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

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementNo. 333- 81741 of Perry Ellis International, Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports dated April 18, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Perry Ellis International, Inc. and management’s report on the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Perry Ellis International, Inc. for the year ended January 31, 2005. 

 

/S/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

 

Miami, Florida 

April 18, 2005
§ 7.5004 Sale of excess electronic capacity and by-products. ( a ) A national bank may, in order to optimize the use of the bank's resources or avoid economic loss or waste, market and sell to third parties electronic capacities legitimately acquired or developed by the bank for its banking business.
( b ) With respect to acquired equipment or facilities, legitimate excess electronic capacity that may be sold to others can arise in a variety of situations, including the following: ( 1 ) Due to the characteristics of the desired equipment or facilities available in the market, the capacity of the most practical optimal equipment or facilities available to meet the bank's requirements exceeds its present needs;
( 2 ) The acquisition and retention of additional capacity, beyond present needs, reasonably may be necessary for planned future expansion or to meet the expected future banking needs during the useful life of the equipment;
( 3 ) Requirements for capacity fluctuate because a bank engages in batch processing of banking transactions or because a bank must have capacity to meet peak period demand with the result that the bank has periods when its capacity is underutilized; and
( 4 ) After the initial acquisition of capacity thought to be fully needed for banking operations, the bank experiences either a decline in level of the banking operations or an increase in the efficiency of the banking operations using that capacity.
( c ) Types of electronic capacity in equipment or facilities that banks may have legitimately acquired and that may be sold to third parties if excess to the bank's needs for banking purposes include: ( 1 ) Data processing services;
( 2 ) Production and distribution of non-financial software;
( 3 ) Providing periodic back-up call answering services;
( 4 ) Providing full Internet access;
( 5 ) Providing electronic security system support services;
( 6 ) Providing long line communications services; and
( 7 ) Electronic imaging and storage.
( d ) A national bank may sell to third parties electronic by-products legitimately acquired or developed by the bank for its banking business. Examples of electronic by-products that banks may have legitimately acquired that may be sold to third parties if excess to the bank's needs include: ( 1 ) Software acquired (not merely licensed) or developed by the bank for banking purposes or to support its banking business; and
( 2 ) Electronic databases, records, or media (such as electronic images) developed by the bank for or during the performance of its permissible data processing activities.
# C_2021058EN.01005101.xml

| 18.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/51

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2021/C 58/07)

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

| Date of adoption of the decision | 12 November 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85837 |
| Decision No | 132/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Region | Whole territory of Norway |
| Title | COVID-19 - Portfolio guarantee on trade credit insurance |
| Legal basis | Parliamentary resolution (‘Stortingsvedtak’) on an amendment to the National Budget 2020: ‘Prop. 1 S Tillegg 1 (2020-2021) Endring av Prop. 1 S (2021-2021) Statsbudsjettet 2021’ (yet to be adopted) |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Ensure a functioning trade credit insurance market in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic |
| Form of aid | Guarantees |
| Budget | NOK 19.820 billion in guarantees |
| Duration | Until 30 June 2021 |
| Economic sectors | Trade credit insurance |
| Name and address of the granting authority | GIEK |
| Postboks 1763 Vika |
| N-0122 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

12 November 2020

Case No

85837

Decision No

132/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Region

Whole territory of Norway

Title

COVID-19 - Portfolio guarantee on trade credit insurance

Legal basis

Parliamentary resolution (‘Stortingsvedtak’) on an amendment to the National Budget 2020: ‘Prop. 1 S Tillegg 1 (2020-2021) Endring av Prop. 1 S (2021-2021) Statsbudsjettet 2021’ (yet to be adopted)

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Ensure a functioning trade credit insurance market in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic

Form of aid

Guarantees

Budget

NOK 19.820 billion in guarantees

Duration

Until 30 June 2021

Economic sectors

Trade credit insurance

Name and address of the granting authority

GIEK

Postboks 1763 Vika

N-0122 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/

---
2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-12-2006 

# U SA v . Aw wa d P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-2241

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Aw wa d " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 921. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/921NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 05- 2241 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. H A ITH A M A W W A D , al so kn ow n as TANM AN4 YOU NGERF H ai t ham A w w ad, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt For t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C r i m . A ct i on N o. 02- cr - 00481) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. T i m ot hyJ . Savage Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay19, 2006 B E F O R E : M cK E E and S T A P L E T O N , C i rcui tJudg es,

and M cC L U R E , * D i s t r i ctJ udge ( O pi ni on Fi l ed J une 12, 2006)

* H on. J ames F. M cC l ur e, J r . , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: H ai t ham A w w ad appe al s hi s convi ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 2422( b) forat t empt i ng t o us e a means of i nt er s t at e comm er ce ( t he I nt ernet ) t o per s uade, i nduce, and ent i ce a m i nort o engage i n s exual act i vi t yand hi s convi ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 2423( b) for t r avel i ng i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce f ort he purpos es of enga gi ng i n s exual conductw i t h a
m in o r. H e a rg u e s o n a p p e a l th a t h e c a n n o t b e c o n v icte d u n d e r e ith e r sta tu te b e c a u se h is i nt ended vi ct i m w as , i n fac t , nota mi norbutan under coverFB I agentpos i ng as a mi nor onl i ne. W hi l e hi s appea l w as pendi ng w e r ej ect ed the pr eci s e ar gum ent s m ade byA w w ad underbot h of t hes e s t atut or ypr ovi s i ons i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Tykars ky , __ F. 3d __, 2006 W L 1236824 ( 3d C i r . M ay10, 2006) . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m t he or derof t he D istric t C o u rt.
§ 628.10 Minimum capital requirements. ( a ) *Computation of regulatory capital ratios.* A System institution's regulatory capital ratios are determined on the basis of the financial statements of the institution prepared in accordance with GAAP using average daily balances for the most recent 3 months.
( b ) *Minimum capital requirements.* A System institution must maintain the following minimum capital ratios: ( 1 ) A common equity tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio of 4.5 percent.
( 2 ) A tier 1 capital ratio of 6 percent.
( 3 ) A total capital ratio of 8 percent.
( 4 ) A tier 1 leverage ratio of 4 percent, of which at least 1.5 percent must be composed of URE and URE equivalents.
( 5 ) [Reserved]
( 6 ) A permanent capital ratio of 7 percent.
( c ) *Capital ratio calculations.* A System institution's regulatory capital ratios are as follows: ( 1 ) *CET1 capital ratio.* A System institution's CET1 capital ratio is the ratio of the System institution's CET1 capital to total risk-weighted assets;
( 2 ) *Tier 1 capital ratio.* A System institution's tier 1 capital ratio is the ratio of the System institution's tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets;
( 3 ) *Total capital ratio.* A System institution's total capital ratio is the ratio of the System institution's total (tier 1 and tier 2) capital to total risk-weighted assets; and
( 4 ) *Tier 1 leverage ratio.* ( i ) A System institution's leverage ratio is the ratio of the institution's tier 1 capital to the institution's average total consolidated assets as reported on the institution's Call Report net of deductions and adjustments from tier 1 capital under §§ 628.22(a), (b), and (c) and 628.23.
( ii ) To calculate the measure of URE and URE equivalents described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, a System institution must adjust URE and URE equivalents to reflect all the deductions and adjustments required under § 628.22(a), (b), and (c), and must use the denominator of the tier 1 leverage ratio.
( 5 ) *Permanent capital ratio.* A System institution's permanent capital ratio is the ratio of the institution's permanent capital to its total risk-adjusted asset base as reported on the institution's Call Report, calculated in accordance with the regulations in part 615, subpart H, of this chapter.
( d ) [Reserved]
( e ) *Capital adequacy.* ( 1 ) Notwithstanding the minimum requirements in this part, a System institution must maintain capital commensurate with the level and nature of all risks to which the System institution is exposed. FCA may evaluate a System institution's capital adequacy and require the institution to maintain higher minimum regulatory capital ratios using the factors listed in § 615.5350 of this chapter.
( 2 ) A System institution must have a process for assessing its overall capital adequacy in relation to its risk profile and a comprehensive strategy for maintaining an appropriate level of capital under § 615.5200 of this chapter.
[81 FR 49779, July 28, 2016, as amended at 86 FR 54358, Oct. 1, 2021]
#### § 703.15 Prohibited investment activities.

*Adjusted trading or short sales.* A Federal credit union may not engage in adjusted trading or short sales.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3384

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitations 

on the maximum amount of the deduction of interest on education loans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 28, 2003

Mr. WU introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the limitations on the maximum amount of the deduction 

of interest on education loans.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student Loan Interest 

5 Full Deductibility Act’’. 
2

•HR 3384 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LIMITATIONS ON MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF 

2 DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON EDUCATION 

3 LOANS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 221 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 (relating to maximum deduction) is 

6 amended—

7 (1) by striking subsections (b) and (f), and 

8 (2) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and 

9 (e) as subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively. 

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 6050S(e) 

11 of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘section 

12 221(d)(1)’’and inserting ‘‘section 221(c)(1)’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 this section shall apply to payments made in taxable years 

15 beginning after December 31, 2002.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3405 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3405

      To amend section 4002 of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental 
 Appropriations Act, 2003 to provide that the same temporary extended 
 unemployment benefits which are available to certain former employees 
of domestic air carriers be extended to former employees of foreign air 
      carriers who are similarly situated, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 29, 2003

   Mr. Weiner (for himself and Mr. King of New York) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend section 4002 of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental 
 Appropriations Act, 2003 to provide that the same temporary extended 
 unemployment benefits which are available to certain former employees 
of domestic air carriers be extended to former employees of foreign air 
      carriers who are similarly situated, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF BENEFITS.

    (a) Foreign Air Carrier Defined.--Section 4002(a) of the Emergency 
Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11; 26 
U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'';
            (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting 
        ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(8) the term `foreign air carrier' has the meaning given 
        such term under section 40102 of title 49, United States 
        Code.''.
    (b) Extension of Benefits.--Section 4002(a)(2) of the Emergency 
Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 is amended by inserting 
``or foreign air carrier'' after ``air carrier'' each place it appears.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect as if included in 
the enactment of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
2003.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-15-00560-CR

Style: Michael Anthony Davis

v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: December 28, 2015

Type of motion: Appellant’s Final Motion for Extension

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: September 16, 2015

Number of previous extensions granted: 2 Current Due date: November 17, 2015

Date Requested: January 11, 2016

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: January 11, 2016

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 

Date: January 5, 2016
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Labor Relations Authority

# AGENCY:

Federal Labor Relations Authority.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the members of the Performance Review Board.

# DATE:

October 16, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sonna Stampone, Executive Director, Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA); 1400 K Street, NW.; Washington, DC 20424-0001; (202) 218-7941.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Section 4314(c) of Title 5, U.S.C. (as amended by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more Performance Review Boards (PRBs). Section 4314(c)(4) requires that notice of appointment of the PRB be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

As required by 5 CFR 430.310, the following executives have been appointed to serve on the 2009-2011 PRB for the FLRA, beginning October 2009 through September 2011:

Erin M. McDonnell, Associate Special Counsel for Legal Counsel and Policy, United States Office of Special Counsel.

William D. Spencer, Clerk of the Board, United States Merit Systems Protection Board.

Kathleen James, Deputy Director of Administration, National Labor Relations Board.

James E. Petrucci, Director, Dallas Regional Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority.

Susan McCluskey, Chief Counsel for the Chairman, Federal Labor Relations Authority.

Catherine V. Emerson, Director, Office of Policy and Personnel Management, Federal Labor Relations Authority.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4134(c)(4).

Dated: October 9, 2009.

Sonna Stampone,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. E9-24947 Filed 10-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6727-01-P
| Not in Archive.

The page you requested has not been archived. If the page is still available on the Internet, we will begin archiving it during our next crawl.Try another request or click here to search for all pages oncdc.gov/nchstp/hiv_aids/pubs/facts/wsw.See the FAQs for more info and help, or contact us. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

Home |                                                Help

Internet Archive |                                                Terms of Use |                                                Privacy Policy
#### Pozzi v. Yellow Cab Co.

*John Patrick Walsh,*for plaintiff.

*Bernard J. Kelley,*for defendant Philadelphia Transportation Company.

November 2, 1956.

Kun, P. J.,

This matter is before the court on the objections of. defendant Philadelphia Transportation Company, hereinafter re*604ferred to as defendant, to certain interrogatories filed by plaintiffs.

Defendant’s first objection is to interrogatory no. 2, which is as follows:

“2. State all facts of said occurrence including the facts relative to the time, place and cause thereof according to information . . . you have received from any source whatsoever.”

In our view this interrogatory is too broadly worded, and defendant need not answer it in its present form. Defendant is a corporation, and necessarily must answer interrogatories through its agents, servants or employes. Plaintiffs, therefore, could ask defendant questions as to specific facts to be answered by the appropriate employe of defendant in possession of that specific knowledge. To ask defendant, however, to state “all the facts” would require some agent, servant or employe of defendant to determine which of the material in defendant’s possession are “all the facts” and which are not. Furthermore, this interrogatory, as presently worded, could require defendant to supply plaintiffs with information defendant received from witnesses it has interviewed in preparation for a trial of the case, other than its own employes. Under Pa. R. C. P. 4011(d) defendant cannot be compelled to do this.

Defendant can be compelled to supply plaintiffs with the names of witnesses, from whom plaintiffs in turn may take depositions, and plaintiffs may address interrogatories to defendant, requesting specific information capable of being answered by some agent, servant or employe of defendant. Plaintiffs, however, may not compel defendant to answer an interrogatory worded as broadly as the one here in issue. To the extent that the case of Troutner v. Philadelphia Transportation Company, 5 D. & C. 2d 545, may have held differently,'we must disagree with-it.

*605Defendant’s objections to plaintiff’s third interrogatory have been withdrawn and need not be considered.

Defendant has also filed objection to interrogatory no. 5, which is as follows:

“5. State the names and the residence and business addresses of any other persons who have claimed injuries as the result of said occurrence.”

We consider this interrogatory proper, as it may lead to the identity of witnesses, information to which plaintiffs are entitled.

Defendant’s objections to interrogatories nos. 3 and 5 are hereby dismissed, and defendant is ordered to answer the same. Defendant’s objection to interrogatory no. 2 is hereby sustained.
EXHIBIT
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his
      knowledge, the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of ANTs software
      inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), for the quarter ended June 30,
      2007:





1.  Fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





This
      certification is being provided
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of this Report, nor
      is
      it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.





Date:    August
      9, 2007





By:           /s/
      Kenneth Ruotolo


Kenneth
      Ruotolo, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company, and will be retained by the
      Company, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon
      request.
#### §§ 3.4-3.9 [Reserved]