alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23








                                 Independent Auditors' Consent


          The Board of Directors
          Furniture Brands International, Inc.:


          We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration
          statement (Nos. 33-65714, 333-6990, 333-39355) on Form S-8 of
          Furniture Brands International, Inc. of our report dated January
          29, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
          Furniture Brands International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
          December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated
          statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows
          and related schedule for each of the years in the three-year
          period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the
          December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of Furniture Brands
          International, Inc.






          St. Louis, Missouri
          March 27, 1998<PAGE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO WOOTEN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0816 DFL JFM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On April 11, 2005, defendant filed a motion to [motion to/for what] pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file

written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any

opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” On July 26, 2004, plaintiff was advised of the

requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may

be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be

grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

Case 2:04-cv-00816-DFL -JFM Document 35 Filed 05/16/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

inherent power of the Court.” In the order filed July 26, 2004, plaintiff was advised that failure

to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the

date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to the motion to dismiss. Failure to file

an opposition will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition and shall result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: May 16, 2005.

001/woot0816.osc

Case 2:04-cv-00816-DFL -JFM Document 35 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 2
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 Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust V and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P. (the  "Partnership")
for the  period  ended  September  26,  2003 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, John J.  Fosina,
Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of the Partnership,
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 fully 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
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ JOHN J. FOSINA
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    John J. Fosina *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: November 6, 2003
_______________________

*  John J. Fosina functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
----

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 — E v Commission

(Case F-5/06) (1)

(Officials - Lawfulness of internal procedures - Allegedly wrongful conduct of officials in the context of disciplinary proceedings and of a procedure for recognition of the occupational nature of a disease - Compensation for damage - Admissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Confirmatory act)

(2006/C 212/84)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: E (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision of 4 October 2005 dismissing the applicant's complaint concerning the checking of the lawfulness of disciplinary proceedings and of a procedure for recognition of the applicant's occupational disease, and a claim for damages.

Operative part of the order

----

(1)OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

----
- Bureau of the Fiscal Service
- Training
- An Overview of the Collections Search Download Report in Pay.gov

# An Overview of the Collections Search Download Report in Pay.gov

Target Audience:

Open to all federal employees

----

Location:

Online

----

Duration:

Tues., June 18, 2019 | 10am – 11am ET

----

Cost:

Free

----

Hosted by:

Revenue Collections Management

----

Point of Contact:

arm@fiscal.treasury.gov

## Event Details:

This webinar will provide an interactive overview of the Collections Search Download Report in Pay.gov.

It is designed for anyone who wants to learn more about this popular Pay.gov report!

There is **no charge**for this webinar.

Please register using the form below.

If you have any questions, please e-mail arm@fiscal.treasury.gov

Fields marked with an asterisk(*) are required. 

**An Overview of the Collections Search Download Report in Pay.gov**

Last modified 08/08/21
No. 43992.

#### Protests 348222-G, etc., of J. Bakouth et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT, : CIVIL ACTION NO.: 02-cv-4421

:

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER :

OF COMMERCE, INC., JOHN J. (BUD) :

AIKEN, and MICKEY GLANTZ, :

:

Defendants. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, to wit this _______ day of __________, 2005, upon consideration of

the Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Recovery of Attorney Fees and any response thereto,

it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that the said Motion is GRANTED and the

Plaintiff is precluded from recovering attorney’s fees in this action.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

J.

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 43-4 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.29

AMENDMENT TO  RETAIL TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT

This is an AMENDMENT TO RETAIL TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT (this "AMENDMENT") by and between The Pillsbury Company, a Delaware Corporation, having a principal
place of business at Number One General Mills Boulevard,Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 ("TPC") and International Multifoods Corporation, a Delaware
corporation having a principal place of business at 110 Cheshire Lane, Suite 300, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305 ("LICENSEE").

WHEREAS,
TPC and LICENSEE have executed a Retail Trademark Licensee Agreement dated November 13, 2001 (the "Agreement");

WHEREAS,
TPC and LICENSEE desire to amend the Agreement to clarify LICENSEE's rights to use the PROPERTY on items not included within the Acquired Product Categories;

NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual promises set forth herein and those set forth in the Agreement, LICENSEE and TPC agree as follows:

1.Use of PROPERTY within Non-exclusive Product Categories



2.Non-Exclusive Product Categories



---

3.Use of PROPERTY on Items not Included in the Acquired Products Categories and the Non-Exclusive Product
Categories



4.Cost



5.No Reproductions



6.Defined Terms



7.No Other Modifications



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this AMENDMENT to be duly executed in the manner appropriate to each.

|THE PILLSBURY COMPANY |                 | INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION
|--------------------- | --------------- | ------------------------------------
|                      |                 |                                     
|By:                   | /s/ D.I. Malina |                                     
|Title:                | V.P. CD         |                                     
|Date:                 | 12/18/02        |                                     

2

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
September 30, 1999 Financial Statements included in the Company's Form 10-Q and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          37,405
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,744
<ALLOWANCES>                                       725
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,096
<PP&E>                                           3,285
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,464
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,206
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           130
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,464
<SALES>                                         17,040
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,040
<CGS>                                           13,617
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,250
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (1,827)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (982)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (381)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (601)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
No. 61824.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 310552-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of parts of photo enlargers; that said enlargers were held dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 1551, as modified, as photographic cameras in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 1874); and that, in accordance with said decision, parts for enlargers are properly dutiable as parts of photographic cameras under paragraph 1551, -the claim of the plaintiff at 20 percent was sustained as to said items. Following *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protest was dismissed as to the items marked “B,” and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
No. 07-17-00277-CV

Billy Joe Willard, Jr.

 Appellant

v.

Erika Lynn Willard

 Appellee 

§

§

§

§

From the County Court at Law No. 1 

 of Johnson County

October 17, 2017

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated October 17, 2017, it is ordered, 

adjudged and decreed that this appeal is dismissed.

It is further ordered that appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended for which 

let execution issue.

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that inasmuch as the appeal is 

dismissed at the appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and 

our mandate will issue forthwith.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [ES-966-1910-BK, Group 25, Maine] 

                    The plat of the dependent resurvey and survey of the boundaries of the Passamaquoddy Tribal Reservation lands held in trust by the United States, in Indian Township, Washington County, Maine, will be officially filed in Eastern States, Springfield, Virginia at 7:30 a.m., 30 calendar days from the date of publication in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

The survey was requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

All inquiries or protests concerning the technical aspects of the survey must be sent to the Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Eastern States, Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. 

Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and prepayment of the reproduction fee of $2.75 per copy. 

Dated: February 16, 2007. 

Jerry L. Wahl, 

(Acting) Chief Cadastral Surveyor.

[FR Doc. E7-3362 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary of Transportation GENERAL COUNSEL

May 14 , 2015



### Via Electronic Filing and E-mail

U.S. Departme nt of Transportation Docket Managemen t 1200 New Jerse y Avenue, S. E. Ro o m W12-140 Wa s hington , D.C. 20590 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590



### Re: Jonathan Parker v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, DOT-OST-2015-0093 and Tasha Grant v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, DOT-OST-2015-0094 Dea r Mr. Cashen a nd Mr. Lovitky: On April 28 , 20 1 5, J o n a than Parker and Tasha Grant (Comp l ainants) , through counse l , fi le d thirdpart y comp l aints aga inst Saudi Arabi a n Air lin es (Respondent) pursuant to 1 4 CFR 302.404 in d oc k e t s DOT -OST-2 015 -0093 and DOT-OST -20 1 5-0 094. On May 3 , 20 15 , Co mpl a inant s filed amended compla int s in the respec ti ve d ocke t s . Pursuant to 14 CF R 302
. 5(b) , th e tim e prescribed f o r th e fil i ng of an answer or any furth e r re spo n s iv e document directed towards the a m e nd ed document sha ll be computed from the d ate of th e filin g of the amendment. T he refore , the due date f o r a n answer or a ny re spo n s i ve document direc ted towards the amen d e d comp la int is May 1 8 , 2015. On M ay 7 , 2 015 , Saudi Arabian Ai rlin es se nt a letter to the Offi ce of Aviation Enf orce m en t a nd Procee din gs (E nforce m e nt Offic e) reque s tin g a 60-day e x tens io n t o answer both ame nd e d comp la int s. Saudi Arabian Ai rlin es s tated th at th e extension was necessary t o " a ll ow ti me t o in vest ig at e th e fact s s urrounding the a ll egat ions in th e Amended Complaints thro ug h the ho m e office in J e ddah , Saudi Arabia" and asserted that "co mmunicati o n s w ith the ho m e office ta ke a s ub s t a nti a l a m o unt of tim e. " Co mpl a in a nt s se n t a let te r t o the E n fo rcem e nt Office that sa me day , oppos in g Resp o ndent ' s request for a 60-day ex ten s io n o n g ro und s that both complaints direct l y involve th e p erso nal s af e ty of indi vi dual s tr ave lin g o n Saudi Arabian Airlines.

### P age 2 Up o n g i v in g Res p o nd e nt ' s mo ti o n du e co n s id e rat io n , th e D e p a rtment find s th a t R es po nd e nt ' s re qu es t fo r a 6 0-day e x te n s io n i s n o t warrante d
. H oweve r, th e De p a rtment find s goo d ca u se s h ow n to gr a nt a 3 0-da y ex te n s io n . Accordin g ly , a n swe r s o r o th e r res p o n s ive d oc um e nt s in th e a bove - c apti o ne d p rocee din gs w ill b e due o n o r be f o re Jun e 17 , 2 01 5. S in ce rel y ,



# ,£fL__

**Bi ne:o:** 

**~** /-

- Ass i s t a nt G e n e ra l Co un se l f o r Avi ati on En fo rce me nt a nd Procee din gs
No. 75-1521.

No. 75-1609.

No. 75-1858.

#### Dow Chemical Co. *v.*Local 14055, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al.; Chamber of Commerce of the United States *v.*Local 14055, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al.; National Labor Relations Board *v.*Local 14055, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and cases remanded with directions to remand to the National Labor Relations Board for reconsideration in light of intervening circumstances.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      18,413,686
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,353,942
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          545,282
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,103,028)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,353,942
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               764,817
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,593
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (790,410)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (790,410)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (790,410)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.039)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.039)
        

</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

September 25, 1951

No. 55906.

protest 146918-K (Galveston).

#### Dixie Berry *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the later hearing, the attorney who appeared as *amicus curiae*and as counsel for the plaintiff — at the request of the court — stated that his client had failed to take steps to comply with the regulations and law, and that, in his opinion, the court had done everything possible to render justice in the case. Upon the record presented, the court was constrained to overrule the claim for free entry.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/7/2023 1

Voter Identification in Lawrence, Massachusetts 

Morris v. City of Lawrence 

(Rya W. Zobel, D. Mass. 1:01-cv-11889) 

On the day before a municipal election, a voter and two votingrights organizations filed a federal complaint challenging a city’s 

planned voter-identification requirement. Defense counsel 

acknowledged that voters would show up without identification, 

because they would not be aware of the new requirement, and they 

would only be able to vote if they signed their ballots. The court enjoined the requirement. 

Subject: Voter identification. Topics: Voter identification; case 

assignment. 

On the day before the November 2001 municipal election in Lawrence, Massachusetts, a voter and two voting-rights organizations filed a federal complaint in the District of Massachusetts challenging Lawrence’s planned voteridentification requirement, alleging that (1) the requirement violated the 

Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and a 1999 consent decree;1 (2) persons 

without identification would be able to vote but they would have to sign their 

ballots; and (3) the new requirement had been insufficiently publicized.2

The court assigned the case to Judge William G. Young, who signed the 

consent decree, but Judge Rya W. Zobel heard the matter because of Judge 

Young’s unavailability.3 Judge Zobel was on duty that month to handle miscellaneous matters, such as grand-jury issues, naturalizations, wire taps, and 

proceedings in other judges’ cases if the other judges were unavailable.4

 Judges in the district rotated duty months in order of seniority.5

On approximately five minutes’ notice, Judge Zobel conducted the hearing while a jury in a criminal case before her was deliberating.6

 Defense 

counsel acknowledged that voters would show up on the following day without identification and only be able to vote if they signed their ballots.7

 Later 

that day, Judge Zobel issued a preliminary injunction against the voteridentification requirement.8

1. See Docket Sheet, United States v. City of Lawrence, No. 1:98-cv-12256 (D. Mass. Nov. 

5, 1998). 

2. Complaint, Morris v. City of Lawrence, No. 1:01-cv-11889 (D. Mass. Nov. 5, 2001), 

D.E. 1; see Farah Stockman, Lawrence Voting Regulation Targeted Democrats, Boston Globe, 

Nov. 5, 2001, at B1. 

3. Transcript, Morris, No. 1:01-cv-11889 (D. Mass. Nov. 5, 2001, filed Nov. 28, 2001), 

D.E. 11; Minutes, id. (Nov. 5, 2001), D.E. 7. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Zobel for this report by telephone on September 9, 2013. 

4. Interview with Hon. Rya W. Zobel, Sept. 9, 2013. 

5. Id. 

6. Transcript, supra note 3, at 12, 21, 24. 

7. Id. at 14, 16. 

8. Preliminary Injunction, Morris, No. 1:01-cv-11889 (D. Mass. Nov. 5, 2001), D.E. 6; see

Shelley Murphy, Judge Strikes Lawrence ID Rule, Boston Globe, Nov. 6, 2001, at B2.