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

                                                                    EXHIBIT (23)

CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


We consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the Form S-8 Registration
Statement (No. 33-59007) pertaining to The Mead Corporation Employees Stock
Purchase Plan, (ii) the Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Form S-8 Registration
Statement (No. 2-90746) pertaining to the 1984 Stock Option Plan, (iii) the Form
S-8 Registration Statements (Nos. 33-37961 and 33-47580) pertaining to the Mead
Salaried Savings Plan, (iv) the Form S-3 Registration Statements (Nos. 33-14759
and 33-34009) pertaining to Common Shares of Selling Shareholders, (v) the Form
S-3 Registration Statements (Nos. 33-43994, 33-51337 and 333-16135) pertaining
to $850,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Debt Securities, (vi) the Form S-8
Registration Statement (No. 33-40118) pertaining to the 1991 Stock Option Plan,
(vii) the Form S-8 Registration Statement (No. 33-03047) pertaining to the 1996
Stock Option Plan, (viii) the Form S-3 Registration Statement (No. 333-16221)
pertaining to transferred stock options, (ix) the Form S-8 Registration
Statement (No. 333-61285) pertaining to The Mead Corporation Executive Capital
Accumulation Plan, and (x) the Form S-8 Registration Statement (No. 33-53421)
pertaining to the Mead Savings Plan for Bargaining Unit Employees, and
Prospectus pertaining to Common Shares of Selling Shareholders, included in such
Registration Statement, of our report dated January 27, 2000, appearing in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Mead Corporation for the year ended December
31, 1999.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dayton, Ohio
March 3, 2000
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.1015 Mattaponi River.

The draws of the Lord Delaware (S33) bridge, mile 0.8 at West Point, and the S629 bridge, mile 28.5 at Walkerton, shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given. The drawtender service for either bridge shall be increased to the degree determined to be adequate within 30 days after written notice is received from the District Commander to do so.
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: 20 15-CE-035-AD 

Add the work hours. pori.\ cost, and 1111111ht!r ()/u.s·. l'l!gi.\tt!red pruduc!s /()the tuhie he/ow. ll ht!n FOil ore 

ji11ished. click on 1he ·· l_ipJate Field.\., huff on 10 wacnuatiw!/y.fi/1 in !he total.\. 

Update Fields I 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection .5 $42.50 0 $ 42.50 60 $2,550.00 

Replacement of $$ cushion edging with 3 255.00 $200.00 $200.00 60 $12,000.00 

four wear pads. 

I 

f 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $29,850 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $29,850 

On-Condition Costs: G 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Replace after inspection I $85 $20 $ 105.00 if necessary. 

7 
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): Quest will provide 

one service kit ot replace the four wear pads per SB 15-01. Quest warranty will reimburse some operators 

for certain labor costs. 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action''? @ 

YES* 0 NO IZl 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? fi» 

YES* 0 NO IZl 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. @ 

YES 0 NO IZl 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? G 

YES* IZl NO 0 

*Explanation: This is an aircraft which is used in Alaska. 

8
#### § 793.11 Combination announcer, news editor and chief engineer.

The 13(b)(9) exemption, as was made clear during the debate on the amendment, is intended to apply to employees employed in the named occupations by small market radio and television stations. It is known at the time of such debate that these stations employ only a small number of employees and that, at times, an employee of such a station may perform a variety of duties in connection with the operation of the station. For example, an employee may perform work both as an announcer and as a news editor. In such cases, the primary employment test under the section 13(b)(9) exemption will be considered to be met by an employee who is employed primarily in any one or any combination of the named occupations. Thus an employee who works both as an announcer and news editor for the greater part of the workweek will be considered to be primarily employed in the named occupations during that week.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10447 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. HOMBERTO CASTRO-ORPINEDA Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:07-CR-56-1
Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Pursuant toa written plea agreement, H omberto Castro-Orpineda pleaded guilty to possession with intent todistribute 100kilogramsor more ofmarijuana and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. CastroOrpineda appeals the district court’s denial of his motion towithdraw his guilty plea. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 6, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-10447

2 We review for an abuse of discretion. U nited States v. Washington, 480 F. 3d 309, 316 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the district court accepted CastroOrpineda’s guilty plea, Castro-Orpineda could withdrawit only ifhe could “show a fair andjust reason for requesting thewithdraw.” F E D
. R. C RIM
. P. 11(d)(2)(B); United States v. Still , 102 F.3d 118, 124 (5th Cir. 1996). Castro-Orpineda argues that the district court erred by denying his motion solely on the ground that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. He reviews each ofthe factors set out in United Statesv. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984), and argues that all but one (close assistance ofcounsel) weigh in favor of the grant of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. However, in support of his motion, Castro-Orpineda raised, at most, only the innocence factor. “[A] defendant cannot fail to invoke any of the Carr factors in support of his motion and then argue that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider arguments that he had the burden to raise.” Washington, 480 F.3d at 317 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, the district court
was not required to make specific findings on every Carr factor. I d. Under the facts of this case, Castro-Orpineda failed to demonstrate a fair and just reason for the withdraw

al of his guilty plea, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See id. AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

                         STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

      Barry E. Backhaus, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and
Katherine A. Bousquet, Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Interim Chief
Financial Officer of First Federal Bankshares, Inc. (the "Company") each certify
in his/her capacity as an officer of the Company that he/she has reviewed the
quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31,
2004 (the "Report") and that to the best of his/her knowledge:

      (1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so
that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.


February 8, 2005
----------------                        ----------------------------------------
Date                                    Barry E. Backhaus
                                        Chairman, President and Chief Executive
                                          Officer


February 8, 2005
----------------                        ----------------------------------------
Date                                    Katherine A. Bousquet
                                        Vice President, Treasurer and
                                          Interim Chief Financial Officer


                                       26
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ANDREW BRADICK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. GRUMMAN DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION, No. 95-2636 Defendant-Appellee, and NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-95-620) Argued: September 23, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1997 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: John Michael Bredehoft, CHARLSON & BREDEHOFT,P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appellant. James Joseph Kelley, II, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.ON BRIEF: Elaine C. Bredehoft, Linda M. Jackson, CHARLSON & BREDEHOFT, P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appellant. Nancy R. Kuhn,Fred B. Jacob, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Andrew Bradick alleges that his former employer, Grumman Data Systems, discharged him in violation of the common law of Virginia. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to the employer. On Bradick's appeal, we certified the following question of law to the Supreme Court of Virginia:Does the common law of Virginia provide a wrongful discharge remedy to an employee of an employer covered by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. ,where the employee is discharged on account of his disability or the employer's perception of his disability?The Supreme Court of Virginia, in its discretion, accepted the certified question, and, on June 6, 1997, the Court answered it in the affirmative. Consequently, we now reverse the judgment of the districtcourt for the reasons given by the Virginia Supreme Court in its opinion. Bradick v. Grumman Data Systems Corp. , ___ Va. ___, ___S.E.2d ___ (1997) (No. 962531). The case is remanded for such further proceedings as may be necessary. REVERSED AND REMANDED 2
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Neil O. Yelderman, Appellant

No. 06-21-00039-CV v.

The State of Texas, Appellees

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 

1 & Probate Court of Brazoria County, 

Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CI60943). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Neil O. Yelderman, pay all costs incurred by reason 

of this appeal.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 22, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-89,863-01

EX P ARTE MARCU S TE RELL H OLLI MON, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1159085-A IN THE 179 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 9 6 7 ). Ap p l icant was convicted of the offe nse of murder a nd sentenc ed to imprisonment for 48 y ear s. On August 11, 2014 , an o rder desig nating issues was signed by the t rial court. The habeas
rec ord has been proper ly forwa rded to this Court by the district cler k pursuant to T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 5). Howeve r, t h e re co rd has been forwa rded without the trial court having resolved the desig nated issue(s) in this case . We rema nd this applica t i o n to the 179 District Court of Har ris t h County to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiar y investiga tion and enter finding s of fac t andconclusions of law
.

This application will be held in abey ance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s o f this order
. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and interrog atories or the transcr iption of the court repor ter’s notes fro m an y h ear ing or deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental finding s of fac t and conclusions of law, shall be forwa rded to this Court wi thin 120 day s of the date of this order
. Any extensions of time must be reque sted by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: J une 26, 2019 Do not publish
#### Hannah *v.*Clarke, &c.

*(Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,*

*November, 1878.)*

[Virginia Law Journal, 1878, p. 103.]

Riparian Owners — Contract as to Use of Water — Transfer of Right —Effect—Case at Bar.

For many years Erwin owned a grist-mill and Hannah a sawmill, both of which were propelled by water power, the water taken from the same dam, and when there was not sufficient water in the dam to propel both, the grist-mill had the preference in the use of it. In 1851, Erwin sold the grist-mill, with the preference to a certain quantity of water, to Clarke, Miller & Hall, and they changed the grist-mill to a paper-mill, and changed the water wheels from breast to overshot wheels, which required taking the water from the dam on a higher level. Soon after the fitting up of the paper-mill, Clarke, Miller & Hall filed their bill against Hannah and Erwin, alleging that Hannah was running his sawmill so as to interfere with the working of their paper-mill, and praying for an injunction to restrain him from so doing, and Hannah replied that Clarke, &c., were using more water in running their paper-mill than was used in running the grist-mill, or convej'ed to them by Erwin. The circuit court dismissed the bill, as to Erwin, and perpetuated the injunction as to Hannah, but without prejudice to his right to sue at law, &c., and thereupon Hannah applied for and obtained an appeal from said decree: held,:

Same — Same—Same—Same.

1. That the relative rights of the respective proprietors of the grist and saw-mills, to the water power, continued the same after the sale to Clarke, &c., that they were before the sale.

Same — Same—Same—Case at Bar.

2. Clarke, &c., had a right to convert their grist-mill into a paper-mill, and were entitled to the same priority over the *339owners of the saw-mill in the use of the water power for the operation of the paper-mill, to which they were previously entitled in the use of the water power for the operation of the grist-mill; but to no greater extent.

Equity Jurisdiction — Case at Bar.

3. The case is one for the equitable jurisdiction of the court, and the court should proceed to ascertain, define and settle the rights of the parties to the use of the said water power.

From the circuit court of Augusta county.

*Hugh W.*Sheffey, for the appellant.

--, for the appellees.

Moncure, P.,

read the decree of the court, in which the other judges concurred.

Decree reversed.
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

SENIOR HOUSINGPROPERTIES TRUST

 

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to FixedCharges

(dollars in thousands)

 

 
| ** **                         | ** ** | **Nine Months Ended  September 30,** | ** ** | **Year Ended December 31,** | ** ** |
|------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                         | ** ** | **2007**                                            | ** ** | **2006**                                   | ** ** | **2006** | ** ** | **2005** | ** ** | **2004** | ** ** | **2003** | ** ** | **2002** | ** ** |
| Earnings:                          |       |                                                |       |                                       |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net income                         |       | $                                                   | 58,784     |                                       | $          | 38,563 |   | $ | 66,101 |   | $ | 63,912 |   | $ | 56,742 |   | $ | 45,874 |   | $ | 50,184 |   |
| Fixed charges                      |       | 28,276                                              |       | 34,751                                     |       | 47,020 |   | 46,633 |   | 41,836 |   | 37,899 |   | 30,210 |   |
| Adjusted earnings                  |       | $                                                   | 87,060     |                                       | $          | 73,314 |   | $ | 113,121 |   | $ | 110,545 |   | $ | 98,578 |   | $ | 83,773 |   | $ | 80,394 |   |
|                               |       |                                                |       |                                       |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges:                     |       |                                                |       |                                       |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                   |       | $                                                   | 28,276     |                                       | $          | 34,751 |   | $ | 47,020 |   | $ | 46,633 |   | $ | 41,836 |   | $ | 37,899 |   | $ | 30,210 |   |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |       | 3.1                                                 | x          | 2.1                                        | x          | 2.4 | x | 2.4 | x | 2.4 | x | 2.2 | x | 2.7 | x |

 

----
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 299 

Recognizing the religious and historical significance of the festival of Diwali. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 3, 2007 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. BROWN, 

Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. CASEY) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

NOVEMBER 14, 2007 

Committee discharged; considered, amended, and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the religious and historical significance of the 

festival of Diwali. 

Whereas Diwali, a festival of great significance to Indian 

Americans and South Asian Americans, is celebrated annually by Hindus, Sikhs, and Jains throughout the 

United States; 

Whereas there are nearly 2,000,000 Hindus in the United 

States, approximately 1,250,000 of which are of Indian 

and South Asian origin; 

Whereas the word ‘‘Diwali’’ is a shortened version of the 

Sanskrit term ‘‘Deepavali’’, which means ‘‘a row of 

lamps’’; 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

SRES 299 ATS 

Whereas Diwali is a festival of lights, during which celebrants 

light small oil lamps, place them around the home, and 

pray for health, knowledge, and peace; 

Whereas celebrants of Diwali believe that the rows of lamps 

symbolize the light within the individual that rids the 

soul of the darkness of ignorance; 

Whereas Diwali falls on the last day of the last month in the 

lunar calendar and is celebrated as a day of thanksgiving 

and the beginning of the new year for many Hindus; 

Whereas for Hindus, Diwali is a celebration of the victory of 

good over evil; 

Whereas for Sikhs, Diwali is feted as the day that the sixth 

founding Sikh Guru, or revered teacher, Guru 

Hargobind, was released from captivity by the Mughal 

Emperor Jehangir; and 

Whereas for Jains, Diwali marks the anniversary of the attainment of moksha, or liberation, by Mahavira, the last 

of the Tirthankaras (the great teachers of Jain dharma), 

at the end of his life in 527 B.C.: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the religious and historical sig3 nificance of the festival of Diwali; and 

4 (2) in observance of Diwali, the festival of 

5 lights, expresses its deepest respect for Indian Amer6 icans and the Indian diaspora throughout the world 

7 on this significant occasion. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
#### § 810.515 Conduct of verifications.

The Administrator shall conduct verifications as may be appropriate and, in connection therewith, enter and inspect any places, inspect any records and make transcriptions or copies thereof, question any persons, and gather any other information as deemed necessary by the Administrator to determine compliance regarding the matters which are the subject of the verification. Upon request by the Administrator, an employer or other entity whose plant or facility is subject to verification shall make available to the Administrator all records, information, persons, and places that the Administrator deems necessary to copy, transcribe, question, or inspect to determine compliance regarding the matters which are the subject of the verification. In conducting any verifications, the Administrator will coordinate with CBP and other federal agencies (including requesting information from such agencies) as appropriate.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CARROLLWOOD CROSSINGS )

PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, )

INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3012

)

R&R LANDSCAPING AND LAWNCARE, )

INC., and GRO-MAX, INC., )

)

Respondents. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed January 30, 2019.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit 

Court for Hillsborough County; Elizabeth G. 

Rice, Judge.

Barbara J. Prasse and Roxanne Carnegie 

of Barbara J. Prasse, P.A., Tampa, for 

Petitioner.

Richard F. Meyers of The Meyers Firm, 

P.A., Temple Terrace, for Respondent 

R&R Landscaping and Lawncare.

No appearance for remaining Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed. 
- 2 -

NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and SLEET,, JJ., Concur.