alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-66620),  (No. 333-66123), (No. 333-66121), (No.
333-66119) and (No. 033-63865),  in Amendment No.1 to the Registration Statement
on Form S-3 (No.  333-127155),  in the  Registration  Statement on Form S-3 (No.
333-136387),  and in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-141570), of
ATC  Healthcare,  Inc.  and  Subsidiaries  of our report  dated April 28,  2007,
relating to the February 28, 2007 financial  statements and financial  statement
schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.



Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP
New York, New York
May 15, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2090 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2090

To amend the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act to extend the period of 
   time provided to the Indian Law and Order Commission to produce a 
                required report, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 9, 2012

Mr. Akaka (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Ms. 
   Murkowski, Mr. Tester, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Franken, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
   Hoeven, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Udall of New Mexico) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act to extend the period of 
   time provided to the Indian Law and Order Commission to produce a 
                required report, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REPORT OF INDIAN LAW AND ORDER COMMISSION.

    (a) In General.--Section 15(f) of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform 
Act (25 U.S.C. 2812(f)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph 
(1) by striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``3 years''.
    (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 15(e) of the Indian Law 
Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2812(e)) is amended in the matter 
preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting 
``subsection (d)''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Champlain Milk Products, Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*M. E. Franks, Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Clinton County,

January 21, 1966.

*Eugene J. Steiner*for plaintiff. *Humma, Crane, Costabell S Savarese (Charles J. Costabell*of counsel), for defendant.

William J. Crangle, J.

The plaintiff moves to strike the answer and for summary judgment. The complaint pleads a cause of action for a balance of $11,652.80 unpaid upon sales of nonfat dry milk powder by the plaintiff to the defendant between October 16 and November 18, 1964. None of these allegations are denied by the defendant.

The defendant has pleaded, as an equitable defense, that the plaintiff is insolvent; that under certain administrative decisions, which are prima facie correct, it has been determined that the defendant owes Commodity Credit Corporation, which is an agency of the Federal Government and a part of the Department of Agriculture, $47,687.66 based upon findings that certain other shipments of milk powder made by the plaintiff two years previously upon orders from the defendant were insect-infested; that the plaintiff is indebted to the defendant for the loss thereby sustained by the defendant; that the defendant has appealed from the administrative decision and that it is possible that the debt may be reduced or even entirely eliminated but that this will not be known until the appeal has been heard and decided; that because of the insolvency of the plaintiff the defendant will not be able to collect the money ultimately found to be owing to it by the plaintiff.

*300The defendant further pleads that under the circumstances it would be unjust and inequitable to require the defendant to pay the balance sued for prior to the determination of the amount of the plaintiff’s debt to the defendant because the defendant would then lose its right to offset the plaintiff’s debt to the defendant against the defendant’s debt to the plaintiff; that the action is therefore premature; and that the defendant has acted equitably by offering to pay the plaintiff’s claim provided the defendant receives assurances, adequately secured, that its rights to offset will not be lost, and that the plaintiff has rejected such .offer.

The answer does not plead a legal defense to the plaintiff’s complaint. It in effect admits that the debt alleged therein is due and payable. It does not plead a counterclaim or a setoff. The defendant takes the position that although the debt sued upon is due and payable the legal action to enforce payment is premature and must await a determination of the appeal to an administrative board in an entirely unrelated transaction.

The plaintiff’s solvency is in dispute. However, this would seem to be irrelevant. The parties freely chose with whom they would transact business. In addition defendant knowing the circumstances elected to pursue its appeal rather than submit its claim against plaintiff as a counterclaim herein. It would be inequitable to deny plaintiff its plain right to immediate access to the courts to obtain a judgment for the debt sued upon. Motion for summary judgment is granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2410

In Re: HENRY EARL MILLER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(6:04-cr-00022-HFF; 6:06-cv-00548-HFF)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 17, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Earl Miller, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Henry Earl Miller petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 

“motion to amend the unwarned recharacterized 3-page unlabeled 

letter.” He seeks an order from this court directing the 

district court to act. Our review of the district court docket 

sheets reveals that the district court denied the motions in 

text orders on December 29, 2009. Accordingly, because the 

district court has recently decided Miller’s motions, we deny 

the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
11-1112-pr

Ocasio v. Deluke

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER

FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held

at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 17th day of April, two thousand twelve.

PRESENT:

JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,

GERARD E. LYNCH,

RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________

OMAR OCASIO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 11-1112-pr

F. DELUKE, C.O., GREAT MEADOW

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_____________________________________

FOR APPELLANT: Omar Ocasio, pro se, New York, New York.
2

FOR APPELLEES: Victor Paladino, Assistant Solicitor General,

Albany, New York (Barbara D. Underwood, Nancy A.

Spiegel, on the brief), for Eric T. Schneiderman,

Attorney General of the State of New York.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern

District of New York (Gary L. Sharpe, Chief Judge; David R. Homer, Magistrate Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Omar Ocasio, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s grant

of summary judgment in favor of Appellees. Ocasio’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleges numerous constitutional violations by officials at New York State Department of

Corrections and Community Supervision at Great Meadow Correctional Facility. We

assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the

case, and the issues on appeal.

The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, which was adopted by the

district court, correctly found that Ocasio failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

That failure warranted the grant of summary judgment against him. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a). Moreover, other than the excessive force claims, none of Ocasio’s claims

would survive summary judgment even if he had exhausted his administrative remedies.

Therefore we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons set

forth in the magistrate judge’s thorough report.
3

We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments on appeal and have found them

to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

hereby AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 18-0335 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee, v. DAVID MICHAEL YOUMANS,

Defendantand Appellant. ORDER

Appellant David Michael Youmans was granted an extension of time to file and serve his opening brief on or before July 2, 2020. This Court ordered that no further extensions would be granted. The opening briefis now overdue. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file and serve the opening briefon appeal no later than July 30, 2020. Failure to file the briefwithin that time will result in dismissal ofthis appeal with prejudice and without further notice. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to all parties ofrecord. DATED this tO Illy ofJuly,2020.


# FILED JUL 1 0 2020 Bovvern Greenwoou Clerk of Supreme Court Stote nf Mo,tana For the Court, 

# v ChiefJustice 07/10/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0335
Exhibit 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT
EACH PERSON WHOSE SIGNATURE APPEARS BELOW CONSTITUTES AND APPOINTS JONG S. WHANG
AND BRADLEY C. ANDERSON, AND EACH OF THEM, HIS TRUE AND LAWFUL ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT
AND AGENTS, WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION AND RESUBSTITUTION, FOR HIM AND IN
HIS NAME, PLACE AND STEAD, IN ANY AND ALL CAPACITIES, TO SIGN AMTECH SYSTEMS,
INC.S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2008,
AND ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K, AND TO FILE THE
SAME, WITH ALL EXHIBITS THERETO, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, GRANTING UNTO SAID
ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT AND AGENTS, AND EACH OF THEM, FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO DO
AND PERFORM EACH AND EVERY ACT AND THING REQUISITE AND NECESSARY TO BE DONE IN
AND ABOUT THE PREMISES, AS FULLY AND TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES AS HE MIGHT OR
COULD DO IN PERSON HEREBY RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING ALL THAT SAID
ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT AND AGENTS, OR HIS SUBSTITUTE OR SUBSTITUTES, MAY LAWFULLY DO
OR CAUSE TO BE DONE BY VIRTUE HEREOF.

|SIGNATURE                 |  | TITLE                                    |  | DATE             
|------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|                          |  |                                          |  |                  
|/s/ Jong S. Whang         |  | Chairman of the
      Board, President   |  | December 10, 2008
|Jong S.
    Whang         |  | and Chief
      Executive Officer        |  |                  
|                          |  | (Principal
      Executive Officer)      |  |                  
|                         
|/s/ Bradley C. Anderson   |  | Vice President 
      Finance and Chief |  | December 10, 2008
|Bradley C.
      Anderson |  | Financial
      Officer                  |  |                  
|                          |  | (Principal
      Financial Officer)      |  |                  
|                         
|/s/ Robert T. Hass        |  | Chief Accounting
      Officer           |  | December 10, 2008
|Robert T.
      Hass      |  | (Principal
      Accounting Officer)     |  |                  
|                         
|/s/ Michael Garnreiter    |  | Director                                 |  | December 10, 2008
|Michael
      Garnreiter  |  |                                          |  |                  
|                         
|/s/ Robert F. King        |  | Director                                 |  | December 10, 2008
|Robert F.
      King      |  |                                          |  |                  
|                         
|/s/ Brian L. Hoekstra     |  | Director                                 |  | December 10, 2008
|Brian L.
      Hoekstra   |  |                                          |  |                  
|                         
|/s/ Alfred W. Giese       |  | Director                                 |  | December 10, 2008
|Alfred W.
      Giese     |  |                                          |  |                  

---
No. 53290.

#### Joseph Horne Co. *v.*United States,

protest 69229-K (Pittsburgh).

*349Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
# C_2015016EN.01002301.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/23

---

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 3 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 2 de Marchena — Spain) — Unicaja Banco, SA v Steluta Grigore

(Case C-483/13) (1)

(2015/C 016/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

---
(Reap. Dec. 9944)

#### Isaac B. Cohen & Sons Corp. D. Hauser, Inc. v. United States

Entry Nos. 60406-2; 848067-4.

(Decided March 13, 1961)

*Siegel, Mcmdell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*WilUam S. Orrielc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeals for reappraisement for decision upon stipulation, on the basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402a (d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved in the said appeals for reappraisement, and that such value, in each case, is the invoice unit value (ex-factory price), plus the shipping or f.o.b. charges only, without the buying commission.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9796]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 15, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Burl Thornton, Assistant Vice 
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Capitol Bancorp, Ltd., Lansing, Michigan, and Capitol 
Development Bancorp Limited VI, Lansing, Michigan; to acquire 51 
percent of the voting shares of Issaquah Community Bank (in 
organization), Issaquah, Washington.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Rice Bancshares, Inc., Ennis, Texas; to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of First State 
Bank, Rice, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 17, 2007.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-9796 Filed 5-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
No. 55637.

#### S. S. Kresge Company *v.*United States,

protest 170677-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The collector’s letter of transmittal, admitted in evidence, admits that in liquidation the assessment of 10 cents per dozen pieces was inadvertently used, whereas the proper amount should have been 5 cents per dozen pieces, following the trade agreement with Mexico (T. D. 50797). The merchandise was therefore held dutiable at 5 cents per dozen pieces and 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 211, as amended by T. D. 50797.
No. 47749.

#### Protest 798386-G of J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 32355, the claim at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 was sustained.
#### J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 7677.

Invoices dated Toronto, Canada, July 11, 1947, etc.

Certified July 11, 1947, etc.

Entered at Chicago, Ill., July 22, 1947, etc.

Entry No. 479, etc.

(Decided March 3, 1949)

*Wallace & Schwartz (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*David N.*Edelstein, Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement fisted in schedule *“A”,*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in C. J. Tower *&*Sons v. United States, R. D. 7624, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> *420IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these eases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930,-to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 9936)

#### Air Clearance Ass’n, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 3968, etc.

(Decided March 7, 1961)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

*William S. OrricJc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the schedule hereto annexed and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the issues in *Paramotmt Import Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9697 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in the cases listed in the schedule hereto annexed less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Czechoslovakia in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, packed ready for delivery and that the foreign values of such or similar merchandise were no higher.

In the incorporated case, I held that a charge of 15 per centum, paid by the American importer to a foreign commissionaire for services rendered in connection with the purchase of merchandise in the foreign market and which amount did not inure to the benefit of the seller, was a *bona -fide*buying commission that did not enter into the dutiable value of the merchandise.

On the agreed facts and following my cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.