alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 File No. 333-38419) pertaining to the 1997 Equity Incentive Plan, 1995
Warrant Grant, and the 1996 Stock Option Grants of PMR Corporation and the
Registration Statements (Forms S-3 File No. 033-97202 and File No. 333-34473) of
PMR Corporation of our report dated June 12, 1998, except for paragraph two of
Note 12, as to which the date is July 24, 1998, and Note 1 "Restatement" as to
which the date is December 17, 1998,with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of PMR Corporation included in its Annual Report, as amended (Form
10-K/A), for the year ended April 30, 1998, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Diego, California
December 17, 1998
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending December 19, 2009

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1836 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1836

 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire property in the 
 town of East Hampton, Suffolk County, New York, for inclusion in the 
                  Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 1995

  Mr. Forbes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire property in the 
 town of East Hampton, Suffolk County, New York, for inclusion in the 
                  Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FOR INCLUSION IN THE 
              AMAGANSETT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.

    (a) Authority to Acquire Property.--The Secretary of the Interior 
may acquire, for inclusion in the Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge, 
the area known as the Shadmoor Parcel, consisting of approximately 98 
acres (as determined by the Secretary) located along the Atlantic Ocean 
adjacent to municipal park land in the town of East Hampton, Suffolk 
County, New York.
    (b) Management of Acquired Interests.--Lands and interests acquired 
by the United States under this section shall be managed by the 
Secretary of the Interior as part of the Amagansett National Wildlife 
Refuge.
                                 <all>
```
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Mindy Lee Comstock

, Relator

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 7

- 00 3 4 6

- CV

Trial court case number: 1 5

- FD

- 3019

Trial court: Coun t y Court at Law No. 1 of G a lveston County

On May 12 , 201 7

, r elator

, Mindy Lee Comstock

, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the respondent trial judge’s Ma y 5 , 2017 oral ruling granting the real party in interest’s motion to strike relator’s jury demand and to order respondent to conduct a jury trial in the underlying divorce proceeding

.
With the petition, relator also filed an emergency motion for temporary relief

se eking a stay of the respondent’s May 16, 2017 bench trial setting, pending disposition of this petition, with the required certificate of compliance. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10(a). Accordingly, the Court grants the relator’ s motion and ORDERS that the bench trial scheduled for May 16, 2017 is stayed

. See id. 52.10(b). This stay is effective until the mandamus petition in this Court is finally decided or this Court otherwise orders the stay

lifted. See id. Any party may file a motion for reconsiderat ion of the stay. See id. 52.10(c).

Finally, t he Court requests a response to the petition for writ of mandamus by any real party in interest. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52. 8(b)(1)

. The response, if any, shall be filed

within 1 0 days from the date of this order

. See id. 2, 52.4

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 12, 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Registrant is a limited partnership which invests in a real estate joint
venture.  In accordance with industry practice, its balance sheet is
unclassified.  For full information, refer to the accompanying audited
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,377,357
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,708,254<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,641,380<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,708,254<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,873,153<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               137,999
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,735,154
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,735,154
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,735,154
<EPS-BASIC>                                     9.02<F5>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash ad receivables, total assets include an investment
in unconsolidated partnership of $14,311,690.
<F2>Represents partners' capital.
<F3>Liabilites include accounts payable and other liabilities of $66,874.
<F4>Total revenue includes equity in earnings of unconsolidated partnerships
of $1,791,853 and other revenue of $81,300.
<F5>Represents net income per Unit of limited partnership interest.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### § 1121.2 Discovery.

Discovery shall follow the procedures set forth at 49 CFR part 1114, subpart B. Discovery may begin upon the filing of the petition for exemption or petition for revocation of an exemption. In petitions to revoke an exemption, a party must indicate in the petition whether it is seeking discovery. If it is, the party must file its discovery requests at the same time it files its petition to revoke. Discovery shall be completed 30 days after the petition to revoke is filed. The party seeking discovery may supplement its petition to revoke 45 days after the petition is filed. Replies to the supplemental petition are due 15 days after the supplemental petition is filed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40383

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAVIER CHAPA-NUNEZ, also known as Simon Rodriguez-Nunez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-1628-1

Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Javier ChapaNunez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Chapa-Nunez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40383 Document: 00513308152 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
No. 15-40383

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-40383 Document: 00513308152 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
#### George C. Hemmingway, *as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v.*Jacob S. Poucher, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion hy

Learned, P. J.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 18, 2021

No. 04-21-00141-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.W., CHILDREN,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-PA-01086

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On April 13, 2021, appellant filed a notice of appeal stating her intent to appeal a final 

decree of termination signed “on or about March 15, 2021.” The clerk’s record was filed on 

April 26, 2021. Although the clerk’s record contains the judge’s notes, the clerk’s record did not 

contain an order terminating appellant’s parental rights. See In re L.H., No. 04-13-00174-CV, 

2013 WL 3804585, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 17, 2013, no pet.) (noting judge’s notes 

do not constitute a final order) (mem. op.). In response to this court’s inquiry, the trial court clerk 

confirmed the trial court has not signed a final order. “[A]n appeal may be prosecuted only from 

a final judgment.” N.E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). Because 

the clerks’ record indicated that no final order had been entered in the underlying case, on April 

27, 2021, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing no later than May 7, 2021 why 

this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

On May 7, 2021, appellant filed “Appellant’s First Response” that reiterated that the trial 

court signed a termination order on March 15, 2021 and attached an order in conformity with 

appellant’s representation. This court requested the trial court clerk to prepare a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing a copy of the order and was informed by the trial court clerk that the 

trial court clerk did not possess such an order. This court subsequently communicated with 

appellant’s counsel and the district attorney’s office regarding the status of the order. On May 

12, 2021, the district attorney’s office informed this court that the delay may be caused by an 

error with the original order that requires correction. Considering this information, and in the 

absence of a supplemental clerk’s record containing an order of termination, it is unclear whether 

the order provided by appellant’s counsel is the purportedly errant order or whether it has ever 

been entered.

While this court has undertaken extensive efforts to obtain a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing the judgment subject to appeal, it has been unable to do so. Accordingly, this court 

ORDERS appellant to cause a supplemental clerk’s record to be filed no later than May 28, 
2021 containing the trial court’s judgment. If a supplemental clerk’s record is not filed by May 

28, 2021, this appeal is subject to being dismissed.

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of May, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DERRICK DESHAWN MILLER,

DARREN WALLACE CHAPPELL, 

and STACEY SIMEON HALL,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 15-12500

Hon. Marianne O. Battani

v.

 

HANWHA L&C MONROE PLANT, 

et al., 

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINTS

Plaintiffs Derrick Miller, Darren Chappell, and Stacey Hall filed complaints

alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. § 200 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Defendants Hanwha L&C Monroe

plant, Cathy Garello-Deron, Chang-Bum Kim, Sang Mook Lee, Dennis Kirkland, and the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and four of its employees. The Court

consolidated the three cases in March 2016, under the lead case, 15-12500. Before the

consolidation, the Court dismissed Chang-Bum Kim, Sang Mook Lee, and Dennis

Kirkland from Hall’s case. The dismissal did not apply to Miller’s complaint or

Chappell’s complaint. The Court subsequently referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate

Judge David R. Grand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(b). (Doc. No. 13).

On May 26, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss

Defendants Kim, Lee, and Kirkland from the Miller and Chappell complaints without
prejudice for failure to serve. The Magistrate Judge informed the parties that objections

to the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") must be filed within fourteen days of

service and that a party’s failure to file objections would waive any further right of

appeal. See, (Doc. No. 73 at 5). 

Because no objection has been filed in this case, the parties waived their right to

review and appeal. Moreover, the Courts finds the analysis thoroughly recounted the

procedural history and properly applied the governing law in reaching the

recommendation to dismiss the three Defendants without prejudice for failure to timely

serve them. 

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations

DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Kim, Lee, and Kirkland without

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 31, 2017 s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their

respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on July 31, 2017.

s/ Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

2
#### § 1016.309 Agency review.

In the event the adjudicative officer is not the entire Board, the applicant or agency counsel may seek review of the initial decision on the fee application, or the Board may review the decision on its own initiative, in accordance with § 1115.2. If no appeal is taken, the initial decision becomes the action of the Board 20 days after it is issued. If the adjudicative officer is the entire Board, § 1115.3 applies.

[54 FR 26380, June 23, 1989]
#### § 1200.1 Financial statements released by carriers.

Carriers desiring to do so may prepare and publish financial statements in reports to stockholders and others, except in reports to this Board, based on generally accepted accounting principles for which there is authoritative support, provided that any variance from this Board's prescribed accounting rules contained in such statements is clearly disclosed in footnotes to the statements.

[32 FR 20123, Dec. 20, 1967]
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 12, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-1368

Lower Tribunal No. 14-19880

________________



### U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., etc.

,

Appellant,

vs.



### Reginald L. Wellman, etc.

,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gerald D.

Hubbart

, Senior Judge.

Robertson Anschutz & Schneid and Heidi J. Bassett and David Rosenberg

(Boca Raton), for appellant.

The Ticktin Law Group and Kendrick Almaguer (Deerfield Beach)

, for

appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

EMAS, J.U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. appeals from a final judgment involuntarily

dismissing its foreclosure complaint, upon the trial court’s determination that the

lender failed to comply with conditions precedent prior to filing its foreclosure

lawsuit. Specifically, the trial court determined that the lender’s 1 notice of default

and intent to accelerate failed to comply with paragraph 22 of the mortgage

agreement. Upon our de novo review, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Craig

, 193 So.

3d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), we find that the notice substantially complied with

paragraph 22 of the mortgage.

The relevant facts of the instant case are indistinguishable from those in our

recent decisions in Craig

, 193 So. 3d at 77; Bank of New York v. Mieses

, 187 So.

3d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Bank of America v. Cadet

, 183 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2016); Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. v. Garcia

, 186 So. 3d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA

2016); and Bank of New York Mellon v. Nunez

, 180 So. 3d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA

2015). In those cases we held (as we hold in the instant case) that the notice of

default substantially complied with the default notice provision contained in

paragraph 22 of the mortgage. We therefore reverse and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

1 U.S. Bank was substituted in as party plaintiff during the proceedings below.

2
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, July 10, 1995 (91), Para 91.26 Point of Order]
[Page 1099]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.91.26  point of order

  Mr. BOEHNER made a point of order, and said:
  ``Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the gentleman in the well 
[Mr. Bonior] is questioning the motives of the gentleman [Mr. Laughlin] 
that is in question on the resolution appointing him to the committee.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. WALKER, sustained the point of order, and 
said:
  ``The gentleman [Mr. Bonior] at this point has not named any member of 
the Committe on Ways and Means. The gentleman is reminded, however, that 
he has an obligation to the rules of the House to proceed in order.''
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             570
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    84593
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1374
<INVENTORY>                                     148548
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                262818
<PP&E>                                          826964
<DEPRECIATION>                                  166485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  986620
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           147496
<BONDS>                                         235000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           257
<OTHER-SE>                                      349007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    986620
<SALES>                                         768558
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                768558
<CGS>                                           679170
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   679170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               10216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  18617
<INCOME-TAX>                                      6662
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              11955
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     11955
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45
        

</TABLE>
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, June 19, 1995 (82), Para 82.12 Petitions, Etc.]
[Page 1015]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.82.12  petitions, etc.

  Under clause 1 of rule XXII,

       25. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the council of the 
     city of Toledo, OH, relative to defeating any proposal to 
     repeal or weaken the assault weapons ban; which was referred 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary.
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

VIRGINIA BERWICK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-0311

[April 22, 2021]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Mindy F. Solomon, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 

16008460MM10A and 18-000041AC10A.

Gordon Weekes, Public Defender, and Sarah W. Sandler, Assistant 

Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 1242.64 Joint facility—debit and credit (accounts 37-51-00 and 38-51-00). ( a ) Solely related freight and passenger service debit expense accounts shall be assigned according to the use made of each facility by the reporting carrier, regardless of the use made of the facility by other carriers. Common debit expense accounts shall be separated on the basis of the percentage separation of the solely related expenses. If there are no solely related expenses or if the solely related expenses are assigned entirely to either freight or passenger service, separate common expenses on the same percentages calculated for the separation of administration (account XX-51-01).
( b ) Separate common credit expense accounts on the basis of the percentages calculated for the separation of administration (account XX-51-01).