alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-56123) pertaining to the Bioanalytical Systems, Inc.
1997 Employee Incentive Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-56127) pertaining to the 1997 Bioanalytical Systems, Inc.
Outside Director Stock Option Plan of our report dated November 28, 2003, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Bioanalytical Systems, Inc.
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30,
2005.

|/s/  Ernst & Young, LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
January 5, 2006 | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |
#### C. A. O’Meara v. G. P. M. Heer.

No. 16,067.

Principal and *Agent*— Payment. The payment of a sum of money to an agent held to have been under the circumstances of the case a payment to his principal, although the agent retained a part of it as a commission, the plaintiff’s right to which was denied.

Error from Shawnee district court; Alston W. Dana, judge.

Opinion filed June 5, 1909.

Affirmed.

*Charles F. Spencer,*and *Codding & Marshall,*for the plaintiff in error.

• *James A. Troutman,*and *Robert Stone,*for the defendant in error.

*Per Curiam:*

C. A. O’Meara entered into a contract with G. P. M. Heer by the terms of which O’Meara was to convey to Heer' a farm and Heer was to convey to O’Meara a residence property in .Topeka and to pay O’Meara $750 boot-money. Each party was to furnish the other an abstract showing good title, and the exchange of deeds and payment was to be made on or before April 23,1907. There was evidence tending to show that one R. D. Sheldon, a real-estate agent, acted as. the agent of both parties in bringing about the transaction, of which fact both had knowledge. On April 28, 1907, O’Meara went to Sheldon’s office with his deed and abstract, and Sheldon went to Heer’s office and got Heer’s deed, abstract, and $750 in cash, and, returning *436to his office, where O’Meara was, asked for O’Meara’s deed and abstract, which were given to him. Sheldon thereupon handed to O’Meara Heer’s deed, abstract and $638.75; also, his personal receipt to O’Meara for $111.25 for his (Sheldon’s) commission. O’Meara refused to close the deal upon that basis, claiming that he owed Sheldon no commission, .and demanded a re-exchange of papers and money, which Sheldon refused. O’Meara went to see Heer in regard to the matter and Heer referred him back to Sheldon.

After considerable controversy, the transaction was ■closed as indicated by the following receipt, which ■O’Meara signed and delivered to Sheldon:

> “The Sheldon Real Estate Company.

> Topeka, Kan., April 23, 1907.

> “Received of R. D. Sheldon deed to lots 34 and 36 on Western avenue, in Douthitt Place, Topeka, Kan., and the sum of $638.75; it being understood that by the receipt of said deed and money I do not waive my right to the further sum' of $111.25, which the said R. D. Sheldon has retained and refuses to pay over on the ■claim that he is1 entitled to said amount as commission from me, and which claim I deny the validity of and refuse to pay. C. A. O’Meara.”

Thereafter O’Meara brought this action against Heer to recover $111.25. The district court rendered judgment in favor of Heer.

By the settlement the transaction was closed as between O’Meara and Heer. If O’Meara had any claim for the $111.25 it was against Sheldon, and not against Heer.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of **FIRSTBINGO.COM INC.**(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Thomas Sheppard, 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:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 21st day of November, 2005.

 
/s/ Thomas Sheppard 
Thomas Sheppard 
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors
Electronics Boutique Holdings Corp.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-47684 and 333-65463) on Form S-8 of Electronics Boutique
Holdings Corp. of our reports dated April 7, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Electronics Boutique Holdings Corp. and subsidiaries as of January 29, 2005 and
January 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended January 29,
2005, and the related financial statement schedule, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of January 29, 2005, and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of January 29, 2005, which reports appear in the January 29, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Electronics Boutique
Holdings Corp.

Our
report with respect to the consolidated financial statements refers to a change in the method of accounting for consideration received from a vendor.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
August 26, 2005

---



QuickLinks
# C_2015171EN.01000301.xml

| 26.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Gérard Fenoll v Centre d'aide par le travail ‘La Jouvene’, Association de parents et d'amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d'Avignon

(Case C-316/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 31(2) - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Notion of ‘worker’ - Handicapped person - Right to paid annual leave - National rules contrary to EU law - Role of the national court))

(2015/C 171/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gérard Fenoll

Applicant:

Defendants: Centre d'aide par le travail ‘La Jouvene’, Association de parents et d'amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d'Avignon

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The notion of ‘worker’, within the meaning of Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it may cover a person admitted to an employment rehabilitation centre such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.

1

---
# C_2015046EN.01004501.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — Coca-Cola v OHIM — Mitico (Master)

(Case T-480/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Master - Earlier Community figurative marks Coca-Cola and earlier national figurative mark C - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Similarity of the signs - Evidence relating to the commercial use of the mark applied for))

(2015/C 046/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, D. Stone and L. Ritchie, Solicitors, and S. Baran, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: A.-I. Malami, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 August 2012 (Case R 2156/2011-2) concerning opposition proceedings between The Coca-Cola Company and Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 August 2012 (Case R 2156/2011-2); |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 August 2012 (Case R 2156/2011-2);

| 2) | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by The Coca-Cola Company; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by The Coca-Cola Company;

| 3) | Orders Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

1

---
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 6179.

Invoice dated Sonneberg, Germany, October 4, 19-38.

Certified October 6, 1938.

Entered at Boston, Mass., November 1, 1938.

Entry No. 4776.

(Decided June 25, 1945)

*Sharretis & Hillis (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), .for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement involves the valuation of certain glass animals and novelties exported from Germany and imported at the port of Boston, Mass.

The case has been submitted for decision on a stipulation entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties, wherein it is agreed, in substance, as follows:

(1) That the glass animals and novelties in question were exported from Germany in October 1938.

(2) That the instant merchandise is similar in all material respects to that which was the subject of the decision in the case of *F. W. Woolworth Co. et al.*v. *United States*(Reap. Dec. 5094).

(3) That the market conditions existing during the period of exportation of the articles in question were similar, if not identical, to the conditions found to be prevailing in the foreign market as described in the *Woolworth Co.*case, *supra.*

*370(4) That the record in the *Woolworth Co.*case, *supra,*may be incorporated in and made a part of the record in the present case.

On the agreed facts, as hereinabove set’forth, I find that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise, glass animals and novelties, such as and similar to those involved herein, were freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country of exportation, to wit, the Sonneberg-Lauscha district of Germany, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States.

Accordingly, I hold as matter of law;

That the proper export values of the glass animals and novelties exported subsequent to January 1, 1938, are the *fer se*unit invoice prices, plus *3%*per centum social assessments, and plus, when not included in such *per se*unit invoice prices, the costs of cases and packing and the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, as invoiced, whenever reported as dutiable by the appraiser.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is hereby, dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Al Haydar Group ) ASBCA No. 62477

)

Under Contract No. W912D1

- 15

- C

- 0002 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Nazar Haider Shakir

General Manager

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

Army Chief Trial Attorney

CPT Eugenee M. Gray, JA

Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

By correspondence dated April 29, 2020, Mr. Nazar Haider Shakir, General

Manager for appellant, filed a notice of appeal by email. The Board docketed the appeal

on May 3, 2020.

By Order dated May 4, 2020, appellant was directed to show that it is represented

in this appeal by a person who meets the criteria of Board Rule 15(a), or to designate a

proper person as its representative. This Order was sent to appellant via email to the

address provided on appellant’s notice of appeal. The Board did not receive a response to

this Order.

By Show Cause Order dated June 1 6 , 2020, the Board ordered appellant to show

that it is represented in these proceedings by a person mee ting the criteria of Board

Rule 15(a), or designate a proper person to represent it. The Order stated that if appellant

did not comply, the Board intended to dismiss this appeal without further notice to the

parties. The Order was sent to appellant via email to th e address pro vided in the notice of

appeal.

Appellant responded to the Board’s Show Cause Order the following day, June 17,

2020, with an email stating “[t]hank you and let me prepare the ap eal [sic] and send back

via requested email.” The email did not include the information concerning appellant’s

Rule 15(a) representative requested by the Board in its May 4, 2020 Order or its June 16,

2020 Show Cause Order. The Board has received no furt her communication from

appellant since its June 17, 2020 email

.2 Since the Board cannot proceed without a representative meeting the requirements

of Board Rule 15(a), this appeal is dismissed

.

Dated: July 9 , 2020

I concur I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals OWEN C. WILSON

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62477

, Appeal of Al Haydar Group

, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: July 10, 2020 JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
No. 96-7916.

#### Johnson *v.*United States.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
# C_2015016EN.01004802.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/48

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 18 November 2014 — McCoy v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-156/12) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Action for damages - Wrongful conduct - Harassment by line-managers - Occupational disease - Damages granted under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations not compensating in full for the harm suffered - Application for supplementary damages)

(2015/C 016/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: McCoy (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions (represented by: S. Bachotet and J.C. Cañoto Argüelles, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application to annul the decision refusing to grant damages on account of the wrongful conduct of the Committee of the Regions and an application for compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Orders the Committee of the Regions of the European Union to pay Mr McCoy the sum of EUR 20 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the Committee of the Regions of the European Union to pay Mr McCoy the sum of EUR 20 000;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Declares that the Committee of the Regions of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by Mr McCoy. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the Committee of the Regions of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by Mr McCoy.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013, p. 31.

---
#### First National Bank at Pittsburgh *v.*Singer et al., Appellants.

Argued May 26, 1936.

Before Kephart, C. J., Schaffer, Maxey, Linn, Stern and Barnes, JJ.

*John Duggan, Jr.,*for appellants.

*Gifford K. Wright,*of *Alter, Wright*<fe *Barron*and *George M. Swan,*for appellee, were not heard.

June 26, 1936:

Per Curiam,

Appellants executed a note February 3, 1932. Thereafter it was renewed fourteen times before an action was instituted to recover the amount thereof, with interest. At the trial in the court below, appellants offered to *208prove a fraudulent promise, failure of consideration and other defenses which, as appellants state, “were made prior to the signing and delivery of the first note,” on February 3,1932. The court below held, “Where the defendants in an action such as this have had knowledge of alleged fraud or partial or total failure of consideration when renewing the note, or notes, upon which suit is brought they are estopped by their own conduct from defending on the ground of alleged fraud or partial or total failure of consideration: *Dunn v. Columbia, Nat. Bank,*204 Pa. 53; *Longacre v. Robinson,*274 Pa. 35; *First Nat. Bank of Pgh. v. Dowling,*286 Pa. 483; *Warren Nat. Bank v. Jamieson,*301 Pa. 45.” See also *Ebensburg Trust Co. v. Pike,*296 Pa. 462. The defense of set-off is disposed of by *Warren Nat. Bank v. Jamieson,*supra.

Judgments affirmed.
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

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Inside Acquisition: How the Marine Corps plans to double the MTVR’s lifespan

By Ashley Calingo, PEO Land Systems Public AffairsMarine Corps Systems Command

                MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va.   –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Marine Corps Systems Command website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Marine Corps Systems CommandMedium Tactical Vehicle Replacementvehiclevehicle partsvehicle maintenancevehicle management
E - 6

R307. Environmental Quality, Air Quality. 

R307-351. Graphic Arts. 

R307-351-4. Standards for Rotogravure, Flexographic, and 

Specialty Printing Operations. 

(I) No owner or operator of a packaging and 

publication rotogravure; packaging and publication 

flexographic, and specialty printing operations employing 

voe-containing ink may operate, cause, or allow or permit the 

operation of a facility unless: 

(a) The volatile fraction of ink, as it is applied to the 

substrate, contains 25.0% by volume or less ofVOe and 75.0% 

by volume or more of water; or 

(b) The ink as it is applied to the substrate, less water, 

contains 60.0% by volume or more nonvolatile material; or 

( c) The owner or operator installs and operates either 

a carbon adsorption system as described in R307-351-4(1XaXi) 

or an incineration system as described in R307-351-4(l)(aXii). 

(i) A carbon adsorption system shall reduce the 

volatile organic emissions from the capture system by a 

minimum of90.0% by weight. 

(ii) An incineration system shall oxidize, from the 

capture system, a minimum of90.00/o of the non-methane voes 

measured as total combustible carbon to carbon dioxide and 

water. 

(iii) A capture system as described in R307-351-

4(l)(c)(iv) shall be used in conjunction with a carbon adsorption 

system and an incineration system. 

(iv) The design and operation of a capture system 

must be consistent with good engineering practices and shall be 

required to provide for an overall reduction in voe emissions 

of at least: 

(A) 75.0% where a publication rotogravure process 

is employed; 

(B) 65.0% where a packaging rotogravure process is 

employed; or 

(C) 60.0% where a flexographic printing process is 

employed. 

(2) The owner or operator of an emission control 

device shall provide documentation that the system will attain 

the requirements ofR307-351-4. 

(3) The Emission control system shall be operated 

and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer 

recommendations. 

(4) The owner or operator of an emission control 

device shall maintain for a minimum of two years records of 

operating and maintenance sufficient to demonstrate that the 

equipment is being operated and maintained in accordance 

with the manufacturer recommendations. 

KEY: air pollution, graphic arts, VOC, printing operations 

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: 

February 1, 2013 

Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-2-

104(1)(a) 

!--dar--