alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23



                          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                                          
We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 
10-K) of ODS Networks, Inc. and also into the Registration Statement (Form 
S-8, No. 33-58570) pertaining to the 1983 Incentive Stock Option Plan of ODS 
Networks, Inc. and the 1987 Incentive Stock Option Plan of ODS Networks, 
Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-34476) pertaining to the 
1995 Stock Option Plan of ODS Networks, Inc., the Registration Statement 
(Form S-8, No. 33-34484) pertaining to the 1995 Non-employee Director Stock 
Option Plan of ODS Networks, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 
33-42927) pertaining to the 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of ODS 
Networks, Inc., and the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-80898) 
pertaining to the ODS 401(k) Savings Plan of ODS Networks, Inc. of our report 
dated January 21, 1998, included in the 1997 Annual Report to Stockholders of 
ODS Networks, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of ODS Networks, 
Inc. listed in Item 14(a)2.  This schedule is the responsibility of the 
Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on 
our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to 
above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as 
a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth 
therein.

                                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 5, 1998
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-4228

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DESHAWN MCBETH, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District 

Judge. (2:08-cr-01162-PMD-1) 

Submitted: June 30, 2009 Decided: July 17, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Deshawn McBeth appeals the district court’s judgment 

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twentyfour months’ imprisonment. McBeth’s counsel filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating 

that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning 

whether the sentence, which is above the policy statement range 

but within the statutory maximum, is plainly unreasonable. 

McBeth was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental 

brief, but he did not file one. 

 Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the 

district court sufficiently considered the advisory policy 

statement range of eight to fourteen months and the statutory 

sentencing factors in imposing a sentence above the policy 

statement range but within the statutory maximum set forth in 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006). We therefore conclude that the 

sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not 

plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 

433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing standard). 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm the judgment revoking McBeth’s supervised 

release and imposing a twenty-four month term of imprisonment. 

This court requires that counsel inform McBeth, in writing, of 

2 
3 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If McBeth requests that a petition be filed, 

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on McBeth. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

 

          I, Hugh T. Regan, Jr., certify that: 

          1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of inTEST Corporation; 

          2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

          3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

          4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

        (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

        (b)  [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];

        (c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

        (d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

          5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors: 

        (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

        (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 14, 2004/s/ Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
REV HOLDINGSLLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of REV Holdings LLC(the "Company") for the period endedSeptember 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), I, RonaldO. Perelman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof 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 ofoperations of the Company.

/s/ Ronald O.Perelman                 Ronald O. PerelmanChiefExecutive OfficerNovember 14,2005

----
No. 144.

#### Head et al. *v.*Mississippi.

*Douglas C. Stone*for petitioners.

*Joe T. Patterson,*Attorney General of Mis-

sissippi, and *G. Garland Lyell, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Supreme Court of Mississippi. Certiorari denied.
From: stnicholas@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:14:12 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Sami Nicholas

Corinth, MS 38834
From: rbvmorgans@stny.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:10:59 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Patricia Lengyel

Owego, NY 13827
From: msfink@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:08:18 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Susie Fink

Duncansville, PA 16635
From: steve.shenton@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:26:21 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Stephen Shenton

Shippensburg, PA 17257
No. 461.

#### Denton et al. *v.*United States.

*William Earl Badgett*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Richard W. Schmude*for the United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of earnings and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          15,598
<SECURITIES>                                     8,268
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,372
<ALLOWANCES>                                       234
<INVENTORY>                                     11,879
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,685
<PP&E>                                          37,991
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,498
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,135
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,444
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,785
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,162
<SALES>                                         87,243
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,243
<CGS>                                           54,688
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  105,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   463
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (17,506)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,459)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (16,047)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16,047)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.28)



</TABLE>
From: mark@bridgewatercc.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:06:58 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mark Pitman

Montpelier, OH 43543
# 

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  339                                                               Trade Date: 9/22/03

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8, 2002)                                                                     Issue Date:  9/25/03

The Date of this Pricing SupplementSeptember  22, 2003

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP                                                                                                                                Date and terms of redemption or

     or        Stated                                                                  Interest                                    repayment (including any

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment  Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)               Maturity                Public (2)                Commissions      Frequency      Option     Yes/No                record dates)

14911QQC8   3.15%                        03/15/08          100%                    0.975%              Monthly            YES                       NO                                                                                      

                          

Principal                                                                                1st Payment Day         

Amount                   Proceeds                 Dealer                            Date                  Count

$1,478,000.00                $1,463,589.50         ABN AMROInc.                 10/15/03                 30/360    

Original Issue Discount Note:                                                                   Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                   N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $278.336 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8,2002.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.