alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
23  CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We consent to the
incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-36981, No. 33-91196,
No. 333-60665, No. 333-64498, No. 333-69042, No. 333-82194,
No. 333-116476, No. 333-120294, No. 33-128363, No. 333-128364,
No. 333-141151, and No. 333-148502 of our reports dated May 18,
2010, relating to the financial statements of Alliant Techsystems Inc. and
subsidiaries (which reports expressed unqualified opinions and included
explanatory paragraphs relating to the Companys changes in its method of
accounting for noncontrolling interests for all periods presented, convertible
debt instruments that may be settled in cash upon conversation for all periods
presented, uncertain tax benefits in the year ended March 31, 2008 and for
defined benefit pension and postretirement benefit plans in the year ended March 31,
2008) and the effectiveness of Alliant Techsystems Inc.s internal control over
financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended March 31, 2010.  /s/ DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP  Minneapolis,
Minnesota May 18, 2010
EXHIBIT 21.1

Return On Investment Corporation - wholly-owned subisidiaries:
-------------------------------------------------------------

GO Software, Inc., a Washington corporation
5000 Business Center Drive, Suite 1000
Savannah, GA 31405

Net400, Inc., a Georgia corporation
1825 Barrett Lakes Boulevard, Suite 260
Kennesaw, Georgia 30144

Results Oriented Integration Corporation, a Georgia corporation
1825 Barrett Lakes Boulevard, Suite 260
Kennesaw, Georgia 30144

Campana Data, Inc., a Georgia corporation
1825 Barrett Lakes Boulevard, Suite 260
Kennesaw, Georgia 30144

S.A.F.E. Systems, Inc., an Illinois corporation
901 North Batavia Avenue, Suite 301
Batavia, Illinois 60510
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board
of Directors
American Wagering, Inc.
Las Vegas, Nevada

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of American Wagering, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-89494,
333-32505, 333-27393 and 333-27395) of our report dated May 1, 2009, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, on the financial
statements of American Wagering, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of and for the years ended January 31, 2009 and 2008.

PIERCY
BOWLER TAYLOR & KERN

/s/ PIERCY BOWLER TAYLOR & KERN


Certified
Public Accountants
Las Vegas, Nevada
May 1, 2009

---
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statements  on Form S-8 (Nos.  333-17393,  333-40823 and  333-40825,  333-57231,
333-64429,  333-68159,  and  333-87761) of our reports dated March 24, 2000 with
respect to the  consolidated  balance sheet of Engineering  Animation,  Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and the related consolidated  statements of
operations,  stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows
for the year then  ended and the  related  financial  statement  schedule  which
reports  appear  in the  December  31,  1999  annual  report  on  Form  10-K  of
Engineering Animation, Inc.

                                  /s/ KPMG LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 13, 2000
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00451- CV
Andrea R. Biller, Appellant

v. NNN 1 & 2 Met

Cente r 1, LLC; NNN1 & 2 Me t Ce nter 2, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met

Cente r 3, LLC; NNN1 & 2 Me t Ce nter 4, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met

Cente r 5, LLC; NNN1 & 2 Me t Ce nter 7, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met

Cente r 10, LLC; NNN1 & 2 Me t Ce nter 11, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met

Cente r 12, LLC; NNN1 & 2 Me t Ce nter 13, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met

Cente r 17, LLC; NNN1 & 2 Me t Ce nter 18, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met

Cente r 19, LLC; NNN1 & 2 Me t Ce nter 20, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met

Cente r 21, LLC; NNN1 & 2 Me t Ce nter 22, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met

Cente r 23, LLC; and Lexin gton Insu rance C om pany, Ap pellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 250 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 2-0 0259 5, H ONO RAB LE AMY CLARK MEACH UM, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A ND U M O PI N I O N
The parties have filed a joint status repo rt i n t h i s abate d appea l reque sting that we continue the abate ment of this appea l f or 21 day s pending continuing settlement neg otiations. We grant the motion and abate the appea l until May 2, 2014. All appell ate deadlines will be tolled during the period of abate ment. The parties shall submit either a motion to reinstate or a joint status repor t conce rningthe status of settlement neg otiations no later than May 2, 2014._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Field Abated Filed: April 4, 2014

2
190P15

#### Jill Crabtree, Employee v. EVP Properties, LLC, Employer, Non-Insured North Carolina Industrial Commission v. EVP Properties, LLC, Employer, Non-Insured, and James Malatesta and Brian J. Dempsey, Individually

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA14-928)

Denied
###### Editorial Note on Part 74

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

#### § 74.786 [Reserved]
#### § 87.449 Frequencies.

The following frequencies in the 72-76 MHz band are assignable to operational fixed stations using vertical polarization, if no harmful interference is caused to TV reception on Channels 4 and 5. These frequencies are shared with the Land Mobile and the Maritime Mobile Services.

# Operational frequencies in the 72-76 MHz band

## Carrier frequency in MHz

- 72.02
- 72.04
- 72.06
- 72.08
- 72.10
- 72.12
- 72.14
- 72.16
- 72.18
- 72.20
- 72.22
- 72.24
- 72.26
- 72.28
- 72.30
- 72.32
- 72.34
- 72.36
- 72.38
- 72.40
- 72.42
- 72.46
- 72.50
- 72.54
- 72.58
- 72.62
- 72.64
- 72.66
- 72.68
- 72.70
- 72.72
- 72.74
- 72.76
- 72.78
- 72.80
- 72.82
- 72.84
- 72.86
- 72.88
- 72.90
- 72.92
- 72.94
- 72.96
- 72.98
- 75.42
- 75.46
- 75.50
- 75.54
- 75.58
- 75.62
- 75.64
- 75.66
- 75.68
- 75.70
- 75.72
- 75.74
- 75.76
- 75.78
- 75.80
- 75.82
- 75.84
- 75.86
- 75.88
- 75.90
- 75.92
- 75.94
- 75.96
- 75.98
§ 68.346 Description of testing facilities. ( a ) Each responsible party for equipment that is subject to a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity under this part, shall compile a description of the measurement facilities employed for testing the equipment. The responsible party for the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity shall retain a description of the measurement facilities.
( b ) The description shall contain the information required to be included by the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments.
[66 FR 7586, Jan. 24, 2001]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REG I ON 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOuLEVARD C HICAGO , IL 60604-3590 

# FEB 28 2012

Ms. Kate Angel Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Wisconsin Department ofAdministration 101 East Wilson Street, lOth Floor PO Box 8944 Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8944 Re: Request for 15 Day Extension Dear Ms. Angel: REP LY TO THE ATTENT IO N OF WN

- 16J

In accordance with 15 C.F.R. § 930.4l(b), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approves your request for a 15 day extension to submit your consistency detennination. EPA has doclimented that our request letter was received by your agency on December 23, 2011. As such, we now expect to receive your determination by March 7, 2012, and ifnecessary, conditions, based on specific enforceable policies, that would permit the Wisconsin Department ofAdministration to concur with EPA's consistency determination. Please provide a current copy ofthe enforceable policies for your state with your response. If the Wisconsin Department ofAdministration fails to furnish a reply within this time period, EPA will presume your concurrence. If you have any question, please contact Sean Ramach ofmy staff, at 312-886-5284 or ramach.sean@epa.gov.

# ~~ TmkaG

. Hyde Director, Water Division

Recyc l ed/Recyclab l e • Prin ted with Veg e tabl e O i l B ased I n ks o n 1DO% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsume r)
§ 73.513 Noncommercial educational FM stations operating on unreserved channels. ( a ) Noncommercial educational FM stations other than Class D (secondary) which operate on Channels 221 through 300 but which comply with § 73.503 as to licensing requirements and the nature of the service rendered, must comply with the provisions of the following sections of subpart B: §§ 73.201 through 73.213 (Classification of FM Broadcast Stations and Allocations of Frequencies) and such other sections of subpart B as are made specially applicable by the provisions of this subpart C. Stations in Alaska authorized before August 11, 1982, using Channels 261-300 need not meet the minimum effective radiated power requirement specified in § 73.211(a). In all other respects, stations operating on Channels 221 through 300 are to be governed by the provisions of this subpart and not subpart B.
( b ) When a noncommercial educational applicant is among mutually exclusive applications for an unreserved FM channel, the mutually exclusive applications will be considered pursuant to Subpart I—Competitive Bidding Procedures and not Subpart K—Application and Selection Procedures On Reserved Noncommercial Educational Channels.
[47 FR 30068, July 12, 1982, as amended at 65 FR 36378, June 8, 2000]
§ 102-36.75 Do we pay for excess personal property we acquire from another federal agency under a transfer? ( a ) No, except for the situations listed in paragraph (b) of this section, you do not pay for the property. However, you are responsible for shipping and transportation costs. Where applicable, you may also be required to pay packing, loading, and any costs directly related to the dismantling of the property when required for the purpose of transporting the property.
( b ) You may be required to reimburse the holding agency for excess personal property transferred to you (i.e., transfer with reimbursement) when: ( 1 ) Reimbursement is directed by GSA.
( 2 ) The property was originally acquired with funds not appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury or appropriated therefrom but by law reimbursable from assessment, tax, or other revenue and the holding agency requests reimbursement. It is executive branch policy that working capital fund property shall be transferred without reimbursement.
( 3 ) The property was acquired with appropriated funds, but reimbursement is required or authorized by law.
( 4 ) You or the holding agency is the U.S. Postal Service (USPS).
( 5 ) You are acquiring excess personal property for use by a project grantee that is a public agency or a nonprofit organization and exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501.
( 6 ) You or the holding agency is the DC Government.
( 7 ) You or the holding agency is a wholly owned or mixed-ownership government corporation as defined in the Government Corporation Control Act (31 U.S.C. 9101-9110).
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                    CASE CREDIT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                    1996      1995      1994
                                                  --------  --------  --------
<S>                                               <C>       <C>       <C>
Net Income....................................... $     85  $     94  $     81
Add:
  Interest expense...............................       72        42        88
  Amortization of capitalized debt expense.......        2         2         1
  Portion of rentals representative of interest
   factor........................................      --        --        --
  Income tax expense and other taxes on income...       45        53        55
  Fixed charges of unconsolidated subsidiaries...      --        --        --
  Extraordinary loss.............................        3       --          4
                                                  --------  --------  --------
    Earnings as defined.......................... $    207  $    191  $    229
                                                  ========  ========  ========
Interest expense................................. $     72  $     42  $     88
Amortization of capitalized debt expense.........        2         2         1
Portion of rentals representative of interest
 factor..........................................      --        --        --
Fixed charges of unconsolidated subsidiaries.....      --        --        --
                                                  --------  --------  --------
    Fixed charges as defined..................... $     74  $     44  $     89
                                                  ========  ========  ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges...............     2.80x     4.34x     2.57x
                                                  ========  ========  ========
</TABLE>
§ 54.515 Distributing support. ( a ) A telecommunications carrier providing services eligible for support under this subpart to eligible schools and libraries may, at the election of the carrier, treat the amount eligible for support under this subpart as an offset against the carrier's universal service contribution obligation for the year in which the costs for providing eligible services were incurred or receive a direct reimbursement from the Administrator for that amount. Carriers shall elect in January of each year the method by which they will be reimbursed and shall remain subject to that method for the duration of the calendar year. Any support amount that is owed a carrier that fails to remit its monthly universal service contribution obligation, however, shall first be applied as an offset to that carrier's contribution obligation. Such a carrier shall remain subject to the offsetting method for the remainder of the calendar year in which it failed to remit their monthly universal service obligation. A carrier that continues to be in arrears on its universal service contribution obligations at the end of a calendar year shall remain subject to the offsetting method for the next calendar year.
( b ) If a telecommunications carrier elects to treat the amount eligible for support under this subpart as an offset against the carrier's universal service contribution obligation and the total amount of support owed to the carrier exceeds its universal service obligation, calculated on an annual basis, the carrier shall receive a direct reimbursement in the amount of the difference. Any such reimbursement due a carrier shall be submitted to that carrier no later than the end of the first quarter of the calendar year following the year in which the costs were incurred and the offset against the carrier's universal service obligation was applied.
[63 FR 67009, Dec. 4, 1998]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6153** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RICHIE HANSFORD CONNER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the West ern District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg
. Samuel G. Wilson , District Judge. ( 5:07

- cr - 00045

- sgw - mfu

- 1; 5:10

- cv - 80217

- sgw mfu )

Submitted : August 18, 2011 Decided: August 23, 2011

Before WILKINSON , DAVIS, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Richie Hansford Conner, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Burnham, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia; Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished op inions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Richie Hansford Conner seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district cou rt denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); se e Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Conner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Submitted on record and briefs November 19, 1993,

remanded for entry of modified judgment April 20, 1994

#### In the Matter of the Marriage of Betty Ann BALL, *Respondent, and*Lewis Ray BALL, *Appellant.*

(88DM0885; CA A76956)

873 P2d 437

Nancy A. Borneman filed the brief for appellant. With her on the brief was Borneman & Rossi.

Betty Ann Andrews filed the brief *pro se*for respondent.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*557PER CURIAM

Husband appeals from an order denying his motion to terminate or modify spousal support in the amount of $500 per month that was awarded to wife in a 1989 dissolution judgment. At that time, he was earning $3,000 per month as a timber broker. His motion to modify was filed in 1992, and he testified that his earnings had decreased to $860 per month at that time because he had been unable to find employment as a timber broker or in jobs outside the timber industry. The trial court denied his motion, apparently because it believed that the state of the timber industry had not changed since 1989 even in the light of the spotted owl controversy.

Whatever the comparison is between the financial status of the timber industry between 1989 and 1992, ORS 107.135(2)(a) provides that “a substantial change in the economic circumstances of a *party** * * is sufficient for the court to reconsider its order of support.” (Emphasis supplied.) Our *de novo*review of the record leads to a finding that the statutory requirement has been met and that the spousal support award in the 1989 judgment should be modified to $80 per month as of the date of the trial court’s judgment of modification.

Remanded for entry of a modified judgment reducing spousal to $80 per month effective as of the date of the trial court’s judgment of modification. Costs, not including attorney fees, to husband.
RICHARD GOODMAN, DDS

,
Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THE REOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3447

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 16, 2017.

An appeal from the Agency for Health Care Administration

. Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary

.
Bernard M. Cassidy of Lubell & Rosen, Fort Lauderdale , for Appellant.

Andrew T. Sheeran, Assistant General Counsel, Agency for Health Care Administration, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF

, OSTERHAUS

, and KELSEY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
#### § 51-9.403 Approval of requests to amend.

If the Executive Director agrees to amend a record, he promptly shall make the necessary corrections to the record and shall send a copy of the corrected record to the individual. Where an accounting of disclosure has been maintained, he shall advise all previous recipients of the record of the fact that a correction was made of/and the substance of the correction. Where practicable, the Executive Director shall send a copy of the corrected record to previous recipients.
<PAGE>   1



                                   EXHIBIT 23


                         SCB COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-1590) pertaining to the SCB Computer Technology, Inc. 1995
Stock Incentive Plan, and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.
333-36971 and Form S-8 No. 333-6843) pertaining to the SCB Computer Technology,
Inc. 1997 Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated June 17, 1999, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of SCB Computer Technology, Inc.
included in the Annual Report Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 1999.




                                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Memphis, Tennessee
July 23, 1999
<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.24

                               CELADON GROUP, INC.
              AMENDMENT TO SEPARATION AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 3, 2000
                         DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2001

The following modification will be applied to the base salary clause of the
original agreement dated March 3, 2000 between Dave Shatto and Celadon Group,
Inc.

Any subsequent salary increases will not apply to the aforementioned separation
agreement. The employee's annual salary, which was $150,000 as of March 3, 2000,
will automatically increase for purposes of the defined base salary calculation
within the separation agreement by 5% each year beginning March 3, 2001 and
continue increasing by 5% each year thereafter.

Any subsequent stock option grants will not apply to the aforementioned
separation agreement. Any stock option grants subsequent to March 3, 2000 will
vest in the normal course per the individual stock option agreement and will not
be accelerated if the employee separates his employment from the Company

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have each executed and delivered
this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.

                                         EMPLOYEE


                                         /s/ David Shatto
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         By:  David Shatto
                                         Executive Vice President


                                         CELADON GROUP, INC.


                                         /s/ Stephen Russell
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         By:  Stephen Russell
                                         Chief Executive Officer