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











Consent of Independent
Registered Public Account Firm








We have
issued our reports dated March 14, 2008, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule and management’s assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the
Annual Report of Resource Capital Corp. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Resource Capital
Corp. on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-146626, effective on October 12, 2007 and
File No. 333-144519, effective on July 12, 2007).




/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP




Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania


March 14,
2008
December 5, 1962

No. 67245.

protest 58/1-3.

#### Tigrett Industries, Inc. *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
October 20, 1959

No. 63461.

Suit 4971.

#### United States *v.*Humble Oil & Refining Co. and Leslie B. Canion et al.

C.D. 2003 reversed July 10, 1959. C.A.D. 717.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

Wintteb ~tate5 (!Court of ~eaI5 

for !be jf eberaI ([trentt 

FURNITURE BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

AND 

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

AND 

AMERICAN FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS 

COMMITTEE FOR LEGAL TRADE AND VAUGHANBASSETT FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

2012-1059 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in case no. 07-CV-0026, Judge Timothy C. Stanceu. 

ON MOTION 

Before REYNA, Circuit Judge. 
FURNITURE BRANDS INTL v. US 2 

ORDER 

Defendants-Appellees American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett 

Furniture Company, Inc. (collectively, "the Committee for 

Legal Trade") and Defendant-Appellee United States 

move for summary affirmance of the United States Court 

of International Trade's judgment dismissing Furniture 

Brands International, Inc.' s ("Furniture Brands") complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. The United States International Trade Commission responds in favor of summary affirmance. Furniture 

Brands opposes. The United States and the Committee 

for Legal Trade reply. 

At issue is whether this court's determination in SKF 

USA, Incorporated v. United Sates Customs and Border 

Protection, 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("SKF'), forecloses Furniture Brand's appeal.1 

Summary disposition of a case "is appropriate, inter 

alia, when the position of one party is so clearly correct as 

a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the 

outcome of the appeal exists." Joshua V. United States 

17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

1 In SKF, this court concluded that the Continued 

Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (also known as 

the Byrd Amendment) neither violated the Constitution's 

equal protection guarantee nor the First Amendment. 

The Byrd Amendment provides for the distribution of 

antidumping duties collected by the United States to 

eligible "affected domestic producers" of the dumped 

goods. 19 U.S.C. § 1675c(a) (2000). An "affected domestic 

producer" must be "a petitioner or interested party in 

support of the petition with respect to which an antidumping duty order . . . has been entered." Id. at 

§ 1675c(b)(1)(A). 
3 FURNITURE BRANDS INTL v. US 

Because Furniture Brands raises issues that may not 

have been determined in SKF, we cannot say that a 

substantial question regarding the outcome of this case 

does not exist. 

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT Is ORDERED THAT: 

The motions are denied. 

FEB 292012 

Date 

cc: David W. DeBruin, Esq. 

s25 

Joseph W. Dorn, Esq. 

Jessica R. Toplin, Esq. 

Patrick Gallagher, Esq. 

FOR THE COURT 

lsI Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

FILED 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR TH~ FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

FEB 292012 

JAN HORBALY 

CLERK
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 73054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23437]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


International Product Change--Priority Mail Express 
International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package 
International Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express 
International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package 
International Service contract to the list of Negotiated Service 
Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification 
Schedule.

DATES: Date of notice: October 24, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-
7820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 12, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail 
International & First-Class Package International Service Contract 28 
to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2024-7 and CP2024-7.

Colleen Hibbert-Kapler,
Attorney, Ethics and Legal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2023-23437 Filed 10-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
No. 59881.

#### Kittay & Blitz, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 277068-K, etc. (New York).

*418Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52836), for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 30 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by Presidential proclamation, T. D. 51898, for imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted.
**Exhibit
                  32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Veronica A. Lubatkin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the
                Company.





*This
      certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
      filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
      reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the
      Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
      such
      filing.*





/s/
                Veronica A. LubatkinVeronica
                A. Lubatkin
              Executive
                Vice President and Chief Financial
                Officer


May
      8,
      2008
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sepracor Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, David P. Southwell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

Date:
August 9, 2004

| |  | /s/DAVID P. SOUTHWELLDavid P. Southwell Chief Financial
Officer
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sepracor Inc. and will be retained by Sepracor Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 3, 2011 

Order 

 

May 3, 2011 

141752(72) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 141752 

v COA: 291617 

Wayne CC: 08-013456-FC 

DONALD C. RICHARDSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by defendant-appellant for extension to 

April 29, 2011 of the time for filing his supplemental brief is GRANTED.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 30, 2007

Decided October 15, 2007

Before

Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

 Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

 Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 05-1130

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION

FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED,

ANNE GAYLOR, ANNIE L. GAYLOR,

et al.,

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.

ELAINE L. CHAO, TOMMY G.

THOMPSON, and ALBERTO

GONZALES,

 Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Western

District of Wisconsin.

No. 04 C 381

John C. Shabaz, Judge.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court, reversing our decision in Freedom

From Religion Foundation v. Chao, 433 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 2006), reversed under the name

Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 127 S.Ct. 2553 (2007), the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED. 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
Before the Third Division,

June 24, 1948

No. 52416.

petition 6683-R (New York).

#### The Glemby Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petition was dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Tropiano, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.  This certification accompanies the Report and shall not be deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.    /s/ Michael A. TropianoMichael A. Tropiano
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer November 3, 2010
**Exhibit
      32.2**




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 29, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Veronica A. Lubatkin, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
      of
      the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
      knowledge:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.





*This
      certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
      filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
      reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the
      Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
      such
      filing.*





/s/
                Veronica A. Lubatkin
              Veronica
                A. Lubatkin
              Executive
                Vice President and Chief Financial
                Officer


December
      20, 2007
No. 67236.

protests 59/6855, etc. (Norfolk).

#### Transamerican Match Corporation *v.*United States,

*315Opinion by

Olivee, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       5,436,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       3,567,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             5,075,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  9,926,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      17,093,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        17,014,000
<LOANS>                                    117,015,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                    982,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             166,253,000
<DEPOSITS>                                 146,414,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            397,000
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,808,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             166,253,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              8,021,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,438,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               411,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             9,870,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,592,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,592,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,278,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   96,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,113,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,925,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,925,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,208,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     8.8
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,086,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   520,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,038,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  184,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    32,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              982,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        982,000


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 24, 2017

No. 04-17-00302-CR

Robert Len WHITE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR10291

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After the reporter’s record was filed in this case, Appellant moved this court to remand 

this cause to the trial court for it to decide how to correct the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 34.6(e)(2). 

Appellant alleges that for State’s Exhibit No. 3—a video recording that the State asserts 

shows Appellant waiving his Miranda rights and confessing to aggravated sexual assault of the 

child complainant—crucial portions are inaudible. See id. R. 34.6(f)(2) (addressing 

circumstances where “a significant portion of the [proceedings’] recording has been lost or 

destroyed or is inaudible”). The recording was introduced and admitted at a pretrial hearing on 

Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. Appellant asks this court to “submit the dispute to the 

trial court for resolution.” See id. R. 34.6(e)(3) (“Correction After Filing in Appellate Court”). 

The State responds that “Rule 34.6(f) is inapplicable because no portion of the reporter’s 

record has been lost or destroyed in this case.” The State asserts that “the exhibit filed with the 

reporter’s record is the same exhibit admitted and relied upon by the trial court in this case.” The 

State asks this court to deny Appellant’s motion to supplement the appellate record with a 

transcript of the exhibit “[b]ecause the transcript was not provided to the trial court nor 

introduced at the hearing.”
We agree with the State. “Appellant’s claim that certain portions of the audio of 

[A]ppellant’s recorded statement to the police are inaudible does not mean that these portions of 

the court reporter’s record are ‘lost or destroyed’ for purposes of Rule 34.6(f).” Lucio v. State, 

351 S.W.3d 878, 892 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). The court reporter certified that the recorded 

statement filed as part of the appellate record in this appeal is a “true and complete duplicate[] of 

the original exhibit[] . . . offered into evidence during the pretrial” hearing. Despite any 

allegedly inaudible portions of the recording, the appellate record as presently constituted 

contains the recording that the trial court admitted and considered. 

Appellant’s motion to supplement the record or to direct the trial court to resolve this 

dispute is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(f); Lucio, 351 S.W.3d at 892.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 24th day of October, 2017.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 56196.

protests 134907-K, etc. (New York).

#### Oval Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*356Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of beads similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1020). The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 was therefore sustained.
order issued january 3 * 2013

In The

Quurt tif ipah

.Fi1t1! iitrict uf at 1at1a

No. 05-12-0171 7-CV

IN RE PERRY LEWIS SI/IART, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1256097

ORDER

l3elorc Justices ONeill. Francis. and Murphy

Baseclon the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relatofs petition for writ of mandamus.

We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.

MARY MURPHY J

JUSTICE
#### Loma G. MCCLOUD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI,* Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-56214.

D.C. No. CV-99-00845-TJW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.**

Decided June 25, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 Larry G. Massanari is substituted for his predecessor as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and denies McCloud’s request for oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Loma G. McCloud appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing her action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. McCloud sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s determination that she was not disabled. *See*42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, *Oliva v. Sullivan,*958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir.1992), and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
No. 52805.

#### Dr. A. Gref *v.*United States,

protest 93644-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of a magnetometer and parts, including vertical field balance, similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Asiatic Petroleum Carp.*v. *United States*(19 Cust. Ct. 3, C. D. 1058), *American Askania Corporation*v. *United States*(21 id. 26, C. D. 1121), and Abstract 52267. The claim at 27% percent under paragraph 372 was therefore sustained.