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

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements:
Form S-8 (No. 333-71059) dated January 22, 1999, pertaining to the 1996 Stock
Option Plan, the 1998 Stock Plan and the 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan; Form
S-8/S-3 (No. 333-77797) dated May 5, 1999, pertaining to the CityAuction, Inc.
1998 Stock Plan and Restrictive Stock Purchase Agreements; Form S-4 (No.
333-83753) dated July 26, 1999, as amended September 8, 1999, pertaining to the
registration of 2,574,233 Class B Common Stock issued and issuable in connection
with the acquisition of WebMedia Ventures, L.L.C.; Form S-3 (No. 333-95709)
dated January 28, 2000, pertaining to the registration of 243,620 shares of
Class B Common Stock issued in connection with an equity investment in
Active.com, Inc.; Form S-8 (No. 333-30794) dated February 18, 2000, pertaining
to the 1999 Stock Plan; Form S-3 (No. 333-30884) dated February 22, 2000, as
amended March 22, 2000, to register 458,005 shares of Class B Common Stock
issued or issuable in connection with the acquisition of 2b Technology, Inc.;
Form S-3 (No. 333-81761) dated May 22, 2000, as a post effective amendment to
Form S-3 to Form S-1 dated June 29, 1999, to register 99,714 shares of Class B
Common Stock in connection with the acquisition of Match.com, Inc.; Form S-3
(333-39230) dated June 14, 2000, as amended June 28, 2000, to register 1,865,434
shares of Class B Common Stock issued or issuable in connection with the
acquisition of TicketWeb, Inc.; Form S-8 (333-40966) dated July 7, 2000,
pertaining to the 1999 Stock Plan; Form S-8 (No. 333-41018) dated July 7, 2000,
pertaining to the TicketWeb Inc. 2000 Stock Plan; and Form S-3 (No. 333-54304)
dated January 25, 2001, to register 299,954 shares of Class B Common Stock
issued and issuable in connection with the acquisition of 2b Technology, Inc.,
of our report dated January 29, 2001, with respect to the financial statements
of Ticketmaster included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2000 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 23, 2001
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TONA GRIMMETT, 

 Plaintiff, Case Nos. 14-14646 & 15-14249 

SOUTEAST MICHIGAN SURGICAL HON. AVERN COHN 

HOSPITAL LLC and OAKLAND MRI LLC, 

 Intervening Plaintiffs 

_______________________________________/

MICHIGAN AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY COMPANY 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF 

SUSAN SWIDER (Doc. 31). 

This is an insurance case. Plaintiff Tona Grimmett (Grimmett) was an insured 

under a No-Fault policy (M.C.L. § 500.3101, et seq.) issued by Defendant Encompass 

Indemnity Company (Encompass). Grimmett was injured in a car accident. Afterwards, 

she underwent surgery and medical treatment. After Encompass declined coverage, 

Grimmett sued in state court.1

 Encompass removed the case to federal court. 

Now before the Court is Encompass’ Motion to Compel the Deposition of Susan 

Swider (Swider), the owner of Intervening Plaintiff Oakland MRI. (Doc. 31). The Court 

held a conference on the motion on April 5, 2016. The motion is MOOT. 

 

1

 See Wayne County Circuit Court, No. 14-005777-NF. 

2:14-cv-14646-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 04/05/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 302
2

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Avern Cohn 

 

Dated: April 5, 2016 AVERN COHN 

Detroit, Michigan UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:14-cv-14646-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 04/05/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 303
#### JOSEPHINE HULL, Respondent, *v.*JEREMIAH S. HART, Appellant.

*Action in the first judicial district*— the *proceedings in it may he staid, pending appeal, by a judge in any part of the State.*

A judge out of court in any part of the State may make an order staying all proceedings in an action brought in the first judicial district, during the pend ency of an appeal taken from an order there made denying a motion to change the place of trial.

Appeal from an order of the Special Term vacating an order (made by a justice of the Supreme Court in Saratoga county) staying the plaintiffs proceedings in this action during the pendency of an appeal from an order made in the first judicial district denying a motion for a change of venue.

*A. 8.*Bwrdiehfor the appellant.

*A. II.*Reamey, for the respondent.

Per Curiam :

In this case the defendant moved to change the place of trial from the city and county of New York to the county of Saratoga. This motion was made at the Special Term, and denied. From the order denying the same the defendant took an appeal to the General Term, and obtained from a justice of the court residing in Saratoga an order staying proceedings pending the appeal. On motion, at the Special Term in this district, that order was vacated on the ground, apparently, that the justice residing in Saratoga had not power to grant the same.

We think the decision was erroneous. By section 1351 of the Code, a judge of this court anywhere in the State may make an order staying proceedings under the judgment or order appealed from; and by section 775 of the Code, a judge out of court may make an order staying proceedings, for a longer time than twenty days, under the order or judgment appealed from ; and by section 112, it is provided that where an order may be made by a judge of the court, out of court and without notice, and a particular judge is *22not particularly designated by law, it may be made by any judge of tbe court in any part of the State.

The provisions of section 769, which requires that motions in actions triable in the first district shall be made in that district, only apply to motions made upon notice. The order of stay made by the justice at Saratoga was an *exporte*one, and, as. we understand the Code, within his power to make. It should not, therefore, have been set aside on the ground of want of power.

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present — I)avis, P. J., Brady and Ingalls, J J.

Order vacating stay reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 164.009-25 Marking.

The manufacturer must mark each shipping container for an approved noncombustible material with the approval number and date of approval of the material.
# C_2014380EN.01001002.xml

| 27.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/10

---

Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse eV v Commission

(Case T-112/11) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Registration of a protected geographical indication - ‘Edam Holland’ - No interest in bringing proceedings - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 380/13

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Loschelder and V.Schoene, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: The European Commission (represented by: initially, G. von Rintelen and M. Vollkommer, then G. von Rintelen and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: The Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, J. Langer, M. Noort, B. Koopman and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents); and Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie (Zoetermeer, the Netherlands) (represented by: P. van Ginneken, F. Gerritzen and C. van Veen, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1121/2010 of 2 December 2010 entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Edam Holland (PGI)] (OJ 2010 L 317, p. 14).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse eV shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse eV shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Kingdom of the Netherlands and Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands and Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

1

---
#### Nathaniel F. Green, *Appellant, v.*Betsey E. Green, *Respondent*.

Order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Osborn, J.;

Eumsey, J., dissenting.
<PAGE>   1
                                                          Exhibit 10 (iii)(A) 13



Description of the Lucent Technologies Inc. Supplemental Pension Plan


         The Company has adopted, effective for employees retiring on or after
January 1, 1998, the Lucent Technologies Inc. Supplemental Pension Plan (the
"Plan"). The Plan will replace the Lucent Technologies Inc. Non-Qualified
Pension Plan, the Lucent Technologies Inc. Excess Benefit and Compensation Plan
and the Lucent Technologies Inc. Officer Long-Term Disability and Survivor
Protection Plan. The Plan is intended to provide benefits which may not be
provided under the Lucent Technologies Inc. Management Pension Plan (the "MPP")
because of limitations in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Plan also
provides for a minimum pension for executive officers and supplemental pension
benefits for certain management employees.

         The Plan is a non-qualified, non-contributory plan and benefits paid
under the Plan are paid from the Company's general assets. Annual pension
benefits are computed on an adjusted career average pay basis. For retirements
on or after January 1 , 1999, a participant's adjusted career average pay is
equal to 1.4% of the sum of the individual's (a) average annual pay for the five
years ending December 31, 1998 (excluding the annual bonus award paid in
December 1997), times the number of years of service prior to January 1, 1999,
plus (b) pay subsequent to December 31, 1998 (including the annual bonus paid in
December 1997), plus (c) annual bonus award paid in December 1997. Under the
Plan, pay consists of base salary and annual bonus awards, to the extent that
such amounts are not considered for purposes of determining benefits under the
MPP.

         The normal retirement age under the Plan is 65; however, retirement
before age 65 can be elected. Employees who are at least age 50 with at least 15
years of service are eligible to retire with reduced benefits. If an employee's
age (must be 50 or older) plus years of service, when added together, is equal
to or greater than 75, the employee may retire with unreduced pension benefits.
A reduction equal to 3% is made for each year age plus service is less than 75.

         The Plan also provides executive officers with minimum pension
benefits. Eligible retired executive officers and surviving spouses may receive
an annual minimum pension equal to 15% of the sum of final base salary plus
annual bonus awards, subject to reduction for pensions paid under other Company
plans.

         The Plan also provides a supplemental pension benefit to certain
management employees who were hired at age 35 or over at specified levels and
who terminate with at least five years service at such level. The plan provides
additional pension credits equal to the difference between age 35 and the
maximum possible years of service attainable at age 65, but not to exceed actual
net credited service, at one-half the rate in the Management Pension Plan.
# C_2011319EN.01003001.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/30

---

Action brought on 1st August 2011 — ZZ v European Central Bank

(Case F-78/11)

2011/C 319/64

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank

Defendant:

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision terminating the Appellant’s contract due to a disciplinary proceeding concluded with the issuing of a written reprimand.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the ECB Executive Board’s decision of 20 May 2011, received on 23 May 2011, terminating the Appellant’s contract with effect on 31 October 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the ECB Executive Board’s decision of 20 May 2011, received on 23 May 2011, terminating the Appellant’s contract with effect on 31 October 2011;

| — | compensate the Appellant’s material prejudice as from 31 October 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the Appellant’s material prejudice as from 31 October 2011;

| — | compensate the Appellant’s moral prejudice evaluated at 10 000 euros; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the Appellant’s moral prejudice evaluated at 10 000 euros;

| — | order the Defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to pay the costs.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6699

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL ANTHONY NOBLE, a/k/a Jamaican Mike, a/k/a Michael Anthony Thomas, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-99, CA-97-1381-JFM) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 3, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Noble, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Noble seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and find that Noble’s motion was not timely filed in the district court. See Brown v. Angelone , ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030, at *6 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998) (determining the limitation period with regard to post-AEDPA 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) petitions in caseswhere the conviction became final prior to the statute’s enactment). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2   Certification of Chief Financial  Officer pursuant to Section 906
------------   of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Long Island  Financial  Corp.,  (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Thomas
Buonaiuto,  Vice President & Treasurer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2003, 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.

                                         /s/ Thomas Buonaiuto
                                         --------------------
                                             Thomas Buonaiuto
                                             Vice President & Treasurer
                                             November 12, 2004

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Long  Island  Financial  Corp.  and will be retained by Long Island
Financial  Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
§ 189.20-10 Plans. ( a ) Before application for inspection is made, and before construction is started, the owner or builder shall have plans approved by the Commandant indicating the proposed arrangement and construction of the vessel.
( b ) The procedure for submitting plans and the list of plans to be supplied is set forth in subpart 189.55 of this part.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 22, 2016

Order 

July 22, 2016

153937(75)

LANCIA JEEP HELLAS S.A.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

CHRYSLER GROUP INTERNATIONAL LLC,

FIAT S.P.A., and FIAT GROUP AUTOMOBILES

S.P.A.,

Defendants-Appellees.

SC: 153937

COA: 329481

Oakland CC: 2014-142918-CZ

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellant to extend the time 

for filing its reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted for filing if submitted on or 

before August 23, 2016.
Opinion filed July 21, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-16-00193-CR

___________

EX PARTE KEPHREN THOMAS

Original Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Kephren Thomas has filed in this court an application for writ of habeas 

corpus in which he asserts that he has been indicted for a felony offense and that he 

is being illegally restrained by the Sheriff of Midland County. Thomas raises several 

contentions in his application and requests that we issue a writ of habeas corpus. We 

dismiss for want of jurisdiction. 

This court’s authority to exercise original jurisdiction is limited. See TEX.

CONST. art. V, §§ 5, 6 (providing that Court of Criminal Appeals has the power to 

issue writs of habeas corpus and that intermediate courts of appeals only have

original jurisdiction as prescribed by law); TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 

2004) (limited writ powers granted to the courts of appeals). An intermediate
2

appellate court “does not possess original habeas corpus jurisdiction of a bail issue” 

in a criminal case. Ortiz v. State, 299 S.W.3d 930, 932 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, 

no pet.); see Ex parte Enriquez, 2 S.W.3d 362, 363 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, orig. 

proceeding). We note that the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a 

person who is confined after indictment on a felony charge may apply for a writ of 

habeas corpus in the district court in which he is indicted. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 11.08 (West 2015). Because we have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of 

habeas corpus in this original proceeding, we must dismiss.

This proceeding is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

July 21, 2016

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
# C_2008083EN.01000501.xml

| 2.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/5

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 428th meeting on 29 June 2007 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case COMP/38.784 — Wanadoo España v Telefónica

Rapporteur: United Kingdom

(2008/C 83/04)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's proposal to impose a fine. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's proposal to impose a fine. A minority abstains.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees that the fine should be in the very serious range. A minority disagrees. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees that the fine should be in the very serious range. A minority disagrees.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's proposal to reduce the fine under mitigating circumstances to take account of some of Telefónica's charges being subject to sector specific regulation by the Spanish CMT. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's proposal to reduce the fine under mitigating circumstances to take account of some of Telefónica's charges being subject to sector specific regulation by the Spanish CMT.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the final amount of fine. A minority abstains and disagrees. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the final amount of fine. A minority abstains and disagrees.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees that its opinion should be published. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees that its opinion should be published.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---
G-18(F) Periodic Statement New Balance, Due Date and

Late Payment Sample (Open-End Plans (Non-credit-card Accounts))

Payment Information

New Balance $1,784.53 

Minimum Payment Due $48.00 

Payment Due Date 4/20/07 (before 2:00 pm) 

Late Payment Warning: If we do not receive your 

minimum payment by the date listed above, you may have 

to pay a $35 late fee and your APRs may be increased up 

to the Penalty APR of 28.99%.