alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit No. 23

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Journal Communications,  Inc. of our report dated January 28, 2000,
included in the 1999 Annual Report to  Shareholders  of Journal  Communications,
Inc.

         Our audits also  included the financial  statement  schedule of Journal
Communications,  Inc. listed in item 14(a). This schedule is the  responsibility
of the company's  management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based
on our audits.  In our opinion,  the financial  statement  schedule  referred to
above, when considered in relation to the basic financial  statements taken as a
whole,  presents  fairly in all  material  respects  the  information  set forth
therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
of Forms S-8 (File Nos. 2-79770,  33-13771 and 333-15669)  pertaining to Journal
Communications,  Inc. Employees' Individual  Retirement  Agreement;  the Journal
Employees' Stock Trust, and the Journal  Communications,  Inc.  Employees' Stock
Trust filing of November 5, 1996,  with respect to 1,500,000 units of beneficial
interest in said trust,  of our report dated  January 28, 2000,  with respect to
the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein by reference,  and our
report  included  in the  preceding  paragraph  with  respect  to the  financial
statement  schedule  included  in this  Annual  Report  (Form  10-K) of  Journal
Communications, Inc.


                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 29, 2000
Case 2:05-cv-05987-EL Document 102 Filed 12/11/08 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:05-cv-05987-EL Document 102 Filed 12/11/08 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:05-cv-05987-EL Document 102 Filed 12/11/08 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:05-cv-05987-EL Document 102 Filed 12/11/08 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:05-cv-05987-EL Document 102 Filed 12/11/08 Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 23.2.c

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-18139 and 333-108215) of Kansas City Power & Light Company (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Great Plains Energy Incorporated) of our report dated February 5, 2002, except with respect to the reclassification of the 2001 information in Note 16 as to which the date is May 22, 2002; the 2001 transitional disclosures relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142 as described in Note 6 as to which the date is February 21, 2003;  and the reclassification described in the last paragraph of Note 9 relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 145, the reclassification to the 2001 financial statements relating to the discontinued operations as described in Note 8, and the 2001 transitional disclosures relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 143 as described in Note 15 as to which the date is August 13, 2003, relating to the financial statements of Kansas City Power & Light Company, which appears in this Form 10-K.  We also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the above named registration statement of our report dated February 5, 2002, except with respect to the reclassification to the 2001 financial statement schedule information relating to the discontinued operations as described in Note 1 as to which the date is August 13, 2003, relating to the financial statement schedule of Kansas City Power & Light Company, which also appears in this Form 10-K.



/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Kansas City, Missouri
March 9, 2004
No. 6708.

#### M. LAZARONE vs. EMILE JESSE.

Appeal from the 28th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 2146. Honorable P. E. Edrington, Judge.

*443Opinion and decree, April 7th, 1916.

Rehearing refused, April 7th, 1916.

Writ denied, April 14th, 1916.

F. A. Middleton, E. A. O’Sullivan, for plaintiff and appellant.

Dart, Kernan & Dart, for defendant and appellee.

Per Curiam.

This case presents the same' questions involved in the case of Maggiore vs. Lochbaum, No. 6705 of our docket, this day decided.

For the reasons therein assigned, it is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from he reversed, that the plea of prescription be overruled, and the case remanded to the trial Court to be proceeded with according to law.

Reversed and remanded.
126 STAT. 1626 PUBLIC LAW 112–235—DEC. 28, 2012 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3564: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012): 

Dec. 11, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 19, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–235 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To extend the Public Interest Declassification Act of 2000 until 2014 and for other 

purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Public Interest Declassification 

Board Reauthorization Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. PUBLIC INTEREST DECLASSIFICATION BOARD. 

(a) SUBSEQUENT APPOINTMENT.—Section 703(c)(2)(D) of the 

Public Interest Declassification Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–567; 

50 U.S.C. 435 note) is amended by striking the period at the 

end and inserting ‘‘from the date of the appointment.’’. 

(b) VACANCY.—Section 703(c)(3) of the Public Interest Declassification Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–567; 50 U.S.C. 435 note) 

is amended by striking ‘‘A member of the Board appointed to 

fill a vacancy before the expiration of a term shall serve for the 

remainder of the term.’’. 

(c) EXTENSION OF SUNSET.—Section 710(b) of the Public Interest 

Declassification Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–567; 50 U.S.C. 435 

note) is amended by striking ‘‘2012.’’ inserting ‘‘2014.’’. 

Approved December 28, 2012. 

Public Interest 

Declassification 

Board 

Reauthorization 

Act of 2012. 

50 USC 401 note. 

Dec. 28, 2012 

[S. 3564] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2413

PATRICIA LEVIEGE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VODAFONE US INC., d/b/a Vodafone Americas,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00374-LMB-IDD)

Submitted: May 23, 2017 Decided: May 25, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monique Antonia Miles, OLD TOWNE ASSOCIATES, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Emily Crandall Harlan, NIXON PEABODY LLP, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Patricia Leviege appeals the district court’s orders granting Vodafone US Inc.’s 

(Vodafone) motion to dismiss Leviege’s employment discrimination, harassment, and 

retaliation claims against Vodafone, and denying Leviege’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion 

for reconsideration of the dismissal order. We have considered the parties’ arguments 

and have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. See Leviege v. Vodafone US Inc., No. 1:16-cv00374-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2016 & Nov. 9, 2016). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Energy

###### Bonneville Power Administration 

# AGENCY:

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE). 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of Record of Decision (ROD). 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the availability of the ROD for BPA's 2007-2009 Fish and Wildlife Project Implementation Decision. BPA has decided to implement certain new and ongoing fish and wildlife mitigation projects for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 that help meet the agency's responsibilities to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of the Columbia River basin hydroelectric dams from which BPA markets power. This decision is consistent with and tiered to BPA's Fish and Wildlife Implementation Plan Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0312, April 2003) and the Fish and Wildlife Implementation Plan ROD (October 31, 2003). 

# ADDRESSES:

                        Copies of this ROD may be obtained by calling BPA's toll-free document request line, 1-800-622-4520. This ROD and the Fish and Wildlife Implementation Plan EIS and ROD are also available on our Web site,                         *www.efw.bpa.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

                        Shannon Stewart, Bonneville Power Administration—KEC-4, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208-3621; toll-free telephone number 1-800-282-3713; fax number 503-230-5699; or e-mail                         *scstewart@bpa.gov.*

Issued in Portland, Oregon, February 9, 2007. 

Stephen J. Wright, 

Administrator and Chief Executive Officer.

 [FR Doc. E7-2998 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### Edward C. HILL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William S. COHEN, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-1089.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 18, 2001.

Edward C. Hill, Jr., pro se. Edward John Martin, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.

*118Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Edward C. Hill, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Hill v. Cohen,*No. CA-00-1373-A (E.D.Va. Dec. 7, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Case No. 9,046.

#### MANNING v. LOWDERMILK.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 282.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1805.

Contracts — To Share Commissions — Evidence— Proof of Receipt.

Delivery of the cargo to the owners, by the supercargo, is evidence of his receipt of his commissions in an action against him by a third person, who is entitled to a share of those commissions.

Money had and received. The evidence was a verbal agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to share the commissions on *658the sales of a cargo in the West Indies, the plaintiff being master, and the defendant supercargo. There was no special agreement stated in the declaration; and there was no evidence that the defendant had actually received the commissions.

Mr. Key, for defendant.

The plaintiff must prove money actually received by the defendant, or must give in evidence such an instrument as the law makes evidence of money had and received.

Mr. Morsell, for plaintiff.

The defendant had a lien on the goods or the money for his commissions; and if he relinquished that lien without the assent of the plaintiff, he ought to be liable.

Mr. Mason, on the same side.

Actual receipt of money, in numero, is not absolutely necessary. If I sell another man’s horse and receive corn in payment, he may bring and support this action. If I sell the horse for cash on credit, and receive payment in corn, it lies. The receipt of the purchase-money for the flour, was a receipt of his commissions. The motion is to instruct the jury that the plaintiff cannot recover in this form of action, unless the money was actually received, or such evidence is produced as will prevent the defendant from denying the receipt of the money.

The opinion of

THE COURT

was, that the jury must be satisfied that the defendant received the money, but that the delivery of the inward cargo to the owners, without the consent of the plaintiff, is evidence of the defendant’s receipt of his commissions, which the defendant in this case ought not to be permitted to deny.

KILTY, Chief Judge, absent
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 7/29/15

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan at the DOE WINDExchange Summit

SUMMARY: 

Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan at the DOE WINDExchange Summit in

Cocoa, FL, on May 18, 2015. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on 

June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Ken Mitchell/EPA R4

External Stakeholders

Steve Clemmer, Union of Concerned Scientists

Brian O’Hara, Southeastern Wind Coalition

Approximately 30 other participants, including various DOE staff (Brie Vancleve – organizer)

ATTACHMENT
Follow-up answers to meeting participants’ questions provided by Ken 

Mitchell/EPA Region 4 to Tom Parker/API Southern Region via email on 5/27/15.

1. Is methane regulated as a VOC?

This question was raised in the context of our discussion of ozone 

regulations. In that context, the term "VOC - Volatile Organic Compounds" 

is defined in 40 CFR 51.100(s) as follows: 

“(s) Volatile organic compounds (VOC) means any compound of carbon, 

excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides 

or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in 

atmospheric photochemical reactions. 

(1) This includes any such organic compound other than the following, 

which have been determined to have negligible photochemical reactivity: 

methane; ethane...” (Emphasis added)

2. Are additional refinery regulations in the works or anticipated?

From the conversation at the Charleston API meeting, I understood this to 

be specifically related to a greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for refineries 

pursuant to a 2010 settlement agreement between EPA and various 

petitioners (see: http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/2010-

proposed-settlement-agreements-address-greenhouse-gas-emissions). The 

Agency is focused on finalizing the proposed Clean Power Plan.

3. When were the current ozone implementation standards completed? 

There are two main rules related to implementing the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. The first (the Classification Rule) was issued on April 30, 2012. The 

second (the SIP Requirements Rule) was issued on February 13, 2015 

(see: http://epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/actions.html#impl). Note 

that implementation activities undertaken to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

are expected to help many areas make progress toward meeting any future 

revised ozone standards. On November 25, 2014, the EPA proposed to 
strengthen the ozone NAAQS in order to ensure that the standards meet 

the requirements of the CAA. The EPA will complete that proposed 

rulemaking by October 1, 2015. In the event EPA takes final action to revise 

the current (2008) NAAQS, EPA would issue a new implementation rule 

specific to that future revised NAAQS.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RANDY E. STODGEL, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4747

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed August 15, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Collier County; Frederick R. Hardt, 

Judge.

Randy E. Stodgel, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
No. R68/9.

reappraisement R61/20552 (San Francisco).

#### Wheeler & Miller, a/c Armeatco Import *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *1060
      *International Packers, Limited*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 636, Reap. Dec. 11147) and *International Packers, Limited v. United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 472, Reap. Dec. 10696), the court found and held that export value as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for determining value of the canned meat products (dog meat) exported from Argentina on or about November 28, 1960, described on the invoice of the entry covered by this appeal to reappraisement and that such value is the appraised value, less the Argentine retention tax equal to 49.8 Argentine pesos per carton.
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32.2   PATIENT PORTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


     Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



I, Thomas Hagan, Acting Chief Financial Officer of Patient Portal Technologies,
Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a
review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A 1 for the period ended March 31,
2008 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a)[15(d)] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Registrant.


Dated:  November 10, 2008            /s/ THOMAS HAGAN
                                     -----------------------
                                     Thomas Hagan
                                     Chief Financial Officer







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ISS GROUP, INC. AS OF AND FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          59,935
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,595
<ALLOWANCES>                                       257
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,930
<PP&E>                                           3,741
<DEPRECIATION>                                     860
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,635
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,174
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,967
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,404
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,033
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,722)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,722)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,722)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
No. 58014.

protest 210863-K (New York).

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

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
EXHIBIT 32.1

    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 Elite  Pharmaceuticals,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, Bernard  Berk,  Chief
Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
      material respects,  the consolidated financial condition of the Company as
      of the dates  presented and the  consolidated  result of operations of the
      Company for the periods presented.


                                    /s/ Bernard Berk
Date: August 15, 2005               -------------------------------------
                                    Bernard Berk
                                    Chief Executive Officer of
                                    Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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