alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.2



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS



|                                                                                              |  |     
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----
|Data & Consulting Services Division of
Schlumberger Technology Corporation                    |  |     
|1310 Commerce Drive Park Ridge 1 Pittsburgh, PA 15275-101 Tel: 412-787-5403 Fax: 412-787-2906 |  | LOGO



CONSENT OF
SCHLUMBERGER DATA & CONSULTING SERVICES



As independent
petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to (a) the use of our reserve reports relating to the proved reserves of gas and oil (including coalbed methane) of CNX Gas Corporation (and/or its predecessor(s) in interest) as of December 31, 2005, 2004 and
2003 and as of March 31, 2005, and (b) the references to us as experts, in each case, in (x) CNX Gas Corporations Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, and (y) all of CNX Gas Corporations current and future
registration statements filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including all pre-effective and post-effective amendments thereto including by incorporation by reference, including without limitation, CNX Gas Corporations
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (file no. 333-131497) and CNX Gas Corporations Registration Statement on Form S-1 (file no. 333-127483).



We further wish to advise that we are not employed on a contingent basis and that at the time of the preparation of our report, as well as at present,
neither Schlumberger Data & Consulting Services nor any of its employees had, or now has, a substantial interest in CNX Gas Corporation or any of its subsidiaries, as a holder of its securities, promoter, underwriter, voting trustee, director,
officer or employee.



SCHLUMBERGER DATA & CONSULTING SERVICES



/s/ Joseph H. Franz, Jr.



Date: February 20, 2006
Federal Housing Finance Agency

Christopher H. Dickerson – Senior Advisor 

Office of the Director

Dickerson joined FHFA upon its founding in 2008 as the Agency’s first 

Deputy Director of Enterprise Regulation. Since then, he has held 

numerous leadership positions throughout his tenure at FHFA, including 

Examiner-in-Charge of Freddie Mac (November 2015 to April 2018) and 

Special Supervision Advisor in the Division of Enterprise Regulation 

(April 2018 to November 2021). 

Dickerson spent nearly 11 years at FHFA’s predecessor agency – the 

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight – serving as Director of

Supervision (December 2007 to July 2008) and as Chief Compliance 

Examiner (December 2003 to December 2007). He graduated from the 

University of Alabama at Birmingham with a degree in Accounting.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 689 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that any infrastructure 

legislation that provides Federal funds to wireless broadband providers 

to promote wireless broadband deployment should prioritize funds for 

wireless broadband providers in States that have enacted streamlined 

siting requirements for small cells. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2018 

Mr. HUDSON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

any infrastructure legislation that provides Federal funds 

to wireless broadband providers to promote wireless 

broadband deployment should prioritize funds for wireless broadband providers in States that have enacted 

streamlined siting requirements for small cells. 

Whereas wireless broadband brings extraordinary opportunities for economic growth and investment across every sector of the economy; 

Whereas wireless broadband is in the midst of a revolution 

to fifth generation technology that will bring about 

speeds estimated anywhere from 10 to 100 times faster 

than existing LTE wireless technology; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 689 IH 

Whereas the development and deployment of fifth generation 

wireless broadband will increase efficiencies for virtually 

every industry and economic sector of the United States 

economy; 

Whereas the broader economic benefits of fifth generation 

wireless broadband may include 2.2 million jobs and add 

roughly $420 billion in gross domestic product; 

Whereas the United States is competing with other countries 

and regions around the world to deploy fifth generation 

wireless broadband first to reap the greatest economic 

gains from this technology; 

Whereas cost estimates to deploy fifth generation technology 

across the United States exceed $300 billion; 

Whereas current siting regulations were designed for traditional large towers used by previous generations of technology, while fifth generation wireless technology will be 

enabled by a densified network of small cells; and 

Whereas roughly a dozen States have already enacted legislation to streamline small cell siting regulations: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that any infrastructure legislation that pro3 vides Federal funds to wireless broadband providers to 

4 promote wireless broadband deployment should prioritize 

5 funds for wireless broadband providers in States that have 

6 enacted streamlined siting requirements for small cells. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
No. 55117.

#### Fung Chong & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 5932-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Xiali Gan, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Dragon International Group Corp.

 

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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;

 

I evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's control over financial reporting; and.

 

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal controls and procedures for financial reporting.

 

November 14, 2006     By: /s/ Xiali Gan                                

                                                   Xiali Gan, CFO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

KHALIL HAMMOND,

Petitioner

v.

ROBERT MICHAEL KRAK, D.M.D., SUPERINTENDENT LOUIS FOLINO, SECRETARY JOHN E. WETZEL, DORINA

VARNER AND JOHN OR JANE DOES #1

- 3,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 211 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of September, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.25


Amendment No. 3
Pfizer Inc Deferred Compensation Plan
(Amended and Restated, effective January 1, 2008)


* * *


(New material underlined; deletions crossed out)




1.Section 5.15 shall be amended to read as follows: 


5.15 Permitted Delays. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any payment to a Participant under the Plan may be delayed upon the Committee's reasonable anticipation of one or more of the following events: (a) The Company's deduction with respect to such payment would be eliminated by application of Code section 162(m); or (b) The that the making of the payment would violate Federal securities laws or other applicable law; provided, that (i) the Company treats any such delays to similarly situated Participants on a reasonably consistent basis, (ii) no election may be provided to a Participant with respect to the timing of such delayed payment, and (iii) any payment delayed pursuant to this Section 5.15 shall otherwise be paid in accordance with Section 409A.


2.Nothing in this amendment shall be deemed to modify or affect any (i) compensation that is grandfathered, or any grandfathered amounts, for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (the “Code”), or (ii) grandfathered benefits or amounts under Section 409A of the Code.


3.To the extent required by the preamble to the 2019 Proposed Regulations under Section 162(m) of the Code (REG-122180-18, 84 Fed. Reg. 70356, 70369 (Dec. 20, 2019)), the Company shall cause the payment of previously deferred amounts that would have been required to be paid prior to December 31, 2020 to be made no later than December 31, 2020.


4.Any one or more of the officers of the Company be, and hereby is, authorized, empowered and directed to take all such further action, to execute and deliver all such further agreements, instruments, deeds of trust, and other documents, in the name and on behalf of the Company, including, without limitation, powers of attorney on behalf of the Company, and adoption of plan documents reflecting the foregoing and other general matters to ensure the Plan’s compliance with law, which shall in their judgment be necessary, proper or advisable.
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1775

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

William D. Lamb, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 7, 2007

Filed: March 12, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Following his guilty plea, William D. Lamb was convicted of one count of

conspiracy to distribute 500 or more grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841. The district court1

 imposed a sentence of 312 months

in prison, to be followed by five years of supervised release. On appeal, Lamb

challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to compel the government to file

a substantial-assistance sentence-reduction motion and further argues that the court

erred in imposing a sentence within his advisory Guidelines range. We affirm.
-2-

Lamb’s plea agreement did not include any language regarding Lamb’s

potential cooperation, and the parties confirmed at Lamb’s guilty plea hearing that his

cooperation was not anticipated as a part of the bargain. While Lamb complains that

he was not credited for his pre-indictment assistance, he admits that he provided that

assistance as part of a prior non-prosecution agreement, the terms of which he

violated. The government’s refusal to move for a substantial assistance departure was

not unconstitutional, and thus the court’s refusal to compel that motion was

appropriate. See United States v. Mullins, 399 F.3d 888, 890 (8th Cir. 2005) (where

plea agreement does not require government to file substantial assistance motion,

district court may intervene only if government’s refusal to make such motion was

based on unconstitutional motive, such as unlawful discrimination or other action not

rationally related to legitimate governmental interest). Moreover, Lamb directs us to

nothing in the record to support his claim that the district court did not recognize its

sentencing discretion or that his Guidelines sentence was unreasonable. See United

States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence is unreasonable if it

appears district court gave significant weight to improper factor, failed to fully

consider appropriate factor, or otherwise made clear error of judgment).

Independently reviewing the entirety of the record, we are satisfied the court

understood that the Guidelines were advisory and properly considered the factors

enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in fashioning its sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

___________________________________

:

WILLIAM HOUSTON, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, :

:

 v. : No. 03-3494

:

EASTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, :

:

Defendant. :

___________________________________:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of October, 2008, upon

consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Order of

October 3, 20005 Granting in Part, Motion in Limine (Dkt. No.

55), and the Answer thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion

to is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Henry S. Perkin 

HENRY S. PERKIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-03494-HSP Document 64 Filed 10/08/08 Page 1 of 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6066** 

JAMES RANDALL BRAWNER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, sued in his individual capacity; STEVEN LEWIS; J. PARKER, sued in his individual capacity; FRANK MURSIER, sued in his individual capacity; HARRISON, sued in his individual capacity; JAMES SLIGH, sued in his individual capacity; DENNIS PATTERSON, sued in his individual capacity , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 5:12

- cv - 01889

- RMG

- KDW )

Submitted : March 26 , 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
James Randall Brawner, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James Randall Brawner appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his motion for a preliminary injunction . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Brawner v. Cartledge , No. 5:12

- cv - 01889

- RMG

- KDW (D.S.C. Dec. 28,
2012) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

pr ocess.

AFFIRMED
(Reap. Dec. 10913)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 719822, etc.

(Decided March 16, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*John W Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*555Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in said schedule A, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. §162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 53925.

#### Armour & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 152006-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



# United States Court of Appeals

**For the First Circuit**

No. 99-2129 CELESTE BOURGEOIS, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge ] Before Boudin, Circuit Judge , Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge , and Stahl, Circuit Judge .
Celeste Bourgeois on brief pro se. She ldon Whitehouse , Attorney General and J.O. Alston , Special Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.
January 10, 2001Per Curiam . After a thorough review of the record

and of the parties’ submissions, we affirm, essentially for the reasons set out by the magistrate judge in his report and recommendation, dated August 5, 1999. We add only that evenif judgment had not been entered previously by the state court, appellant received everything she was entitled to receive under R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-25-6(b) (1993); no alleged promises by state officials or others can change that, and her misunderstanding of the terms of the settlement cannot alter our analysis. Given this, any alleged error by the district court in ordering certain subpoenas quashed is harmless at best. Despite appellant’s reasonable criticisms of the adequacy and speed of the victim’s compensation system in Rhode Island, this court is obligated to affirm.

Affirmed . See 1 stCir. Loc. R. 27(c).
January 9, 1950

No. 53910.

#### Alberto Hernandez *v.*United States,

petition 6684-R.

Abstract 53726. Petitioner’s application for rehearing granted.
<PAGE>   1
                                  Exhibit 23.1

               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors


                            [ERNST & YOUNG LLP LOGO]

      We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3) and related Prospectus of WavePhore, Inc. for
the registration of 1,129,116 shares of its common stock and to the
incorporation by reference therein of our report dated January 28, 1998, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of WavePhore, Inc. included in
its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission


                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
January 15, 1999
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1134

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act with respect to restrictions

on changes in benefits under Medicare+Choice plans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1999

Mr. NADLER (for himself and Mr. FROST) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to

the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act with respect

to restrictions on changes in benefits under

Medicare+Choice plans.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Managed

5 Care Notification Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 1134 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESTRICTIONS IN CHANGES IN BENEFITS UNDER

2 MEDICARE+CHOICE PLANS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1852(a) of the Social Se4 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–22(a)) is amended by adding

5 at the end the following new paragraph:

6 ‘‘(7) CHANGES IN BENEFITS.—

7 ‘‘(A) PROHIBITION OF REDUCTION IN BEN8 EFITS DURING CONTRACT YEAR.—A

9 Medicare+Choice organization may not, during

10 a contract year, change the terms of benefits in

11 a manner that is adverse to an enrollee.

12 ‘‘(B) ADVANCE NOTICE OF CHANGES IN

13 BENEFITS.—If a Medicare+Choice organization

14 intends to change its benefits offered under this

15 part in a contract year from those offered in

16 the previous contract year, the organization

17 shall provide to enrollees, not later than 120

18 days before the beginning of the contract year

19 involved, notice in comparative form of the

20 changes in benefits intended compared to those

21 offered in the previous contract year.’’.

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

23 subsection (a) applies to contract years beginning on or

24 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ