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





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form S-8 (Nos. 333-06297, 333-43296, 333-56284, 333-59379, 333-62130,
      333-105140, 333-106409, 333-120932 and 333-135399) of ArthroCare Corporation
      of
      our report dated February 29, 2008 relating to the financial statements,
      financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over
      financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.






/s/    PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP


Austin,
      TX


February
      29, 2008
#### State of Florida, ex rel., William H. Edmunds, Claude G. Aikens, Charles E. Becker, Merton E. Sear, and Montgomery Whaling, *Relators,*v. Paul D. Barns, as one of the Judges in and for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, Bowman F. Ashe, Frank J. Pepper, John B. Orr, W. Stanley Dodd, P. H. Arthur, and the Florida National Bank & Trust Company, a National Banking Institution, *Respondents.*

143 So. 352.

En Banc.

Opinion filed August 5, 1932.

*David B. Newsom,*for Relators;

*Miller, McKay, Dixon <& DeJarnette,*foT Respondents.

Lewis, Circuit Judge.

The subject matter of this proceeding is identical with that of State ex rel. Landis, Attorney General, v. The Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, et al., this day decided and opinion filed. This proceeding is now before the Court on motions of the respondents to’ discharge the order to show cause, and on demurrers of the relators to the answers and responses of the respondents, and motion of the relators for peremptory writ of prohibition. For the reasons stated in the opinion this day filed in the above mentioned case, the motions of the respondents to discharge the order to *392show cause should be denied, and the demurrers of relators to' the answers and responses of the respondents, and the motion of relators for peremptory writ of prohibition, should be granted. A writ of prohibition having been issued by this Court, however, in the above mentioned cause, which serves the purpose of the writ sought in this ease, peremptory writ of prohibition will not be issued herein until the further order of the Court.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Tebrell, J.J., concur.

Brown, J., not participating.

Davis, J., disqualified.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                            STERLING COMMERCE, INC.
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                JURISDICTION
NAME                                                           OF INCORPORATION
----                                                           ----------------
<S>                                                            <C>
Domestic
Sterling Commerce, Inc., a Wyoming corporation................  Wyoming
Sterling Commerce (America), Inc..............................  Delaware
  Sterling Commerce (Mid America), Inc........................  Michigan
Sterling Commerce (Northern America), Inc.....................  Delaware
Sterling Commerce (U.S.), Inc.................................  Delaware
Sterling Commerce International, Inc..........................  Delaware
Sterling Commerce Leasing, Inc................................  Delaware
Sterling Commerce (Eastern), Inc..............................  Delaware
Sterling Commerce (U.S.), LP..................................
International
Sterling Commerce B.V.........................................  Netherlands
Sterling Commerce International Sales Corporation.............  Barbados
Sterling Commerce International SARL..........................  France
Sterling Commerce (France), SARL..............................  France
Sterling Commerce GmbH........................................  Germany
Sterling Commerce (UK) Limited................................  United Kingdom
Sterling Electronic Commerce (Canada), Inc....................  Canada
Sterling Commerce (Australia) Pty Limited.....................  Australia
Sterling Commerce (Belgium) BVBA..............................  Belgium
Sterling Commerce do Brasil Ltda..............................  Brazil
Sterling Commerce (Hong Kong) Limited.........................  Hong Kong
Sterling Commerce (Italy) S.r.l...............................  Italy
Sterling Commerce K.K.........................................  Japan
Sterling Commerce (Singapore) Pte. Ltd........................  Singapore
Sterling Commerce (Switzerland) AG............................  Switzerland
Nybyggarren 35:829 AB unat Sterling Commerce (Sweden) AB......  Sweden
</TABLE>
 
Notes:
1. Indented names are subsidiaries of the subsidiary listed immediately above
   such subsidiary.
2. Inclusion in this exhibit is not a representation that the subsidiary is a
   significant subsidiary.
3. The voting shares of all subsidiaries are 100% owned by Sterling Commerce,
   Inc., its subsidiaries or employee nominees.
§ 64.1150 Procedures for resolution of unauthorized changes in preferred carrier. ( a ) *Notification of alleged unauthorized carrier change.* Executing carriers who are informed of an unauthorized carrier change by a subscriber must immediately notify both the authorized and allegedly unauthorized carrier of the incident. This notification must include the identity of both carriers.
( b ) *Referral of complaint.* Any carrier, executing, authorized, or allegedly unauthorized, that is informed by a subscriber or an executing carrier of an unauthorized carrier change shall direct that subscriber either to the state commission or, where the state commission has not opted to administer these rules, to the Federal Communications Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, for resolution of the complaint. Carriers shall also inform the subscriber that he or she may contact and seek resolution from the alleged unauthorized carrier and, in addition, may contact the authorized carrier.
( c ) *Notification of receipt of complaint.* Upon receipt of an unauthorized carrier change complaint, the relevant governmental agency will notify the allegedly unauthorized carrier of the complaint and order that the carrier remove all unpaid charges for the first 30 days after the slam from the subscriber's bill pending a determination of whether an unauthorized change, as defined by § 64.1100(e), has occurred, if it has not already done so.
( d ) *Proof of verification.* Not more than 30 days after notification of the complaint, or such lesser time as is required by the state commission if a matter is brought before a state commission, the alleged unauthorized carrier shall provide to the relevant government agency a copy of any valid proof of verification of the carrier change. This proof of verification must contain clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change, as that term is defined in §§ 64.1120 through 64.1130. The relevant governmental agency will determine whether an unauthorized change, as defined by § 64.1100(e), has occurred using such proof and any evidence supplied by the subscriber. Failure by the carrier to respond or provide proof of verification will be presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation.
( e ) *Election of forum.* The Federal Communications Commission will not adjudicate a complaint filed pursuant to § 1.719 or §§ 1.720 through 1.736 of this chapter, involving an alleged unauthorized change, as defined by § 64.1100(e), while a complaint based on the same set of facts is pending with a state commission.
[65 FR 47692, Aug. 3, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 19159, Apr. 18, 2003; 73 FR 13149, Mar. 12, 2008]
§ 52.35 Porting Intervals. ( a ) All telecommunications carriers required by the Commission to port telephone numbers must complete a simple wireline-to-wireline or simple intermodal port request within one business day unless a longer period is requested by the new provider or by the customer. The traditional work week of Monday through Friday represents mandatory business days and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. represents minimum business hours, excluding the current service provider's company-defined holidays. An accurate and complete Local Service Request (LSR) must be received by the current service provider between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. local time for a simple port request to be eligible for activation at midnight on the same day. Any simple port LSRs received after this time will be considered received on the following business day at 8 a.m. local time.
( b ) Small providers, as described in the *2009 LNP Porting Interval Order,* must comply with this section by February 2, 2011.
( c ) Unless directed otherwise by the Commission, any telecommunications carrier granted a waiver by the Commission of the one-business day porting interval described in paragraph (a) must complete a simple wireline-to-wireline or simple intermodal port request within four business days unless a longer period is requested by the new provider or by the customer.
( d ) All telecommunications carriers required by the Commission to port telephone numbers must complete a non-simple wireline-to-wireline or non-simple intermodal port request within four business days unless a longer period is requested by the new provider or by the customer.
( e ) For purposes of this section: ( 1 ) The term “local time” means the predominant time zone of the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) Region in which the telephone number is being ported; and
( 2 ) The term “intermodal ports” includes ( i ) Wireline-to-wireless ports;
( ii ) Wireless-to-wireline ports; and
( iii ) Ports involving interconnected VoIP service.
[75 FR 35315, June 22, 2010, as amended at 80 FR 66480, Oct. 29, 2015]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4824

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent the misuse of certain

anti-racketeering laws.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 25, 1994

Mr. DORNAN (for himself, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. CRANE, Mr. SMITH of New

Jersey, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. LIVINGSTON,

Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. LIPINSKI, and Mr. HYDE) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent the misuse

of certain anti-racketeering laws.

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

3 SECTION 1. RACKETEERING DEFINITION.

4 Section 1961(5) of title 18, United States Code, is

5 amended by inserting ‘‘a profit-seeking purpose and’’ after

6 ‘‘requires’’.
2

•HR 4824 IH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendment made by this Act shall apply with

3 respect to cases arising on or after the date of the enact4 ment of this Act and to cases pending on that date.

Æ
§ 22.859 Incumbent commercial aviation air-ground systems. This section contains rules concerning continued operation of commercial aviation air-ground systems that were originally authorized prior to January 1, 2004 to provide radiotelephone service using narrowband (6 kHz) channels, and that have been providing service continuously since the original commencement of service (hereinafter “incumbent systems”). ( a ) An incumbent system may continue to operate under its authorization, for the remaining term of such authorization, subject to the terms and conditions attached thereto. Wherever such technical and operational conditions differ from technical and operational rules in this subpart, those conditions shall govern its operations.
( b ) Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter, the licensee of an incumbent system shall not be entitled to an expectation of renewal of said authorization.
( c ) During the period that an incumbent system continues to operate and provide service pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, air-ground systems of licensees holding a new authorization for the spectrum within which the incumbent system operates must not cause interference to the incumbent system. Protection from interference requires that the signals of the new systems must not exceed a ground station received power of −130 dBm within a 6 kHz receive bandwidth, calculated assuming a 0 dBi vertically polarized receive antenna.
[70 FR 19310, Apr. 13, 2005]
§ 65.102 Petitions for exclusion from unitary treatment and for individual treatment in determining authorized return for interstate exchange access service. ( a ) Exclusion from unitary treatment will be granted for a period of two years if the cost of capital for interstate exchange service is so low as to be confiscatory because it is outside the zone of reasonableness for the individual carrier's required rate of return for interstate exchange access services.
( b ) A petition for exclusion from unitary treatment and for individual treatment must plead with particularity the exceptional facts and circumstances that justify individual treatment. The showing shall include a demonstration that the exceptional facts and circumstances are not of transitory effect, such that exclusion for a period of a least two years is justified.
( c ) A petition for exclusion from unitary treatment and for individual treatment may be filed at any time. When a petition is filed at a time other than that specified in § 65.103(b)(2), the petitioner must provide compelling evidence that its need for individual treatment is not simply the result of short-term fluctuations in the cost of capital or similar events.
[60 FR 28544, June 1, 1995]
#### § 73.805 Availability of channels.

Except as provided in § 73.220 of this chapter, all of the frequencies listed in § 73.201 of this chapter are available for LPFM stations.
V

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4672

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade and on the Great Lakes and their tributary and connecting waters

in trade with Canada for each of 3 barges.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 28, 1994

Mr. CARR of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade and on

the Great Lakes and their tributary and connecting waters in trade with Canada for each of 3 barges.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and sections 12106 and 12107 of

6 title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transpor7 tation may issue a certificate of documentation with ap-
2

•HR 4672 IH

1 propriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

2 trade and on the Great Lakes and their tributary and con3 necting waters in trade with Canada for each of the follow4 ing 3 vessels:

5 (1) SPUD BARGE 102 (United States official

6 number D1021958).

7 (2) SPUD BARGE 968 (United States official

8 number D1021959).

9 (3) SPUD BARGE 103 (United States official

10 number D1021960).

Æ
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.747 Inconsistent or conflicting applications.

When an application is pending or undecided, no inconsistent or conflicting application filed by the same applicant, his successor or assignee, or on behalf or for the benefit of said applicant, his successor, or assignee, will be considered by the Commission.
No. 10-10882.

#### Bernall *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 United States Code §
1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

The undersigned hereby certify that the Annual Report on
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2007 of PolyMet Mining Corp.
(the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

|Date: May 31, 2007 | By:    | /s/ William Murray           
|------------------ | ------ | -----------------------------
|                   | Name:  | William Murray               
|                   | Title: | Chief Executive
      Officer
|                   |        |                              
|                   |        |                              
|Date: May 31, 2007 | By:    | /s/ Douglas Newby            
|                   | Name:  | Douglas Newby                
|                   | Title: | Chief Financial
      Officer

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Business Board (DBB) will meet in open session on Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at the Pentagon, Washington, DC from 9:30 a.m. until 10 a.m. The mission of the DBB is to advise the Secretary of Defense on effective strategies for implementation of best business practices of interest to the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Board will deliberate on their findings and recommendations related to Military Health System Governance and to the Alignment and Configuration of Business Activities.

# DATES:

Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 9:30 a.m. to 10 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

1155 Defense Pentagon, 2C554, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must contact the Defense Business Board no later than Wednesday, August 30th for further information about escort arrangements  in the Pentagon. Additionally, those who wish to provide input to the Board should submit written comments by Wednesday, August 30th to allow time for distribution to the Board members prior  to the meeting.

                        The DBB may be contacted at: Defense Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C288, Washington, DC 20301-1155, via e-mail at                         *defensebusinessboard2@osd.mil*                         or via phone at (703) 697-2168.                    

Due to an administrative oversight, this notice has not been published within the 15 day notification requirement.

Dated: August 22, 2006.

L.M. Bynum,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 06-7187 Filed 8-23-06; 10:48 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Willowbridge Strategic Trust
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<CIK>               0001005006
<NAME>              Willowbridge Strategic Trust

<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1997

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          46,416,620

<SECURITIES>                    2,813,612

<RECEIVABLES>                   3,218

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                49,233,450

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  49,233,450

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,508,415

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      47,725,035

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    49,233,450

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                4,475,048

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                6,259,725

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (1,784,677)

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (4.15)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Melissa Jean Pool, Appellant

No. 06

- 15

- 00131

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of McLennan County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2015

- 0550

- CR2 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess 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 note that the appellant, Melissa Jean Pool, has adequately indicated h er inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 14, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
§ 69.407 Revenue accounting expenses in Account 6620. ( a ) Revenue accounting expenses that are attributable to End User Common Line access billings shall be assigned to the Common Line element.
( b ) Revenue Accounting Expenses that are attributable to carrier's carrier access billing and collecting expense shall be apportioned among all carrier's carrier access elements except the Common Line element. Such expenses shall be apportioned in the same proportion as the combined investment in COE, C&WF and IOT apportioned to those elements.
( c ) Revenue Accounting Expenses allocated to the interstate jurisdiction that are attributable to the provision of billing name and address information shall be assigned to the Billing Name and Address element.
( d ) All other Revenue Accounting Expenses shall be assigned to the billing and collection category.
[52 FR 37313, Oct. 6, 1987, as amended at 58 FR 65671, Dec. 16, 1993]
**EXHIBIT 32****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifiesthat this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this periodic report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IKONICSCorporation.        Date:  November 9, 2007 /s/ William C. Ulland   William C. Ulland     Chairman, Chief Executive Officer  and President      Date:  November 9, 2007 /s/ Jon Gerlach   Jon Gerlach     Chief Financial Officer  and Vice President of Finance