alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 Nos. 333-47101, 333-56615 and 333-56675 of U.S. Industries, Inc., of
our report dated November 12, 1998 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of U.S Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries included in its
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1998, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.




                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


New York, New York
December 14, 1998














NYFS11...:\95\78595\0001\2041\EXHD148P.360
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FODAY SILLAH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71526

Agency No. A096-151-081

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Foday Sillah, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

FILED

MAR 09 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71526

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959,

962 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based upon the omission from Sillah’s asylum application and declaration of his

siblings’ deaths, see id. at 962-64 (omissions and inconsistencies that go to the

heart of the petitioner’s claim support an adverse credibility finding), and Sillah’s

failure to provide reasonable explanations for the omissions, see Rivera v.

Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, in the absence of

credible testimony, Sillah’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v.

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Sillah failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if

returned to Sierra Leone. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th

Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement No. 333-116837on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-126312, 333-126573, 333-127464 and 333-133353 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 28, 2008, relating to the consolidated financialstatements and financial statement schedule of Strategic Hotels & Resorts, Inc. and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of StrategicHotels & Resorts, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

February 28, 2008
# C_2015138EN.01004802.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/48

---

Order of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Lavazza v OHIM — Commercialunione prima (LAVAZZA A MODO MIO)

(Case T-392/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 138/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Lavazza SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, M. Ricolfi, G. Sironi and C. Mezzetti, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by F. Mattina, subsequently by F. Mattina and N. Bambara, and finally by N. Bambara and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Commercialunione Prima Srl (Bresso, Italy) (represented by: G. Celona and B. Dosi, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 124/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Commercialunione Prima Srl and Luigi Lavazza SpA.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and intervener shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs borne by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and intervener shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs borne by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

1

---
Before the First Division,

June 4, 1952

No. 56743.

petition 6797-R (Miami).

#### Air Express Int’l Agency, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

From the testimony it appeared that a difference of opinion developed between the customs officials and the petitioner as to the correct values, and it was agreed that the three entries in question be selected as a test case. The petitioner entered at the invoice prices which it believed represented the correct values, and the appraiser agreed to withhold appraisement of the balance of the merchandise pending the final decision of the court in the test case. Subsequently, after the appraiser had advanced the entered values, appeals for reappraisement were filed, but they were later abandoned when the importer was unable to procure any information from abroad relative to the correct values. On the record presented it was held that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
No. 96-7935.

#### Black *v.*United States.

Ct. App. D. C. Cer-tiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, WILLIAM R. KERR, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the second quarter of 2004 of NortelNetworks Limited; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: January 31, 2005 /s/ WILLIAM R. KERRWILLIAM R. KERRChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 12.1

RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, John C.K. Sham, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Global-Tech Appliances Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4. The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and
33-8545];

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

(d) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the
companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: September 28, 2007



By:

/s/ John C.K. ShamJohn C.K. ShamPresident and Chief Executive Officer
March 16, 2012

Mr. Robert Almon Total Flight Solutions 450 Airport Road, Suite 200 Lo uisburg, NC 27549 Dear Mr. Almon : This letter is to inform y ou that we are unable to process y our request for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). I t explains why we can not process y our request and what y ou should do in the next 30 day s. **Why We Can No**  **t Process Your Request** We entered y our March 5 , 2012 , exemption request on behalf of Total Flight Solutions into the public do cket (No. FAA - 20 12 - 0256 ), but we are unable to process y our request any further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, y ou must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why

granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why

the exemption would no t adversely affect safety

or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equa l to that provided by the rule from which y ou seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. **What You Should Do** If y ou want us to process y our request any further, y ou must send the information descr ibed earlier to reach us within 30 day s. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires y ou to send yo ur petition for exemption at least 120 day s before the propo sed effective date of the exemption.2

**If We Do No**  **t Hear From You** If we do not hear from y ou within 30 day s, we will close the docket without notifying y ou further. If y ou have any

questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267 - 9677. Sincer ely , /s/ Id a M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division Enclosure3

Project No.: AAM - 12 - 266 - E Project Officer: _______________ ARM - 10 5 : TTHOMAS : 03/ 08 /12 Doc# 33851 ARM - 1/100/10 5 : AAM - 800

**MR ROBERT ALMON TOTAL FLIGHT SOLUTIO**  **NS 450 AIR**  **PORT ROAD SUITE 200 LOUISBURG NC 27549**
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 198 

To require the return and redistribution among State transportation 

departments of certain unexpended highway funding. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 26, 2011 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To require the return and redistribution among State transportation departments of certain unexpended highway 

funding. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Redistribution of 

5 Unspent Earmarks Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RETURN AND REDISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN UNOB7 LIGATED HIGHWAY FUNDING. 

8 (a) DEFINITION OF EARMARK.—In this section, the 

9 term ‘‘earmark’’ means— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 198 IS

1 (1) a congressionally directed spending item, as 

2 defined in clause 5(a) of rule XLIV of the rules of 

3 the Senate for the 112th Congress; or 

4 (2) a congressional earmark, as defined in 

5 clause 9(d) of rule XXI of the rules of the House 

6 of Representatives for the 112th Congress. 

7 (b) RETURN AND REDISTRIBUTION.—Notwith8 standing any other provision of law, funds made available 

9 from the Highway Trust Fund through an earmark for 

10 fiscal year 2008 or a preceding fiscal year that remain 

11 unobligated as of the date of enactment of this Act shall 

12 be— 

13 (1) returned to the State transportation depart14 ment of the State in which the earmarked funds 

15 were directed to be used; and 

16 (2) redistributed by the State for expeditious 

17 use for other federally approved transportation 

18 projects in the State. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Nobel Learning Communities, Inc. 

West Chester,Pennsylvania 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-03793, 333-03797 and 333-30781) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-64701, 333-61372, 333-61374 and 333-124247) of Nobel Learning Communities, Inc. of our report dated September 9, 2005, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements, which appear in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated by reference of our report dated September 9, 2005 relating to the financial statement schedules, which appear in this Form 10-K. 

 

September 19, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

OP 21-0125

_________________

BOB BROWN, DOROTHY BRADLEY, 

VERNON FINLEY, MAE NAN ELLINGSON, 

and the MONTANA LEAGUE OF WOMEN 

VOTERS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

GREG GIANFORTE, Governor of Montana,

 Respondent.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to the Court sitting en banc. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Jim Rice

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 12 2021

05/12/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0125
No. 74-5838.

#### Poole *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### The State of Kansas, *ex rel. Joseph Taggart, as County Attorney, etc.,*v. The Standard Real Estate Loan Company.

No. 15,908.

Building and Loan *Associations*— Evidence. The charter of a foreign corporation examined and held to show that it is a building and loan association within the meaning of the statute (Gen. Stat. 1901, §1421) requiring associations of that character to procure authority from the bank commissioner before doing business'in this state.

Original proceeding in *quo warranto.*

Opinion filed July 3, 1909.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

*Fred S. Jackson,*attorney-general, *John Marshall,*assistant attorney-general, *Joseph Taggart,*county attorney, and *Charles D. Shukers,*for The States

*A. E. Firmin, A. B. Quinton,*and *E. S. Quinton,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam:*

This is an original proceeding in *quo warranto,*brought by the state to oust the defendant from doing business in the state as a foreign building and loan association without procuring a certificate of authority from the bank commissioner, as the law requires. (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 1421.) It is admitted that the defendant is doing business in the state, and that no such certificate has been procured, but the defendant denies that it is a building and loan association.

*695The legislature has prescribed a scheme for domestic concerns of this character, but it is not necessary that the plan of a foreign association be identical with that provided for in the statute to subject such association to the law requiring a license. Nor is it necessary that the scheme of the foreign association should conform to that of any other already in use, provided in essence and *effect*such association performs the functions and accomplishes the purposes for which building and loan associations are usually organized. That the defendant organization clearly does. Its charter is- studiously blind as to the object of its creation. The plan does appear, however, in an “investment contract” which the defendant issues and sells in the place of shares of stock. It is not necessary to encumber the reports with a copy of this instrument or a feature-by-feature analysis and discussion of its provisions. It is unique, presents a system differing in many formal respects from that of building and loan associations generally, and eliminates altogether some of the incidents of ordinary plans. But the vital and essential features of even the type prescribed for Kansas associations appear, and the court finds that the defendant is a foreign building and loan association, has procured no certificate of authority to do business in this state from the bank commissioner, is therefore doing business in the state contrary to law, and ought to be ousted. Judgment accordingly.
May29,2015

U.S. Department ofTranspottation Docket Operations 1200NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 

# EC
Avtallon Systems Eng1neenng Company

Re: Amendmentto Section 333 exemption#11509, docket#FAA-2015-0481 granted Aviation Systems Engineering Company and approved May 8, 2015 Dear Sir/Madam, Aviation Systems Engineering Company (ASEC) was issued exemption#11509 (the Exemption) under Section 333 ofthe FAA Modernization and Refonn Act of2012 (the Reform Act) for the purpose ofconducting umnanned aircraft system (UAS) operations for technical demonstration and training purposes. ASEC hereby requests an amendment to the Exemption to include additional types ofmultirotor aud fixed-wing UAS for operation in full compliance with the conditions setfotth within the Exemption. ASEC requests petmissionto operate the following smallUAS (sUAS) based ontheirtype, size, weight, and speed under the sameterms and conditions contained withiu the Exemption and provided by the parameters setforth in regards to capabilities and limitations identified within each sUAS's flight operations, user, ormaintenance manuals. Aircraft Model Class Maximum Max Speed Manufacturer TakeoffWeight Prioria Robotics Maveric Fixed-wing, electric 2000 g 26 let Prioria Robotics Hex Rotorcraft, electric 6000 g 23 kt Prioria Robotics Hex Mini Rotorcraft, elech·ic 2200 g 19 kt PrecisionHawk Hawkeye Lancaster Fixed-wing, electric 5 lb 

### - Additionally, ASEC requests pennission to operate the fixed-wing aircraft that are listed above within the same terms and conditions contained within the Exemption and provided bythe parameters set forth in regards to capabilities and limitations identified within the flight operations specifications provided by each manufacturer. Although the fixed-wing UAS identified within this request are ofa

# EC:: Av1ahon Systems Eng1neenng Company different platform in comparison to the DTI Inspire l and DJI Phantompreviously authorized for ASEC use by FAA exemption, these UAS comply with all requirements setfmth in the Reform Act in regards to the Secretmy's authority to allow for UAS operations based on the type, size, weight, speed, and other operating capabilities ofthe aircraft. ASEC respectfully requests the same finding from the FAA as provided to Aerial Mob, LLC as to its amended exemption,# II066A, docket ID FAA-2014-0353, dated February 2, 2015. TheFAAfound the amendmentrequest was notprecedent setting, that good cause exists for notpublishing a summaty ofthe petition in the Federal Register, and that any delay in acting on the petition would be detrimental to the organization. That1k you for yourtime in regards to this petition and please send con·espondenceto: Brent Klavon ASEC, Inc. 904-772-8442 Brent.klavon@asec-incorporated.corn
On behalfofASEC, I look forwm·d to your response.

Page 2 of2
No. 48886.

#### Protests 98033-K, etc., of Star Food Products, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 40519.

#### Protest 924880-G of Brazilian Importing Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appeared that the nuts were contained in old gasoline tins, packed two tins to a wooden case. The wooden cases were marked “Product of Brazil” but there was no marking on the tins *to*indicate the country of *origin*of the nuts. On the authority of *Lerillard*v. *United States*(24 C. C. P. A. 90, T. D. 48412) and Abstracts 34966 and 39517 it was held that the tin cans are the immediate containers of the nuts. As they were not marked the protest was overruled.