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

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


             CONSENT OF BEARD & COMPANY, INC., INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


Regarding:

1.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
     Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan (File #33357777).

2.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
     Inc. 1993 Independent Directors Stock Option Plan (File #333-57783).

3.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
     Inc. 1995 Stock Incentive Plan (File #33357803).

4.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
     Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors (File #333-57825).

5.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
     Inc. 1989 Stock Option Plan (File #333-57841).

6.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
     Inc. 1988 Stock Option Plan (File #33357847).

7.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
     Inc. 401(k) Retirement Plan (File #333-57851).

8.   Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
     Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan (File #333-57703).

9.   Registration Statement on Form S-3 relating to the Shareholder Automatic
     Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan (File #333-57689).


          We consent to the incorporation by reference in the above listed
Registration Statements of our report dated, January 29, 1999, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Main Street Bancorp, Inc. and
subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1998.




                                        /s/ BEARD & COMPANY, INC.




Reading, Pennsylvania
March 29, 1999
#### KANSAS EXPLORATIONS, Inc., v. FRY et al.

No. 32849.

Nov. 18, 1947.

*186 P. 2d 814.*

A. L. Commons, of Miami, for petitioner.

Jesse A. Harp, of Miami, and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding brought by Kansas Explorations, Inc., a corporation, hereinafter called petitioner, to review an award made to D. S. Fry, the respondent.

On the 17th day of September, 1945, respondent filed his first notice of injury and claim for compensation stating tliat he sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the petitioner as a laborer in the mines of petitioner, on or about the 15th day of January, 1945, when he hurt his back on a power shovel. An award for 10 per cent disability to the body as a whole was made *411and this proceeding is brought to review the award.

Respondent stated that a large power shovel turned over on him and injured his back; that he was twisted beneath the shovel and lay there until he was released and that it injured his back and right leg. He was hospitalized; treated for said injury and paid temporary disability. It is the testimony of his physician that he has a permanent disability as a result of the accidental injury.

In five allegations of error, which petitioner has reduced to two propositions in its brief, there is presented the single issue that the award is erroneous for the reason it is not sustained by any competent evidence. There is no doubt about the accidental injury of December 17, 1945. The entire record is taken up with the discussion as to the resulting disability. The evidence is in hopeless conflict. Dr. Van Horn testified for the respondent and stated he found an injury to the first, second, third and fourth lumbar vertebrae; that based on the history of the accidental injury it is his opinion there is a permanent disability to the respondent of 40 to 45 per cent and this disability is due to the accidental injury of December 17, 1945.

The rule to be applied is announced in Magnolia Pet. Co. v. Watkins, 177 Okla. 30, 57 P. 2d 622, in which it is stated:

> “In an action to review an award of the Industrial Commission, this court will not review conflicting evidence and determine the weight and value thereof, and, where an award of the commission is. supported by competent evidence, the same will not be disturbed by this court on review.”

See, also, in this connection Southern Ice & Utilities Co. v. Barra, 178 Okla. 291, 62 P. 2d 988; Standard Roofing & Material Co. v. Mosley, 176 Okla. 517, 56 P. 2d 847; Asplund Const. Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 185 Okla. 171, 90 P. 2d 642.

Award sustained.

HURST, C.J., DAVISON, V.C.J., and RILEY, BAYLESS, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.
§ 152.117 Public hearings. ( a ) Before submitting a preapplication for Federal assistance for an airport development project involving the location of an airport, an airport runway, or a runway extension, the sponsor must give notice of opportunity for a public hearing, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, for the purpose of— ( 1 ) Considering the economic, social, and environmental effects of the location of the airport, the airport runway, or the runway extension; and
( 2 ) Determining the consistency of the location with the goals and objectives of any urban planning that has been carried out by the community.
( b ) The notice of opportunity for public hearing must— ( 1 ) Include a concise statement of the proposed development;
( 2 ) Be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the communities in or near which the project may be located;
( 3 ) Provide a minimum of 30 days from the date of the notice for submission of requests for a hearing by persons having an interest in the economic, social, or environmental effects of the project; and
( 4 ) State that a copy is available of the sponsor's environmental assessment, if one is required by appendix 6 of FAA Order 1050.1C, “Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts” (45 FR 2244; Jan. 10, 1980), and FAA Order 5050.4, “Airport Environmental Handbook” (45 FR 56624; Aug. 25, 1980), and will remain available, at the sponsor's place of business for examination by the public for a minimum of 30 days, beginning with the date of the notice, before any hearing held under the notice.
( c ) A public hearing must be provided if requested. If a public hearing is to be held, the sponsor must publish a notice of that fact, in the same newspaper in which the notice of opportunity for a hearing was published.
( d ) The notice required by paragraph (c) of this section must— ( 1 ) Be published not less than 15 days before the date set for the hearing;
( 2 ) Specify the date, time, and place of the hearings;
( 3 ) Contain a concise description of the proposed project; and
( 4 ) Indicate where and at what time more detailed information may be obtained.
( e ) If a public hearing is held, the sponsor must— ( 1 ) Provide the Administrator a summary of the issues raised, the alternatives considered, the conclusion reached, and the reasons for that conclusion; and
( 2 ) If requested by the Administrator before the hearing, prepare a verbatim transcript of the hearing for submission to the Administrator.
( f ) If a hearing is not held the sponsor must submit with its preapplication a certification that notice of opportunity for a hearing has been provided in accordance with this section and that no request for a public hearing has been received.
[Doc. No. 19430, 45 FR 34784, May 22, 1980, as amended by Amdt. 152-11, 45 FR 56622, Aug. 25, 1980]
Certification by Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



 
EXHIBIT 10.2

 
 
STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
 
In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of UPM-Kymmene Corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kari Toikka, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2) the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
 
Date:    April 28, 2003 
 

	
	 /s/    Kari
Toikka        


	 Kari Toikka
 Executive Vice President and
 Chief Financial Officer



 
A SIGNED ORIGINAL
OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO UPM-KYMMENE CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY UPM-KYMMENE CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
# Official Journal L 141/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 141 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4929 May 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 141

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4929 May 2006

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Council Regulation (EC) No 764/2006 of 22 May 2006 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco | 1 |
| Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Communities and the Kingdom of Morocco | 4 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 764/2006 of 22 May 2006 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco

1

Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Communities and the Kingdom of Morocco

4

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Executive Board 

Heineken N.V. 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the registration statement (No. 333-187806) on Form F-3 of Fomento Económico Mexicano, S.A.B. de C.V. of our report dated February 11, 2014, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of HeinekenN.V. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the related consolidated income statements, consolidated statements of comprehensive income, consolidated statements of cash flows, and consolidated statements of changes in equity foreach of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2013, which report appears in the December 31, 2013 annual report on Form 20-F of Fomento Económico Mexicano, S.A.B. de C.V. 

/s/ KPMG Accountants N.V. 

Amsterdam, theNetherlands 

April 16, 2014
§ 25.1515 Landing gear speeds. ( a ) The established landing gear operating speed or speeds, *V* *LO,* may not exceed the speed at which it is safe both to extend and to retract the landing gear, as determined under § 25.729 or by flight characteristics. If the extension speed is not the same as the retraction speed, the two speeds must be designated as *V* *LO(EXT)* and *V* *LO(RET),* respectively.
( b ) The established landing gear extended speed *V* *LE* may not exceed the speed at which it is safe to fly with the landing gear secured in the fully extended position, and that determined under § 25.729.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-38, 41 FR 55468, Dec. 20, 1976]
#### § 810.7 Federal Reserve Banks as fiscal agents.

The Federal Reserve Banks, as fiscal agents of the United States, have been authorized by the Department of the Treasury to perform all such acts as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this and other circulars of the Department of the Treasury as may be applicable to FFB bills, and of any public notice or notices issued in connection with any offering of these securities.
###### Editorial Note on Part 21

#### Editorial Notes:

1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

#### § 21.314 Transferability.

The holder of a PMA may not transfer the PMA.
#### § 260.7 Affirmative acceptance of an offer of alternative compensation.

A covered carrier must not deem a consumer to have accepted an offer for travel credits, vouchers, or other compensation in lieu of a refund under § 260.6(c) unless the consumer affirmatively agrees to the alternative form of compensation.

[DOT-OST-2022-0089, 89 FR 65537, Aug. 12, 2024]
The HONORABLE GARY A. FENNER, United States District Judge for the * Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-2474

___________ Michael Terril Cooper-Bey; * Charles White Williams-El, * * Plaintiffs - Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Rusty Rogerson; Larry Hardy; Calvin * Yoder; Elwin Colson, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendants - Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 10, 1997 Filed: July 17, 1997

___________ Before LOKEN and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and FENNER, District Judge. *

___________ PER CURIAM. Iowa inmates Michael Cooper-Bey and Charles Williams -El brought this § 1983 action seeking declaratory, equitable, and damage relief for alleged violations of their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Religious Freedo m Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq. (“RFRA”)

. Defendants are four officialsThe HONORABLE CELESTE F. BREMER, Chief United States Magistrat e 1 Judge for the Southern Distr ict of Iowa, to whom the case was assigned by consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2- of the Io wa Medical Classification Center (“IMCC”), a facility that receives an d classifies new inmates prior to the ir assignment to other Iowa prisons. Plaintiffs claim that unique security measures adopted for inmates in IMCC’s classification reception areas infringe their right to religious freedom as Moslem followers of the Mooris h Science Temple of America.
Followi nga bench trial, the district court granted judgment in favor of al l 1 defendants, concluding that IMCC’s restrictions on group worship do not violat e plaintiffs’ rights, and that the other challenged pract ices do not substantially burden the exercise of their beliefs. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their constitutional an d RFRAclaims. The Supreme Court held RFRA unconstitutional in City of Boerne v. Flores , No. 95-2074, 1997 WL 345322 (U.S. Jun. 25, 1997). We uphold dismissal of plaint iffs’ constitutional claims for the reasons stated in the district court’s April 30 , 1996, Opinion. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
            AS ADDED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of  Pacific  CMA,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Alfred Lam,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (a)   The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d)  of  the  Securities   Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

      (b)   The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.


                                       By:  /s/Alfred Lam
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Alfred Lam, Chief Executive Officer


Date:    November 12, 2004
§ 25.27 Center of gravity limits. The extreme forward and the extreme aft center of gravity limitations must be established for each practicably separable operating condition. No such limit may lie beyond— ( a ) The extremes selected by the applicant;
( b ) The extremes within which the structure is proven; or
( c ) The extremes within which compliance with each applicable flight requirement is shown.
§ 121.495 Fatigue risk management system. ( a ) No certificate holder may exceed any provision of this subpart unless approved by the FAA under a Fatigue Risk Management System.
( b ) The Fatigue Risk Management System must include: ( 1 ) A fatigue risk management policy.
( 2 ) An education and awareness training program.
( 3 ) A fatigue reporting system.
( 4 ) A system for monitoring flightcrew fatigue.
( 5 ) An incident reporting process.
( 6 ) A performance evaluation.
[Doc. No. FAA-2009-1093, 77 FR 403, Jan. 4, 2012]
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3740 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2004 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 223 South Main Street in Roxboro, North 

Carolina, as the ‘‘Oscar Scott Woody Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 3740 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 223 South Main Street in Roxboro, North Caro4 lina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Oscar Scott 

5 Woody Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Oscar Scott Woody Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 18, 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
§ 14.20 When an application may be filed. ( a ) An application may be filed whenever the applicant has prevailed in the proceeding, but in no case later than 30 days after the FAA Decisionmaker's final disposition of the proceeding, or service of the order of the Administrator in a proceeding under the AMS.
( b ) If review or reconsideration is sought or taken of a decision to which an applicant believes it has prevailed, proceedings for the award of fees shall be stayed pending final disposition of the underlying controversy.
( c ) For purposes of this part, final disposition means the later of: ( 1 ) Under part 17 of this chapter and the AMS, the date on which the order of the Administrator is served;
( 2 ) The date on which an unappealed initial decision becomes administratively final;
( 3 ) Issuance of an order disposing of any petitions for reconsideration of the FAA Decisionmaker's final order in the proceeding;
( 4 ) If no petition for reconsideration is filed, the last date on which such a petition could have been filed; or
( 5 ) Issuance of a final order or any other final resolution of a proceeding, such as a settlement or voluntary dismissal, which is not subject to a petition for reconsideration.
[54 FR 46199, Nov. 1, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 14-03, 64 FR 32936, June 18, 1999]
#### BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY, LIGHT & POWER CO. V. PILGREEN.

(Decided November 25, 1913.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. C. W. Ferguson.

Tillman, Bradley & Morrow, for appellant. No counsel marked- for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed by agreement.
§ 135.98 Operations in the North Polar Area. After August 13, 2008, no certificate holder may operate an aircraft in the region north of 78° N latitude (“North Polar Area”), other than intrastate operations wholly within the state of Alaska, unless authorized by the FAA. The certificate holder's operation specifications must include the following: ( a ) The designation of airports that may be used for en-route diversions and the requirements the airports must meet at the time of diversion.
( b ) Except for all-cargo operations, a recovery plan for passengers at designated diversion airports.
( c ) A fuel-freeze strategy and procedures for monitoring fuel freezing for operations in the North Polar Area.
( d ) A plan to ensure communication capability for operations in the North Polar Area.
( e ) An MEL for operations in the North Polar Area.
( f ) A training plan for operations in the North Polar Area.
( g ) A plan for mitigating crew exposure to radiation during solar flare activity.
( h ) A plan for providing at least two cold weather anti-exposure suits in the aircraft, to protect crewmembers during outside activity at a diversion airport with extreme climatic conditions. The FAA may relieve the certificate holder from this requirement if the season of the year makes the equipment unnecessary.
[Doc. No. FAA-2002-6717, 72 FR 1885, Jan. 16, 2007, as amended by Amdt. 135-112, 73 FR 8798, Feb. 15, 2008]
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of The Doe Run
Resources Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2004, of the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date:
March 23, 2005

|By: | /s/DAVID A. CHAPUTDavid A. Chaput
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------- |  | 



QuickLinks
#### § 253.2 Applicability.

This part applies to all scheduled direct air carrier operations in interstate and overseas air transportation. It applies to all contracts with passengers, for those operations, that incorporate terms by reference.

[ER-1323, 48 FR 6318, Feb. 11, 1983, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15932, Apr. 16, 2019]
1107 (1996); see also Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 131 S. Ct. 

1388, 1408 (2011) ("Surmounting Strickland's high bar is never an easy 

task." (quotation marks omitted) (alteration omitted)). We conclude that 

the district court did not err by rejecting Patterson's ineffective-assistance 

claims, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

)

to ONsza 

Douglas Cherry 

cc: Hon. Lidia Stiglich, District Judge 

Edward T. Reed 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

t7r.