alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 24.1
               Consent of Ernst and Young LLP Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in:

-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-15081) dated October 30, 1996 pertaining to
   Imatron Inc. Stock Bonus Incentive Plan
-  Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-11515) dated September 6, 1996 and related
   Prospectus
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-9989) dated August 12, 1996 pertaining to
   Imatron Inc. 1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
-  Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-6749) dated June 25, 1996 and related 
   Prospectus 
-  Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-3529) dated May 10, 1996 and related 
   Prospectus 
-  Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-647) dated February 2, 1996 and related
   Prospectus
-  Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-63123) dated October 2, 1995 and related
   Prospectus
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-61179) dated July 20, 1995 pertaining to 1993
   Stock Option Plan
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-71786) dated November 15, 1993 pertaining to
   1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-66992) dated August 3, 1993 pertaining to 1993
   Stock Option Plan
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-66952) dated August 3, 1993 pertaining to 1991
   Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-40391) dated May 6, 1991 pertaining to Director
   Stock Option Grant
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-28662) dated May 11, 1989 pertaining to 1983
   Stock Option Plan
-  Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-26833) dated February 3, 1989 pertaining to
   1984 Employee Stock Participation Plan

of our report dated  February 14, 1997,  except for Note 12 as to which the date
is April 10, 1998 with  respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements  and
schedule of Imatron Inc. for the year ended  December  31, 1996  (restated)  and
1995 included in the Annual  Report on Form 10K for the year ended  December 31,
1997.
                                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Francisco, California
April 15, 1998
No. 96-7511.

#### Wheeler *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certio-rari denied.
No. 42117.

#### Protests 664094-G, etc., of F. Romeo & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49302), *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49389), and Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

Proposed for 10K 2001


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-3793,333-3797 and 33-73496) and Form S-8
(File Nos. 33-21859, 33-44888 and 33-64701) of Nobel Learning Communities, Inc.
(formerly Nobel Education Dynamics, Inc.) of our report dated August 17, 2001
relating to the financial statements, which appear in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 28, 2001
# C_2012295EN.01002601.xml

| 29.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/26

---

Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Knauf Insulation Technology v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristaleria (ECOSE)

(Case T-323/12)

2012/C 295/46

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Knauf Insulation Technology (Visé, Belgium) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Saint Gobain Cristaleria, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 17 April 2012 in case R 259/2011-5 insofar as it has declared the opponent’s opposition successful against the CTM application for part of the goods and services applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 17 April 2012 in case R 259/2011-5 insofar as it has declared the opponent’s opposition successful against the CTM application for part of the goods and services applied for;

| — | Order the defendant and — if applicable — the Opponent to jointly and severally pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and — if applicable — the Opponent to jointly and severally pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ECOSE’, for goods and services in classes 1, 2, 3, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 40 — Community trade mark application No W00993849

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 2556409 of the word mark ‘ECOSEC FACHADAS’, for goods in classes 17 and 19

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the contested decision for the remainder

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
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

# Women’s History Month Spotlight: Ann Dunwoody

By DLA Public Affairs

                FORT BELVOIR, Virginia  –              
*Editor’s note: The Defense Logistics Agency recognizes March as Women’s History Month. In honor of women’s contributions to the agency’s global mission, DLA is highlighting women who’ve contributed to the agency’s mission of providing logistics support to America’s warfighters.*

Ann Dunwoody, who served as the executive officer for the Defense Logistics Agency’s 13th director, Army Lt. Gen. Henry Glisson, became the first woman in the Army to achieve the rank of four-star general. She was also the first woman to command a battalion in the 82nd Airborne Division and the first female general officer at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

In 2005, Dunwoody was promoted to lieutenant general and became the Army’s deputy chief of staff for logistics. During her more than 30 years in the Quartermaster Corps, she led many organizations and commanded at every level.

 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Women's History MonthDunwoodyAnn Dunwoody
SAN DIEGO COUNTY 

REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY 

P.O. BOX 82776, SAN DIEGO, CA 92138-2776 

619.400.2400 WWW.SAN.ORG 

July 10,2012 r IZ JUL l q P 3: 2'1 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Head of EAS Division 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket: DOT-OST-1998-3521 

DOT -OST -2004-19916 

Dear Mr. De\/any: 

We are encouraged to see the proposal of SeaPort Airlines, Inc. to operate air service between San Diego 

and Burbank with continuing service to Visalia and Merced, California. One of the goals of San Diego 

International Airport is to increase direct air links between San Diego and other communities within the 

state and beyond. Wt? believe SeaPort service would represent a step towards helping bind the state with 

effective air trahSportation options. San Diego, with an extensive domestic and now international route 

network, can also provide an efficient connective link between the EAS communities and the rest of the 

national air transport system. 

Air service is important for San Diego and we have a competitive incentive program in place to attract air 

service to n~w de~tinatlons. The details of this incentive policy can be found on our website 

www.san.org/sdcraa/business/air_service.aspx. This incentive policy is available to SeaPort Airlines 

should they be successful in theirbid to add service from San Diego to Burbank -Visalia - Merced. 

We look forward to hearing the results ofthe DOT's review of SeaPort's proposal and hope that it proves 

the right solution for all stakeholders, the federal government, the cities of Visalia ahd Merced, and the 

counties ofTulare and Merced. Ne.w air linksbetw~eQ San Diego lnternation~l Airport and the San Joaquin 

Valley via Burbank would prove a very impqrtant additl0nto 'san, OiegQ'sro!Jte network. 

Ham.pton Brown • - • ' ~ ••• ' • <· 

San Diego International Airport 

SAN DIEGO 

INTERNATIONAL 

AIRPORT
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 14
- 00378
- CR EX PARTE JOSE J. LOP EZ

From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 10
- 01439
- CRF
- 85
- A

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On December 9, 2014, appellant, Jose J. Lopez, filed his notice of appeal, challenging the trial court’s denial of his application for post

- conviction writ of habeas corpus under article 11.072, section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See T EX
. C ODE
C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN
. art. 11.072, § 6 (West Supp. 2014). The record reflects that the trial court denied appellant’s habeas

- corpus application on November 5, 2014. Appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely, and we have no jurisdiction of an untimely appeal. S ee
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a)(1); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (noting that we have no appellate jurisdiction where the notice of appeal is untimely).Ex parte Lopez Page 2

This appeal is therefore dismissed. 1 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals . . . must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”); Davis
v. State , 205 S.W.3d 606, 607 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2006, no pet.).

AL SCOGG INS Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed January 15, 2015 Do not publish [CR25]

1 A motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the judgment or order of this Court is rendered. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.1. If appellant desires to have the decision of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that peti tion must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days after either the day the court of a ppeals’ judgment was rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by the court of appeals. See id. at R. 68.2(a).
No. 96-244.

#### In re Smith.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 48884.

#### Protests 967701-G, etc., of Sprouse-Reitz Co. et al. (Los Angeles) etc.).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

         I, Roger Paglia, Chief Executive Officer of Media and
Entertainment.com, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 'SS' 1350, as enacted by
'SS' 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2002 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Media and Entertainment.com, Inc..

Dated: August 19, 2002

                                                 /s/ Roger Paglia
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Roger Paglia
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
================================================================================


                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                    Consent of Independent Auditors, KPMG LLP

The Board of Directors
Imatron Inc.:

We consent to incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements (File
Nos. 333-11515, 333-6749, 333-3529, 333-647, 333-63123, 333-51963 and 333-87195)
on Form S-3 and (File Nos. 333-15081,  333-9989, 222-61179,  33-71786, 33-66992,
33-66952, 33-40391, 33-28662, 33-26833,  333-94237,  333-94239 and 333-94245) on
Form S-8 of Imatron Inc. of our report dated  January 30, 2001,  relating to the
consolidated  balance sheets of Imatron Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31,
2000  and  1999,  and  the  related   consolidated   statements  of  operations,
shareholders'  equity,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year
period ended December 31, 2000, and the related  schedule,  which report appears
in the December 31, 2000, annual report on Form 10-K of Imatron Inc.

                                                                       KPMG LLP



San Francisco, California
March 28, 2001

================================================================================
                                      118
#### PRODUCERS CREAMERY CO. OF CABOOL, MO. v. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. et al. et al.

No. 778.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, S. D.

Nov. 30, 1948.

*209Wm. P. Sanford of the firm of Miller & Fairman, all of Springfield, Mo., for plaintiff.

Mann & Mann, of Springfield, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

In conformity with the provisions of subdivision (b) of Rule 56 Federal Rules of* Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the co-defendant, St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, has filed its motion for a summary judgment in its favor. The basis for such motion is that it is jointly sued with the Illinois Central Railroad Company, and that the averments of the complaint are such as to show that whatever damages accrued to plaintiff were caused solely by the alleged negligence of the last named defendant.

By reference to paragraph (11), Section 20, Title 49 U.S.C.A. relating to the general subject of “Transportation” and particularly to the “Liability of initial carrier for loss”, it is to be noted that:

“Any * * * railroad * * * receiving property for transportation from a point in one State * * * to a point in another State, * * * shall issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor, and shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or by any common carrier, * * * to which such property may be delivered or over whose line dr lines such property may pass * *

 This provision fixes liability upon the initial carrier although the negligence of a connecting carrier may have been wholly responsible for the loss or damage. In construing this statute the St. Louis Court of Appeals, in Dietz v. Southern Pac. R. Co. et al., 225 Mo.App. 39, loc. cit. 48, 28 S.W.2d 395, 398, specifically said:

“Under the practice in our state, since the initial carrier is liable no matter where the loss occurs, it and the succeeding carrier who actually causes the loss may be sued jointly in the same action to recover therefor, and a joint recovery may be had.”

Many cases were cited in support of this pronouncement. Moreover, the initial carrier has its remedy against the connecting carrier as provided by paragraph (12) of said Section 20, 49 U.S.C.A., as follows:

“The * * * carrier, * * * issuing such receipt or bill of lading, * * * shall be entitled to recover from the common carrier * * * on whose line the loss, damage, or injury shall have been sustained, the amount of such loss * * * as it may be required to pay to the owners of such property, * * *.” See also Keystone Motor Freight Lines v. Brannon-Signaigo C. Co., 5 Cir., 115 F.2d 736, loc. cit. 740.

In view of the above the motion for a summary judgment should be and the same will be overruled.
No. 48899.

#### Protests 805201-G, etc., of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6495

JULIAN E. ROCHESTER, a/k/a Julian Edward Rochester, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

MCKITHER BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 09-6785

JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

MCKITHER BODISON, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (2:09-cv-00539-HMH-RSC; 2:09-cv-00940-HMH-RSC) 

Submitted: December 16, 2009 Decided: January 6, 2010 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
3 

PER CURIAM: 

In these consolidated matters, Julian Edward Rochester 

seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petitions. The orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the records and 

conclude that Rochester has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeals. 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. We deny the motions to transfer and to expedite 

consideration of the appeals. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit
      10.65




July
          31,
          2006
 
 
 SmarTire
          Systems Inc.
 13151
          Vanier Place, Suite 150
 Richmond,
          British Columbia
 V6V
          2J1
 
 
 **Re:
          May 27 2005 $1.5 million 5% convertible debenture**
 
 
 With
          respect to the $125,000 monthly payments that, under the terms of the above
          referenced convertible debenture, were scheduled to commence on September
          1,
          2005, which such payment commencement date has been previously extended
          (i) on
          October 21, 2005 to January 1, 2006 (ii) on January 3, 2006 to April 1,
          2006
          (iii) on April 3, 2006 to May 1, 2006 and (iv) on May 1, 2006 to August
          1, 2006,
          Cornell agrees to provide SmarTire with a further extension to November
          1, 2006
          to commence such monthly payments.
 
 
 Yours
          very truly,
 
 Cornell
          Capital Partners, LP
 
 /s/
          Mark Angelo
 By:
          Mark
          Angelo
 Its:
          President and Portfolio manager
# C_2014261EN.01001802.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/18

---

Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 13 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Wagenborg Passagiersdiensten BV, Eigen Veerdienst Terschelling BV, MPS Stortemelk BV, MPS Willem Barentsz BV, Ms Spathoek NV, GAF Lakeman trading as Rederij Waddentransport v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu, in the presence of: Wagenborg Passagiersdiensten BV, Terschellinger Stoombootmaatschappij BV

(Case C-207/13) (1)

1

2014/C 261/29

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

1

---
Docket Number FAA-2014-0250
Before the Second Division,

January 27, 1939

No. 40536.

#### Protest 949277-G of Henry Amdur & Sons, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Counsel having agreed that the merchandise is in fact embroidered the claim at 90 percent under paragraph 1529 was sustained.
Order entered July 26, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01530 - CV IN THE ESTATE OF ROB ERTO REFUGIO DE JESU S GONZALEZ BARRERA, DECEASED On Appeal from the Pro bate Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR - 14 - 02697 - 1



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s July 24, 2019 third motion for extension of time to file her brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to August 23, 2019

. We caution appellant that no further extension s will be granted absent extenuating circumstances.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE