alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**ON A/C ALL FAIRING, LEADING EDGE — FORWARD NACELLE −REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION TASK 54− 12−01 −000−801 Removal of the Forward Nacelle Leading Edge Fairing 1. General A. The maintenance procedure that follows is for the removal of the forward nacelle leading edge fairing. The leading edge fairing is an aerodynamic fairing which is installed on the forward nacelle. These procedures are applicable to the left nacelle and the right nacelle. The procedures for the left nacelle are given. Differences for the right nacelle are identified. 2. Job Set− Up Information Subtask 54 − 12 −01 − 946 −001 A. Reference Information REFERENCE DESIGNATION TASK 54 − 11 − 01 − 000 − 801 Removal of the Leading Edge Fairing Forward Access Panels TASK 54 − 11 − 06 − 000 − 801 Removal of the Leading Edge Fairing Aft Access Panels 3. Job Set− Up Subtask 54 − 12 −01 −010 −001 A. Remove the leading edge fairing forward access panel (Refer to TASK 54 − 11 − 01 − 000 − 801). Subtask 54 − 12 −01 −010 −002 B. Remove the leading edge fairing aft access panel (Refer to TASK 54 − 11 − 06 − 000 − 801). 4. Procedure Subtask 54 − 12 −01 −020 −001 Refer to Figure 401. A. Remove the leading edge fairing as follows: (1) Remove the 31 bolts (1). (2) Remove the 21 bolts (2). (3) Remove the 35 bolts (3). (4) Remove the six bolts (4). (5) Remove the two bolts (5). (6) Remove the two bolts (6). AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

MASTER EFFECTIVITY: See Pageblock 54 − 12 − 01 page 401 

# 54 − 12 − 01 Page 401 Dec 05/2005(7) Remove the two bolts (7). (8) Remove the six bolts (8). (9) Remove the four bolts (9) and the washers (10). (10) Remove the eight bolts (11) and the washers (10). (11) Carefully lift the leading edge fairing (12) off the nacelle. (12) Put an identification label on the leading edge fairing (12) to identify its position. AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

MASTER EFFECTIVITY: See Pageblock 54 − 12 − 01 page 401 

# 54 − 12 − 01 Page 402 Dec 05/2005sh514b01.dg, bmcc/gv, 14/06/02 2 2
2 3

6 5 8

4 4

5

6 8

4 3 2 7 1

Unidentified holes on fairing item 12 are attached by bolt item 1. NOTE 12

4 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

Leading Edge Fairing Figure 401 (Sheet 1 of 3) MASTER EFFECTIVITY: See Pageblock 54 − 12 − 01 page 401 

# 54 − 12 − 01 Page 403 Dec 05/2005sh514a02.dg, bmcc/gv, 14/06/02 4
3 2 7

4 Unidentified holes on fairing item 12 are attached by bolt item 1. NOTE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

Leading Edge Fairing Figure 401 (Sheet 2 of 3) MASTER EFFECTIVITY: See Pageblock 54 − 12 − 01 page 401 

# 54 − 12 − 01 Page 404 Dec 05/2005sh514a03.dg, bmcc/gv, 14/06/02 11 10 11 10

9 10 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE MANUAL

Leading Edge Fairing Figure 401 (Sheet 3 of 3) MASTER EFFECTIVITY: See Pageblock 54 − 12 − 01 page 401 

# 54 − 12 − 01 Page 405 Dec 05/2005
#### Miriam S. Trosky, Appellant, v Mark MacMillan et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. (See *Erneta v Princeton Hosp.,*49 NY2d 829.) (Appeal from order of Niagara Supreme Court—attachment.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Schnepp, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
EXHIBIT 22

                           Subsidiaries of the Company



                  All of the following subsidiaries of the Small Business Issuer
are New York corporations and wholly-owned, except as indicated otherwise:

                           Access Network Corp.
                           Dan's Papers Inc.*
                           Manhattan Publishing Corp.
                           Media Venture Group, Inc.
                           Parkchester Publishing Co. Inc.
                           Tribco Incorporated
                           Nassau Community Newspaper Group, Inc.
                           Manhattan File Publishing, Inc.**
                           Capitol Hill Publishing, Inc.
                           Brooklyn Newspaper Publishing, Inc.
                           West Side Newspaper Corp.



--------
*        = 80%-owned.
**       = 90%-owned.

                                                                                
                                       39

<PAGE>
**Figure 2. Employment gap remains wide between women and men                engineers, 1983-1999 (Employment in thousands)**

 Men's employment numbers:
#### KRIDEL et al. v. BRUKENFELD.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

Sales (§ 29*)—Contracts and Memorandum—Construction.

An unsigned memorandum, made by plaintiff’s salesman, in which the goods sold were enumerated, was not a contract, or a confirmation of an order, legally binding on any one.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. § 56; Dec. Dig. § 29.*]

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.

Action by Alexander H. Kridel and others against Morris Brukenfeld. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and PAGE, JJ. Eugene L. Bondy, of New Fork City, for appellants.

Kaufman & Gisnet, of New York City (Michael Kaufman, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

*92PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff sued for the purchase price of two lots-of goods delivered to defendant. The defense consisted of the claim that these goods were part of one order, of which two other lots, not delivered, formed an intrinsic part. That was substantially the one issue litigated.

There was introduced in evidence by defendant an unsigned memorandum, as its Exhibit 1, made by plaintiffs’ salesman on a piece of paper, in which all four lots were enumerated. After having retired to deliberate, the jury asked, “Is defendant’s Exhibit 1 a contract in itself?” to which the court replied, “No.” Later the jury asked, “We wish to know whether this order slip, marked ‘Exhibit 1/ is a confirmation of an order, and is it legally binding on both parties concerned?” to which the court replied, “Yes.” To such reply, plaintiffs’" counsel excepted.

It is perfectly clear that Exhibit 1 was a mere private memorandum,, which was, as the court had correctly charged, not a contract, and equally it was not a confirmation 'of an order, and was not legally binding-on any one. The error related to a vital point ih the controversy, and was practically determinative of the issue.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellants-to abide the event.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



|                        |  |  |  |                                                                                    
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 4, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Margaret Sakai                                                                 
|                        |  |  |  | Margaret Sakai Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 27.45 No storage of cotton for classification at disapproved place.

No cotton submitted for classification under subsection 15b(f) of the Act shall be located or stored at a place disapproved for the purpose by the Area Director or the Director on account of being unsuitable for the safekeeping or proper storage of such cotton, or on account of the failure or refusal of the custodian thereof to comply or to permit compliance with the requirements of this subpart. Notice of such disapproval shall be given in such manner as the Director may direct. Thereafter every cotton class certificate previously issued for cotton located or stored at such place shall be invalid for the delivery of such cotton on a basis grade contract, unless the cotton shall be removed under the supervision of an exchange inspection agency, or a supervisor of cotton inspection, to a place which shall be suitable for the purpose. Upon such removal and the request of the holder of the cotton class certificate for such cotton a new certificate in lieu thereof, as provided elsewhere in this subpart, shall be issued.

[48 FR 49211, Oct. 25, 1983]
Appeal No. 79-304.

#### Richard A. Pariseault *v.*R.J.F. Pariseault & Sons Inc. *et al.*

Mr. Chief Justice Bevilacqua did not participate.

*Ralph T. Lewis, Jr.,*for plaintiff. *Abraham Belilove, Howard I. Lipsey*(Receivers for defendant corporations), for defendants.

The plaintiff here has appealed from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court. Therefore, treating the defendants’ motion to affirm as a motion to dismiss this appeal as interlocutory, said motion to dismiss is granted.
Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF   Document 1-7   Filed 03/20/20   Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 Nos. 33-43290, 33-65380, 33-65382, 33-80433 and 333-53602) pertaining
to the Health Management Associates, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan and various
employee and directors stock option plans of Health Management Associates, Inc.,
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-48820) and related Prospectus of Health
Management Associates, Inc. for the registration of $488,750,000 Convertible
Senior Subordinated Debentures due 2020 and 14,448,574 shares of its common
stock and Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-41953) and related Prospectus
of our report dated October 24, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Health Management Associates, Inc. included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 2001.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Tampa, Florida
December 18, 2001


                                       64
<PAGE>




                                                                      Exhibit 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR


The Board of Directors of
   The Andover Apparel Group, Inc.


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-33963) on Form S-8 of The Andover Apparel Group, Inc. of our report dated
January 29, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of The Andover
Apparel Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of November 30, 1998 and 1997, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash
flows and the related Schedule II for each of the three years in the period
ended November 30, 1998, which report appears in the November 30, 1998 annual
report on Form 10-K of The Andover Apparel Group, Inc.


                                        /s/  MAHONEY COHEN & COMPANY, CPA, P.C.


New York, New York
February 25, 1999





<PAGE>
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-259

Lower Tribunal No. 19-CF-303

_____________________________

STANLEY JAMES GRIFFIN,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County.

Bruce Kyle, Judge.

April 23, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

NARDELLA, WHITE and MIZE, JJ., concur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Christopher Desrochers, Special 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Natalia Reyna-Pimiento, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1
                        NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPLY COMPANY
                     COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE (a)
                       (thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Years Ended December 31,
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 1996          1995         1994
                                                 ----          ----         ----
<S>                                             <C>           <C>          <C> 
Computation of Earnings Per Common
  and Common Equivalent Share
-----------------------------------------
Net Income                                      $5,009        $5,745        $4,753
                                                ======        ======        ======
Average Number of Shares of
  Common Stock Outstanding                       6,144         6,073         5,974
Incremental Effect of Unexercised
  Stock Options                                     78            81            99 
                                                ------        ------        ------
Average Number of Shares of Common Stock
  and Common Stock Equivalents Outstanding       6,222         6,154         6,073
                                                ======        ======        ======
Earnings per Common and Common
  Equivalent Share                              $ 0.81        $ 0.93        $ 0.78
                                                ======        ======        ======
Computation of Earnings Per Common Share
  Assuming Full Dilution
-----------------------------------------
Net Income                                      $5,009        $5,745        $4,753
                                                ======        ======        ======
Average Number of Shares of
  Common Stock Outstanding                       6,144         6,073         5,974
Incremental Effect of Unexercised
  Stock Options                                     94            94           101
                                                ------        ------        ------
Average Number of Shares of Common Stock
  Assuming Full Dilution                         6,238         6,167         6,075
                                                ======        ======        ======
Earnings Per Common Share Assuming
  Full Dilution                                 $ 0.80        $ 0.93        $ 0.78
                                                ======        ======        ======
</TABLE>

(a) This calculation is submitted in accordance with the Securities Exchange
    Act of 1934. Because the incremental effect of unexercised stock options
    results in dilution of less than 3%, the per share data presented in the
    consolidated statement of income excludes the impact of common stock
    equivalents.
#### The State ex rel. Offill, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Offill v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 135.]

(No. 96-2777

Submitted July 8, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Cloppert, Portman, Sauter, Latanick & Foley*and *Frederic A. Portman,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Dennis Rehor,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

Resnick, J., dissents.

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,

dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
#### In the Matter of David Johnson, Petitioner, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondents’ determination dated May 24, 1978, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of certain misconduct and dismissed him from his position as a police officer. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. Since his appointment as a transit authority police officer in 1972, petitioner had been given three cautions, seven departmental hearings (the last resulting in a final warning against attendance rule violations) and three trial board hearings. With respect to the instant proceeding, petitioner was served with a notice of charges alleging (1) that on December 3,1977 he was absent from his post without proper authority and was sleeping on duty, and (2) that on March 24, 1978 he was absent from his post. These charges were amply supported by substantial evidence, which included the testimony of four transit police officers and petitioner’s own signed statement and hearing testimony (see *300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176). In determining the sanction to be imposed, the respondents properly took into account petitioner’s prior disciplinary record (see *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 240). We have also considered the nature of petitioner’s employment, and note that a sanction which would otherwise be considered disproportionate or excessive may not be in this case "because of the serious effect on the fulfillment of important public responsibilities that may flow from ineffective police discipline” *(Matter of O’Connor v Frank,*38 NY2d 963, 964). We find that the punishment imposed, dismissal, was not "' "So disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” ’ ” *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ,*34 NY2d 222, 233, *supra).*Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
§ 2045.1754 Scope of gratuitous services performed. ( a ) Gratuitous services accepted in accordance with this subpart may be utilized to perform any function performed by regular FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 employees (excluding Committee members). Such services must not result in the displacement of employees. Most of the gratuitous services should be performed at the County Office level and conform to a standard FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 position description. A nonstandard position description may be developed and used, depending on current agency needs in a particular office and gratuitous skills available.
( b ) Orientation and other training will be provided by FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 so that gratuitous services may be performed in accordance with current FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 procedure.
( c ) Persons performing authorized gratuitous services will be held to the same standard as regular FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 employees performing similar duties. The issuance of, and accountability for, identification cards and clearance of employee accountability will be as prescribed in FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 Instruction 2024-B which is available in all FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 Offices. Such persons, except Construction Inspectors may, when under direct supervision of County Supervisors, act as Collection Officers and be allowed to use receipt books.
[43 FR 3694, Jan. 27, 1978, as amended at 68 FR 61333, Oct. 28, 2003]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

Civil Action File No.: 

3:20-cv-4325 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF MEGAN K. JONES

Megan K. Jones, of the law firm Hall, Gilligan, Roberts and Shanlever, LLP, 

pursuant to LR 11.1.D, NDFL., hereby enters her appearance on behalf of Warden 

Jimmy Coker, Sgt. Timothy Lingo, and Officers Spencer A. Barnes, Paul S. Cox, 

Jr., Larry T. Hood, David Z. Herring, Christopher Worley, and Austen L. Copeland, 

individually, named as defendants in the above-styled civil action, and requests that 

copies of all communications, filings, and orders in this case be directed to her 

through electronic notification using the CM/ECF system. 

ESTATE OF MICHAEL BAKER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WARDEN JIMMY COKER, SGT. 

TIMOTHY LINGO, and OFFICERS 

SPENCER A. BARNES, PAUL S. 

COX, JR., LARRY T. HOOD, DAVID 

Z. HERRING, CHRISTOPHER 

WORLEY, AUSTEN L. COPELAND, 

individually, 

 

Defendants. 

Case 3:20-cv-04325-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 2
This the 22nd day of May, 2020. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Megan K. Jones 

Megan K. Jones 

Florida Bar No. 1000366 

HALL, GILLIGAN, 

ROBERTS & SHANLEVER LLP 

1241 Airport Road, Suite A 

Destin, Florida 32541 

Telephone: (850) 213-0604 

Facsimile: (404) 537-5555 

mjones@hgrslaw.com 

Attorney for Defendants 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I affirm that on May 22, 2020, I, Megan K. Jones, filed the within and 

foregoing Notice of Appearance with the Court using the CM/ECF filing which 

automatically sends a copy to all attorneys of record including: 

Mr. James V. Cook, Esq. 

cookjv@gmail.com 

This the 22nd day of May, 2020. 

/s/ Megan K. Jones 

Megan K. Jones 

Case 3:20-cv-04325-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        [ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP LETTERHEAD]



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of 
our report included in this Form 10-K into the Company's previously filed 
Registration Statements (File No. 333-39497, File No. 33-62881, File No. 
33-62883, File No. 333-40775, File No. 033-21995, File No. 033-29317, File No. 
033-62867, File No. 033-62865, File No. 033-62877, File No. 033-62879, File No. 
033-62881, File No. 033-62883, File No. 333-18477, File No. 333-21927 and File 
No. 333-3643).



Baltimore, Maryland,
  March 10, 1999

/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP