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

Exhibit 23.1




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-72271) and Form S-3 (No. 333-78915), Post-Effective Amendment
No. 3 on Form S-3 to Registration Statement on Form S-1 (No. 333-56603), and
Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 on Form S-3 to Registration Statement on Form S-1
(No. 333-65563) of United Road Services, Inc. of our report dated March 8, 2002,
relating to the consolidated financial statements as listed in the index
appearing under Item 14(a)(1), which report appears in the December 31, 2001
annual report on Form 10-K of United Road Services, Inc.

Our report dated March 8, 2002 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company's outstanding indebtedness under its revolving credit facility,
$37,436,000, is reflected as a current liability because of the payment
requirements of the related credit agreement. Consequently, current liabilities
exceed current assets by approximately $32,390,000. In addition, the Company has
had recurring losses from operations, including impairment charges of
$157,736,000, and has an accumulated deficit of $200,289,000, at December 31,
2001. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regard to these matters are
also described in Note 2. The consolidated financial statements do not include
any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Albany, New York
March 29, 2002
# C_2012217EN.01002502.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/25

---

Action brought on 14 May 2012 — Shark v OHIM — Monster Energy (UNLEASH THE BEAST!)

(Case T-217/12)

2012/C 217/54

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Shark AG (Innsbruck, Austria) (represented by: D. Campbell, Barrister, and P. Strickland, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 360/2011-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 360/2011-1; and

| — | Order the Office and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘UNLEASH THE BEAST!’, for goods in class 32 — Community trade mark registration No 5093174

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Community trade mark registration No 2729366 of the word mark ‘BRING OUT THE BEAST’, for goods in class 32; Community trade mark registration No 2730133 of the figurative mark ‘COOL BITE BRING OUT THE BEAST’, for goods in class 32

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the invalidity of the contested community trade mark

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 57(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
(A.R.D. 108)

#### Dan Brechner & Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 24694-2, etc.

Second Division, Appellate .Term

(Decided June 4, 1959)

*Jofdan & KVmgamm*for the appellant.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee.

Before Lawbence, Rao, and Eord, Judges

Lawrence, Judge:

This application for review of Reap. Dec. 8994 (39 Cust. Ct. 651), which covered the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made a part of this decision, having been formerly abandoned, is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Searched for **http://www.cdc.gov/cdctv/lifestagesandpopulations/eyes-of-the-eagle.html**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.cdc.gov/cdctv/lifestagesandpopulations/eyes-of-the-eagle.html**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
# C_2015034EN.01003301.xml

| 2.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 34/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-476/12) (1)

1

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Documents relating to installations of the applicant situated in Germany and concerned by the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Partial refusal of access - Environmental information - Second sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 - Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process - Documents originating from a Member State - Objection by the Member State - Article 4(3) and (5) of Regulation No 1049/2001))

(2015/C 034/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH (Aix-la-Chapelle, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and C. Dittrich, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by P. Costa de Oliveira and H. Krämer, subsequently by H. Krämer and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment, first, of the Commission’s implied decision of 4 September 2012 and, in the alternative, of the Commission’s implied decision of 25 September 2012 and, secondly, of the Commission’s decision of 17 January 2013, refusing to grant full access to the list sent by the Federal Republic of Germany to the Commission, in the framework of the procedure set out in Article 15(1) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1), to the extent that that document contains information relating to certain installations of the applicant, situated in German territory, relating to provisional allocations and activities and capacity levels in relation to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions between 2005 and 2010, the efficiency of the installations and the annual emission quotas provisionally allocated for the period between 2013 and 2020.

2

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH shall bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH shall bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.

1

---
# C_2016222EN.01001702.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2016 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Werner (Dynamic Life)

(Case T-454/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Dynamic Life - Earlier national word mark DYNAMIN - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 222/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Pérez Serres, R. Guerras Mazón, S. Correa Rodríguez and T. González Martínez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Matthias Werner (Neufahrn, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 May 2015 (Case R 441/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Mr Werner.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Energy employee receives headquarters award

By Elizabeth StoeckmannDLA Energy Public Affairs

DLA Energy KoreaDLA Energy Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Albert Miller

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
Vicki Hamilton 

From: 

Sent: 

Dixie Putnam <dixieputnam@hotmail.com> 

Tuesday, April 09, 2013 12:04 PM 

To: Vicki Hamilton 

Subject: EAS 

Dock Operations M-30 

West Building Ground Floor W-12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington DC 20590; 3 

United. States of America 

Department of Transportation 

Office of Secretary 

Washington DC 

RE: Docket DOS-OST-1997-2605 

As a senior citizen, and longtime resident of Miles City I am very concerned that our community is in danger of 

losing its air service. Having access to Essential Air service is important to me. Without EAS it will become 

increasingly difficult to travel, when I want to take vacations, visit family, or keep medical appointments. 

Miles City is an isolated community with an aging population. Many senior citizens do not feel safe driving 

over 140 miles on the interstate, especially in winter. We have no train service, and our bus service is 

increasingly unreliable. 

I urge you to consider NOT enforcing the Order of Show Cause and give the EAS Task Force time to work on 

solutions to increase ridership. Please do not make our community more isolated than it is already. 

Sincerely, 

Dixie Putnam 

1
No. 47055.

#### Protests 62909-K, etc., of Talens & Son, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the containers in question are the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 46411 the claim at 22)4 percent under paragraph 397 and T. D. 49753 was sustained.
#### James Martin et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Orange County Publication, Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Sullivan County,

June 18, 1965.

*Gersten d Graper*for plaintiffs. *Becker, Card d Scanlon*for defendant.

Isadore Bookstein, J.

This is a libel action in which plaintiffs move for summary judgment and an assessment of damages.

The contention of plaintiffs is that the article asserting that plaintiffs were arrested is untrue and that they were not, in fact, arrested.

The publication of an article charging that a person has been arrested, if untrue, is libelous per se. *(Johnson v. Synett,*89 Hun 192, affd. 157 N Y. 684.)

The answer denies the allegation that the statements contained in the article were untrue.

It also sets up two affirmative defenses.

The first is to the effect that the article was a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding and accordingly was privileged under section 74 of the Civil Rights Law. It may well be that what transpired before the Magistrate was a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 74 of the Civil Rights Law. However, the alleged arrest did not occur before the Magistrate and was no part of the judicial proceeding before him. As to the alleged arrest, therefore, the article is not privileged under section 74 of the Civil Rights Law.

*85The second affirmative defense is merely a partial defense in mitigation of damages as permitted by section 78 of the Civil Rights Law.

An examination of the affidavits of the parties on this motion demonstrates, at the very least, that there exists a triable issue of fact as to whether or not the plaintiffs were arrested.

The fact that the Magistrate declined to issue an information or that the Chief of Police or the Police Department did not enter on their records an arrest of these plaintiffs is not conclusive on the proposition that there was, in fact and in law, an arrest. (Cf. *Paul*v. *State of New York,*40 Misc 2d 328.)

“ Arrest is the taking of a person into custody that he may be held to answer for a crime.” (Code Crim. Pro., § 167.)

“An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer.” (Code Crim. Pro., § 171.) (Cf. *People*v. *Colletti,*33 Misc 2d 195.)

The fact that Officer Morgan now asserts that what he did in taking plaintiffs into custody was not an arrest is merely the conclusion of a layman on what the law makes his conduct.

Motion of plaintiffs for summary judgment and cross request for summary judgment by defendant denied.

In defendant’s brief, a request is made to permit an amended answer to plead the defense of truth. That request cannot be granted, upon such a request. If defendant desires such relief, it will be necessary for it to make a motion therefor.
·t 

In The Matter f: 

AERO TECH ,LLC 

Respondent 

SERVED: October 12, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI~PARTHENT OF 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS TRANSPORTATION 

WASIDNGTON, DC 

Z81. OCT 13 P ·4: 45 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DOCKET OPERATIONS 

Docket No. FAA-2016-4270 

Case No. 2015WA910115 

ORDER FINALIZING LITIGATION SCHEDULE 

On Septe ber 22, 2016, the undersigned judge held a prehearing conference in the above 

captioned cas . During the course of the conference, the parties developed a joint litigation 

schedule with timeline dependent upon the hearing date. 

On Septe ber 23, 2016, the undersigned judge issued a Prehearing Conference Report, 

ordering the p ies to adhere to the joint litigation schedule. 

On Septe ber 27, 2016, the undersigned judge issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the 

hearing in this case to begin on August 9,_2017. 

Pursuant t 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205(a)(6) and 13.217(d), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Comp ete witness and evidence lists shall be exchanged by the parties and submitted to 

the un ersigned judge no later than July 10, 2017. 

2. Any s bpoena requests must be submitted to the undersigned judge no later than June 9, 

2017. 

3. Each arty shall provide the undersigned judge a CD containing digital copies of 

prem ked versions of all proposed exhibits no later than July 10, 2017. 

4. The p ies may, during the course of the hearing, request the opportunity to submit 

posth aring briefs pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.23l(c). 

~---- DOUGLAS M. RAW ALD 

Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment: ervice List 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal A viati n Administration 

800 Independe ce Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, C 20591 

Attention: earing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Stephen Doerr Respondent's Counsel 

DOERR& UDSON, PA 

212 West First Street 

Portales, NM 8130 

TEL: 575-35 -1289 

FAX: 575-35 -1898 

Kyle Lomazo , Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the egional Counsel 

FAA Northwe t Mountain Region 

1601 LindAv. SW, ANM-7 

Renton, W A 9 057 

TEL: 425.:22 -1847 

FAX: 425-22 -1007 

ONE COPY 

The Honorabl Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of He ngs, M-20 

U.S. Departm nt of Transportation 

1200 New Jer ey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, C 20590 

TEL: 202-3 -5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-3 6-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2016-4270 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was b U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Admini tration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Atte ion: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
No. A-765.

#### Patterson et al. *v.*Superior Court of California in and for the County of Fresno et al.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Application for stay, presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Stay heretofore granted by Mr. Justice Douglas on March 21, 1975, *post,*p. 1301, is vacated.

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents from Court’s order vacating his previous stay.
1

August 11, 2015

Petition for Summary Grant of Amendment

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition to Amend Exemption 12269 (FAA-2015-2137) on behalf of Galloway Advisors, LLC, 

pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

Dear Sir or Madam:

On July 31, 2015, you granted Galloway Advisors, LLC’s Petition for Exemption (12269). Operations were 

limited to the DJI S1000+, DJI Phantom 2 Vision + and DJI Inspire 1 platforms. Galloway Advisors seeks to 

add additional sUAS platforms to its Exemption. 

To wit, Galloway Advisors seeks to add the following platforms:

 PrecisionHawk Hawkeye Mk-111

 PrecisionHawk Lancaster

 AgEagle

 Sensefly Ebee

 DJI Phantom 3

All of these platforms have previously been approved by your offices: 

 PrecisionHawk Hawkeye Mk-111 (12015, 11345, 11551) 

 PrecisoinHawkLancaster (11905)

 AgEagle (12263, 11504)

 Sensefly Ebee (11263, 11339, 11797 &11916)

 DJI Phantom 3 (12154, 11953)

1022 Highland Colony Parkway

Suite 101

Ridgeland, MS 39157

P: 601.898.8400

F: 601.898.8420

www.trglawyers.com

kris@trglawyers.com
2

Accordingly, the undersigned adopts and incorporates the arguments, amendments and 

attachments that prior Petitioners have filed in support of grants of exemption for the above 

referenced platforms, adopts and incorporates Galloway Advisors’s original Petition for 

Exemption, and requests a summary grant of amendment to its original Petition to add the 

aforementioned sUAS platforms. 

Respectfully submitted, 

This the 11th day of August, 2015.

/s/ Kristopher A. Graham
No. 53263.

#### Philip Blum & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 87671-K/91079, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155) the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
# C_2012331EN.01002901.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/29

---

Action brought on 5 September 2012 — EDF v Commission

(Case T-389/12)

(2012/C 331/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Électricité de France SA (EDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission decision C(2012) 4617 final of 28 June 2012 refusing to grant the applicant an extension until 31 December 2014 of the Final Investment Decision deadline provided by one of the Commitments imposed in merger proceedings (Case No COMP/M.5549 — EDF/SEGEBEL); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission decision C(2012) 4617 final of 28 June 2012 refusing to grant the applicant an extension until 31 December 2014 of the Final Investment Decision deadline provided by one of the Commitments imposed in merger proceedings (Case No COMP/M.5549 — EDF/SEGEBEL);

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging






  — | error of law and incorrect application of paragraphs 72 et seq. of the Commission Notice on remedies acceptable under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and under Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (1). |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

error of law and incorrect application of paragraphs 72 et seq. of the Commission Notice on remedies acceptable under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and under Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (1).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging






  — | manifest error of assessment of the significant facts of the case. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

manifest error of assessment of the significant facts of the case.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging






  — | violation of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging

—

violation of the principle of proportionality.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging






  — | misuse of powers and/or violation of the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging

—

misuse of powers and/or violation of the principle of sound administration.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging






  — | lack of motivation, since the Commission failed to provide any reason supporting its decision. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging

—

lack of motivation, since the Commission failed to provide any reason supporting its decision.

---

(1)  OJ C 267 2008, p. 1

---