alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.'s
333-80415 and 333-80409 of Factual Data Corp. on Forms S-3 and the  registration
statement  No.'s  333-92693 and 333-80101 on Forms S-8 of our report dated March
28, 2001,  appearing  in the annual  report on Form 10-KSB of Factual Data Corp.
for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                        /s/ Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC
                                            Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC

March 28, 2001
Denver, Colorado
```
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > New England Labor and Labor Problems

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*New England Labor and Labor Problems : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1212*,												Washington, D.C.: 								GPO, 										1957,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4576,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
 
                        Consent of Independent Auditors
 
The Board of Directors
SonoSite, Inc.
 
   We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-49401) on Form S-8 of SonoSite, Inc. (a development stage enterprise) of
our report dated January 27, 1999, relating to the balance sheets of SonoSite,
Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and 1998, and the related statements of
operations, cash flows and shareholders' equity for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1998 and for the period from February 1994
(inception) through December 31, 1998, which report appears in the December 31,
1998 annual report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc.
 
                                          KPMG LLP
 
Seattle, Washington
March 19, 1999
99-0480 (La. 4/23/99)

#### Donald B. LONG, III and Kathryn Waller Long v. Thomas V. BRUNS and Virginia M. Bruns.

No. 99-C-0480.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Long, Donald B.; Long, Kathryn Waller; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Caddo 1st Judicial District Court Div. *882“I” Number 325,754; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Number 31427-CA

Denied.

VICTORY, J. not on panel.
Before the Third Division,

July 29, 1938

No. 39122.

#### Petition 5172-R of M. Martinez & Co. (San Diego).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appeared that the appraiser deducted only $233.21 for freight, thereby making an advance in the dutiable value of $40.39 as the item deducted for freight on the entry was $273.60. It was found that the petitioners were without intent to defraud the revenue, conceal or misrepresent the facts, or to deceive the appraiser. The petition was therefore granted. Abstract 37485 followed.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011�1003

Combined Multibeam and LIDAR Bathymetry Data from Eastern Long Island Sound and Westernmost Block Island Sound � A Regional Perspective

----

## Acknowledgments 

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey
Exhibit 32

                           Section 1350 Certifications

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of DND
Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

      To my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: November 12, 2004

                                      BY:  /s/ Douglas N. Dixon
                                         --------------------------------------
                                                  DOUGLAS N. DIXON
                                               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Dated: November 12, 2004

                                      BY:  /s/ G. Dennis Key
                                         --------------------------------------
                                                     G. DENNIS KEY
                                               CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


                                       29
(LOGO)

AURORA LOAN INC
NATIONAL SERVICING CENTER
601 Fifth Avenue o  P.O. Box 1706
Scottsbluff, NE 69363-1706
Fax: 308-630-6700

VIA AIRBORNE

March 23, 1999

Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
Attn: Kimberly J. Wiggins
Contracts and Compliance
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044

Re: Officer's Certificate

Dear Master Servicer:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 1998 fiscal year:

1. I have reviewed the  activities and  performance  of the Servicer  during the
preceding  fiscal  year  under  the  terms  of the  Servicing  Agreement,  Trust
Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or  Seller/Servicer Guide and to
the best of this  Officer's  knowledge,  the Servicer has  fulfilled  all of its
duties,  responsibilities or obligations under these Agreements  throughout such
year,  or if there has been a default or failure of the  servicer to perform any
of such duties,  responsibilities or obligations,  a description of each default
or failure and the nature and status  thereof has been  reported to Norwest Bank
Minnesota, N.A.;

2. I have  confirmed  that the Servicer is  currently an approved  FNMA or FHLMC
servicer in good standing;


3. I have confirmed  that the Fidelity Bond, the Errors and Omissions  Insurance
Policy and any other bonds required under the terms of the Servicing  Agreement,
Trust Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or  Seller/Servicer  Guide
are in full force and effect;

4. All premiums for each Hazard  Insurance  Policy,  Flood Insurance  Policy (if
applicable) and Primary Mortgage Insurance Policy (if applicable),  with respect
to each Mortgaged Property,  have been paid and that all such insurance policies
are in full force and effect;

5. All real  estate  taxes,  governmental  assessments  and any  other  expenses
accrued and due, that if not paid could result in a lien or  encumbrance  on any
Mortgaged  Property,  have been paid,  or if any such costs or expenses have not
been paid with respect to any Mortgaged Property, the reason for the non-payment
has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

6. All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly funded; and

7. All annual  reports of  Foreclosure  and  Abandonment  of Mortgaged  Property
required per section 6050J and 6050P of the Internal Revenue Code, respectively,
have been prepared and filed.


Certified/By:

Regina Lashley
Vice President
**Exhibit      21**

**SUBSIDIARIES      OF THE REGISTRANT**

| Subsidiary                                      |   | Jurisdiction                of Organization |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|                                            |   |                                        |
| Ridgewood                Near East Holdings LLC |   | Delaware                                    |
|                                            |   |                                        |
| Ridgewood                US Hydro Corporation   |   | Delaware                                    |
|                                            |   |                                        |
| Ridgewood                UK LLC                 |   | Delaware                                    |
|                                            |   |                                        |
| Ridgewood                Zap LLC                |   | Delaware                                    |
|                                            |   |                                        |

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 7, 2017

s0531

Order 

Clerk

June 7, 2017

153155-6

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153155

COA: 319993

Oakland CC: 2013-245247-FH

DERRICK SHOMARI HOLOMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153156

COA: 319994

Oakland CC: 2013-245261-FH

VERTRECE LEO SHEPARD WELLS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00164

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF E.N., A C HILD §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 367th District Court

of Denton County ( 19

- 5791

- 367 )

November 19, 2020

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s order

. It is ordered that the trial court ’ s order is

affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT-23














                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



Board of Directors
Clover Community Bankshares, Inc.

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in Clover  Community
Bankshares, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-71777),  relating
to the  registration  of up to 50,000  shares of its common  stock for  issuance
pursuant to the Clover Community Bankshares, Inc. Dividend Reinvestment Plan, of
our  report  dated  February  6, 2004,  which is  included  in Clover  Community
Bankshares,  Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
2003.





                                                 s/Elliott Davis, LLC


Greenville, South Carolina
March 29, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1253

LIANG CHEN, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: January 9, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Liang Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Eric Warren Marsteller, Jem Colleen Sponzo, 

Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Liang Chen, who claims to be a native and citizen of 

the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his 

appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

Convention Against Torture. 

 Chen first challenges the determination that he failed 

to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of 

a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must 

show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no 

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of 

persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 

(1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude 

that Chen fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary 

result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks. 

 Additionally, we uphold the denial of Chen’s request 

for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for 

withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though 

the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is 

ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding 

of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 

378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Chen failed to show 

2 
3 

that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher 

standard for withholding of removal. 

 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.∗ 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. 

PETITION DENIED

 ∗

 In his informal brief before this court, Chen has failed 

to raise any challenges to the denial of his request for 

protection under the Convention Against Torture. We therefore 

find that he has waived appellate review of this claim. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues 

raised in the informal brief.”); Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 

182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
# C_2013147EN.01003302.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/33

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 19 March 2013 —  SF (*1) v Commission

(Case F-10/12) (1)

(Civil Service - Remuneration - Daily subsistence allowance - Transfer - Grant of the daily subsistence allowance - Official owning accommodation located at the new place of employment - Proof of expenses incurred due to provisional installation at the new place of employment)

(2013/C 147/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: SF (*1) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Civil Service — Application to annul the Commission decision refusing to grant the applicant daily subsistence allowances.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by  SF (*1); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by  SF (*1);

| 3. | Orders  SF (*1) to bear half of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders  SF (*1) to bear half of his own costs.

---

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 29.

---
No. 96-7750.

#### Farmer *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Stephanie VENIBLE v. FIRST FINANCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Consolidated with Nicole Benitez. v. Ernest BAILEY, et al.

No. 98-CC-2858.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

In re Venible, Stephanie; Benitez, Nicole; Klotz, Erin; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “M”, No. 96-02647; Civil District Court, Div. “C”, No. 97-07352, 97-12417; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 97CW-2495, 97CW-2667.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., not on panel.
#### Feed Lunning, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6834.

Entry No. 705728.

Invoice dated London, England, June 1945.

Certified June 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 11, 1945.

(Decided February 5, 1947)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Tilson, Judge:

In this appeal the question is raised as to whether or not the action of the appraiser was legal in including as a part of the dutiable value of the merchandise the amount of the so-called British purchase tax. The appeal has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the issues herein are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *United States*v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, and the record in that case has been admitted in evidence in this ease.

Upon the agreed facts and the law applicable thereto, I find and hold the proper dutiable export value of the merchandise covered by said appeal to be the values found by the appraiser, less any amounts added by the importer on entry to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar eases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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 Annual Report of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 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 Company.

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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ DANIEL E. DOSORETZ, M.D.         
|Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.             
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(principal executive officer)        
|February 15, 2007
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

PO BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 • \

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

STATE OF TEXAS < ^

PENALTY FOR /' ' g";

12/4/2014 PRIVATE USE - || ]

SMITH, WAYNE Tr. Ct. No. WOO

&2d3Z2B B C35ZZ3L

N3B "77320 vA~>

02 1R

0006557458

MAILED FROM ZIPCODE 78 701

WAYNE SMITH

ELLIS I UNIT - TDC # 1096076

1697 FM 980

HUNTSVILLE, TX 77343

• PITNtV BOWES

$ 00.265

DEC 10 2014

IPCODE 78 701 i) WR-62,807-04

On'this day," the application for .11W Writ",of Habeas Corpus has been received and presented to the Court. . 'v ^ * Abe|^^ C|erk

UTF

'('hfIi! if'* i'*' ii***iir**' 11•' i'11 *MI'll•*'*''!*11'' iM**11!ji
No. 39145.

#### Protests 929786-G, etc., of Western Electrical Instr. Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appeared that the resistances were not marked but that the immediate containers and the outer cases were legally marked. On the record presented the protests were sustained. *Kraft*v. *United States*(22 C. C. P. A. 111, T. D. 47103) and *Givaudan*v. *United States*(id. 115, T. D. 47104) followed.
#### EASTWOOD AUTO BODY AND GARAGE, INC., doing business as Eastwood Towing, James Messer, and Lucille Messer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF WATERBURY, Edward D. Bergin, Jr., Mayor, Individual and official capacity as Mayor of the City of Waterbury, Francis Sullivan, Individual and official capacity as Administrative Aide to the Mayor of the City of Waterbury, Edward F. Bergin, Individual and official capacity as Superintendent of Police of the City of Waterbury, Richard J. White, Individual and official capacity as Deputy Superintendent of Police for the City of Waterbury, John 1-10 Does, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket 97-9278.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 28, 1998.

Decided Sept. 25, 1998.

Michael P. McGovern, Ayres & Parkey, Knoxville, TN, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Cheryl E. Hricko, Corporation Counsel’s Office, City of Waterbury, Waterbury, CT, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: WINTER, Chief Judge, and KEARSE, WALKER, JACOBS, LEVAL, CALABRESI, CABRANES, PARKER, STRAUB, POOLER, and SACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs-appellants Eastwood Auto Body and Garage, Inc., *et al.,*seek *in banc*review of the decision by a panel of this Court to deny appellants’ motion for additional time to file a petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing *in banc.*Upon motion, this Court may “for good cause shown ... enlarge the time prescribed” to file a petition for rehearing or modify an erroneous decision even though the time for rehearing has expired. Fed. R.App. P. 26(b) & 40; *see Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.,*424 F.2d 427, 429 (2d Cir.), *cert. denied,*400 U.S. 829, 91 S.Ct. 59, 27 L.Ed.2d 59 (1970). The decision whether to grant the motion is discretionary. *See Marino v. Ortiz,*888 F.2d 12, 13-14 (2d Cir.1989) *(per*curiam) (denying Rule 40 motion for extension of time based on new Supreme Court decision as “nothing but an attempt to reopen a final judgment because of a subsequent change in the law”).

Discretion in this case was soundly exercised. There is a pattern of appellants’ repeated defaults, lateness and extensions, both here and in the district court. Such conduct wastes everyone’s resources, breeds incivility between counsel, and (unless papers show *138otherwise, as these do not) betrays counsel’s view that the litigation lacks promise except to delay a day of reckoning.

The motion for *in banc*review is denied. The mandate shall issue forthwith.