alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.4 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 File No. 333-175838, effective July 28, 2011 and File No. 333-151995, effective June 27, 2008) pertaining to the Equity Incentive and Non-Employee Director Plans of KCAP Financial, Inc. of our report dated March 31, 2015, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of KCAP Financial, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of KCAP Financial, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2014. /s/ Ernst & Young LLP New York, New YorkMarch 31, 2015
     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 File No. 333-175838, effective July 28, 2011 and File No. 333-151995, effective June 27, 2008) pertaining to the Equity Incentive and Non-Employee Director Plans of KCAP Financial, Inc. of our report dated March 31, 2015, with respect to the combined financial statements of Asset Manager Affiliates included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2014. /s/ Ernst & Young LLPNew York, New YorkMarch 31, 2015
     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 File No. 333-175838, effective July 28, 2011 and File No. 333-151995, effective June 27, 2008) pertaining to the Equity Incentive and Non-Employee Director Plans of KCAP Financial, Inc. of our report dated March 31, 2015, with respect to the financial statements of Katonah 2007-I CLO Ltd., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2014. /s/ Ernst & Young LLP New York, New YorkMarch 31, 2015
#### In the Matter of Natalie Meyrowitz, Appellant-Respondent, v. Philip Meyrowitz, Respondent-Appellant.

In consolidated proceedings, one to enforce the support provisions of a Mexican divorce decree which incorporated a separation agreement, and one to reduce said support provisions, the parties cross-appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated September 15, 1969 and made after a hearing, as reduced the amount of the support provisions (for the former wife and the parties’ three infant children) from the total of $8,000 per year ($666.66 per month) to $550 per month as of May 15, 1969. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by adding thereto a provision that the obligation of respondent-appellant, Philip Meyrowitz, to pay $666.66 per month for the *966support and maintenance of appellant-respondent, Natalie Meyrowitz, and the parties’ three children, is reinstated, as of the date of the order to he made hereon. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to appellant-respondent. In our opinion respondent-appellant did not demonstrate such a change in circumstances as would entitle him to a downward modification of the amount previously fixed for maintenance and support payments. The record establishes that his net income is substantially higher than that found by the Trial Judge. Further, there was no showing that his position has changed adversely for reasons beyond his control (see *Presberg*v. *Presberg,*285 App. Div. 1134). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       3,855,335
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  186,210
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,230,829
<PP&E>                                           4,770
<DEPRECIATION>                                     826
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,738,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          330,117
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       145,925
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         27
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,357,314
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,738,187
<SALES>                                          6,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,500
<CGS>                                            5,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,026,768
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,219
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (763,136)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,393,750)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,156,886)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.34)
        

</TABLE>
#### Daniel Poulakis, Respondent, v Town of Orangetown, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 539]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), entered October 21, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon the denial of its motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $108,624.00.

*883Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 may be granted when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which a jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party *(see Szczerbiak v Pilat,*90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]). In considering such a motion, “the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in the light most favorable to the nonmovant” *(Hand v Field,*15 AD3d 542, 543 [2005]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff’s accident was proximately caused by the defendant’s negligence in failing to secure a manhole on its property.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Covello, JJ., concur.
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Sopac Cellular Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending August 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Ezra E. Ezra, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
19th day of November, 2007.


/s/ Ezra E. Ezra
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 74713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30160]



[[Page 74713]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD11-1-000]


Reliability Monitoring, Enforcement and Compliance Issues; Notice 
Allowing Post-Technical Conference Comments

November 23, 2010.
    On November 18, 2010, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) conducted a Commission-led technical conference to explore 
issues associated with reliability monitoring, enforcement and 
compliance. All interested persons are invited to file written comments 
that relate to the issues discussed during the technical conference.\1\ 
Comments should be filed with the Commission in this docket, AD11-1-
000, on or before December 9, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Reliability Monitoring, Enforcement and Compliance Issues; 
Announcement of Panelists for Technical Conference, 75 FR 70,752 
(November 18, 2010).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30160 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ADAM DEAN BROWN,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:20-cv-1377-LC-MJF

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation dated December 6, 2021. (Doc. 14). The parties were

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and were afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of those portions to which an

objection was made.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the objections

thereto, I conclude that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Page 1 of 2

Case 3:20-cv-01377-LC-MJF Document 16 Filed 12/30/21 Page 1 of 2
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14), is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 3) challenging

the judgment of conviction and sentence in State of Florida v. Adam Dean Brown,

Okaloosa County Circuit Court Case No. 2013-CF-1154, is DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The clerk of court shall close this case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of December, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Case 3:20-cv-01377-LC-MJF Document 16 Filed 12/30/21 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jeffrey A. Leddy, Chief Executive Officer and President of SkyTerra Communications, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    JEFFREY A. LEDDYName:

Jeffrey A. LeddyTitle:

Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer)Date:

August 9, 2006
#### § 51.1582 Soft rot or wet breakdown.

*Soft rot or wet breakdown* means any soft, mushy, or leaky condition of the tissue such as slimy soft rot, leak, or wet breakdown following freezing injury, scald, or other injury.
§ 331.5 Exemptions. ( a ) Diagnostic laboratories and other entities that possess, use, or transfer a select agent or toxin that is contained in a specimen presented for diagnosis or verification will be exempt from the requirements of this part for such agent or toxin contained in the specimen, provided that: ( 1 ) Unless directed otherwise by the Administrator, within 7 calendar days after identification of the select agent or toxin, the select agent or toxin is transferred in accordance with § 331.16 or destroyed on-site by a recognized sterilization or inactivation process.
( 2 ) The agent or toxin is secured against theft, loss, or release during the period between identification of the agent or toxin and transfer or destruction of such agent or toxin, and any theft, loss, or release of such agent or toxin is reported.
( 3 ) The identification of the agent or toxin is reported to APHIS or CDC, the specimen provider, and to other appropriate authorities when required by Federal, State, or local law by telephone, facsimile, or email. This report must be followed by submission of APHIS/CDC Form 4 to APHIS or CDC within 7 calendar days after identification.
( b ) In addition to the exemption provided in paragraph (a) of this section, the Administrator may grant a specific exemption upon a showing of good cause and upon his or her determination that such exemption is consistent with protecting plant health or plant products. An individual or entity may request in writing an exemption from the requirements of this part. If granted, such exemptions are valid for a maximum of 3 years; thereafter, an individual or entity must request a new exemption. If a request for exemption is denied, an individual or entity may request reconsideration in writing to the Administrator. The request for reconsideration must state all of the facts and reasons upon which the individual or entity relies to show that the exemption was wrongfully denied. The Administrator will grant or deny the request for reconsideration as promptly as circumstances allow and will state, in writing, the reasons for the decision.
[70 FR 13278, Mar. 18, 2005, as amended at 82 FR 6204, Jan. 19, 2017]
§ 51.2835 U.S. No. 2. *U.S. No. 2* consists of onions which meet the following requirements: ( a ) Basic requirements: ( 1 ) One type, except when designated as a specialty or mixed pack;
( 2 ) Mature; and,
( 3 ) Not soft or spongy.
( b ) Free from: ( 1 ) Decay;
( 2 ) Wet sunscald; and,
( 3 ) Scallions.
( c ) Free from serious damage caused by: ( 1 ) Watery scales;
( 2 ) Dirt or Staining;
( 3 ) Foreign Matter;
( 4 ) Seedstems;
( 5 ) Sprouts;
( 6 ) Mechanical;
( 7 ) Dry sunken areas;
( 8 ) Disease;
( 9 ) Freezing;
( 10 ) Insects; and,
( 11 ) Other means.
( d ) For tolerances see § 51.2837.
( e ) Size. Unless otherwise specified, the diameter shall not be less than 11 ⁄ 2 inches. (See §§ 51.2836 and 51.2837.)
[60 FR 46977, Sept. 8, 1995, as amended at 79 FR 63294, Oct. 23, 2014]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSEPH D. BALDINO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-924

[August 2, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Gary L. Sweet, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 562011CF001300A.

Joseph D. Baldino, Bristol, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. 

Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal of a trial court order denying appellant’s motion to correct 

illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), 

we conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule because 

appellant’s direct appeal was also pending in this Court. Therefore, we 

reverse and remand to the trial court to dismiss the motion without 

prejudice to appellant’s right to refile it after final disposition of the direct 

appeal. See Everett v. State, 993 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Major 

v. State, 882 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Campbell-Eley v. State, 763 

So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 789 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2000). 

GERBER, C.J., WARNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RACHEL LEE PADGETT,

Petitioner,

v. 4:20cv509–WS/MAF

ERICA STRONG, Warden,

Respondent.

 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER'S § 2241 PETITION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 20) docketed February 16, 2021. The magistrate judge recommends that the

petitioner's § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot. The

petitioner has filed no objections to the report and recommendation.

Having reviewed the matter, this court has determined that the report and

recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 20) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order of the court. 

Case 4:20-cv-00509-WS-MAF Document 21 Filed 03/23/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is

DISMISSED as moot.

3. The clerk is directed to enter judgment stating: “The petitioner's petition

for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.”

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of March , 2021.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00509-WS-MAF Document 21 Filed 03/23/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 42.110 Sampling plans for tightened condition of container inspection; Tables II and II-A.

Table II—Single Sampling Plans for Tightened Condition of Container Inspection

| Code | Lot size ranges— Number of containers in lot | Type of Plan | Acceptable quality levels | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Origin Inspection | | | | | | | Other Than Origin Inspection | | | | | |
| Sample Size | 0.25 | | 1.5 | | 6.5 | | 0.25 | | 2.5 | | 10.0 | |
| Ac | Re | Ac | Re | Ac | Re | Ac | Re | Ac | Re | Ac | Re |
| CB | 6,000 or less | Single | 168 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 16 | 17 |
| CC | 6,001-12,000 | Single | 315 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 19 | 20 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 28 | 29 |
| CD | 12,001-36,000 | Single | 500 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 28 | 29 | 2 | 3 | 12 | 13 | 42 | 43 |
| CE | Over 36,000 | Single | 800 | 3 | 4 | 13 | 14 | 42 | 43 | 3 | 4 | 18 | 19 | 64 | 65 |
| CF | | Single | 1,250 | 4 | 5 | 19 | 20 | 63 | 64 | 4 | 5 | 26 | 27 | 96 | 97 |

[![](https://img.federalregister.gov/ER17SE13.005/ER17SE13.005_large.png)](https://img.federalregister.gov/ER17SE13.005/ER17SE13.005_original_size.png)

[[78 FR 57036](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/78-FR-57036), Sept. 17, 2013]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 5:01cr16-RH/WCS

5:04cv62-RH/WCS

WILLIAM DEAN McCOLLUM,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING §2255 MOTION

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 101) and the objections thereto (document 103). I

have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion

of the court. Defendant’s motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255 (document 88)

is DENIED without prejudice to the filing of any timely and appropriate motion for

relief in the event a state court vacates a conviction used to enhance the sentence in

this case and with prejudice in all other respects. The clerk shall enter 

Case 5:01-cr-00016-RH-WCS Document 104 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 5:01cr16-RH/WCS and 5:04cv62-RH/WCS

judgment and close the file.

SO ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 5:01-cr-00016-RH-WCS Document 104 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM ZEON CORPORATION'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000796513
<NAME> ZEON CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                         181,533
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  322,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    288,613
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               827,710
<PP&E>                                         298,839
<DEPRECIATION>                               (216,670)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 943,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          228,345
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,920
<OTHER-SE>                                     680,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   943,664
<SALES>                                      2,674,310
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,674,310
<CGS>                                        1,720,760
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,720,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               773,510
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                180,040
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            180,040
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   180,040
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51


</TABLE>
#### Marie C. Vaval, Appellant, v NYRAC, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 23, 2007;

decided October 11, 2007

Reported below, 2007 NY Slip Op 63481(U).

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 8 NY3d 1020 (2007)].
160 So.2d 227

#### William N. FAKIER v. Conrad PICOU, Mayor, et al.

No. 47067.

Feb. 7, 1964.

Court of Appeal, First Circuit.

158 So.2d 285.

*638Writ of review granted — but limited to the question of whether plaintiff, as Chief of Police, is a classified civil service employee.
Case 1:20-mj-00067-GRJ Document 1 Filed 09/11/20 Page 1 of 1