alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-53374) of Evergreen Solar, Inc. of our
report dated February 15, 2001 relating to the financial statements and
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K. We also consent
to the reference to us under the heading "Selected Financial Data" in this Form
10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 30, 2001



                                      II-4
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6423

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARION BROOKS PERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-96-140-F, CA-01-445-5-F)

Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 28, 2003

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marion Brooks Person, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Marion Brooks Person seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) and denying reconsideration of that order. We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Person has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right

as to either order. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029

(2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). Further, we

deny Person’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Quarterly  Report of GVC Venture Corp. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2005,  as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bernard
Zimmerman,  Principal  Executive Officer and Principal  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.

November 7, 2005

                                         /s/ Bernard Zimmerman
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                             Bernard Zimmerman, President
                                             (Principal Executive Officer) and
                                             Treasurer (Principal Financial and
                                             Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MEDICAL INCOME PROPERTIES 2A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,203,252
<SECURITIES>                                 2,495,896
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,598,522
<ALLOWANCES>                                   194,531
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,578,237
<PP&E>                                      19,502,168
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,422,830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,976,930
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,749,101
<BONDS>                                      3,645,374
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,571,852<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,976,930
<SALES>                                     15,189,309
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,213,265
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,578,778
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             285,799
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,217,592
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,217,592
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,217,592
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS TOTAL PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL INCLUDING NET INCOME NET OF DISTRIBUTIONS
PAID.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ERICA CARRIZAL

,

Appellant,

v.

DESERT SUN

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 22

- 00158

- CV

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 4

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2022

- CCV00424 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on Appellant ’ s motion to dismiss the appeal and

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore dismiss

the appeal. It appearing to this Court tha t Appellant is indigent for purposes of appeal, this Court

makes no other order with respect thereto. T his decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY , 20 23

.

L ISA J. SOTO

, Justice

February 21, 2023

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
# C_2015381EN.01003001.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/30

---

Order of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — EEB v Commission

(Case T-565/14) (1)

1

((Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Commission decision concerning the notification by Poland of a transitional national plan as referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions - Refusal of internal review - Measure of individual scope - Aarhus Convention - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Lateness - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any foundation in law))

(2015/C 381/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Podskalská, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, S. Petrova and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 804 final of 17 February 2014 on the notification by the Republic of Poland of a transitional national plan referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU, on industrial emissions, and, secondly, for annulment of the Commission Decision of 12 June 2014 (Ares (2014) 1915757) declaring inadmissible the applicant’s request that the Commission review its decision of 17 February 2014.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Republic of Poland. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Republic of Poland.

| 3. | European Environmental Bureau (EEB) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

European Environmental Bureau (EEB) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | EEB, the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the Republic of Poland shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

EEB, the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the Republic of Poland shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.

1

---
# C_2014380EN.01002601.xml

| 27.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/26

---

Action brought on 14 July 2014 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-65/14)

2014/C 380/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: EEAS

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions to refuse to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion exercise even though he was included in the list of officials eligible for promotion.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions of 9 October and of 14 October 2013 refusing to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions of 9 October and of 14 October 2013 refusing to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion exercise;

| — | If necessary, annul the decision of 16 April 2014, rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

If necessary, annul the decision of 16 April 2014, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

| — | Order the EEAS to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EEAS to pay all the costs.

---
# C_2014380EN.01000401.xml

| 27.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 22 August 2014 — VIAMAR — Elliniki Aftokiniton kai Genikon Epikhiriseon A.E. v Elliniko Dimosio

(Case C-402/14)

2014/C 380/04

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Referring court

Diikitiko Efetio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VIAMAR — Elliniki Aftokiniton kai Genikon Epikhiriseon A.E.

Applicant:

Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 1(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC (1) of 16 December 2008 legally sufficient in itself and complete/unconditional and sufficiently clear so that, although that particular provision of the directive has not been transposed into the national law of the Member State/the Greek State, it has direct effect and can be relied on by an individual who derives rights from it before the national courts, and the latter are required to take that provision into account? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 1(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC (1) of 16 December 2008 legally sufficient in itself and complete/unconditional and sufficiently clear so that, although that particular provision of the directive has not been transposed into the national law of the Member State/the Greek State, it has direct effect and can be relied on by an individual who derives rights from it before the national courts, and the latter are required to take that provision into account?

1

| 2. | In any event, is Article 130(5) of the National Customs Code, in conjunction with Article 128(1) thereof — which provide that the customs clearance certificate for Community vehicles imported into the country is issued after collection of the registration tax, the obligation to pay which arises upon their entry into the country — compatible with Article 3(c) of the EEC Treaty, providing for the abolition of obstacles to the free movement of goods between Member States? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In any event, is Article 130(5) of the National Customs Code, in conjunction with Article 128(1) thereof — which provide that the customs clearance certificate for Community vehicles imported into the country is issued after collection of the registration tax, the obligation to pay which arises upon their entry into the country — compatible with Article 3(c) of the EEC Treaty, providing for the abolition of obstacles to the free movement of goods between Member States?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).

1

---
##### 



(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.
 /s/ WILLIAM C. GRIFFITHSWilliam C. GriffithsChairman of the Board of Directors,President and Chief Executive OfficerChampion Enterprises, Inc.April 30, 2007/s/ PHYLLIS A. KNIGHTPhyllis A. KnightExecutive Vice President, Treasurer andChief Financial OfficerChampion Enterprises, Inc.April 30, 2007
 Page 26 of 26
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.3880 Theophylline test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A theophylline test system is a device intended to measure theophylline (a drug used for stimulation of the muscles in the cardiovascular, respiratory, and central nervous systems) in serum and plasma. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of theophylline overdose or in monitoring levels of theophylline to ensure appropriate therapy.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2010-1039 

 WING SHING PRODUCTS (BVI) CO. LTD., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., 

 Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

SIMATELEX MANUFACTORY CO., LTD., 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

William Dunnegan, Dunnegan LLC, of New York, New York, argued for plaintiffappellant. 

Thomas F. Fleming, Kaye Scholer LLP, of New York, New York, argued for 

defendant-appellee Sunbeam Products, Inc. 

Orrin K. Ames, III, Hand Arendall LLC, of Mobile, Alabama, for defendantappellee Simatelex Manufactory Co., Ltd. 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 

Judge Richard J. Holwell 

 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

 2010-1039 

WING SHING PRODUCTS (BVI) CO. LTD., 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., 

 Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

SIMATELEX MANUFACTORY CO., LTD., 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York 

in CASE NO(S). 06-CV-3522. 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 

Per Curiam (MAYER, GAJARSA, and MOORE, Circuit Judges ) 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

DATED May 5, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Frances Boyd

*Francis J. DiScala,*in support of the petition.

Submitted September 3

decided September 24, 1969

The petition by the defendant for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.
§ 556.160 Clopidol. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for clopidol are: ( 1 ) *Chickens and turkeys.* ( i ) Liver and kidney: 15 ppm.
( ii ) Muscle: 5 ppm.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See § 558.175 of this chapter.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.5.2    
  


 
 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
  TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY
  LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN    
  


        THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN (this "Amendment") is made and adopted
by the Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation") effective as of January 1, 2003. 


 
 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS    
  


        A.    The
stockholders of the Corporation have approved, and the Corporation has adopted, the Trammell Crow Company Long-Term Incentive Plan as amended (the
"Plan"). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan. 



        B.    In
order to accurately reflect the Board of Directors original intentions in connection with the adoption of the Plan, the Board of Directors desires to exercise its
power to construe the Plan, to correct defects in the Plan, and to amend the Plan by revising the Change in Control provision to provide that a Change in Control of the Corporation occurs when
individuals who constitute the Incumbent Board cease for any reason to constitute at least a majority of the Board of Directors. 


 
 

AMENDMENT    
  


        NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 


        Section
1.6(ii) is hereby restated in its entirety to read as follows: 



        (ii)  Individuals
who constitute the Incumbent Board cease for any reason to constitute at least a majority of the Board of Directors; or 




        This
Amendment, and the changes to the provisions of the Plan affected hereby, shall be effective as of January 1, 2003. Except as expressly set forth herein, the Plan shall
remain in full force and effect without further amendment or modification. 


        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation, acting by and through its officer hereunto duly authorized, has executed this Amendment effective as of the date first written above. 



	 	 	TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY
	

 	
 	

By:	

/s/  J. CHRISTOPHER KIRK      

	

 	
 	

Name:	

J. Christopher Kirk

	

 	
 	

Title:	

Executive Vice President and Secretary












QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.5.2


SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS

AMENDMENT
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.7675 Leukocyte peroxidase test. ( a ) *Identification.* A leukocyte peroxidase test is a device used to distinguish certain myeloid cells derived from the bone marrow, i.e., neutrophils, eosinophils, and monocytes, from lymphoid cells of the lymphatic system and erythroid cells of the red blood cell series on the basis of their peroxidase activity as evidenced by staining. The results of this test are used in the differential diagnosis of the leukemias.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). This device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 864.9.
[45 FR 60624, Sept. 12, 1980, as amended at 59 FR 63007, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38790, July 25, 2001]
## \ RECEIVEU 

## SEP 30 2015 m THE untje!) STATES DISTRICTCOURT COURTOFAPPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

## «WND DISTRICTOF TEW, DIVISION pn ,. 

# SDEBRASP1SAK,CLERK SeCg$*To^p 

# fternu^ hel a hoyfc^o\<\ti si | ^JnH^^ Plaintiff's name and ID Number 3 ft Mig 

# CoFFt-\LO ma \t oes^4* ' 3LL\ \-M365H Tcnne$SccCobuy To<«5 A*>CLfz Place ofConfinement ' ~7$?8H ** 

# CASENO. ^I^^r-C (Clerk will assign the number) DlVfv^ » „ I- /x ^ \ ,\ o ,htv APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

## tOV**- oatsfbliCt 0^>C-4rn«i^fovv644lX. IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Defendant's name and address 

### I, nrrn^tf (jgJfiGrl 6 Cffi-. declare, depose, and say I am the Plaintiffin the above entitled case. In support ofmy motion to proceed wrdiout being required to prepay fees, costs, or give security therefor, I state because ofmy poverty, I am unable to pay in advance the filing fee for said proceedings or to give security for the filing fee. I believe I
am entitled to relief. I, further declare the responses which I have made to the questions and instructions below are true. 1. Have you received, within the last 12 months, any money from any ofthe following sources? a. Business, profession or from self-employment? Yes Q No 5fl. b. Rent payments, interest or dividends?. Yes • No So 

## c. Pensions, annuities orlife insurance payments? Yes • No 0j d. Gifts or inheritances? Yes • No 0 e. Family or friends? Yes f\jf No Q
. f. Anyother sources? Yes • No \$/ If you answeredYES to any of the questions above,describeeach source of money and state the amount received from each during the past 12 months.
'-f 2. Doyou own cash, or do you have money in a checking or savings account, including any funds in prison accounts? t Yes 0 No D Ifyou answered YES to any of the questions above, state the total value of the items owned.

rATCIFP (REV. 9/02)3. Do you own real estate, stocks, bonds, note, automobiles, or othervaluable property, excluding ordinary householdfurnishings and clothing? Yes • No If you answered YES, describe the property and state its approximate value.

I understand a false statement in answer to any question in this affidavit will subject me to penalties for perjury. I declare (certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct (28 U.S.C. §1746). 

# Signed this the ^^ dav of o<jpr<u^ o€/*" ,20 \$_.
Signature of Plaintiff u 7 ID Number
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.5080 *Alpha*-1-antichymotrypsin immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* An *alpha*-1-antichymotrypsin immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques *alpha*-1-antichymotrypsin (a protein) in serum, other body fluids, and tissues. *Alpha*-1-antichymotrypsin helps protect tissues against proteolytic (protein-splitting) enzymes released during infection.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).