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




Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the following Registration Statements:





(1) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No.
333-86105, Form S-3 No. 333-35206, Form S-3 No. 333-72614, Form S-3 No. 333-82596,Form S-3 No. 333-101666, Form S-3 No. 333-107836,Form S-3 No. 333-111360, Form S-3 No. 333-118595, Form S-3 No. 333-121297, Form S-3 No. 333-122887, Form S-3 No. 333-128929, Form S-3 No. 333-133786, Form S-3 No. 333-139173,Form S-3 No. 333-151536, Form S-3 No. 333-151654, and Form S-3 No. 333-156237) of Discovery Laboratories, Inc. and in
related Prospectuses





(2) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-148028) pertaining to the Discovery
Laboratories, Inc. 2007 Long-Term Incentive Plan





(3) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-33900, Form S-8 No. 333-55900, Form S-8 No. 333-67422. Form S-8 No. 333-100824,  Form S-8 No.
333-109274, Form S-8 No. 333-116268, Form S-8 No. 333-127790, and Form S-8 No. 333-138476) pertaining to the Amended and Restated
1998 Stock Incentive Plan of Discovery Laboratories, Inc.





(4) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-59945) pertaining to the Amended and Restated
1998 Stock Incentive Plan of Discovery Laboratories, Inc., Discovery
Laboratories, Inc. 1996 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan and Acute Therapeutics,
Inc. 1996 Stock Option/ Stock Issuance Plan





(5) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-37975) pertaining to the Restated 1993 Stock
Option Plan of Ansan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the 1995 Stock Option Plan of
Ansan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.





(6) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-110412, Form S-8 No. 333-137643, Form S-8 No. 333-156443), and Form S-8 No. 333-164470) pertaining to the 401(k) Plan of
Discovery Laboratories, Inc.





of our report datedMarch 10, 2010, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Discovery Laboratories, Inc. and subsidiary and of our
report datedMarch 10,
2010, with respect to the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Discovery
Laboratories, Inc. and subsidiary, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Discovery Laboratories, Inc. and subsidiary for the year ended December 31,
2009.








Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania


March 10, 2010
Editorial Note on Part 178
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 178 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 178.3290 Chromic chloride complexes. Myristo chromic chloride complex and stearato chromic chloride complex may be safely used as release agents in the closure area of packaging containers intended for use in producing, manufacturing, packing, processing, preparing, treating, packaging, transporting, or holding food, subject to the provisions of this section: ( a ) The quantity used shall not exceed that reasonably required to accomplish the intended technical effect nor exceed 7 micrograms of chromium per square inch of closure area.
( b ) The packaging container which has its closure area treated with the release agent shall have a capacity of not less than 120 grams of food per square inch of such treated closure area.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0719 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-240-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update 

accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated 

Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain

for either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements 

for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES NO 

Explanation:
§ 522.2471 Tilmicosin. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of solution contains 300 milligrams (mg) tilmicosin base as tilmicosin phosphate.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 058198 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.735 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Cattle* — ( i ) *Amount.* 10 to 20 milligrams per kilograms (mg/kg) of body weight as a single subcutaneous injection.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For the treatment of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) associated with *Mannheimia haemolytica*, *Pasteurella multocida*, and *Histophilus somni.* For the control of respiratory disease in cattle at high risk of developing BRD associated with *M. haemolytica.*
( iii ) *Limitations.* Animals intended for human consumption must not be slaughtered within 42 days of last treatment. Do not use in lactating dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. Use of tilmicosin in this class of cattle may cause milk residues. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 2 ) *Sheep* — ( i ) *Amount.* 10 mg/kg body weight as a single subcutaneous injection.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For the treatment of ovine respiratory disease (ORD) associated with *Mannheimia* (*P.) haemolytica.*
( iii ) *Limitations.* Not for use in lactating ewes producing milk for human consumption. Animals intended for human consumption must not be slaughtered within 42 days of last treatment. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[67 FR 72367, Dec. 5, 2002, as amended at 75 FR 9334, Mar. 2, 2010; 81 FR 48703, July 26, 2016; 88 FR 16548, Mar. 20, 2023]
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Christie Lynn Darlin, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00111

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 354th District Court of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 28537 ). Opinion delivered by Ch ief Justice Morriss,

Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of thi s date, we find that the motion of the appellant to

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the a ppellant, Christie Lynn Darlin, has adequately indicated h er inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 11, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)**I, Gordon Ellis, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-Q of International Absorbents Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date: September 11, 2007 /s/ GORDON ELLIS Gordon Ellis    *President and Chief Executive Officer*
EXHIBIT 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



Parent



The Southern Banc Company, Inc.



|                          |  |                                              |  |                      |  
|------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------- | -
|Subsidiaries (1)          |  | State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | Percentage Ownership |  
|The Southern Bank Company |  | United States                                |  | 100                  | %
|                          |  |                                             
|First Service Corporation |  | Alabama                                      |  | 100                  | %

---

|(1) | The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in the consolidated
financial statements attached hereto as an exhibit.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 349.18 Ophthalmic vasoconstrictors. The active ingredient of the product consists of one of the following, within the established concentration for each ingredient: ( a ) Ephedrine hydrochloride, 0.123 percent.
( b ) Naphazoline hydrochloride, 0.01 to 0.03 percent.
( c ) Phenylephrine hydrochloride, 0.08 to 0.2 percent.
( d ) Tetrahydrozoline hydrochloride, 0.01 to 0.05 percent.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     Exhibit 5.1



                                  June 21, 1999



Board of Directors
Trendwest Resorts, Inc.
9805 Willows Road
Redmond, Washington  98052

Gentlemen:

We have acted as counsel for Trendwest Resorts, Inc., an Oregon corporation (the
"Company"), in connection with the preparation and filing of a Registration
Statement ("Registration Statement") on Form S-8 under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, for 856,451 shares (the "Option Shares") of the Company's
common stock, without par value (the "Common Stock"), that are issuable pursuant
to the Trendwest Resorts Employee Stock Option Plan (the "Option Plan") and
500,000 shares of the Common Stock (the "Stock Purchase Shares") that are
issuable pursuant to the Trendwest Resorts Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the
"Stock Purchase Plan").

We have examined the Registration Statement, the Option Plan, the Stock Purchase
Plan, the proceedings of the Board of Directors and shareholders of the Company
and such other documents and records as we deem necessary for the purpose of
this opinion. In connection with this opinion, we have, with your consent,
assumed the authenticity of all records, documents and instruments submitted to
us as originals, the genuineness of all signatures, the legal capacity of
natural persons and the authenticity and conformity to the originals of all
records, documents and instruments submitted to us as copies.

This opinion is limited to the laws of the State of Oregon. We disclaim any
opinion as to any statute, rule, regulation, ordinance, order or other
promulgation of any other jurisdiction or any federal, regional or local
governmental body.

Based on the foregoing and our examination of such questions of law as we have
deemed necessary or appropriate for the purpose of this opinion, we are of the
opinion that:

1.      upon the issuance of the Option Shares under the Option Plan as provided
        therein, the Option Shares will be legally issued, fully paid and
        nonassessable; and

2.      upon the issuance of the Stock Purchase Shares under the Stock Purchase
        Plan as provided therein, the Stock Purchase Shares will be legally
        issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

<PAGE>   2
Board of Directors                                                   Exhibit 5.1
Trendwest Resorts
June 21, 1999
Page 2


We hereby consent to the filing of this Opinion as an Exhibit to the
Registration Statement.

                                             Very truly yours,

                                             /s/ Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe

                                             HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & MCAULIFFE



                                       2
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION 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 Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas K. Equels, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.











/s/ Thomas K. Equels


Thomas K. Equels


Chief Financial Officer


March 20, 2015
[No. 39199-2-I.

Division One.

November 24, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Billy Schaffer, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-1-02195-1, Janice Niemi, J., entered July 22, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Becker, J., concurred in by Coleman and Agid, JJ.
D E P AR T M E N T O F T H E AI R F O R C E

HEADQUARTERS AIR FOR CE FLIGHT STANDARDS AGENCY (AFFSA)

4 Mar 14

MEMORANDUM FOR HQ FAA/A RM

- 10 0

FROM: HQ AFFSA/A3O F (AJW31AF)

6500 South MacArthur

Building 4, Room 124

Oklahoma City, OK 73169

SUBJECT: 14 CFR Exemption 4633 (Regulatory Docket FAA

- 2002

- 12189)

1. Title 14 CFR Exemption 4633 was granted to the United States Air Force o n 6 Jun 86 and

was renewed as 4633 N on 26 Apr 1 2 . The exemption expires 30 Sep 1 4 . Exemption 4633 N

relieves USAF aircraft fro m the provisions of Section 91.215 (b) and (c).

2. Under this exemption, the USAF conducts military training flight operations in designated

airspace above 10,000 feet MSL without operating aircraft transponders, subject to provisions

established by t he FAA. The provisions of 4633 , as amended in 4633 N

, will remain a part of

this renewal, if approved. The requirement for the USAF to conduct these operations remains

unchanged. Extension of the exemption is essential for USAF aircrews to accomplish

tr ansponder

- off operations and training. These procedures are critical to continuation training

for wartime scenarios and training operations. The procedures, affected areas, and operations

constraints outlined in Exemption 4633 (as amended in 2006) ha ve provided invaluable training

to USAF aircrews

. We hereby request a n extension IAW Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations,

Part 11.

2. As operations under this exemption have been safely conducted for the past twenty

- eight

years, the Air Force requests your consideration in approving the renewal of this exemption

through 30 Sep 1 6 . Please contact me with any questions at ( 405 ) 73 4

- 8424 or e

- mail:

hqaffsa.a3of@us.af.mil

.

Eric D. Meyn

, Lt Col , USAF

Chief, Flight Standards Division (IMA)
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 4441** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v. DANNY LEE MCCOLLUM , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. ( 1:14

- cr - 00432

- WO

- 1 )

Submitted : March 30, 2016 Decided: April 13, 2016

Before GREGORY and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Seth A. Neyhart, STARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bindi ng precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Danny Lee McCollum pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one count of distribution of cocaine base. The district court sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by four years of supe rvised release. On appeal, McCollum’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court imposed a reasonable sentence. McCo llum was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. The district court made no significant procedur al error at sentencing, see Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and McCollum has not rebutted the presumption on appeal that his within

- Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, see United States v. Louthian , 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform McCollum, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If McCollum req uests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition3 would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on McCollum. We dispen se with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 522.62 Aminopentamide. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of solution contains 0.5 milligram (mg) aminopentamide hydrogen sulfate.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs and cats* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer by subcutaneous or intramuscular injection every 8 to 12 hours as follows: For animals weighing up to 10 pounds (lbs): 0.1 mg; For animals weighing 11 to 20 lbs: 0.2 mg; For animals weighing 21 to 50 lbs: 0.3 mg; For animals weighing 51 to 100 lbs: 0.4 mg; For animals weighing over 100 lbs: 0.5 mg. Dosage may be gradually increased up to a maximum of five times the suggested dosage. Following parenteral use, dosage may be continued by oral administration of tablets.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the treatment of vomiting and/or diarrhea, nausea, acute abdominal visceral spasm, pylorospasm, or hypertrophic gastritis.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[79 FR 16183, Mar. 25, 2014]
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We have
issued our report dated March 25, 2010, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Astea International Inc.
and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.  We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration Statements of Astea International Inc. and Subsidiaries on Forms
S-8 (File No. 333-107757, effective August 8, 2003, File No. 333-61981,
effective August 21, 1998, File No. 333-34865 effective September 3, 1997 and
File No. 333-33825, effective August 18, 1997).








/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP





Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania


March 25,
2010














78
#### The Laurel Beach Association et al. *v.*Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Milford et al.

*Cleaveland J. Bice, Jr.,*with whom was *Barry B. Schaller,*for the appellees (plaintiffs).

*Bobert L. Berchem,*for the appellants (defendants Plaskon).

Argued December 2

decided December 2, 1969

The motion by the plaintiffs to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County is denied.