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

                                                                  Exhibit 23

          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-98395, 033-64847 and 333-98393), Form S-4
(Nos. 333-100297 and 333-88962), and Form S-3 (No. 333-117833) of Kellwood
Company of our report dated March 10, 2005, except for Note 15 which is as
of March 15, 2005, relating to the financial statements, management's
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which
appears in the Annual Report to Shareowners, which is incorporated in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
St. Louis, Missouri
March 16, 2005
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 12, 2018

a0905 

# Order

Clerk September 12, 2018

156229

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 156229

COA: 337618

Wayne CC: 00

- 012692

- FC

LARRY HEARNS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 27, 2017 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
§ 91.1021 Internal safety reporting and incident/accident response. ( a ) Each program manager must establish an internal anonymous safety reporting procedure that fosters an environment of safety without any potential for retribution for filing the report.
( b ) Each program manager must establish procedures to respond to an aviation incident/accident.
#### McCLANDISH et v MAUMEE (Village) et

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co

No 2237.

Decided July 8, 1929

Fritsche, Kruse & Winchester, Toledo, for McClandish, et.

Otto E. Hankinson and Paul W. Alexander, both of Toledo, for village.

RICHARDS, J.

There is serious conflict in the evidence as to whether the shop was moved before the zoning ordinance became effective, but we do not regard a determination of that question as material. After the stand was removed back of the sidewalk, it was enlarged and it is now about 19 x 20 feet in dimension, and 7% feet high, and the addition was clearly constructed after the zoning law became effective. The then owner of the property applied for permission to make the alteration and additions and a permit therefor was issued to him on May 8, 1926, but this permit was revoked on May 17, 1926. The construction of the addition was plainly in violation of the zoning ordinance, and the permit to build the addition gave no vested right to the owner.

Section 16 of the zoning ordinance prohibits the occupancy of a building which has been structurally altered until a certificate of occupancy shall have been issued by the Commissioner of Inspection, and no such certificate w,as ever issued. The plaintiffs purchased this property without any knowledge of these facts, but manifestly they would hold it subject to the right of the municipality to enforce the zoning ordinance. Our attention has been called to nothing which would render the zoning ordinance unconstitutional or void, and, in fact, plaintiffs concede the validity of the ordinance, and this distinguishes the case from Youngstown vs. Kahn Building Co., 112 Ohio St., 654. The street in front of the premises is only 24 to 26 feet in width and has a very heavy automobile trafile. The location having been properly classified as residence property, and the addition and efilargement having been made after the zoning ordinance became effective, the owners are not entitled to conduct the business there which they seek to do.

It is further urged by the defendants that the action is in reality brought to enjoin the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the ordinance and that therefore injunction will not lie. Section 19 provides a penalty for the violation of the zoning ordinance and it is quite true that injunction will not lie to prevent merely the enforcement of a criminal statute or the penalties provided by an ordinance. 32 C. J., 279, et seq. The same principle is announced in 14 R. C. L., 367. Judson v| Zurhorst, 10 C. C., N. S., 289. The plaintiffs, however, contend that the defendants are threatening to interfere with the conduct of their business on this real estate and that this constitutes ground for issuing an injunction. The court, having found that the business is being, conducted in violation of the zoning ordinance, it becomes unimportant to determine these matters, as in any event the plaintiffs are not entitled to an injunction. Judgment and decree for defendants.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ, concur.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1299 

KA 14-01072 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SAMUEL DIPALMA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (NICHOLAS

T. TEXIDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M.

William Boller, A.J.), rendered October 15, 2013. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession

of a weapon in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment

convicting him upon his plea of guilty of driving while intoxicated

(Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [i] [A]) and, in

appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea

of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree

(Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). The People correctly concede that the

waiver of the right to appeal his conviction did not encompass

defendant’s contention in appeal No. 2 that the period of postrelease

supervision is unduly harsh and severe and thus does not foreclose our

review of that contention (see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927-928;

People v Diaz, 142 AD3d 1332, 1333). We nevertheless reject that

contention. 

Contrary to defendant’s contention in appeal No. 1, Supreme Court

did not impose a fee of $350, rather than the proper fee of $50, for

the DNA databank fee (see Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v]). Although

the sentencing transcript reflects the imposition of a DNA databank

fee of $350, the transcript further reflects that the court correctly

stated the total amount due from defendant for fees and surcharges,

which establishes that the court properly imposed a fee of $50. 

Moreover, the certificate of conviction correctly states that $50 was

assessed for the DNA databank fee. We therefore conclude that no

corrective action is necessary inasmuch as the record establishes
-2- 1299 

KA 14-01072 

either that the court misspoke or that there is a transcription error

(see People v Kaetzel, 117 AD3d 1187, 1190, lv denied 24 NY3d 962). 

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
§ 1620.12 Wage “rate.” ( a ) The term wage “rate,” as used in the EPA, refers to the standard or measure by which an employee's wage is determined and is considered to encompass all rates of wages whether calculated on a time, commission, piece, job incentive, profit sharing, bonus, or other basis. The term includes the rate at which overtime compensation or other special remuneration is paid as well as the rate at which straight time compensation for ordinary work is paid. It further includes the rate at which a draw, advance, or guarantee is paid against a commission settlement.
( b ) Where a higher wage rate is paid to one gender than the other for the performance of equal work, the higher rate serves as a wage standard. When a violation of the Act is established, the higher rate paid for equal work is the standard to which the lower rate must be raised to remedy a violation of the Act.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4904 

To amend the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 to ensure crime victims are 

not denied compensation because of rape kit backlogs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2020 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself and Mr. TOOMEY) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 to ensure 

crime victims are not denied compensation because of 

rape kit backlogs, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Fairness for Rape Kit 

5 Backlog Survivors Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CRIME VICTIM COMPENSATION. 

7 Section 1403(b) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 

8 (34 U.S.C. 20102(b)) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (8), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

10 end; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4904 IS

1 (2) by redesignating paragraph (9) as para2 graph (10); and 

3 (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(9) beginning not later than 3 years after the 

6 date of enactment of this paragraph, such pro7 gram— 

8 ‘‘(A) provides a waiver for any application 

9 filing deadline imposed by the program for a 

10 crime victim if— 

11 ‘‘(i) the crime victim is otherwise eligi12 ble for compensation; and 

13 ‘‘(ii) the delay in filing the application 

14 was a result of a delay in the testing or a 

15 delay in the DNA profile matching from a 

16 sexual assault forensic examination kit or 

17 biological material collected as evidence re18 lated to a sexual offense; and 

19 ‘‘(B) does not require the crime victim to 

20 undergo an appeals process to have the applica21 tion of the crime victim considered for a filing 

22 deadline waiver under subparagraph (A); and’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I,Gary D. Gall, President, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Western Sierra Bancorp (the “Registrant”);

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting,  to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors:

 

a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  May 10, 2004                    |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                   |
|                                   | /s/  Gary D. Gall |   |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Elgrande.com, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael F.
Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 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) 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
result of operations of the Company.

                                                /s/ Michael F. Holloran
                                                ---------------------
                                                Michael F. Holloran
                                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                                Principal Financial Officer

October 15, 2003
Statement Pursuant to
Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The
undersigned, Daniel Dror, CEO, President and Chairman of American International
Industries Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification
as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to
the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended
September 30, 2006.






The
undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
information contained in the above report fairly presents, in all respects, the
financial condition of American International Industries Inc. and results of its
operations.






Date:
March 18, 2008


Daniel
Dror


CEO,
President and Chairman


/s/ Daniel
Dror
#### § 18.1002 Requirement of original.

To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules, or by rule or regulation prescribed by the administrative agency pursuant to statutory authority, or pursuant to executive order, or by Act of Congress.
1 

### Hutson, Nick

From: Szabo, Aaron <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 8:46 AM To: Hutson, Nick; Culligan, Kevin; Harvey, Reid Cc: Frey, Nathan J.; Grossman, Andrea Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 1 3563 -- 111b Attachments: SummaryOfInteragencyCommentsUnder_EO12866_13563_111 bMod.docx

Attached please find a summary of interagency comme nts under EO 12866 and 13563 on the EPA final rule entitled, Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissio ns from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units.

Thank you and please let me know if you have any qu estions.

Aaron L. Szabo Policy Analyst Office of Management and Budget
202-395-3621 Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
#### § 1470.22 Allowable costs.

(a) *Limitation on use of funds.* Grant funds may be used only for:

(1) The allowable costs of the grantees, subgrantees and cost-type contractors, including allowable costs in the form of payments to fixed-price contractors; and

(2) Reasonable fees or profit to cost-type contractors but not any fee or profit (or other increment above allowable costs) to the grantee or subgrantee.

(b) *Applicable cost principles.* For each kind of organization, there is a set of Federal principles for determining allowable costs. Allowable costs will be determined in accordance with the cost principles applicable to the organization incurring the costs. The following chart lists the kinds of organizations and the applicable cost principles.

| For the costs of a— | Use the principles in— |
| --- | --- |
| State, local or Indian tribal government | OMB Circular A-87. |
| Private nonprofit organization other than an (1) institution of higher education, (2) hospital, or (3) organization named in OMB Circular A-122 as not subject to that circular | OMB Circular A-122. |
| Educational institutions. | OMB Circular A-21. |
| For-profit organization other than a hospital and an organization named in OBM Circular A-122 as not subject to that circular | 48 CFR part 31. Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, or uniform cost accounting standards that comply with cost principles acceptable to the Federal agency. |
#### Campbell vs. Bristol.

ALBANY,

Feb. 1838.

Where a suit is prosecuted in the name of the plaintiff without authority and judgment is obtained against him and execution issued, the execution will be set aside and a perpetual stay granted, if the attorney be insolvent.

Attorney appearing without authority. A motion was made in this case to set aside an execution, and for a perpe*102tual stay. An action of replevin was prosecuted by an attorney of this court in the name of the plaintiff without his authority; and judgment having been rendered for the defendant, an execution for the damages and costs was issued against the plaintiff and levied upon his property, which was the first notice he had of the suit. T'he attorney who prosecuted the suit was shown to be insolvent.

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

The suit was prosecuted without authority, and the attorney is insolvent. The plaintiff must be relieved. 6 Wendell, 514. Let an order be entered that the execution be set aside, and all proceedings against the plaintiff be perpetually stayed, on his stipulating not to bring any action.

Order accordingly.
#### § 1209.03 Conduct of National Mediation Board business.

Members shall not jointly conduct or dispose of agency business other than in accordance with this part.
Exhibit 32.1




                         CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO SECTION 906
                          OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002


In  connection  with  the  annual report  of  Meridian  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form  10-QSB for  the  period  ending March 31, 2006 as filed
with   the   Securities   and   Exchange   Commission   on    the   date  hereof
(the "Report"),  we,  Anthony  C. Dike, the  Chief  Executive Officer, and
Principal 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.

     A signed  original  of  this  written  statement  required  by Section 906,
or  other  document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or  otherwise adopting the
signature  that  appears  in  typed  form  within the electronic version of this
written  statement  required  by  Section  906,  has  been  provided to Meridian
Holdings,  Inc.,  and  will  be  retained   by   Meridian  Holdings,  Inc.,  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff  upon  request.

DATE: , May 22, 2006        By:  /s/  Anthony  C.  Dike
                                        -------------------
                                         Anthony  C.  Dike
                        Chairman  and  CEO/Principal Financial Officer
#### § 385.3 Scope of staff action.

Applications for relief which, pursuant to this part, may be granted by staff members under assigned authority, and proceedings on such requests shall be governed by applicable rules in the same manner as if no assignment had been made (see § 385.5). In such proceedings, each staff member may determine any procedural matters which may arise, including, inter alia, service of documents on additional persons; filing of otherwise unauthorized documents; waivers of procedural requirements; requests for hearing; requests for additional information; dismissal of applications upon the applicant's request, moot applications, or incomplete or otherwise defective applications; and extensions of time. Such determinations, except those which would terminate the matter, shall be subject to review only in connection with review of the staff member's decision on the merits. The dismissal of incomplete or otherwise defective applications under authority set forth in this part shall be without prejudice except where under otherwise applicable law the time for making application has run out or where the defect is not corrected within a reasonable time fixed by the staff member. Under the authority assigned to the staff as set forth in this part to approve, disapprove, grant, or deny, relief may be granted or denied in part and grants may be made subject to lawful and reasonable conditions. Moreover, where applicable, the authority to grant relief also includes authority to renew or extend an existing authorization.

[Doc. No. T-1, 49 FR 50985, Dec. 31, 1984; Amdt. 1, 50 FR 7170, Feb. 21, 1985]