07-hc-02075-D) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell Lee McBee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Russell Lee McBee, a federal prisoner, appealsthe district court’s judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McBee v. Stansberry , No. 5:07-hc-02075-D (E.D.N.C. July 5, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
98-1336.

#### State ex rel. Kleve v. Green Twp. Bd. of Trustees.

In Mandamus. Reported at 83 Ohio St.3d 1409, 698 N.E.2d 435. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
Fourth Department,

April, 1967

(April 6, 1967)

#### Gilda Di Rienzo, as Administratrix of the Estate of Frank Di Rienzo, Deceased, Respondent, v. Buffalo Sewer Authority, Appellant. Buffalo Sewer Authority, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. James McHugh Construction Co., Third-Party Defendant.

Order unanimously modified in accordance with the Memorandum, and as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Discovery and inspection of the statements and reports of employees made to the defendant Sewer Authority should be limited to those made prior to the commencement of litigation, and discovery and inspection of all statements and reports made to the defendant’s insurance carrier should be denied. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term denying motion to quash notice to discover and inspect.) Present—-Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Del Yecchio and Marsh, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                          35,956
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,184
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,553
<INVENTORY>                                     51,677
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,036
<PP&E>                                          26,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,726
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 159,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,037
<BONDS>                                         50,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          107,746
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,093
<OTHER-SE>                                   (168,720)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   159,575
<SALES>                                        296,551
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               296,551
<CGS>                                          207,802
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  343,184
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,687
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,174
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (52,721)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (51,397)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (51,397)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of John A. Passiotti, Jr., Appellant, v. Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of Yonkers et al., Respondents.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 5, 1966, reversed, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, respondents’ determination annulled and proceeding remitted to respondents for further proceedings not inconsistent with the following memorandum. No questions of fact were considered. We are of the opinion that an adequate record was not compiled upon which a court, upon judicial review, can adjudge whether the determination of the examining psychiatrist was arbitrary and capricious (see *Matter of Nelson*v. *Board of Examiners,*27 A D 2d 569). Furthermore, we. are of the opinion that petitioner should be granted a new psychiatric examination with standards *sufficiently objective*to come within the guidelines of *Matter of Fink*v. *Finegan*(270 N. Y. 356) and *Matter of Sloat*v. *Board of Examiners*(274 N. Y. 367). Where, as here, a psychiatric examination is given as part of a civil service examination, a firmer foundation for respondents’ determination may be laid if more than a single examining psychiatrist were employed *(Matter of Murphy*v. *Brennan,*285 App. Div. 933). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2016-4230 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2015-CE-041-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
###### Editorial Note on Part 1924

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1924 appear at 80 FR 9870, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1924.123-1924.149 [Reserved]