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


                                  Exhibit 23.2

               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 23.2

               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


The Board of Directors
Klamath First Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration  statement (No.
333-4002)  on Form S-8 of  Klamath  First  Bancorp,  Inc.  of our  report  dated
November 3, 1995, relating to the consolidated statements of earnings,  retained
earnings, and cash flows of Klamath First Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries for the
year ended  September 30, 1995,  which report appears in the September 30, 1997,
annual report on Form 10-K of Klamath First Bancorp, Inc.


/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Portland, Oregon
December 29, 1997

<PAGE>
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1695 Free thyroxine test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A free thyroxine test system is a device intended to measure free (not protein bound) thyroxine (thyroid hormone) in serum or plasma. Levels of free thyroxine in plasma are thought to reflect the amount of thyroxine hormone available to the cells and may therefore determine the clinical metabolic status of thyroxine. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of thyroid diseases.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41446

Conference Calendar

 

SIMPSON LANE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN TAYLOR, Correctional Officer II;

IOANE SATELE, Correctional Officer III;

RICKEY FLASOWSKI, Lieutenant,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:95-CV-443

- - - - - - - - - -

August 20, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Simpson Lane, Texas state prisoner # 541742,

alleged in his civil rights complaint that appellee, Correctional

Officer John Taylor, used excessive force against him. Lane now

appeals the judgment based on the jury’s verdict in favor of

Taylor. 

Lane contends that he is entitled to reversal as a result of

several errors which allegedly occurred just prior to and during

the trial. To determine whether Lane’s contentions have merit, 
No. 97-41446

-2-

this court would need to examine the trial transcript, which has

not been prepared. 

In denying Lane’s request for preparation of the transcript

at government expense, the district court informed him that he

should address any further motions to this court. However, Lane

has not requested this court to order such preparation of the

transcript. Accordingly, Lane’s appeal is DISMISSED. See

Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 1990). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
# C_2015138EN.01006702.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/67

---

Order of the General Court of 4 March 2015 — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — Pires Freitas Campos (LEO)

(Case T-459/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 138/87)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

1

---
Opinion issued May 1 7 , 2022 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 21
- 00125
- CV

——————————— STEVE NICANDROS, LUIS GIUSTI, TYLER NELSON , AND FRONTERA

RESOURCES CORPORATION , Appella nt s

V. ZAZA MAMULAISHVILA, INDIVIDUAL L Y AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF FRONTERA RESOURCES CORPORATION , Appell e e

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2021
- 03816



### MEMORANDU M OPINION Appellant s Steve Nicandros, Luis Giusti, Tyler Nelson, and Fronte r a R e s ources C o rporation filed a vo lunta ry motion to dismiss th eir a ccelerated appeal2

of the trial court’s order denying their motion to c ompe l arbitration

. 1 In their motion , Appellants state that on March 4, 2022, t he trial court issued a fin al judgment i n the und e rlying case rendering th eir interlocutory appeal moot. See Hernandez v. Ebrom , 289 S.W.3d 316, 319 (Tex. 2009) (“Appeals of some interlocutory orders become moot because the orders have been rendered moot by subsequen t orders.”)

. No opinion has i ssued in this interlocutory appeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(c).
We grant Appellants ’ motion and dismiss th is interlocutory appeal , with costs taxed against the party incurring same. See T EX
. R. A P P
. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2( f). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Landau, Hightower, and R i vas - Molloy

.

1 See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE § 51.016.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2016

- 3989 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NM

- 220

- 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 a nd then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

c ost

(@$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Tensator spring

replacement 40

. 

### 0 $ 3,400.0

0 $0 $ 3,400.00 

### 60 $ 204,000.00

$ 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: $ 204,000



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) 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 Ana lysis ( 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

* Ex planation:

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? E xplain 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 

### :
## MEMORANDUM

**DATE:** 1 2/1 /14 **FROM:** Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR – 2013 - 0602 **SUBJECT:** Discussi on of the Clean Power Plan at the Southern Company’s Technical Conference
**SUMMARY :**  

### Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to a group of Southern Company scientist s , engineers, and managers at the Southern Company Technical Conference in Birmingham, AL , on August 3 , 2014. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES: EPA**  Heather McTeer Toney /EPA R4 Anne Heard/EPA R4 Javoyne Hicks White/EPA R4 Brandi Jenkins /EPA R4 **External Stakeholders** Approximately 150 Southern Company Employees
#### § 26.45 Monitoring continued equivalence.

Monitoring activities will be carried out in accordance with § 26.69.
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.7415 Abnormal hemoglobin assay. ( a ) *Identification.* An abnormal hemoglobin assay is a device consisting of the reagents, apparatus, instrumentation, and controls necessary to isolate and identify abnormal genetically determined hemoglobin types.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). A control intended for use with an abnormal hemoglobin assay 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 60618, Sept. 12, 1980, as amended at 84 FR 71799, Dec. 30, 2019]
#### § 70.45 Allocation of color additives.

Whenever, in the consideration of a petition or a proposal to list a color additive or to alter an existing listing, the data before the Commissioner fail to show that it would be safe to list the color additive for all the uses proposed or at the levels proposed, the Commissioner will notify the petitioner and other interested persons by publication in the Federal Register that it is necessary to allocate the safe tolerance for the straight color in the color additive among the competing needs. This notice shall call for the presentation of data by all interested persons on which the allocation can be made in accordance with section 721(b)(8) of the act. The time for acting upon the petition shall be stayed until such data are presented, whereupon the time limits shall begin to run anew. As promptly as possible after presentation of the data, the Commissioner will, by order, announce the allocation and the tolerance limitations.
#### § 71.26 Revocation of exemption from certification.

If information becomes available to the Commissioner that a color additive that has been granted exemption from certification should not, for the protection of the public health, be so exempted, such exemption will be canceled by a notice published in the Federal Register.
§ 601.4 Issuance and denial of license. ( a ) A biologics license shall be issued upon a determination by the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research or the Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research that the establishment(s) and the product meet the applicable requirements established in this chapter. A biologics license shall be valid until suspended or revoked.
( b ) If the Commissioner determines that the establishment or product does not meet the requirements established in this chapter, the biologics license application shall be denied and the applicant shall be informed of the grounds for, and of an opportunity for a hearing on, the decision. If the applicant so requests, the Commissioner shall issue a notice of opportunity for hearing on the matter pursuant to § 12.21(b) of this chapter.
[42 FR 4718, Jan. 25, 1977, as amended at 42 FR 15676, Mar. 22, 1977; 42 FR 19142, Apr. 12, 1977; 64 FR 56450, Oct. 20, 1999; 70 FR 14983, Mar. 24, 2005]
# C_2015046EN.01002701.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/27

---

Appeal brought on 1 December 2014 by Canon Europa NV against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2014 in Case T-34/11: Canon Europa NV v European Commission

(Case C-552/14 P)

(2015/C 046/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Canon Europa NV (represented by: P. De Baere, avocat, P. Muñiz, advogado)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside, in whole, the order delivered by the EU General Court in case T-34/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside, in whole, the order delivered by the EU General Court in case T-34/11;

| — | rule that the appeal is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the appeal is admissible;

| — | return the case to the EU General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

return the case to the EU General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;

| — | order the Defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on the following two grounds:

First, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of Article 263 TFUE, when it concluded that the Regulation ‘entailed implementing measures’ within the meaning of that provision.

Secondly, the General Court infringed the Appellant’s right to be heard, erred in the legal characterisation of the evidence submitted by the Appellant, and alternatively distorted such evidence.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000             OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999             MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000             JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,985,049                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,676,118                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,060,405                       0
<PP&E>                                       7,257,090                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,357,515                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,813,729                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,542,996                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                        454                       0
<COMMON>                                       126,332                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,805)                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,813,729                       0
<SALES>                                      5,283,781               1,808,157
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,333,781               1,808,157
<CGS>                                        4,523,463               1,625,073
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,142,279               3,496,869
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             639,164                 227,092
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,404,235)             (1,915,804)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,404,235)             (1,915,804)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.55)                   (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.55)                   (.18)


</TABLE>
§ 56.121 Disqualification of an IRB or an institution. ( a ) Whenever the IRB or the institution has failed to take adequate steps to correct the noncompliance stated in the letter sent by the agency under § 56.120(a), and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs determines that this noncompliance may justify the disqualification of the IRB or of the parent institution, the Commissioner will institute proceedings in accordance with the requirements for a regulatory hearing set forth in part 16.
( b ) The Commissioner may disqualify an IRB or the parent institution if the Commissioner determines that: ( 1 ) The IRB has refused or repeatedly failed to comply with any of the regulations set forth in this part, and
( 2 ) The noncompliance adversely affects the rights or welfare of the human subjects in a clinical investigation.
( c ) If the Commissioner determines that disqualification is appropriate, the Commissioner will issue an order that explains the basis for the determination and that prescribes any actions to be taken with regard to ongoing clinical research conducted under the review of the IRB. The Food and Drug Administration will send notice of the disqualification to the IRB and the parent institution. Other parties with a direct interest, such as sponsors and clinical investigators, may also be sent a notice of the disqualification. In addition, the agency may elect to publish a notice of its action in the Federal Register.
( d ) The Food and Drug Administration will not approve an application for a research permit for a clinical investigation that is to be under the review of a disqualified IRB or that is to be conducted at a disqualified institution, and it may refuse to consider in support of a marketing permit the data from a clinical investigation that was reviewed by a disqualified IRB as conducted at a disqualified institution, unless the IRB or the parent institution is reinstated as provided in § 56.123.
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1485 Luteinizing hormone test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A luteinizing hormone test system is a device intended to measure luteinizing hormone in serum and urine. Luteinizing hormone measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of gonadal dysfunction.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 862.9.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 2307, Jan. 14, 2000]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 43 (Friday, March 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 10328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4678]



[[Page 10328]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences; Notice 
of Meeting

    In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meeting:
    Name: Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences 
(<greek-i>66)
    Date/Time: April 1, 2010, 9 a.m.- 6 p.m.; April 2, 2010, 9 a.m-3 
p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, RM 375, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Morris L. Aizenman, Senior Science Associate, 
Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Room 1005, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 
292-8807.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning NSF science and education activities within the Directorate 
for Mathematical and Physical Sciences.
    Agenda:
    Update on current status of Directorate;
    Report of NSF Advisory Working Groups;
    Meeting of MPSAC with Divisions within MPS Directorate;
    Discussion of MPS Long-term Planning Activities.
    Summary Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed 
above.

    Dated: March 2, 2010.
Susanne E. Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-4678 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
# C_2014135EN.01004001.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/40

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Aluminios Cortizo and Cortizo Cartera v Commission

(Case T-1/14 R)

((Application for interim measures - State aid - Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain economic interest groupings (EIG) and their investors - Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements for the purchase of ships (Spanish tax lease system) - Application for suspension of operation - Failure to comply with the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 135/51

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Aluminios Cortizo, SA (Padrón, Spain) and Cortizo Cartera, SL (Padrón) (represented by: A. Beiras Cal, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, M. Afonso, É. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of, inter alia, Commission Decision C(2013) 4426 final of 17 July 2013 on State aid SA.21233 C/2011 (ex NN/2011, ex CP 137/2006) — Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.5760 Tryptase test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A tryptase test system is a device that aids in the diagnosis of systemic mastocytosis. It is intended for in vitro diagnostic use as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of patients with a suspicion of systemic mastocytosis in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control is FDA's guideline entitled “Class II Special Controls Guideline: Tryptase Test System as an Aid in the Diagnosis of Systemic Mastocytosis.” For availability of the document, see § 866.1(e).
[79 FR 56010, Sept. 18, 2014]