alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      23






**CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
  We
        hereby
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
        Form
        S-8 (No. 33-71788 and No. 33-80306) and Form S-3 (No. 333-118949) of Titan
        International, Inc. of our report dated February 26, 2007 relating to the
        financial statements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of
        the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the
        effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, 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.
   PricewaterhouseCoopers
        LLP
 St.
        Louis, MO
 February
        27, 2007
Filed 10/10/13 P. v. Gaston CA2/8 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION EIGHT 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

CHAREE GASTON, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B245854 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. NA090315) 

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. 

James Pierce, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Penners Bergen and Ann Bergen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

 Appellant Charee Gaston appeals from a judgment of conviction after a jury found 

him guilty on count one of second degree robbery. Counts two and three were dismissed. 

Appellant had suffered four prior prison convictions. The trial court sentenced appellant 

to seven years in state prison, awarded presentence conduct credits, and imposed fees and 

fines. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436 (Wende), raising no issues. We notified appellant he could file a supplemental brief 

within 30 days of the date his counsel filed the Wende brief. Appellant has not filed a 

supplemental brief. We affirm. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

While victim Romero was sitting in his truck at a 76 gas station he was 

approached by appellant who offered to sell him a laptop. Romero refused stating he 

could not afford one. Appellant then asked Romero for some change. Romero gave him 

some pennies and nickels. Appellant said that was not enough and told Romero, “you 

better give me your money. If you don’t give me money, I’m going to shoot you.” At 

that point Romero felt scared. He thought he was going to get killed. He thought 

appellant was on drugs and not thinking right by the way he was moving. 

Appellant then told Romero to get out of his vehicle, go inside the gas station and 

get money out of the ATM. As Romero was going into the gas station he told appellant 

he had money to give him. He gave appellant $120. Appellant took the money and left. 

Victim Romero identified appellant at trial. 

DISCUSSION 

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After review of the 

record, appellant’s counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court review the record 

independently pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441. We have examined the 

entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. Moreover, we are fully 

satisfied that appellant’s counsel has fulfilled her responsibilities under Wende. (Wende, 

supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441). 
3

DISPOSITION 

The judgment is affirmed. 

 FLIER, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

 RUBIN, Acting P. J. 

 GRIMES, J.
JUROR.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

January Term, 1894.]

Smith, Swing and Cox, JJ.

#### Emile Kahn et al. v. H. J. Reedy.

Degree oe Kinship Computed by Common Raw Rure.

The fourth degree of kinship, rendering a juror subject to challenge, sec. 5176, Rev-Stat., is to be reckoned by the civil law rule, to count each step to the common ancestor and each step back again.

Error to Hamilton Common Pleas.

*Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Cobb & Howard, contra.*

Smith, J

The only error assigned or argued is that the trial court overruled a motion! for a new trial, based on the ground that one of the jurors who sat in the trial of the case was a second cousin once removed of the wife of Mr. Kahn, one of the plaintiffs in error, when it was shown that before the jury was impaneled he had been inquired of as to his relationship to the parties, and had not disclosed the fact, and that plaintiffs in error and their counsel were ignorant of the relationship.

Section 5176, Rev. Stat., makes it a good cause for challenge to a juror that, he is akin by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree to either party.

As stated by Judge Walker in his Commentaries on American Raw (346), the mode of computing the degrees of kindred adopted in this country is that of civil law — that is, to begin with the intestate (or juror) and ascend to the common ancestor and then descend to the other person in question, recognizing a degree for each person in both the ascending and descending lines. The juror and Mrs. Kahn are not akin by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree, and he was entirely competent to sit as a juror therein.

Judgment affirmed.
#### §§ 3.163-3.170 [Reserved]
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0135. ALLEN TEMPLE DEVELOPMENT, INC. et al. v. SIXTH

EPISCOPAL DISTRICT OF THE AFRICAN METHODIST

EPISCOPAL CHURCH, INC. et al.

In this declaratory judgment action involving funds from the sale of real

property, plaintiffs Sixth Episcopal District of the African Methodist Church, Inc. et

al. filed a motion to deposit funds into the court registry. On March 13, 2019, the

trial court granted the motion to deposit the funds and ordered defendants Allen

Temple Development, Inc. et al. to deposit $722,285.31 into the registry of the court.

1

The defendants then filed the instant appeal on March 22, 2019. We, however, lack

jurisdiction.

“Generally, an order isfinal and appealable when it leaves no issuesremaining

to be resolved, constitutes the court’s final ruling on the merits of the action, and

leaves the parties with no further recourse in the trial court.” Thomas v. Douglas

County, 217 Ga. App. 520, 522 (1) (457 SE2d 835) (1995); see also OCGA § 5-6-34

(a) (1). Here, the order sought to be appealed did not resolve all issues in this case,

which remains pending before the trial court. See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v.

Holland, 310 Ga. App. 480, 481 (713 SE2d 678) (2011). The defendants therefore

were required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a

1 The trial court had previously granted the plaintiffs a temporary restraining

order regarding the funds on February 15, 2019.

September 12, 2019
certificate of immediate review from the trial court – to appeal the trial court’s order.2

See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164, 164-165 (646 SE2d 469)

(2007); CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc., 310 Ga. App. at 481. Their failure to do so deprives

us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey

v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996). Oral argumentset for December,

2019 is no longer necessary and shall be removed from the Court’s calendar.

 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

2 The record indicates that the defendants requested a certificate of immediate

review within ten days of the order granting the motion to deposit fundsinto the court

registry, but the trial court never issued such certificate. 

09/12/2019
# EUR-Lex - E1994J0001 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# E1994J0001

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 December 1994 in Case E-1/94 (reference for an advisory opinion from the Tullilautakunta): Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark (Admissibility - Free movement of goods - State monopolies of a commercial character - Import monopoly - Articles 11, 13 and 16 of the EEA Agreement - Unconditional and sufficiently precise) **

*
Official Journal C 398 , 31/12/1994 P. 0018 - 0018 *

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 December 1994 in Case E-1/94 (reference for an advisory opinion from the Tullilautakunta): Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark (1) (Admissibility - Free movement of goods - State monopolies of a commercial character - Import monopoly - Articles 11, 13 and 16 of the EEA Agreement - Unconditional and sufficiently precise) (94/C 398/05)

(Pursuant to Article 27 (5) of the Rules of Procedure authentic in English and Finnish)

In Case E-1/94: reference to the Court for an advisory opinion pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from the Tullilautakunta (Tullnämnden, the Appeals Committee at the Finnish Board of Customs) in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Helsinki District Customs House) - on the interpretation of Articles 11 and 16 of the EEA Agreement - the Court, composed of: Leif Sevón, President, Björn Haug, Thór Vilhjálmsson, Kurt Herndl and Sven Norberg (Rapporteur), Judges; Karin Hökborg, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 December 1994, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Article 11 of the EEA Agreement must be interpreted as precluding a national measure which confers on a statutory State monopoly the exclusive right to import alcoholic beverages falling within the product coverage of the EEA Agreement and originating in the Contracting Parties, or the application to intra-EEA trade of national provisions which require the authorization of the statutory State monopoly for the importation and putting into free circulation of such products, even if such an authorization is granted automatically. Neither can such measures be justified pursuant to Article 13 of the EEA Agreement merely because they form part of an alcohol policy aimed at minimizing the harmful effects to health of consumption of alcoholic beverages, since this objective can be achieved by measures which are less restrictive of the free movement of goods.

2. Article 16 of the EEA Agreement must be interpreted as meaning that, as from 1 January 1994, every State monopoly of a commercial character not covered by Protocol 8 to the EEA Agreement must be adjusted so as to eliminate the exclusive right to import the goods the subject of the monopoly into a Contracting Party from other Contracting Parties.

3. Article 16 of the EEA Agreement must be interpreted as fulfilling the implicit criteria in Protocol 35 to the EEA Agreement of being unconditional and sufficiently precise.

(1) OJ No C 199, 21. 7. 1994, p. 9.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
  





 
 March 13, 2015 
 Via
Hand Delivery 
 Redwoods Business Center, LP 
 c/o Cuff
Property Management Co. 
 2401 Stanwell Drive 
 Concord, CA
94520 
 Attn: S.P. Cuff, Managing Partner 
  

	Re:	2411 Stanwell Property Lease 

 Dear Mr. Cuff: 

Pursuant to Section 37, Option to Renew, of the Lease Agreement dated August 1, 2013 this letter will serve as Cerus Corporation’s notice of
its option to renew and extend the lease for an additional term of two years. The expiration date of the lease shall be extended to July 31, 2017. 

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by signing below and returning a copy to me for our files. 

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Kevin D. Green
	
	Kevin D. Green
	Vice President, Finance and CFO

  

			
	Acknowledged and Agreed To:
	
	Redwoods Business Center, LP
		
	By:		 /s/ S.P Cuff

			S.P. Cuff, Managing Partner
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
ss.1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Datascension Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the "Report"), I, Lou
Persico, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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) 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/
      Lou PersicoLOU
      PERSICO
                  CEO
      and Prin. Executive OfficerDated:
      November 16, 2009
# C_2020283EN.01000201.xml

| 27.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/2

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2020/C 283/02)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 20.5.2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85199 |
| Decision No | 046/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title | COVID-19 Subsidised loan scheme for package travel traders |
| Legal basis | The legal basis of the scheme will be the Parliamentary Decision authorising the subsidised loan scheme.
  The terms and conditions for the state subsidised individual loan agreements will be set out in a letter of assignment and term sheet issued by the Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries to Innovation Norway. |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | To: (i) ensure that sufficient liquidity remains available for traders in the package travel market; (ii) ensure the quickest possible settlement of refunds or reimbursements to package travellers; and (iii) preserve the continuity of economic activity during and after the COVID-19 outbreak, by means of subsidised interest rates for loans. |
| Form of aid | Subsidised loans |
| Budget | NOK 2 billion |
| Duration | 25.5.2020 – 15.9.2020 |
| Economic sectors | Package travel |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Innovation Norway |
| Akersgata 13 |
| 0104 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

20.5.2020

Case No

85199

Decision No

046/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title

COVID-19 Subsidised loan scheme for package travel traders

Legal basis

The legal basis of the scheme will be the Parliamentary Decision authorising the subsidised loan scheme.

The terms and conditions for the state subsidised individual loan agreements will be set out in a letter of assignment and term sheet issued by the Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries to Innovation Norway.

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

To: (i) ensure that sufficient liquidity remains available for traders in the package travel market; (ii) ensure the quickest possible settlement of refunds or reimbursements to package travellers; and (iii) preserve the continuity of economic activity during and after the COVID-19 outbreak, by means of subsidised interest rates for loans.

Form of aid

Subsidised loans

Budget

NOK 2 billion

Duration

25.5.2020 – 15.9.2020

Economic sectors

Package travel

Name and address of the granting authority

Innovation Norway

Akersgata 13

0104 Oslo

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
#### § 192.140 Amendments to plan of conversion.

A savings association may amend its plan of conversion before it solicits proxies. After the savings association solicits proxies, it may amend the plan of conversion only if the appropriate Federal banking agency concurs.
§ 62.11 Participants—occupying permanent housing. A very low-income veteran family will be considered to be occupying permanent housing if the very low-income veteran family: ( a ) Is residing in permanent housing and at risk of becoming homeless, per conditions in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, but for the grantee's assistance;
( b ) ( 1 ) Is lacking a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, meaning: ( i ) That the veteran family's primary nighttime residence is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned bus or train station, airport, or camping ground;
( ii ) That the veteran family is living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including congregate shelters, transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, State, or local government programs for low-income individuals); or
( iii ) That the veteran family is exiting an institution where the veteran family resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering that institution;
( 2 ) Are at risk to remain in the situation described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section but for the grantee's assistance; and
( 3 ) Scheduled to become a resident of permanent housing within 90 days pending the location or development of housing suitable for permanent housing; or
( c ) Has met any of the conditions described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section after exiting permanent housing within the previous 90 days to seek other housing that is responsive to the very low-income veteran family's needs and preferences.
Note to paragraph ( c
):
For limitations on the provision of supportive services to participants classified under paragraph (c) of this section, see § 62.35.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2044)
[80 FR 9610, Feb. 24, 2015]
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2859

AN ACT

Making emergency supplemental appropriations for

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003.

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2859

AN ACT

Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2003.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the following sums are appropriated, out of any
2

•HR 2859 EH

1 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the

2 fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, namely:

3 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

4 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

5 DISASTER RELIEF

6 For an additional amount for ‘‘Disaster Relief’’ for

7 necessary expenses in carrying out the functions of the

8 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assist9 ance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $983,600,000, to re10 main available until expended: Provided, That this amount

11 is designated by the Congress as an emergency require12 ment pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th

13 Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fis14 cal year 2004.

15 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Supple16 mental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2003’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 2003.

Attest:

Clerk.
a51095102ex10_1.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 








AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED


 MASTER LOAN AGREEMENT







THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED MASTER LOAN AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective April 1, 2015, by and between NORTHWEST FARM CREDIT SERVICES, FLCA (“Lender”) and POPE RESOURCES, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (“Borrower”).







RECITALS







WHEREAS, Borrower and Lender entered into a First Amended and Restated Master Loan Agreement dated June 10, 2010 (herein, as at any time amended, extended, restated, renewed, supplemented or modified, the “Loan Agreement”) and other Loan Documents, as that term is defined therein;


 


WHEREAS, Borrower and Lender desire to modify the Loan Agreement for the purposes stated herein.







NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, Borrower and Lender agree as follows:







1.           Except as expressly modified or changed herein, all terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement and the other Loan Documents shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be changed hereunder.







2.           The following definition contained in Article 1 of the Loan Agreement is hereby amended to provide as follows:







“Timber Funds” means, ORM Timber Fund I, LP, ORM Timber Fund II, Inc., ORM Timber Fund III (REIT) Inc. and any future similar timberland investment entity.


 







3.           There shall be added a new sub-paragraph 7.01.b.ix, to the Loan Agreement, as follows:







ix.           Borrower shall provide sufficient detail for each financial report required under Paragraphs 7.01b.i and ii, to reflect only the non-controlling interest held by Borrower in the Timber Funds.  Such detail shall be in a form and with such substance as required by Lender.







4.           This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.  This Amendment shall not constitute a novation and shall in no way adversely affect or impair the lien priority of the Loan Documents.  Each of the Loan Documents shall remain in effect and is valid, binding and enforceable according to its terms, except as modified by this Amendment.  Time is of the essence in the performance of the Loan Agreement and the other Loan Documents.  This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective successors and assigns of Borrower and Lender.









  





  











  






 


In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment to be effective as of the date first above written.







ORAL AGREEMENTS OR ORAL COMMITMENTS TO LOAN MONEY, EXTEND CREDIT, OR TO FORBEAR FROM ENFORCING REPAYMENT OF A DEBT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER WASHINGTON LAW.







LENDER:


NORTHWEST FARM CREDIT SERVICES, FLCA


 



	By:	 	 
	 	

Authorized Agent

	 










BORROWER:


POPE RESOURCES, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


By: Pope MGP Inc., a Delaware corporation, its Managing General Partner


 



	 	By:	 	 
	 	 	Thomas M. Ringo, President and CEO
#### § 313.50 Interest, penalties, and administrative costs.

Where the FDIC is the creditor agency, it shall assess interest, penalties, and administrative costs pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 31 CFR parts 900 through 904.