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

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (333-53374, 333-105963, 333-127025 and 333-15018) and Form S-3 (333-106126, 333-117264, 333-143023, and333-166777) of Evergreen Solar, Inc. of our report dated March 9, 2011 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Boston, MA

March 9, 2011
Exhibit 10(A)(2)
Servotronics, Inc. and Subsidiaries

July 3, 2002

Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich
1110 Maple Street
Elma, NY 14059

Dear Dr. Trbovich:

You  and  Servotronics,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  are  parties  to an  employment
agreement, as amended and restated on August 8, 1986 and as subsequently amended
as of October 1, 1986,  October 1, 1987, July 20, 1988, October 1, 1988, October
1, 1989, May 1, 1990, May 1, 1991, May 1, 1992, May 1, 1993, March 28, 1994, May
1, 1994,  May 1, 1995,  May 1, 1996,  May 1, 1997,  March 9, 1998,  May 1, 1998,
October 6, 1998,  April 28, 1999, May 1, 1999, May 1, 2000, May 1, 2001, July 3,
2001 and May 1, 2002 (the  "Agreement"),  pursuant to which you are  employed by
the Company.

This  will  confirm  your  agreement  and  that of the  Company  (pursuant  to a
resolution  of the Board of Directors  passed at a meeting held on July 3, 2002)
to amend Paragraph 1 of the Agreement to delete  "September 30, 2006" and insert
in its place "September 30, 2007".

Except as specifically provided herein, all of the other terms and conditions of
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

If the  foregoing  meets with your  approval and you are willing to become bound
hereby,  will you please sign and return to the undersigned the enclosed copy of
this letter.

Very truly yours,

SERVOTRONICS, INC.


/S/Lee D. Burns
----------------------------------------

Lee D. Burns,
Treasurer/Secretary


ACCEPTED AND AGREED


/S/ Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich
----------------------------------------
Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich
# -fAA-20 l

# 0- \\bet Contacts. With whom outside the FAA ~asthis proposal been discussed?

Organization , Person Contacted 

### Date Response National Business Aircraft Associati'oll Eli Cotti 

# -ZJZZ/JO ~ , , Regional Airline AssociatioIl , Dave Lotterer , 

# Z/ZZ/I{J 

# - Aircraft Owners & Pilots AssociatiOll Robert Haclmlall 

# 2/ZZltr., 

# - ATA M Lopt'Z 

# ZJzZ/fu 

# -
# Read Across America Day, 2010 

As the foundation that makes all other learning possible, literacy is the key to unlocking every child’s full potential. From riding a bus to opening a bank account, our everyday tasks and decisions require comprehension of the written word. On Read Across America Day, we reaffirm our commitment to investing in our children and giving them an essential tool for success in school and in life: the ability to read.

Today marks the birthday of the late Theodor Seuss Geisel, known to millions as Dr. Seuss. His imaginative tales have helped generations of children learn to read, and they hold a cherished place on bookshelves in homes across America. Authors like Dr. Seuss, whose stories introduce fantastical worlds and characters, fold joy into reading and help spark the curiosity that is central to learning.

While government must ensure that all our children receive a world-class education, parents and caregivers play a crucial role in preparing them—especially during early childhood. We can promote a positive relationship with books and language through everyday activities to make reading fun and interactive. When reading to young children, I urge all parents and caregivers to talk about what is happening in a story, point out details that relate to real life, and encourage them to ask about words they do not understand. Making regular trips to the library, playing word games, and simply keeping books around the home can foster a love of reading that will last a lifetime. We can also set a good example by turning off the television and picking up a book to read with or alongside our children.

On Read Across America Day, my Administration is partnering with the National Education Association to encourage families across our Nation to make reading a priority. Together, we can give our sons and daughters the knowledge and skills they need to compete in the global economy, and in doing so, secure a brighter future for America.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 2, 2010, as Read Across America Day. I call upon children, families, educators, librarians, public officials, and all the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

[FR Doc. 2010-4881

Billing code 3195-W0-P
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Bryan Keith Lynch, Appellant

No. 06-23-00111-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 6th District Court of 

Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 28257). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Rambin, Chief Justice Stevens and Justice 

van Cleef participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Bryan Keith Lynch, has adequately indicated his inability to 

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

RENDERED AUGUST 15, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of Crown Paper Co.:

We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of Crown Paper Co. and
subsidiaries, as described in Note 2, as of December 31, 1995 and the
related consoldiated statements of operations, cash flows, and changes in
equity for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 1995
listed in the index on page 8 of this form 10-K. These financial statements
are the responsibility of the management of Crown Paper Co. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based
on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Crown Paper Co.
and subsidiaries, as described in Note 2, as of December 31, 1995, and the
consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the
two years in the period ended December 31, 1995, in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.

As discussed in the last paragraph to Note 9, the Company has revised certain
balance sheet amounts previously reported in the 1995 financial statements
related to accounting for pension plans.


                                           COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Oakland, California
February 23, 1996
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-2177

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Alberto Colina, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

Submitted: January 4, 2019

Filed: January 9, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Alberto Colina directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to two firearm charges

and the district court

1

sentenced him to two consecutive statutory-maximum prison

1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.
terms, which resulted in a total amount of prison time within his Guidelines range.

His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), essentially challenging the reasonableness of

Colina’s sentence, including the imposition of consecutive prison terms.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an

unreasonable amount of prison time. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,

461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed under deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness);see also United States v.

Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range

sentencemay be presumed reasonable); United States v.Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887

(8th Cir. 2011) (court need not mechanically recite 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, so

long as it is clear from record that court actually considered them in determining

sentence). We further conclude that it was not unreasonable for the district court to

impose consecutive prison terms. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (if multiple terms of

imprisonment are imposed on defendant at the same time, terms may run concurrently

or consecutively; in determining whether terms imposed are to be ordered to run

concurrently or consecutively, court shall consider § 3553(a) factors).

Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant

counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
§ 582.5477 Methionine hydroxy analog and its calcium salts. ( a ) *Product.* Methionine hydroxy analog and its calcium salts.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Limitations, restrictions, or explanation.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in animal feeds in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ C ase No. 5D 22- 1992 LT Case No. 2016

- 000010

- CF

_____________________________ H AROLD S WIFT , A ppellant,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , A ppellee.

_____________________________

3.850 A ppeal from t he Circuit Co urt for Putnam County

. Howard O

. McGillin , Jr. , Judge

. Harold Swif

t, Lowell, pr o se . Ashle y Mo ody, Attorne y Gene ral, Tallahassee , an d Douglas T. Squire , Assistan t Attorney Genera l, Dayton a Beach, for Appe llee. April 2, 2024

P ER C URIAM

. A FFIRMED

.

E DWARDS , C.J. , M AKAR , and H ARRIS , JJ., concur .2 _____________________________ N ot final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________
# C_2016136EN.01003002.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2016 — BrandGroup v OHIM — Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele (SPEZOOMIX)

(Case T-557/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SPEZOOMIX - Earlier Community word mark Spezi - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 136/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BrandGroup GmbH (Bechtsrieth, Germany) (represented by: T. Raible, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially G. Schneider and A. Schifko, and subsequently A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele KG (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Schlecht, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2014 (Case R 941/2013-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele KG and BrandGroup GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BrandGroup GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BrandGroup GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.1350 Catheter balloon repair kit. ( a ) *Identification.* A catheter balloon repair kit is a device used to repair or replace the balloon of a balloon catheter. The kit contains the materials, such as glue and balloons, necessary to effect the repair or replacement.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval).
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* A PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before December 26, 1996 for any catheter balloon repair kit that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before December 26, 1996 been found to be substantially equivalent to a catheter balloon repair kit that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other catheter balloon repair kit shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[45 FR 7907, Feb. 5, 1980, as amended at 52 FR 17736, May 11, 1987; 61 FR 50706, Sept. 27, 1996]
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.24

                                                                 January 8, 2003

EpicEdge, Inc.
5508 Hwy 290 West
Suite 300
Austin, Texas  78735
Attention: Richard Carter

Re: Warrant to be Issued Pursuant to Edgewater Guarantee of Additional Bank Debt

Dear Richard:

      Silicon Valley Bank (the "Bank") has agreed to increase the line of credit
extended to EpicEdge, Inc. (the "Company") from $1,000,000 to $1,300,000 (the
"Bank Debt"). The closing of the Bank Debt transaction shall occur on or prior
to February 15, 2003 (the "Closing"). In the event the Company is unable to
reduce the Bank Debt to $1,000,000, by July 31, 2003, Edgewater Private Equity
Fund III, L.P. ("Edgewater") has agreed to enter into an agreement with the bank
to guarantee (the "Guarantee") the amount by which the Bank Debt exceeds
$1,000,000 on July 31, 2003, up to a maximum of $300,000 (the "Guarantee
Amount"). It is contemplated that Edgewater will enter into the guarantee
concurrently with the Closing.

      As a condition precedent to, and in consideration for, Edgewater entering
into the Guarantee, and whether or not the Guarantee is required or called upon
by the Bank, the Company agrees to issue to Edgewater a warrant to purchase a
number of shares of the Company's Series B-1 Preferred Stock having a face value
of $150,000 (the "Warrant"). The items of the Warrant shall be mutually
acceptable to Edgewater and the Company. The Company shall issue the Warrant to
Edgewater upon the execution of the Series B-1 Preferred Stock debt/equity
financing documents.

      If the foregoing satisfactorily reflects your understanding of the subject
matter contained herein, please confirm by dating and executing this letter in
the space provided below.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        Edgewater Private Equity Fund III,  L.P.
                                        By:  Edgewater III Management, L.P.
                                        Its: General Partner

                                        By:  Gordon Management, Inc.
                                        Its: General Partner

                                        By:  /s/ Mark McManigal___________
                                        Its: VP___________________________

AGREED AND ACCEPTED AS OF THE _8th___
DAY IN JANUARY, 2003
EPICEDGE, INC.

By:   /s/ Richard Carter___________________
Name: Richard Carter ______________________
Its:  CEO__________________________________
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.3700 Pacemaker programmers. ( a ) *Identification.* A pacemaker programmer is a device used to noninvasively change one or more of the electrical operating characteristics of a pacemaker.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval).
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of PDP is required.* A PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before September 20, 2012, for any pacemaker programmer that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before September 20, 2012, been found to be substantially equivalent to any pacemaker programmer that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other pacemaker programmer shall have an approved PMA or declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[45 FR 7907, Feb. 5, 1980, as amended at 52 FR 17736, May 11, 1987; 77 FR 37573, June 22, 2012]
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.4100 Ventricular catheter. ( a ) *Identification.* A ventricular catheter is a device used to gain access to the cavities of the brain for injection of material into, or removal of material from, the brain.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Exhibit 32.1

# Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350

Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned President and Chief Executive
Officer and Vice President Law/Finance and Secretary of Ladish Co., Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Report on Form 10-Q
of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Kerry L. Woody  
Kerry L. Woody President and Chief
Executive Officer

/s/ Wayne E. Larsen 
Wayne E. Larsen
Vice President
Law/Finance & Secretary

April 27, 2007
Exhibit 19

 Annual report of Accountants with respect to the servicing of the contracts by
           the Servicer, pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement

                          Independent Auditors' Report

The Board of Directors
The CIT Group, Inc.:

      We have examined management's assertion about The CIT Group/Sales
Financing, Inc. and The CIT Group/Consumer Finance, Inc.'s (the Companies), both
wholly-owned subsidiaries of The CIT Group, Inc., compliance with the minimum
servicing standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's
Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers as of and for the year
ended December 31, 1999 included in the accompanying management assertion.
Management is responsible for the Companies' compliance with those minimum
servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the Companies' compliance based on our examination.

      Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companies' compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Companies' compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

      In our opinion, management's assertion that the Companies have complied in
all material respects with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of
and for the year ended December 31, 1999 is fairly stated, in all material
respects.

                                        /s/ KPMG LLP

March 31, 2000
# C_2018392EN.01001801.xml

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — PSC Prominvestbank v Council

(Case T-739/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Inclusion of the name of the entity owning the applicant in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of powers - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 392/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: PSC Prominvestbank, Joint-Stock Commercial Industrial & Investment Bank (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: J.M. Viñals Camallonga, J.L. Iriarte Ángel and L. Barriola Urruticoechea, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and F. Florindo Gijón, and subsequently F. Florindo Gijón, P. Mahnič Bruni and H. Marcos Fraile, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, D. Gauci and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014, amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014, amending Regulation No 833/2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders PSC Prominvestbank, Joint-Stock Commercial Industrial & Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PSC Prominvestbank, Joint-Stock Commercial Industrial & Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.

---