alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Vivendi Universal S.A. ("Vivendi Universal") listed below of our report dated
April 2, 2003 (except with respect to the matters discussed in Note 17, as to
which the date is June 27, 2003), with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Vivendi Universal and subsidiaries, which is included in Vivendi
Universal's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
        SEC Form             Filing Date          Registration Number
        --------             -----------          -------------------
<S>                          <C>                  <C>
          S-8                  06/06/02                333-72270
          S-8                  06/04/02                333-89744
          S-8                  06/04/02                333-89754
          S-8                  05/06/02                333-87622
          S-8                  01/31/02                333-81830
          S-8                  10/26/01                333-72270
          S-8                  08/29/01                333-64754
          S-8                  12/11/00                333-51654
          S-8                  12/11/00                333-48966
          S-8                  10/05/00                333-47440
         F-3/A                 06/03/02                333-81578
          F-3                  01/29/02                333-81578
</TABLE>

                                  Paris, France
                                  June 27, 2003

/s/ RSM Salustro Reydel             /s/ Barbier Frinault & Cie
-----------------------             --------------------------------------------
RSM Salustro Reydel                 Barbier Frinault & Cie
                                    A member firm of Ernst & Young International
<PAGE>

                         HOME LOAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Home Loan Financial Corporation (the
"Corporation") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification (the
"Report"), I, Preston W. Bair, the Treasurer 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:

          1. The Report complies with the requirements of 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 of operations
          of the Corporation.




                                /s/ Preston W. Bair
                                --------------------------------------------
                                Preston W. Bair, Chief Financial Officer

                                Date: May 15, 2003

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

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

                                                                             31.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STATE FARM MUTUAL : CIVIL ACTION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., et al. :

 v. :

 : NO. 03-5595

AMERICAN REHAB AND :

PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC., et al. :

 

ORDER

AND NOW, this 11 day of March, 2010, the Court having been made aware that th

Plaintiff has reached settlement with Defendant Stephen Moldover, it is hereby ORDERED that

Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel the Deposition of Drew Friedman (Doc. No. 178), filed November

19, 2009, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification and Extension to Submit a Handwriting Expert

Report (Doc. No. 187), filed January 8, 2010, are DENIED as moot.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael M. Baylson

 

Michael M. Baylson, U.S.D.J.

O:\CIVIL\03-5595, State Farm v. American Rehab\State Farm v. Am Rehab Order 3.10.10 re-Mot to Compel Depo

and Clarification.wpd

Case 2:03-cv-05595-MMB Document 206 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 1
No. 67711.

#### Barnett Customs Brokers, Inc., a/c Birns & Sawyer et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62/8449, etc. (Los Angeles).

*297Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In aeccordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wide-angle and telephoto lenses similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Unimark Photo, Inc.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 75, C.D. 2283), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2016038EN.01006401.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/64

---

Action brought on 29 October 2015 — Azur Space Solar Power v OHIM (Representation of a black line)

(Case T-614/15)

(2016/C 038/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Azur Space Solar Power GmbH (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: J. Nicodemus, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of a black line) — Application for registration No 1 201 652

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 September 2015 in Case R 3233/2015-4

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
#### POPHAM v. JAMISON, Acting Collector of Internal Revenue.

No. 5106.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

July 9, 1948.

Arthur C. Popham, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Sam M. Wear, U. S. Atty. and Richard H. Musser, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Kansas City Mo., for defendant.

DUNCAN, District-Judge.

Plaintiff instituted this action against 'the defendant to recover a stated amount alleged to have been improperly assessed and collected by the Collector of Internal Revenue for income taxes for the years 1942 and 1943. The assessment and the collection of the amounts were made by the predecessor of the defendant. The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss and it must be sustained. “An action against a collector of internal revenue to recover taxes erroneously exacted by him, is based upon his personal liability and cannot be maintained against his successor in office who had no part in the assessment, collection or disbursement of the taxes.” Smietanka, Collector of Internal Revenue for the First District of Illinois, v. Indiana Steel Company, 257 U.S. 1, 42 S.Ct. 1, 66 L.Ed. 99.
April 30, 1957

No. 60719.

#### J. H. Brown et al. *v.*United States,

protests 226724-K, etc.

C. D. 1852. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
No. 67772.

#### Schilling Import Company *v.*United States,

protest 62/16936 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

An examination of the official papers showing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, the protest was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CARMEN COSENZA :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4146

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04146-BWK Document 6 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
IB

House Calendar No. 45

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1121

[Report No. 106–111]

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located

at 18 Greenville Street in Newnan, Georgia, as the ‘‘Lewis R. Morgan

Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1999

Mr. COLLINS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

APRIL 27, 1999

Committed to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 18 Greenville Street in Newnan, Georgia, as the ‘‘Lewis R. Morgan Federal Building and

United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1121 RH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse

3 located at 18 Greenville Street in Newnan, Georgia, shall

4 be known and designated as the ‘‘Lewis R. Morgan Fed5 eral Building and United States Courthouse’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

9 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec10 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lewis

11 R. Morgan Federal Building and United States Court12 house’’.

House Calendar No. 45

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1121

[Report No. 106–111]

A BILL

To designate the Federal building and United

house’’.Federal Building and United States Courtin Newnan, Georgia, as the ‘‘Lewis R. MorganStates courthouse located at 18 Greenville Street

APRIL 27, 1999

Committed to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
No. 60707.

#### H. T. Kennedy Co., Inc., and Daniel F. Young, Inc. v. United States,

protest 273841-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of “Aladdin” rail lubricators and parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *H. T. Kennedy Co., Inc.,*and *Daniel F. Young, Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 68, C. D. 1637), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: CRIMINAL ACTION

 v. :

 :

RONALD SMITH : No. 04-229

ORDER

AND NOW, this 5th day of June 2009, upon consideration of Defendant Ronald Smith’s

Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 79), Smith’s

Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 83), the Government’s Response (Doc. 88), and Smith’s

Reply (Doc. 89), and in accordance with the attached Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that 

(1) Defendant’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 81) is GRANTED;

(2) Defendant’s § 2255 Motion (Doc. 79) is DENIED; 

(3) Defendant’s Request for a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED; and

(4) The Clerk shall mark the corresponding civil action for Defendant’s Motion (Civ.

A. No. 08-5723) CLOSED for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Michael M. Baylson 

Michael M. Baylson, U.S.D.J.

O:\Criminal Cases\04-229 Smith, Ron; US v\CR 04-229 Smith, US v. - Order Re Habeas Petition.wpd

Case 2:04-cr-00229-MMB Document 91 Filed 06/05/09 Page 1 of 1
# C_2015138EN.01006001.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/60

---

Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Tubes Radiatori v OHIM — Antrax It (Heating radiators)

(Case T-98/15)

(2015/C 138/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro, M. Balestriero and P. Menapace, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design for ‘heating radiators’ — Community design No 169 370-0002

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2014 in Case R 1643/2014-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and, consequently, find and declare that Community design No 169 370-0002, belonging to Tubes Radiatori Srl, is valid, since it is new and has individual character; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, consequently, find and declare that Community design No 169 370-0002, belonging to Tubes Radiatori Srl, is valid, since it is new and has individual character;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 1d of Regulation (EC) No 216/96, the adversarial principle, and the duty to provide a statement of reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 1d of Regulation (EC) No 216/96, the adversarial principle, and the duty to provide a statement of reasons;

| — | Objection of res judicata. |
| --- | --- |

—

Objection of res judicata.

res judicata

---
No. 57618.

#### Keepnews Co. and Intra-Mar Transport Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 176122-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of figures or figurines similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the" plaintiffs was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24631]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; Assessment of TBI-Related ADRD 
Pathology Review (U01).
    Date: December 1, 2023.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Mir Ahamed Hossain, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NINDS/NIH/DHHS NSC, 6001 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 
20852, 301-496-9223, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#305d59425158515d55541e585f434351595e705e59581e575f46"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ee3e7fcefe6efe3ebeaa0e6e1fdfdefe7e0cee0e7e6a0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS.)

    Dated: November 2, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-24631 Filed 11-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 56883.

#### Coro, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 141853-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of jewelry in chief value of artificial flowers the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Coro, Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 154, C. A. D. 478), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Federal Agency Card Collections

Card Payment networks Suspending Russian Operations in Light of The Conflict 

in Ukraine

Due to the current conflict in Ukraine, and as reported in the press, card transactions 

initiated with a Russian-issued card will be declined and cannot be used to pay federal 

agencies through Treasury. 

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the following:

For agency inquiries, please contact CardAcquiringService@fiscal.treasury.gov

For media inquiries, please contact Media.Relations@fiscal.treasury.gov
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Peskin , 127 Ohio St.3d 1251, 2010-Ohio-6087.]

O HIO S TATE B AR A SSOCIATION v . P ESKIN . [Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Peskin, 127 Ohio St.3d 1251, 2010-Ohio6087.] (No. 2009-2009 — Submitted November 17, 2010 — Decided November 24, 2010.)
O N A PPLICATION FOR R EINSTATEMENT

.

__________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent , Lawrence Frederick Peskin, Attorney Registration No. 0059391, last known busin ess address in Cleveland, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consid er its order of April 29, 2010, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of two years with 18 months stay ed on conditions, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that orde r and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore, {¶ 3} It is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio. It is further ordered that respondent submit, within one year of the release of the April 29, 2010 Supreme Court opinion in this matter, a qualified health-care professional’s certification that he has successfully completed a substance abuse treatment pr ogram and is, in that professional’s opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, able to practice law in a competent, ethical, and professional manne r. It is further ordered that if respondent fails to do this, the stay will be lifted, and he w ill serve the full twoyear suspension. {¶ 4} It is further ordered that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication beS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V( 8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication. {¶ 5} For earlier case, see Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Peskin , 125 Ohio St.3d 244, 2010-Ohio-1811, 927 N.E.2d 598.
B ROWN , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

______________________
EPA - HQ - OW - 2014 - 0598 - DRAFT - 0809 SGE00739.A0 2 Insert page File sent on CD
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LAMOTTE S. CHANDLER
,
Defendant Below

Appellant,

v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below

Appellee. § § No. 606 , 2014 § § § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware, § in and for New Cast le County § Cr. ID 1103017141 § §

Submitted: J anuary 14, 2015 Decided: February 19 , 20 1 5

Before HOLLAND
, VALIHURA
, and VAUGHN
, Justices.

O R D E R

This 19 th day of February 2015
, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief
, the St ate’s motion to affirm
, and the record below, it appears

to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, LaMotte Chandler , filed this appeal from the
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence. The State
has filed a motion to affirm the judgme nt below on the ground that it is

manifest on the face of Chandler ’ s opening brief that his appeal is without
merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) In October 2011, Chandler pled guilty to one count of Robbery
in the First Degree, two counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, and one2

count each of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony
(PFDCF)
, and Aggravated Menacing . The Superior Court sentenced

Chandler to a total period of thirty years at Level V incarceration , to be
suspended after servin g nine years in prison followed by decreasing levels of
supervision. Chandler did not appeal. In August 2014, Chandler filed a motion for correction of illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule
35(a), alleging that his separate sentences for Ro bbery in the First Degree
, PFDCF, and Aggravated Menacing violate double jeopardy principles a nd
should be merged because PFDCF and Aggravated Menacing were lesser
included offenses of Robbery in the First Degree. The Superior Court

denied his motion. Th is appeal followed.
(3) On appeal, Chandler again alleges that his separate sentences
are illegal because they violate double jeopardy principles. Chandler is
incorrect. As the Superior Court properly held
, the language of the PFDCF

statute is clear evid ence that the General Assembly intended to punish
PFDCF and any underlying felony as separate offenses. 1 Accordingly, there
is no double jeopardy violation arising from Chandler’s separate sentences
for PFDCF and the underlying felony. Moreover, Chandler ’s separate
sentences for robbery and aggravated menacing do not violate double

1 DeShields v. State , 2015 WL 115487 (Del. Jan. 7, 2015).3

jeopardy principles because the charges involved two different victims. 2 His
conviction for aggravated menacing thus was not a lesser included offense to

his conviction for fi rst degree robbery.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice

2 See Wright v. State , 2010 WL 2163851 (Del. May 10, 2010) (holding that the charging of multiple crimes for multiple victims d id not violate double jeopardy principles in that

case ).
No. 64755.

#### R. U. Delapenha & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 117456-K/347, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.