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

Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of
DirectorsCapital Corp of the West:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 333-41440) on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 11, 2005,
with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Capital Corp of the West and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of income and comprehensive income, shareholders equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2004, managements assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004,
annual report on Form 10-K of Capital Corp of the West.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Sacramento, CaliforniaMarch 11,
2005
252PA14-2

#### State v. Thomas Craig Campbell

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA13-1404-2)

1. Allowed 11/10/2015

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2.

3. State’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3.
**AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:**                    United States International Trade Commission.                

**TIME AND DATE:**                    January 28, 2000 at 11:00 a.m.                 

**PLACE:**                    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.                

**STATUS:**                    Open to the public.                 

**MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:**

1. Agenda for future meeting: none.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Inv. No. 731-TA-863 (Preliminary)(Citric Acid and Sodium Citrate from China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission will transmit its determination to the Secretary of Commerce on January 31, 2000.) 

5. Outstanding action jackets: none.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. 

By order of the Commission:

Issued: January 19, 2000.

Donna R. Koehnke, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-1622 Filed 1-19-00; 2:18 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          15,141
<SECURITIES>                                    14,082
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,464
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (423)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,268
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,891
<PP&E>                                           1,946
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,097)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,153
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,478
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,645
<SALES>                                         12,410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,410
<CGS>                                            5,747
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,095)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,826)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,826)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,826)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.66)


</TABLE>
**AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO**

**SERIES B CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK**

**SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT**

This AMENDMENT NO. 3 (this "Amendment") with respect to the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock Subscription Agreement (the "Subscription Agreement"), dated August 26, 2004 and amended on May 5, 2006 and on December 1, 2004, between Moscow CableCom Corp. (formerly known as Andersen Group Inc.), a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Renova Media Enterprises Ltd. (formerly known as Columbus Nova Investments VIII Ltd.), a Bahamas company ("RME" and, together with the Company, collectively the "Parties" and each individually a "Party"), is made and entered into by the Parties as of September 21, 2006.  Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

WHEREAS, the Company proposes to enter into a registration rights agreement granting certain demand and incidental registration rights to the investors in a proposed private placement (the “September Private Placement”) of up to 4 million units (the “Units”), each consisting of one share of the Company’s common stock, $0.01 par value (the “Common Stock”), and one-half Common Stock purchase warrant;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5.08 of the Subscription Agreement the Company has agreed not to grant any demand or incidental registration rights to any Person, with certain exceptions noted therein; and

WHEREAS, the Company and RME wish to amend the Subscription Agreement in order to permit the Company to grant the registration rights contemplated in connection with the proposed September Private Placement;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Parties agree as follows:

1.

Condition Precedent

This Amendment is subject to the condition precedent (the "Condition Precedent") that the subscription agreement relating to the September Private Placement is entered into and the closing of the September Private Placement occurs on or prior to December 31, 2006. The Parties acknowledge and confirm that this Amendment shall become effective immediately upon the fulfillment of the Condition Precedent.

2.

Amendment

The Parties hereby agree to amend the Subscription Agreement in order to permit the Company to grant the registration rights contemplated in connection with the September Private
2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d

S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s

for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-18-2011



# M ich a el S chmidt v

. J a mes C r eedon

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al

D ock e t N o . 09-2051

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

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

U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a

U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" M ich a e l S chmidt v

. J a me s C r e e don " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 1340.

h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/1340

### PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No s

. 09

- 2051 and 10

- 1633

MICHAEL C. SCHMIDT

,

Appellants

.

v.

JAMES P. CREEDON; CONNIE A. TENNIS;

RICHARD A. SHAFFER; GREGORY A. GREEN

On Appeal fro m the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D . C. Nos. 4

- 07

- cv

- 01190 and 1

- 09

- cv

- 00323)

District Judge: Hon orable John E. Jones

No. 09

- 2051 Argued on November 2, 2010

No. 10

- 1633 Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 3 4.1(a)

on November 2, 2010

Before: SCIRICA, STAPLETON , and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed March 29, 2011 )

### ROTH, Circuit Judge :

IT IS ORDERED that the precedential o pinion in the above case, filed on March

29, 2011 , be vacated. An amended opinion will be filed forthwith.

T his amendment does not change the date of filing, March 29, 2011.

By the Court,

/s/ Jane R. Roth

Circuit Judge

Dated: 18 April 2011
700 P.2d 14

#### Verdean D. FULTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Loyd D. DURO, Defendant, and Le Roy and Dolores Samuelson, Intervenors-Respondents.

No. 15769.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

April 12, 1985.

*393Eugene A. Ritti of Hawley, Troxell, Ennis & Hawley, Boise, for plaintiff-appellant.

Richard B. Eismann, Homedale, for intervenors-respondents.

BAKES, Justice.

This Court granted a petition to review the decision of the Idaho Court of Appeals filed August 31, 1984. In its decision the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment of the Fourth Judicial District Court. The Court of Appeals concluded “that a vendee’s interest in a contract is an interest in real property, within the meaning of I.C. § 10-1110, against which a recorded judgment does impose a lien if the contract has been duly recorded or where, as here, a ‘notice’ of the contract — containing the names of the contracting parties and the legal description of the property — has been recorded.” The Court of Appeals further held that “I.C. § 8-506 provides a mandatory procedure for levying on real property pursuant to a writ of execution as well as a writ of attachment.”

After the granting of the petition for review, the parties submitted additional briefing and this Court heard oral argument on the two issues set out above. After reviewing the record and the briefs and argument of the parties, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals for the reasons set out in their August 31, 1984, opinion, *Fulton v. Duro,*107 Idaho 240, 687 P.2d 1367 (Ct.App.1984).

Affirmed. No costs allowed.

DONALDSON, C.J., and SHEPARD, BISTLINE and HUNTLEY, JJ., concur.

BISTLINE, Justice,

specially concurring.

Having concurred in the opinion for the Court, I write only to express the caveat that although a recorded lien casts a lien cloud over all of the defendant’s real property and interests therein in the county (or counties) where recorded, not only must the plaintiff secure the issuance of a writ of execution specifically designating the legal description of the real property against which he desires the sheriff to proceed, but the writ of execution must also require that the sheriff first proceed against the personal property of the defendant before resorting to any realty. I.C. § 11-102(1). The lien created on the day of filing the judgment for record serves two important functions. One, it gives the judgment creditor security, thus enabling him, when so disposed, to not crowd his judgment debtor for payment. Two, it establishes a priority as of that date against other judgments or other encumbrances recorded subsequently.

Additionally, it must be remembered that the lien against real property which has been thus created is not — as with a materialman’s lien — judicially foreclosed all in the same process. Moreover, the judgment debtor is afforded the right, if present at the sale, to “direct the order in which property, real or personal, shall be sold, when such property consists of several known lots or parcels, or of articles which can be sold to advantage separately, and the sheriff must follow such directions.” I.C. § 11-304.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 705

To make technical corrections with respect to the monthly reports submitted

by the Postmaster General on official mail of the House of Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 11, 1999

Mr. THOMAS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

FEBRUARY 11, 1999

Committee on House Administration discharged; considered and passed

A BILL

To make technical corrections with respect to the monthly

reports submitted by the Postmaster General on official

mail of the House of Representatives.

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

3 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS REGARDING RE4 PORTS BY POSTMASTER GENERAL ON OFFI5 CIAL MAIL OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 311(b)(2) of the Legisla7 tive Branch Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C.

8 59e(b)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘any person with an
2

•HR 705 CPH

1 allocation under subsection (a)(2)’’ and inserting the fol2 lowing: ‘‘any person with an allocation under subsection

3 (a)(2)(A) as to the amount that has been used and any

4 person with an allocation under subsection (a)(2)(B)’’.

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

6 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to January 1999

7 and each succeeding month.

Æ
#### Armstead’s Case.

June Term, 1850.

Criminal Practice—Recalling; Witness after Argument.*—The attorney for the Commonwealth allowed to recall a witness, and ask him a question, after the attorney had made his opening argument, and one of the counsel for the prisoner had spoken in his defence.

John A. H. W. R. Armstead was indicted in the Circuit court of Henrico and the city of Richmond for larceny, in stealing a horse and buggy, the property of Thomas Duke. On the trial, after the Commonwealth had concluded its evidence tending to prove the horse and buggy in question had been hired by the prisoner of Thomas Duke on the 3d of March 1849, in Richmond, and afterwards disposed of by him at Powhatan courthouse, on the 5th of March ; and also other evidence tending to shew the felonious intent of the prisoner; and after the attorney for the Commonwealth had closed his opening argument, and one of the prisoner’s counsel had made his argument for the defence, the attorney for the Commonwealth moved the Court to allow him to recall a witness, Thomas Duke, who had been before examined, and' to ask him a question not before put; the attorney stating that he did not have the record of the examination in the Hustings court, and therefore was not informed of what had been deposed to by the witnesses in that Court. The prisoner’s ^counsel objected to the motion, but the Court allowed the witness to be recalled, and asked, “If the prisoner on Saturday evening, the 3d March 1849, when he hired the horse and buggy in question, gave him his name?” The answer to which was, “He said his name was J. Scott.” To this question and answer the prisoner’s counsel objected as irregular and inadmissible, and excepted to the opinion of the Court admitting them.

The jury found the prisoner guilty; and fixed the term of his imprisonment in 'the penitentiary at five years; and the Court sentenced him accordingly. Whereupon he applied to this Court for a writ of error.

*

See principal case cited in Schonberger v. Com., 86 Va. 492,10 S. E. Rep. 713.

The trial court may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, admit evidence after argument. See *foot-note*to McDowell v. Crawford, 11 Gratt. 378; Livingston’s Case, 7 Gratt. 658, and *foot-note.*

By the Court.

The writ of error is denied’.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ROLAND CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

INMUSICBRANDS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2021-1604

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida in No. 1:17-cv-22405-FAM, 

Chief Judge Frederico A. Moreno.

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Roland Corporation’s motion to 

voluntarily dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 42(b) of 

the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is reactivated, and the motion to voluntarily dismiss is granted. 

Case: 21-1604 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 03/11/2022
2 ROLAND CORPORATION v. INMUSICBRANDS, INC.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

March 11, 2022

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 11, 2022

Case: 21-1604 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 03/11/2022
#### § 105-53.141 Office of Policy Analysis.

The Office of Policy Analysis, headed by the Associate Administrator for Policy Analysis, is responsible for providing analytical support, independent, objective information concerning management policies and programs, and technical and analytical assistance in the areas of policy analysis and resource allocation to the Administrator, senior officials, and organizations in GSA.

[51 FR 23230, June 26, 1986]
Thiamethoxam Pollinator Meeting – 02-13-2013-EPA-PMRA-CDPR-Syngenta

Thiamethoxam Pollinator Meeting Held February 13, 2013

Participants: California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Health Canada Pest 

Management Regulatory Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, and Syngenta

February 13, 2013

On February 13, 2013, at the request of Syngenta, representatives from Syngenta met for 2 hours 

with representatives from California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), Health 

Canada’s Pest Management Agency (PMRA), and Office of Pesticide Programs to discuss their 

continuous efforts on research regarding thiamethoxam and honey bees. Additionally, the status 

of registration review data requirements, timeframe for submission of data between all agencies, 

and next steps were also discussed.
1

Hall-Jordan, Luke

From: Jones, Danielle <Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 4:26 PM

To: Donaldson, David

Cc: Arling, Jeremy; Hall-Jordan, Luke

Subject: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: EPA's Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Update 

to the Refrigerant Management Requirements Under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act 

(RIN 2060-AS51)

Attachments: EO 12866_13563 EPA Refrigerants NPRM.docx

David, 

Attached are the interagency reviewer’s comments. Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Best, 

Danielle 

Danielle Y. Jones 

Policy Analyst 

Office of Management and Budget 

Phone: (202) 395-1741 | djones@omb.eop.gov
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

DENNIS L. FLOYD, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D21-1303 September 24, 2021 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michael S. Williams, Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Jones v. State , 569 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1990). CASANUEVA, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4193 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4193

To designate the United States post office located at 100 Vester Gade, 
  in Cruz Bay, Saint John, Virgin Islands, as the ``Ubaldina Simmons 
                      United States Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 1994

 Mr. de Lugo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the United States post office located at 100 Vester Gade, 
  in Cruz Bay, Saint John, Virgin Islands, as the ``Ubaldina Simmons 
                      United States Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States post office located at 100 Vester Gade, in Cruz 
Bay, Saint John, Virgin Islands, shall be known and designated as the 
``Ubaldina Simmons United States Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the post office referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ubaldina Simmons United 
States Post Office''.

                                 <all>
```
NO. 07-06-0030-CR

NO. 07-06-0031-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

MAY 4, 2006

______________________________

DAWNA MILLER MAULDIN, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 223RD DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

NO. 6633 & 6634; HONORABLE LEE WATERS, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following pleas of not guilty, appellant Dawna Miller Mauldin was convicted by the

trial court of two counts of theft of trade secrets. Punishment was assessed at ten years

confinement, suspended for 10 years, and a $5,000 fine, which was not suspended.

Appellant timely perfected these appeals. 
2

The District Clerk of Gray County filed a motion for extension of time in which to file

the clerk’s records indicating appellant had not paid nor made arrangements to pay for the

records. The court reporter notified the Clerk of this Court that appellant’s counsel had

instructed him not to prepare the reporter’s records because counsel anticipated filing a

motion to dismiss the appeals. Appellant’s counsel notified the Clerk of this Court in midMarch that he would file a motion to dismiss in early April. To date neither the clerk’s

records nor reporter’s records have been filed and the deadlines for doing so have expired.

Neither has a motion to dismiss been filed. By letter dated April 17, 2006, this Court

directed counsel to either file the appellate record or a motion to dismiss by April 28, 2006,

noting that failure to do so might result in dismissal. Counsel did not respond.

Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed for want of prosecution and failure to comply

with a directive from this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3.

Don H. Reavis

 Justice

Do not publish.