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



Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-88375) pertaining to the ITXC Corp. Employee
Stock Purchase Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-93613) pertaining to the ITXC Corp. 1998 Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated February 11, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of ITXC Corp. and
subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.



/s/Ernst & Young LLP



|                      |  |  |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  |  | 
|MetroPark, New Jersey |  |  |  | 
|March 11, 2004        |  |  |  |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

P.J.A.,

Petitioner

v.

H.C.N.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 335 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### THE EATON AXLE & SPRING COMPANY, A CORPORATION, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. K-162.

Decided May 7, 1934]

*Mr. Frank >S. Bright*for the plaintiff.

*Mrs. Elizabeth B.*Davis, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frank J.*Wideman, for the defendant. *Mr. James A. Gosgrove*was on the brief.

*416Williams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit to recover a refund of excise sales taxes in the amount of $21,066.18, paid by plaintiff on the sales of automobile bumpers and springs during the period from August 1,1923, to March 31, 1925. The taxes were collected under the provisions of section 900 (3) of the Revenue Act of 1921 and section 600 (3) of the Revenue Act of 1924, respectively.

The taxes were paid by plaintiff on the basis of the prices at which its subsidiary sold the articles to the retail trade or to the ultimate consumer. Sales by plaintiff to its subsidiary are conceded to have been absolute and at prices and under terms such as ordinarily obtained in sales made by plaintiff to car manufacturers at wholesale. The defendant concedes that the taxes should have been computed on the basis of the price at which the articles were sold by plaintiff to its subsidiary, and that plaintiff is entitled to a refund of $17,633.56. The controversy relates to the balance claimed, $3,432.62, the sole question being whether the tax should be computed on 5 percent of the total sales price from August 1,1923, to July 1,1924, and at 2%% from July 1, 1924, to March 31, 1925, or on 1/21 and 1/41 of the sales price for these two periods, respectively.

While plaintiff computed the tax on the basis of 1/21 or 1/41 of the invoice price of the sales by the subsidiary to its customers, there is nothing in the record to show how the subsidiary invoiced its customers. Neither does the record show how the plaintiff invoiced the subsidiary. In these circumstances the mere fact that plaintiff computed the tax on sales to the subsidiary on the basis of 1/21 and 1/41 of the sales price by the subsidiary did not amount to notice to the subsidiary that the sale price to it represented 21/20 and 41/40 of the list price, respectively. There is no proof that the plaintiff, in sales to the subsidiary, quoted the selling price and the tax in separate and exact amounts or rendered invoices segregating these amounts within the requirements of article 3 of Regulations 47 (revised December 1921 and August 1924). Article 3 of Regulations 47, therefore, has no application, and the tax is properly *417computable on the basis of 5% of the actual sales price to the subsidiary. Upon this basis of computation plaintiff has overpaid its taxes in the amount of $17,633.56 and is entitled to judgment in that amount, with interest as provided by law.

Judgment in the amount stated is ordered to be entered.

Whaley, *Judge;*Littleton, *Judge;*Green, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief*Justice, concur.
# Official Journal C 53A/8 Ma

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 53A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 508 March 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 53A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 508 March 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions |
| 2007/C 053A/01 | Notice of Open Competition: Human Resources Officer — Reference: EF/TA/07/01 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

2007/C 053A/01

Notice of Open Competition: Human Resources Officer — Reference: EF/TA/07/01

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.23 Hearing.

The administrative law judge to whom the case is assigned or the DOT decisionmaker shall give the parties reasonable notice of a hearing or of the change in the date and place of a hearing and the nature of such hearing.
Exhibit 24.5


                               KEYSPAN CORPORATION

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



     WHEREAS,  KeySpan  Corporation,  a New York  corporation  (the  "Company"),
intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K as prescribed by
said Commission  pursuant to said Act and the rules and regulations  promulgated
thereunder.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in my capacity as a director of the Company,  I do hereby
appoint RONALD S. JENDRAS,  GERALD LUTERMAN,  JOHN J. BISHAR, JR. and MICHAEL J.
TAUNTON,  and each of them  severally,  as my  attorneys-in-fact  with  power to
execute  in my name and  place,  and in my  capacity  as a  director  of KeySpan
Corporation,  said Report,  any amendment to said Report and any other documents
required in connection  therewith,  and to file the same with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this power of attorney  this 6th day of
March, 2003.




                                                 /s/J. Atwood Ives
                                                 -----------------
                                                 J. Atwood Ives
§ 135.330 Crew resource management training. ( a ) Each certificate holder must have an approved crew resource management training program that includes initial and recurrent training. The training program must include at least the following: ( 1 ) Authority of the pilot in command;
( 2 ) Communication processes, decisions, and coordination, to include communication with Air Traffic Control, personnel performing flight locating and other operational functions, and passengers;
( 3 ) Building and maintenance of a flight team;
( 4 ) Workload and time management;
( 5 ) Situational awareness;
( 6 ) Effects of fatigue on performance, avoidance strategies and countermeasures;
( 7 ) Effects of stress and stress reduction strategies; and
( 8 ) Aeronautical decision-making and judgment training tailored to the operator's flight operations and aviation environment.
( b ) After March 22, 2013, no certificate holder may use a person as a flightcrew member or flight attendant unless that person has completed approved crew resource management initial training with that certificate holder.
( c ) For flightcrew members and flight attendants, the Administrator, at his or her discretion, may credit crew resource management training completed with that certificate holder before March 22, 2013, toward all or part of the initial CRM training required by this section.
( d ) In granting credit for initial CRM training, the Administrator considers training aids, devices, methods and procedures used by the certificate holder in a voluntary CRM program included in a training program required by § 135.341, § 135.345, or § 135.349.
[Doc. No. FAA-2009-0023, 76 FR 3837, Jan. 21, 2011]
#### § 35.11 [Reserved]
Exhibit 24.3


                              KEYSPAN CORPORATION

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



     WHEREAS,  KeySpan  Corporation,  a New York  corporation  (the  "Company"),
intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K as prescribed by
said Commission  pursuant to said Act and the rules and regulations  promulgated
thereunder.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in my capacity as a director of the Company,  I do hereby
appoint GERALD LUTERMAN, JOHN J. BISHAR, JR. and MICHAEL J. TAUNTON, and each of
them  severally,  as my  attorneys-in-fact  with power to execute in my name and
place, and in my capacity as a director of KeySpan Corporation, said Report, any
amendment  to said  Report  and  any  other  documents  required  in  connection
therewith, and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this power of attorney this 22nd day of
February, 2006.





                                                     /s/Alan H. Fishman
#### STATE v. NEWSOME.

(Decided February 3, 1916.)

Appeal from Morgan Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. Thomas W. Wert.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General. Wert & Lynne, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

Xerox Corporation 

Under Contract No. GS925F-0062L 

D.O. No. W91QVI-10-F-0001 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59135 

Donald J. Walsh, Esq. 

Offit Kurman, P.A. 

Owings Mills, MD 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

CPT Ahsan M. Nasar, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 1 April 2015 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59135, Appeal of Xerox Corporation, 

rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### In the Matter of the Will of Emma T. Gary, Deceased. Elma L. Quirin, as Ancillary Executrix of Eliza J. Brundage, Deceased, Appellant; Lewis Nixon, Sr., et al., as Executors of Emma T. Gary, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

(Argued October 22, 1936;

decided November 24, 1936.)

*637
      *Herbert L. Satterlee*and *James J. Irwin, Jr.,*for appellant.

*John M. Harlan*and *Vincent R. Smalley*for Metropolitan Museum of Art, respondent.

*William M. Parke*and *Jule E. Stocker*for Lewis Nixon, Sr., et al., as executors of Emma T. Gary, deceased, respondents.

*Thomas A. McGrath*for John W. Kiser, as general guardian of John W. Kiser, Jr., et al., respondents.

*Richard N. Crockett*and *Jeremiah Courtney*for The Samaritan Home for the Aged of the City of New York, respondent.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Robert P. Beyer*and *Henry Epstein*of counsel), for State of New York, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs to each party appearing and filing brief payable out of the estate. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
§ 27.831 Ventilation. ( a ) The ventilating system for the pilot and passenger compartments must be designed to prevent the presence of excessive quantities of fuel fumes and carbon monoxide.
( b ) The concentration of carbon monoxide may not exceed one part in 20,000 parts of air during forward flight or hovering in still air. If the concentration exceeds this value under other conditions, there must be suitable operating restrictions.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11474]



[[Page 26834]]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 00-10965) published on page 
25729 of the issue for Wednesday, May 3, 2000.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas heading, the entry for 
Eggemeyer Advisory Corporation, WJR Corporation, Caste Creek Capital, 
LLC, and Castle Creek Capital Partners Funds I, IIa and IIb, LP, all of 
Rancho Santa Fe, California, is revised to read as follows:
    A Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Eggemeyer Advisory Corporation, WJR Corporation, Castle Creek 
Capital, LLC, and Castle Creek Capital Partners Funds I, IIa, and IIb, 
LP, all of Rancho Santa Fe, California, to acquire more than 5 percent 
of the voting shares of Independent Bankshares, Inc., Abilene, Texas, 
and thereby indirectly acquire Independent Financial Corporation, 
Dover, Delaware, and First State Bank, N.A., Abilene, Texas.
    In connection with this application, Applicants also have applied 
to acquire up to 35 percent of the voting shares of State National 
Bancshares, Inc., Lubbock, Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire voting 
shares of State National Bancshares Delaware, Inc., Dover, Delaware, 
State National Bank of El Paso, El Paso, Texas, State National Bank of 
West Texas, Lubbock, Texas, and United Bank & Trust Company, Abilene, 
Texas.
    Comments on this application must be received by May 26, 2000.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 3, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-11474 Filed 5-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 88 (Friday, May 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11264]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1324-DR]


Maryland; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for the State of Maryland (FEMA-1324-DR), dated April 10, 
2000, and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3772.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of Maryland is hereby amended to include the following area among those 
areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe 
declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 
10, 2000: Emergency protective measures (Category B) under Public 
Assistance for Dorchester County.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)


Patricia K. Stahlschmidt,
Division Director, Infrastructure Division, Response and Recovery 
Directorate.
[FR Doc. 00-11264 Filed 5-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 89 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11473]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Agency Meeting

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: [65 FR 25410, May 
1, 2000]

STATUS: Closed meeting.

PLACE: 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC.

DATE PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED: April 28, 2000.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING:  Cancellation of meeting.
    The closed meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May 3, 2000, at 2 p.m. 
has been cancelled.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: May 3, 2000.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11473 Filed 5-3-00; 4:10 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.219 Oral argument before the DOT decisionmaker.

If the order establishing further procedures provides for an oral argument, or if the DOT decisionmaker otherwise decides to hear oral argument, all parties will be notified of the date and hour set for that argument and the amount of time allowed each party. The provisions of § 302.36(b) shall also apply.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-5115 

CASEY HOCRAFFER (also known as Casey Howell), 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

Paul S. Dannenberg, Law Offices of Paul S. Dannenberg, of Huntington, 

Vermont, argued for petitioner-appellant. 

Michael P. Milmoe, Senior Trial Attorney, Torts Branch, Civil Division, United 

States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. 

With him on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Timothy P. Garren, 

Director, Mark W. Rogers, Deputy Director, and Catharine E. Reeves, Assistant 

Director. 

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims 

Judge Nancy B. Firestone
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 2009-5115 

CASEY HOCRAFFER (also known as Casey Howell), 

 Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent-Appellee. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

in CASE NO(S). 99-VV-533 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (LOURIE, RADER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges). 

 AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

DATED February 16, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
BOARD: 	 BOARD:

Pau I C. A ugh try, Ill D H E C Henry C. Scon:

Chairman 

M. David Mitchell, MD 

Edwi n H . Cooper, lll 

Vice Chairman rldC Glenn A. McCall PROM OTE PROTE CT PRO PER 

reven G. Kisner 

Secremry C. Earl Hunter, Commissioner Coleman F. Buckhouse, MD 

Promoting andpmtecting the health ofthe public and the environment 

July 18, 2011 

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, Esq., Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region 4 

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 

Re: 	 Annual Air Network Monitoring Plan for 2012 

Dear Ms. Keyes Fleming: 

In accordance with the requirements of 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 58, Subpart B, the South 

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (Department) respectfully submits the Annual 

Air Network Monitoring Plan for calendar year 2012. The Department is required by 40 CFR 58.10 to 

adopt and submit to the Regional Administrator an Annual Monitoring Network Plan which provides for 

the establishment and maintenance of an air quality surveillance system. This system is a network of State 

and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) including Federal Reference Method (FRM) and Federal 

Equivalent Method (FEM) monitors that are part of SLAMS, National Core Monitoring Network (NCore) 

stations, Speciation Trends Network (STN) stations, and Special Purpose Monitor (SPM) monitoring 

stations. This plan is required to include a statement of purpose for each monitor and evidence that siting 

and operation ofeach monitor meets the requirements of40 CFR 58, Appendices A, C, D and E. 

The Department received several comments during the public comment period, which was held from June 

2, 2011 through July 1, 2011. A complete package, including the Department's response to comments 

received is being sent to Doug Neeley of your office. Should you have any questions or need additional 

information regarding this matter, please contact Robert Brown of my staff at (803) 898-4105. 

Robert W. King, Jr., P.E. 


Deputy Commissioner 


Environmental Quality Control 


cc: 	 Doug Neeley, US EPA Region 4 (w/attacbments) 

ec: 	 David McNeal, US EPA Region 4 (w/attachments) 


Carol Kemker, US EPA Region 4 (w/o attachments) 


Myra Reece, BAQ (w/o attachments) 


Robert Brown, BAQ (w/o attachments) 


Scott Reynolds, BES (w/o attachments) 


SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

2600Bu11 Street • Columbia,SC29201 • Phone:(803)898-3432 • www.scdhec.gov
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6579** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CARLTON BASHFORD , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Di strict of Virginia , at Alexandria
. James C. Cacheris , Senior District Judge. ( 1:01

- cv - 01030

- JCC; 1:91

- cr - 00332

- AVB

- 1 )

Submitted : July 21, 2011 Decided: July 26, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY , Circuit Judges, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

D ismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Carlton Ba s hford, Appellant Pro Se. Kondi J. Kleinman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Carlton Brashford seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court ’ s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App . P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court ’ s order was entered on the docket

on December 8, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on April 20, 2011, or beyond the sixty day appeal period. *

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Because Brashford failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss t he appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and3 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
#### § 29.475 Tires and shock absorbers.

Unless otherwise prescribed, for each specified landing condition, the tires must be assumed to be in their static position and the shock absorbers to be in their most critical position.