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

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-159832, 333-115498,
333-104347, 333-85854 and 333-134062 on Form S-8 of our reports dated December 14, 2010, relating to (1) the consolidated financial
statements of Coherent, Inc. and subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") and (2) the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended October 2, 2010.

/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San
Jose, California
December 14, 2010

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
of CNA Financial Corporation
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
(As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  
    
    the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 filed on
the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
 
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ D. Craig MenseD. Craig MenseChief Financial Officer
#### J. B. Rainey v. The State.

No. 2058.

Decided November 22, 1899.

Cotton Buyer—Occupation Tax—Constitutional Law.

Section 38 of article 5049 of Acts Called Session Twenty-fifth Legislature, page 54, levying an occupation tax upon cotton buyers, is unconstitutional in that it is in violation of sections 1 and 2 of article 8 of the Constitution and section 3 of the Bill of Eights, said occupation tax not being equal and uniform. Following Ex Parte Jones, 38 Texas Criminal Eeports, 482.

Appeal from the County Court of Red River. Tried below before Hon. R. H. Wells, County Judge..

Appeal from a conviction of pursuing the occupation of a cotton buyer without having paid the tax and procured a license; penalty, a fine of $20.

Defendant filed exceptions to the indictment, (1) because it did not. negative the fact that defendant was a merchant; (2) the law under which it was drawn was violative of article 8, sections 1 and 2, of the Constitution. The exceptions were overruled.

Ho statement necessary.

J. *R. Kennedy,*for appellant,

cited Constitution, sees. 1 and 2, art. 8; Ex Parte Jones, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 482; Ex Parte Overstreet, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 474.

*255
      *RoVt A. John,'*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

HENDERSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of pursuing an occupation taxed by law without having first procured a license, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $20, and he appeals.

The only question presented that requires consideration is the constitutionality of the tax levied, under which appellant was convicted. The conviction here was under subdivision 38 of the act of the special session of the 'Twenty-fifth Legislature. See page 54. Said subdivision reads as follows: “From every cotton buyer, or buyer of wool or hides, ten dollars; provided, that a merchant who pays an occupation tax as herein prescribed shall not be considered a cotton buyer, or buyer of wool or hides.” The contention here is that the exemption of merchants from the operation of the tax is in violation of certain provisions of our Constitution, to wit, sections 1 and 2 of article 8 of the Constitution, and section 3 of our bill of rights. We think the contention of appellant is correct. For a full discussion of the question, see Ex Parte Jones, 38 Texas Criminal Reports, 482, followed by Ex Parte Overstreet, 39 Texas Criminal Reports, 474. By reference to subdivision 1 of the occupation tax act of 1897, it will be seen that the tax for pursuing the occupation of merchant may be as low as $3. It would therefore follow that such a merchant, on payment of $3, could pursue .the same occupation that a cotton buyer was authorized to follow, but the cotton buyer would be required to pay a tax of $10. This certainly would not be uniform and equal taxation* Pullman Palace Car Co. v. State, 64 Texas, 279. Because the statute under which this conviction was had is unconstitutional, the judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

*Reversed and dismissed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          17,655
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  199,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    155,338
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               386,123
<PP&E>                                         418,095
<DEPRECIATION>                               (173,682)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,164,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          165,856
<BONDS>                                        366,674
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,978
<OTHER-SE>                                     348,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,164,517
<SALES>                                        742,176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               742,176
<CGS>                                          397,890
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  397,890
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               244,775
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,174
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 61,787
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,236
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,551
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,551
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.34


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1995 FORM 10-K OF HILLS BANCORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          11,883
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                16,080
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    100,093
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          21,443
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            21,754
<LOANS>                                        318,546
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,740
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 484,607
<DEPOSITS>                                     392,257
<SHORT-TERM>                                    10,019
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,327
<LONG-TERM>                                     30,727
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,925
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,352
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 484,607
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 27,236
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,223
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   519
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                33,978
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              16,185
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,468
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           15,510
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      722
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (111)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,975
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,251
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,257
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,257
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    10.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    10.71
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.74
<LOANS-NON>                                        489
<LOANS-PAST>                                       417
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  4,501
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,210
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      922
<RECOVERIES>                                       730
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,740
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,214
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,526
<FN>
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

epg QeE-lIe412-10

a

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION

PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS
BRANCH As of: September 09, 2010

PUBLIC Status: Posted

Posted: September 09, 2010
SUBMISSION Comments Duet August 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as
a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0944
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

SD

Submitter Information

Name: Edward A. Lenz
Address:
277 S Washington Street
Suite 200
Alexandria, VA, 22314
Email: elenz@americanstaffing.net
Phone: 703-253-2035
Fax: 703-253-2053
Organization: American Staffing Association
SS LS

General Comment

The American Staffing Association represents the nation’s temporary staffing firms, which employ
approximately nine million temporary and contract employees annually. Most of those firms offer
health benefits.

Our member firms have raised concerns that their insurance carriers are unilaterally making
changes to the firms' current health plans that would cause those plans to lose grandfather status
under the proposed regulations.

We believe it is inappropriate for insurance carriers to deprive their insureds' health plans of
grandfather status without the consent of the insured. Therefore we request that the regulations

provide that Joss of grandfather status will result only as a consequence of decisions or actions
taken by the insured, not the unilateral actions of the insurance carriers.

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 9/9/2010
Page 1 of 2

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION fp EG / BA AO) Sep 04.200
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS :
DASICL

[As of: August 31, 2010

PUBLIC Status: Posted

Tracking No. 80030523,
SUBMISSION
Comments Due: August 16, 2010)

iSubmission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as
a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0507
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information
Name: John Dadas
Address:
Brooklyn, NY,
General Comment
8/9/2010

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
Department of Health and Human Services

Attention: OCIIO-9991~-IFC

P.O. Box 8016

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status
as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on
the interim final rule regarding health plans and “grandfather” status (Document ID IRS-2010-
0010-0001).

I believe the consumer protections included as part of the new health care law are vitally
important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort
should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would
extend these protections to consumers under currently existing “grandfathered” plans should not
be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments
offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation of these
regulations,

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/31/2010


Page 2 of 2

Mr. John Dadas

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/31/2010
From: Frances Dorsey

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 11:17:43 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Frances Dorsey
Canyon, Texas
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of
Silverado Gold Mines, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended November 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Garry L. Anselmo, Principal Financial Officer
of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ *Garry L.
Anselmo*Garry L.
Anselmo, Principal Executive Officer

January 21, 2009

---
|          
|----------
|EXHIBIT 16

|
|

| | March 10, 2004                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | We were previously the independent accountants for Hills Bancorporation and on February 25, 2003 we reported on the consolidated financial statements of Hills Bancorporation and subsidiary as of and for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001. On May 14, 2003 our relationship as independent auditors was terminated. We have read Hills Bancorporations statements in Item 9, and we agree with such statements.

|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

|Page 91 of 96
|-------------
No. 26, Misc.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Will Wilson,*Attorney General of Texas, and *Sam R. Wilson, Charles R. Lind*and *Linward Shivers,*Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.

#### Gallup *v.*Texas.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Certiorari denied.
# U.S. Coast Guard in Middle East Seizes $85 Million in Heroin 

/ Published Sept. 27, 2022
MANAMA, Bahrain , 
A U.S. Coast Guard fast response cutter seized an estimated $85 million worth of heroin from a fishing vessel while patrolling the Gulf of Oman, Sept. 27, representing the largest illegal drug interdiction in the Middle East by international naval forces this year.

While operating in support of Combined Task Force (CTF) 150, USCGC Charles Moulthrope (WPC 1141) seized 2,410 kilograms of heroin as the fishing vessel transited international waters. CTF 150 is one of four task forces under the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF), the world’s largest multinational naval partnership.

The Royal Saudi Navy assumed command of CTF 150 in July during a ceremony in Manama, Bahrain, where the task force is headquartered.    

"This sizable seizure demonstrates a profound commitment among our international partners to disrupting and deterring destabilizing activity in the region," said Vice Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, U.S. 5th Fleet and CMF. "I am proud of the flawless efforts by CMF, the Saudi-led CTF 150 team and the Charles Moulthrope crew."

Charles Moulthrope began operating in the Middle East in May 2021. Its crew of nearly 30 Coast Guardsmen includes the ship’s 24 plankowners who were the original crewmembers when the ship commissioned in January 2021.

CMF consists of 34 member-nations whose forces operate in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Northern Arabian Sea, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Gulf and Indian Ocean.
#### Archibald Watts, Appellant, v. John Paar and another, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed.
#### NATALE OLIVERI, AN INDIVIDUAL, TRADING AS YOOHOO BEVERAGE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN, GARRET, NICHOLAS, HERMAN, SAMUEL AND BARNEY VANDERMAY, TRADING AS LITTLE FALLS LAUNDRY COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND DIRK KRUYFF AND RUSSELL BANTA, DEFENDANTS.

Submitted October 14, 1932

Decided March 25, 1933.

Before Justices Tbenchabd, Case and Bbogan.

For the plaintiff-respondent, *Harry L. Schoen.*

*For*the defendants-appellants, *Evans, Smith & Evans.*

Per Curiam.

The action was brought by Natale Oliveri to recover for damage done to his truck as the result of a collision between that truck, a car belonging to the defendant Dirk Kruyff and another car owned by the VanderMays (defendants-appellants), trading as Little Falls Laundry Company, and alleged to have been driven by one Bussell Banta. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s ease Banta sought and was granted a nonsuit upon the ground that there was no proof showing him to be the driver of the YanderMay truck. At the same time the YanderMays moved for and were denied a judgment of nonsuit.

The only specification of error set up by the appellants is as follows:

*242“At the close of the plaintiff's case the attorney for the appellants, who was also attorney for the co-defendant Russell Banta, moved for a nonsuit as to the appellants and the co-defendant Russell Banta. The court granted the nonsuit with respect to the defendant Russell Banta, but refused to grant a nonsuit with respect to the appellants. The court erred in this determination and the appellants are dissatisfied with the same in point of law, by reason of the fact that it was alleged in the state of demand filed by the respondent and admitted in the counter-claim of the appellants that the appellants were the owners of the motor vehicle and that the co-defendant Russell Banta was their agent in the operation of the same at the time of the accident, and that, therefore, the court, in granting the nonsuit in behalf of the co-defendant Russell Banta, should also have granted a nonsuit in favor of the appellants."

In support of that contention the appellants cite numerous cases which, however, are all 'quite beside the point. These cases center upon the proposition that where the basis of an action is the alleged negligence of the driver, the court may not find the driver not to have been negligent and at the same time find the owner negligent, in other words may not acquit the servant and bring a verdict against the master. That rule has no application to the case at bar. The court did not here find that appellants' driver was not negligent. The finding was that Banta was not shown to have been the driver of appellants’ truck; and the proofs as disclosed by the printed state of case sustain that finding.

The appeal having been made to hang upon the disposition of the case against Banta, it follows that the judgment below will be affirmed, with costs.