alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[LETTERHEAD OF WIENER, GOODMAN & COMPANY, P.C.]

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
of BigString Corporation

We hereby consent to the  incorporation  by reference in Registration  Statement
No. 333-127923 on Form SB-2, as amended and supplemented, Registration Statement
No. 333-135837 on Form SB-2, as amended and  supplemented,  and the Registration
Statement  No.  333-135180  on Form S-8 of BigString  Corporation  of our report
dated March 29, 2007 relating to the  consolidated  balance  sheets of BigString
Corporation  and  subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related
consolidated statements of operations,  stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
the years ended  December 31, 2006 and 2005,  and for the period October 8, 2003
(Date of  Formation)  through  December  31, 2006,  which report  appears in the
Annual  Report  on Form  10-KSB  of  BigString  Corporation  for the year  ended
December 31, 2006.

/s/ Wiener, Goodman & Company, P.C.

Wiener, Goodman & Company, P.C.
Certified Public Accountants

March 29, 2007
<PAGE>   1

                      ShopKo Stores, Inc. and Subsidiaries
                Exhibit 12 - Statements Re Computation of Ratios
                      (In Thousands, Except Per Share Data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                     First Quarters as of                       Fiscal Years Ended
                                                -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   May 1,            May 2,        January 30,       January 31,      February 1,
                                                    1999              1998             1999              1998             1997
                                                (13 Weeks)         (13 Weeks)      (52 Weeks)        (52 Weeks)        (52 Weeks)
                                                -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                           <C>              <C>               <C>              <C>               <C>
     Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
     Computation of Earnings

  1  Pretax income before extraordinary item  $        7,104   $         3,543   $       91,627   $        80,443   $       74,022
  2  Add previously capitalized interest
       amortized during the period                       140               139              555               550              548
  3  Less interest capitalized during
       the period                                         74                17              171                 0              128
                                              --------------   ---------------   --------------   ---------------   --------------
  4  Total earnings (sum of lines 1 to 3)              7,170             3,665           92,011            80,993           74,442

     Computation of Fixed Charges

  5  Interest (1)                                      9,766             9,046           38,482            30,582           31,905
  6  Interest factor in rental expense                 1,100             1,069            4,087             2,691            2,657
                                              --------------   ---------------   --------------   ---------------   --------------
  7  Total fixed charges (sum of lines
       5 and 6)                                       10,866            10,115           42,569            33,273           34,562

  8  TOTAL EARNINGS AND
       FIXED CHARGES (line 4
       plus line 7)                           $       18,036   $        13,780   $      134,580   $       114,266   $      109,004
                                              ==============   ===============   ==============   ===============   ==============

  9  Ratio (line 8 divided by line 7)                    1.7               1.4              3.2               3.4              3.2


</TABLE>

     (1) Includes capitalized interest


                                       24
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 123

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2001, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 106–275, is further amended by striking

4 the date specified in section 106(c) and inserting ‘‘Novem-
2

•HJ 123 EH

1 ber 3, 2000’’, and by adding, at the end, the following

2 new section:

3 ‘‘SEC. 120. Notwithstanding any other provision of

4 this joint resolution, except section 107, $7,100,000 shall

5 be available for obligation by the Administrator of General

6 Services for expenses necessary to carry out the Presi7 dential Transition Act of 1963 (3 U.S.C. 102 note).’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 2,

2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 123

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the

fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes.
# L_2022150EN.01002101.xml

| 1.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 150/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 150/21

---

COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2022/851

of 22 March 2022

correcting the Portuguese language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 on unmanned aircraft systems and on third-country operators of unmanned aircraft systems

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (1), and in particular Article 58 and Article 61 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Portuguese language version of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 (2) contains errors in Article 17(4), in Article 40(1)(d), in the Annex, Part 8, Module B, points 3(2) and (5) that alter the meaning of the provisions. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Portuguese language version of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 (2) contains errors in Article 17(4), in Article 40(1)(d), in the Annex, Part 8, Module B, points 3(2) and (5) that alter the meaning of the provisions.

| (2) | The Portuguese language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Portuguese language version of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected.

| (3) | Given the need to have the same level playing field for all operators, the overriding interest of the integrity of the internal market as well as the need for legal certainty, this Regulation should apply from 9 August 2020, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Given the need to have the same level playing field for all operators, the overriding interest of the integrity of the internal market as well as the need for legal certainty, this Regulation should apply from 9 August 2020,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

(Does not concern the English language.)

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 9 August 2020.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 March 2022.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 212, 22.8.2018, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 of 12 March 2019 on unmanned aircraft systems and on third-country operators of unmanned aircraft systems (OJ L 152, 11.6.2019, p. 1).

2

---
CHIEF JUSTICE

 CAROLYN WRIGHT

JUSTICES

 DAVID L. BRIDGES

 MOLLY FRANCIS

 DOUGLAS S. LANG

 ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

 ROBERT M. FILLMORE

 LANA MYERS

 DAVID EVANS

 DAVID LEWIS

 ADA BROWN

 CRAIG STODDART

 BILL WHITEHILL

 DAVID J. SCHENCK

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

600 COMMERCE STREET, SUITE 200

DALLAS, TEXAS 75202

(214) 712-3400

LISA MATZ

CLERK OF THE COURT

(214) 712-3450

lisa.matz@5th.txcourts.gov

GAYLE HUMPA

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR

(214) 712-3434

gayle.humpa@5th.txcourts.gov

FACSIMILE

(214) 745-1083

INTERNET

HTTP://5TH.TXCOURTS.GOV

December 1, 2015

Honorable Ernest White

Presiding Judge

194th Judicial District Court

Frank Crowley Courts Building

133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB26

Dallas, TX 75207

RE: 05-15-00709-CR

Michael Thompson v. The State of Texas

Dear Judge White:

After reviewing the record, the Court notes that it does not contain the trial court’s 

certification of appellant’s right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a), (d); Cortez v. State, 420 

S.W.3d 803 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Therefore, please file, within TEN DAYS of the date of the 

letter, a completed certification that accurately reflects the trial court proceedings. We appreciate 

your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/ Lisa Matz, Clerk of the Court

cc: Valencia Bush

Lori Ordiway

ltr:mrh
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.30


        AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN ENACT PHARMA PLC AND CHIMAERON LTD
                              DATED 1ST APRIL 2000.




22nd February 2001


Following a change, the registered address of the "Company" shall now read 8
Centre One, Old Sarum Park, Lysander Way, Salisbury, SP4 6BU.



Signed for both Parties by:




/s/ illegible                                   /s/ M.A. Atkinson
-----------------------------                   ------------------------------
for and on behalf of                            for and on behalf of
ENACT PHARMA PLC                                CHIMAERON LTD
No. 51811.

#### Plant Products Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 130210-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

At the hearing the claim of the plaintiff was conceded to be correct by the attorney for the Government. The protests were therefore sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 47 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 47

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 24, 1999

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington 
                            Soap Box Derby.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES ON CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association (hereinafter in 
this resolution referred to as the ``Association'') shall be permitted 
to sponsor a public event, soap box derby races, on the Capitol Grounds 
on July 10, 1999, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
Senate may jointly designate.

SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

    The event to be carried out under this resolution shall be free of 
admission charge to the public and arranged not to interfere with the 
needs of Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect 
of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board; except that the 
Association shall assume full responsibility for all expenses and 
liabilities incident to all activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

    For the purposes of this resolution, the Association is authorized 
to erect upon the Capitol Grounds, subject to the approval of the 
Architect of the Capitol, such stage, sound amplification devices, and 
other related structures and equipment as may be required for the event 
to be carried out under this resolution.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

    The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are 
authorized to make any such additional arrangements that may be 
required to carry out the event under this resolution.

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act of July 31, 1946 (40 
U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), concerning sales, displays, and 
solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions 
applicable to the Capitol Grounds, with respect to the event to be 
carried out under this resolution.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 23, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Before the Second Division,

March 6, 1968

No. P68/116.

protests 60/21952 and 66/547 (New York).

#### D. P. Harris Hdw. & Mfg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with 'stipulation of counsel that -the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of air horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Sherwin*International, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Appeal No. 2019AP251 Cir. Ct. No. 2013CF3214

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT I

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

MATTHEW RAY TAYLOR,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FILED

April 1, 2021

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

ERRATA SHEET

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 1688

Madison, WI 53701-1688

Court of Appeals District I

330 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 1020

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-3161

Court of Appeals District III

2100 Stewart Ave., Suite 310

Wausau, WI 54401

Jenny Andrews, Sarah Motiff

Court of Appeals

2921 Landmark Place, Suite 415

Madison, WI 53713-4248

Court of Appeals District II

2727 N. Grandview Blvd.

Waukesha, WI 53188-1672

Court of Appeals District IV

2921 Landmark Place, Suite 415

Madison, WI 53713-4248

Hon. Stephanie Rothstein

Criminal Justice Facility

949 N. 9th St.

Milwaukee, WI 53233

John Barrett

Clerk of Circuit Court

Room 114

821 W. State Street

Milwaukee, WI 53233

James Eric Goldschmidt

Quarles & Brady LLP

411 E. Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 2400

Milwaukee, WI 53202
No. 2019AP251

2

Elizabeth A. Longo

Deputy District Attorney

821 W. State St.

Milwaukee, WI 53233

Robert Probst

Assistant Attorney General

P.O. Box 7857

Madison, WI 53707-7857

Patrick Proctor-Brown

Quarles & Brady LLP

411 E. Wisconsin Ave., #2350

Milwaukee, WI 53202-4426

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that corrections were made to pages one 

through nineteen in the above-captioned opinion which was released on February 2, 

2021. A corrected electronic version in its entirety is available on the court's website 

at www.wicourts.gov
No. 2019AP251

3
A89A1917.

#### BURKS v. THE STATE.

(392 SE2d 300)

Decided March 12, 1990.

*Thomas R. Eason, L. Clark Landrum,*for appellant.

*David E. Perry, District Attorney, A. Douglas Newsome, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Carley, Chief Judge.

Appellant was brought to trial on an indictment which charged him with having committed the offense of manufacturing cocaine on June 5, 1988. This date was made a material allegation of the indictment. After the jury had been impaneled and sworn, the State realized that the June 5, 1988, date was incorrect and a motion for dismissal was made. Upon ascertaining that appellant had no objection, the trial court consented to the entry of a nol. pros. Subsequently, appellant was indicted for having committed the offense of manufacturing cocaine on July 5, 1988, and the date was again made a material allegation .of the indictment. Appellant filed a plea of double jeopardy and he appeals from the trial court’s denial of that plea.

Appellant relies only upon OCGA § 16-1-8. In order for a subsequent prosecution to be barred under either OCGA § 16-1-8 (a) or (b), the former prosecution must be shown either to have resulted in a conviction or acquittal or to have been improperly terminated. Appellant’s prosecution under the original indictment was ended by the entry of a nol. pros, and not by a judgment of conviction. Although the nol. pros, was entered after the case had been submitted to the jury, this was not tantamount to an acquittal because appellant had consented thereto. See *Doyal v. State,*70 Ga. 134 (3) (1883). Likewise, appellant’s consent to the entry of the nol. pros, shows that the original prosecution was not improperly terminated. Compare *Franklin v. State,*85 Ga. 570 (11 SE 876) (1890); *Jones v. State,*55 Ga. 625 (1876). It follows that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s double jeopardy plea. Termination of a prosecution is not improper if “[t]he accused consents to the termination. . . .” OCGA § 16-1-8 (e) (1).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.*
{"agency":"FERC","generated":"2018-10-26 15:58:17","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"}],"value":"2018"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"5"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["FERC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["49"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["31"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["5"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2018","quarter":"Q4"}
No. 55750.

protest 170466-K (New York).

#### Moosalina Products Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of Romano cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*
      *281v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706). In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance of 2J4 percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese by the collector in computing the duty thereon to compensate for the weight of the inedible coverings on the outside of the cheese. The protest was sustained to this extent.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 91 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 91

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2000

   Mr. Jenkins introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United 
                                States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Total expenditures for any fiscal year shall not 
exceed total revenues for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the 
whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a 
specific excess of expenditures over revenues by a rollcall vote.
    ``Section 2. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article 
for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The 
provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which 
the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an 
imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so 
declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole 
number of each House, which becomes law.
    ``Section 3. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article 
by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and 
receipts.
    ``Section 4. Total revenues shall include all receipts of the 
United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total 
expenditures shall include all outlays of the United States Government 
except for those for repayment of debt principal.
    ``Section 5. This article shall take effect beginning with the 
second fiscal year beginning after its ratification.''.
                                 <all>
```
1

Opinion issued July 6, 2023

In The



## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 23
- 00 271
- C R NO. 01
- 23
- 00 272
- C R

——————————— IN RE STEVEN ALEXANDER HOBBS , Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Steven Alexander Hobbs , incarcerated and proceeding pro se, ha s filed petition s for a writ of mandamus requesting that this Court compel the trial court to rule on relator’s motion “for extension of time [to file a notice of appeal] and permission to appeal,” motion “to obtain documents, hearing transcripts and all2

other records ” “to aid and assist him in preparing an appeal of his conviction[s],” and certain “motion[s] to compel.” 1 We deny the petition. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5 2.8(a). All pending motions are
dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss

.

1 The underlying case s are The State of Texas v. Steven Alexander Hobbs , Cause No s
. 1324124 and 1753578 in the 351st District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Natalia Cornelio presiding.