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

[PricewaterhouseCoopers letterhead]


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Pacific Gateway Exchange, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-24833) of our report
dated February 19, 1999, except for Note 10, as to which the date is March 2,
1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and the financial
statement schedules of Pacific Gateway Exchange, Inc. as of December 31, 1998
and 1997, and for the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996, which
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


San Francisco, California
March 31, 1999
FORM 11. Informal Opening Brief (MSPB or Arbitrator Cases) Form 11 (p. 1) 

July 2020

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

INFORMAL BRIEF OF PETITIONER/APPELLANT

Case Number:

Short Case Caption:

Name of Petitioner:

Instructions: Read the Guide for Unrepresented Parties before completing this 

form. Answer the questions as best as you can. Attach additional pages as needed 

to answer the questions. This form and continuation pages may not exceed 30 

pages. 

Attach a copy of the initial and final decision/order of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board or arbitrator. You may also attach other record material as an appendix. 

Any attached material should be referenced in answer to the below questions. 

Please redact (erase, cover, or otherwise make unreadable) social security numbers 

or comparable private personal identifiers that appear in any attachments you 

submit.

1. Have you ever had another case before this court? Yes No

In a United States district court? Yes No

Before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? Yes No

If yes, identify the title and number of each case.
FORM 11. Informal Opening Brief (MSPB or Arbitrator Cases) Form 11 (p. 2) 

July 2020

2. Did the MSPB or arbitrator incorrectly decide or fail to take into account any

facts? Yes No

If yes, what facts?

3. Did the MSPB or arbitrator apply the wrong law? Yes No

If yes, what law should be applied?

4. Did the MSPB or arbitrator fail to consider important grounds for relief?

Yes No

If yes, what grounds?
FORM 11. Informal Opening Brief (MSPB or Arbitrator Cases) Form 11 (p. 3) 

July 2020

5. Are there other reasons why the MSPB’s or arbitrator’s decision was wrong?

 Yes No

If yes, what reasons?

6. What action do you want this court to take in this case?

Date: _________________ Signature: 

 Name:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CUSTOMPLAY, LLC,

Appellant

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC.,

Appellee

ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE 

FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER 

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF 

THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK 

OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2020-2209

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-

01498.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JOHN C. CAREY, Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP, 

Miami, FL, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

Case: 20-2209 Document: 64 Page: 1 Filed: 02/15/2022
NICHOLAS J. DOYLE. 

 COLIN B. HEIDEMAN, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, 

LLP, Seattle, WA, argued for appellee. Also represented 

by CHRISTIE R.W. MATTHAEI; JOSEPH R. RE, Irvine, CA.

 MCKAYE LEA NEUMEISTER, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, argued for intervenor. Also represented by BRIAN M.

BOYNTON, DANIEL TENNY; KAKOLI CAPRIHAN, MAI-TRANG 

DUC DANG, MICHAEL S. FORMAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE,

ROBERT J. MCMANUS, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, Office 

of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA.

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

February 15, 2022

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-2209 Document: 64 Page: 2 Filed: 02/15/2022
Order entered August 7, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-14-01023-CV

IN RE CHARLES A. MILLER, Relator

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380-02441-2014



### ORDER Before Justices Moseley, Fillmore, and Evans

Pursuant to the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus. We further DENY relator’s August 7, 2014 motion for temporary relief. We

ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE
Confidential Business Information received from Ford Motor 

Company on January 8, 2015 (Updated January 26, 2015).

For more information, please contact Margaret Sheppard by 

phone at 202-343-9163 or by email at 

sheppard.margaret@epa.gov.
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Atlas Minerals Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, H.R. (Roy) Shipes,
Chief Executive 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:

          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.



By:       /s/ H.R. (Roy) Shipes
          -----------------------
          H.R. (Roy) Shipes
          Chief Executive Officer
          July 30, 2002





                                 Page 15 0f 16
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4075

_____________________________

M.F., Father of A.O., L.F., and

L.F., Minor Children,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILIES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County.

Francis Allman, Judge.

June 4, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Valarie Linnen, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Sarah J. Rumph of Children's Legal Services, Tallahassee; 

Thomasina F. Moore, Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb of the Guardian ad 

Litem, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Operating Status – No. 20-02

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

O R D E R

By order of the Chief Judge, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit will be closed on Tuesday, 

December 24, 2019, in addition to the federal holiday of 

Wednesday, December 25, 2019. 

For purposes of computation of time and motions to enlarge time under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26 

and Federal Circuit Rule 26, December 24, 2019, will be 

considered a “legal holiday.”

FOR THE COURT

 November 25, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
No. 11-9499.

#### Harrison *v.*United States.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.2208 Public notice of auction completion and auction results.

Public notice shall be provided when the reverse auction is complete and when the forward auction is complete. With respect to the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction conducted under section 6403 of the Spectrum Act, public notice shall be provided of the results of the reverse auction, forward auction, and repacking, and shall indicate that the reassignments of television channels and reallocations of broadcast television spectrum are effective.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Tate Fite, Chief Financial Officer of Moscow CableCom Corp., certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Moscow CableCom Corp.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)       Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)       Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)       Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and;

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)       All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

Date:  June 5, 2007



/s/ Tate Fite

Tate Fite  
Chief Financial Officer
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

TARUS MACK,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-2939

LT Case No.2020-CA-3701-O

MARLIN DANIELS AND THE ORANGE 

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,

Appellees.

________________________________/

Decision filed October 4, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit 

Court for Orange County,

Kevin B. Weiss, Judge.

Matthew A. Leibert, of Law Office Matthew 

A. Leibert, Orlando, for Appellant.

Nicholas A. Shannin, of Shannin Law Firm, 

P.A., Orlando, for Appellee, The Orange 

County Canvassing Board.

Christian W. Waugh, of Waugh Grant PLLC, 

Orlando, for Appellee, Marlin Daniels.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EVANDER, COHEN and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.296 Service.

No pleading filed pursuant to § 1.51 or § 1.294 will be considered unless it is accompanied by proof of service upon the parties to the proceeding.

(Secs. 4(i), 303(r) and 5(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 CFR 0.61 and 0.283)

[49 FR 4381, Feb. 6, 1984, as amended at 62 FR 4171, Jan. 29, 1997]
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Governor Greg Abbott in his official capacity as the Governor of 

Texas v. County of Fort Bend, Texas

Appellate case number: 01-21-00453-CV

Trial court case number: 21-DCV-286148

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

On August 12, 2022, Assistant Attorney General Cody C. Coll filed an unopposed motion 

to withdraw as counsel of record for appellant Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Governor of 

Texas, in the above-referenced appeal. The motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to note on the docket of this Court that Assistant 

Attorney General Cody C. Coll has withdrawn from representing appellant and that Assistant 

Attorney General Benjamin Dower is counsel of record for appellant.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s Sarah Beth Landau

Acting individually 

Date: August 30, 2022
Exhibit










Exhibit No. (10)o




Outside Directors’ Compensation
(Effective January 1, 2017)




Each Outside Director of Kimberly-Clark Corporation will receive the following compensation for his or her services as a director, in accordance with the terms of the Corporation’s 2011 Outside Directors’ Compensation Plan, as amended (the “Plan”).  The compensation elements listed below supersede or are in lieu of all other cash or stock options currently set out under the Plan:
		
	•
	A cash retainer in the amount of $100,000, payable in quarterly installments in advance.  No separate meeting fees will be payable for attending board and committee meetings.  Outside Directors joining the Board during the year will receive the full quarterly amount of the annual retainer for the quarter in which they join the Board and each quarter thereafter.


		
	•
	A grant of Restricted Share Units with a value of $180,000 on the grant date, based on the closing price for the Corporation’s common stock on that date (the “Grant Date Price”).  This grant will be made effective as of the first business day of the year.  Outside Directors joining the Board during the year will receive a pro-rata grant of Restricted Share Units upon the effective date of their election to the Board.


		
	•
	The Chairman of each of the Audit, Management Development and Compensation, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees will each receive an additional grant of Restricted Share Units with a value of $20,000 based on the Grant Date Price.  This grant will be made effective as of the first business day of the year.


		
	•
	The Lead Director will receive an additional grant of Restricted Share Units with a value of $30,000 based on the Grant Date Price.  This grant will be made effective as of the first business day of the year.


		
	•
	The Restricted Period for the Restricted Share Units shall commence on the date of grant and expire on the date each recipient retires from or otherwise terminates service on the Board.  The Restricted Share Units may not be transferred during the Restricted Period.
# Comments on: 18-2145: JOHNSTECH INTERNATIONAL CORP. v. JF MICROTECHNOLOGY SDN BHD [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
No. 11-9601.

#### Sainz-Preciado v. United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
NO.WR-84,208-01

IN THE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN,TEXAS RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JOSE GARZA

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

DEC 212015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

From Appeal No.l4-12-00925-CR

Trial Cause No.l325799-A--~

Harris County

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PRO SE

PETITION FOR DISCETIONARY REVIEW

FILED (N

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 1 o o --*->

-•-' t. u L ,.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

TO THE.HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Jose Garza Appellant,respectfully requests that the Court grant his moti

on to extend time to file his petition for discretionary review. In^support of

said motion,Appellant would show unto the Court the following:

I.

The Petitioner was convicted in the 177th District Court of Harris Goun-iv

tyjTexas of the offense of possession of a controlled substance in Cause No.

1325799,Styled State of Texas vs. Jose Garza. The Petitioner appealed to the

Court of Appeals,Fourteenth Court Supreme Judicial District. The case affirmed

on March 27,2014.

II.

The present deadline for filing the Petition for Discretionary Review is

January 16,2016. The Petitioner has not requested any extension prior to this

request.
III.

On the 16th day of December 2015,Petitioner has submitted a Motion for En

Banc Consideration.

IV.

Appellant is requesting an extension of time so that the Appellant may

file a pro se Petition for Discretionary Review. An extension of time.is nece=

ssary so that the Appelant, who is not an attorney, may familialize himself .1

with the rules governing the filing of a petition for discretionary review,adquately research his case,and draft his own PDR. This motion is not made for

the purpose of delay.

Wherefore,Premises Considered,Appellant prays that this Honorable Court

grant this requested extension of time to file the Appellant's Petition for I.i

Discretionary Review in the above cause and extend the time for filing the pe

tition until March 16,2016 (60 days).

Jose Garza

Petitijorier,pro se

Texas Department of CrimiiBl Justice

Hu^ies Unit

TDCJ# 1813274

(jcitesvLl.lfi,Texas 76597

CERTIFICATE^OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument was this the

day served on counsel for the State:by mailing same to the following parties

on this the 16th day of December 2016:

Harris County District Attorney's Office State Prosecuting Attorney

Appellant Division P.O. Box 12405

1201 Franklin,Suite 600 Austin,Texas 78711

Hauston,Texas 77002

_-ja/W/5

Petitkner,pro se
Decided February 28, 1909.

#### STATE *v.*GARDNER.

[99 Pac. 940.]

From Coos: James W. Hamilton, Judge.

The defendant, Frank Gardner, was tried and convicted in the circuit court of Coos County, of gambling, and from a judgment of said court sentencing him to pay a fine, he appeals.

Affirmed.

Submitted on briefs under the proviso of Rule 16 of the Supreme Court. 50 Or. 580.

For appellant there was a brief over the names of *Messrs. Guerry & Hollister*and *Mr. Austin S. Hammond.*

For the State there was a brief over the name of *Mr. George M. Brown,*District Attorney.

Mr. Justice King

delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendant was tried and convicted in the circuit court for conducting in the corporate limits of the City of North Bend a gambling game known as “faro,” contrary to the statutes, etc. This appeal presents the same legal points as determined in *State*v. *Bay,*53 Or. 241 (99 Pac. 939), from which it follows that the judgment of the court below must be affirmed. Affirmed.
No. 11-1084.

#### Rodriguez *v.*City of Cleveland, Ohio, et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.951 Duty to respond to official communications.

Licensees or applicants in the Wireless Radio Services receiving official notice of an apparent or actual violation of a federal statute, international agreement, Executive Order, or regulation pertaining to communications shall respond in writing within 10 days to the office of the FCC originating the notice, unless otherwise specified. Responses to official communications must be complete and self-contained without reference to other communications unless copies of such other communications are attached to the response. Licensees or applicants may respond via ULS.

[63 FR 68934, Dec. 14, 1998]
§ 60-742.6 Processing of charges filed with EEOC. ( a ) *ADA cause charges falling within the jurisdiction of section 503 that the Commission has declined to litigate.* ADA cause charges that also fall within the jurisdiction of section 503 and that the Commission has declined to litigate will be referred to OFCCP for review of the file and any administrative action deemed appropriate under section 503. Such charges will be considered to be complaints, simultaneously dual filed under section 503, solely for the purposes of OFCCP review and administrative action described in this paragraph.
( b ) *ADA charges which also include allegations of failure to comply with section 503 affirmative action requirements.* ADA charges filed with EEOC, in which both allegations of discrimination under the ADA and violation of affirmative action requirements under section 503 are made, will be referred in their entirety to OFCCP for processing and resolution under section 503 and the ADA, unless the charges also include allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or age, or include allegations involving Priority List issues, or the charges are otherwise deemed of particular importance to EEOC's enforcement of the ADA. In such situations, EEOC will bifurcate the charges and retain the ADA component of the charges (and when applicable, the allegations pertaining to discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or age), referring the section 503 affirmative action component of the charges to OFCCP for processing and resolution under section 503. ADA charges which raise both discrimination issues under the ADA and section 503 affirmative action issues will be considered complaints, simultaneously dual filed under section 503, solely for the purposes of referral to OFCCP for processing, as described in this paragraph.
( c ) EEOC shall transfer promptly to OFCCP a charge of disability-related employment discrimination over which it does not have jurisdiction, but over which OFCCP may have jurisdiction. At the same time, EEOC shall notify the charging party and the contractor/respondent of the transfer, the reason for the transfer, the location of the OFCCP office to which the charge was transferred and that the date EEOC received the charge will be deemed the date it was received by OFCCP.
( d ) Except as otherwise stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, individuals alleging violations of laws enforced by DOL and over which EEOC has no jurisdiction will be referred to DOL to file a complaint.
( e ) If an individual who has already filed an ADA charge with EEOC subsequently attempts to file or files a section 503 complaint with OFCCP covering the same facts and issues, OFCCP will accept the complaint, but will adopt as a disposition of the complaint EEOC's resolution of the ADA charge (including EEOC's termination of proceedings upon its issuance of a notice of right-to-sue).