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




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos. 333-09917, 333-10117, 333-47098 and 333-131044 on Form S-3 and Nos. 333-09911, 333-09909, 333-46086, 333-76812, 333-103101, 333-131051, 333-145454, 333-168606 and 333-168607 on Form S-8 of our report dated November 15, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Amtech Systems, Inc. as of September 30, 2010 and 2009 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2010, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Amtech Systems, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2010. It should be noted that we have not audited any consolidated financial statements of the company subsequent to September 30, 2010, or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.




/s/ MAYER HOFFMAN MCCANN P.C.Phoenix, ArizonaNovember 15, 2010


73




---
# C_2014261EN.01002101.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/21

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Astellas Pharma Inc. v Polpharma SA Pharmaceutical Works

(Case C-661/13) (1)

1

2014/C 261/40

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.

1

---
# C_2013189EN.01000802.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 23 April 2013 — Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Alexandria v George Ciocoiu

(Case C-214/13)

2013/C 189/16

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Alexandria

Applicant:

Defendant: George Ciocoiu

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 110 TFEU preclude the imposition by a Member State of a tax on pollutant emissions upon the first registration in that Member State of second-hand vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, when the levying and payment of that same tax, provided for under a legislative act in respect of second-hand vehicles on the national market of similar age, technical condition and mileage and payable on first transfer of ownership, have subsequently been suspended by a legislative act having the force of law?

---
#### Theodore S. Parvin, plaintiff in error *vs.*Joseph J. Hoopes, defendant in error.

*Error to Muscatine.*

Where judgment is rendered by default, on a note, it will be presumed that the court required proof of the signature unless the record shows to the contrary.

Where the note is payable at a given time “ with ten per cent interest, if not paid when due, ” the interest is properly computable from the date of the note.

Where judgment is given by default on a note for the payment of money only, the court may direct the clerk to compute the interest, and assess the damages, by virtue of the 13th sec, of the Practice Act.

Action of assumpsit on a note, brought by the defendant against the plaintiff in error. The record states that at the November term 1842, the defendant made default, “ and neither of the parties requiring a jury it is ordered that the clerk assess the damages, which being assessed at $106.” Judgment was rendered accordingly.

To reverse this judgment Parvin assigns for error:

1. That after the defendant was defaulted no jury was called to hear the proof and assess the damages.

2. That after a default no proof of the execution of the instrument was given ; the same being at the first term.

3. That judgment was entered on default without a writ of inquiry.

4. That judgment was given for more than was due on the note.

*295WoodwarBj for plaintiff in error.

Lowe & Deshleb, for defendant in error.

Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The first point made in the assignment of errors, is that no jury was called to assess the damages after default taken. The action being brought on an instrument of writing for the payment of money, this objection was probably made without a reference to the 13th section of the practice act.

The second objection is, that the record contains nothing to show that the signature was proved. The few required such proof in cases like the present, before judgment was rendered. The court will be presumed to have done right in this respect, until the contrary is shown.

The third objection has been already sufficiently answered. The fourth and last is that judgment was rendered for too much.

The action was brought upon the following note:

> “■$100. “Bloomington, Iowa, April 9, 1842.

> “Six months after date I promise to pay J. J. Hoopes, or order, one huudred dollars with ten per cent interest if not paid when due.

> (“Signed) T. S. PARVIN.”

The clerk computed the interest from date, whereas it is contended that such interest should only have been reckoned from the time the note became due. We think the computation was correct. The note evidently intends to give ten per cent interest from date if not paid when due. Whether this is not a penalty against which equity would relieve is a very different question from that presented by the case in its present aspect. Judgment affirmed.
No. 47085.

#### Protests 67235-K, etc., of Thorens, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 47081.

#### Protest 22456-K of New York Merchandise Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the atomizers in question are similar to those the subject of Abstract 44140 the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) was sustained.
SERVED: Aprill, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AERO MICRONESIA 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0468 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AERO MICRONESIA 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0469 

ORDER ON VENUE 

I.:. 'I • ~ : • 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Complainant") and Aero Micronesia 

(hereinafter "Respondent") have both given the court their positions on Venue. 

WHEREFORE, Venue shall remain Honolulu, Hawaii. The court anticipates scheduling 

this case after June 1, 2014. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

1 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

David M. Kirstein 

Lyndsey M. Grunewald 

ONE COPY 

Kirstein & Young, PLLC, Respondent's Counsel 

1750 K Street, N.W., Suite 200 

. Washington, DC 20006 

TEL: 202-331-3348 

Fax: 202-331-3933 

Michael R. Quinn, President 

Aero Micronesia, Inc., dba 

Pacific Airlines Respondent 

156 Diablo Road, Suite 203 

Danville, CA 94526 

TEL: 925-362-4430 

FAX: 925-362-4432 

Don Bobertz, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, A WP-7 .4 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-3454 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

FDMS Nos. FAA-2012-0468 

& FAA-2012-0469 

(Civil Penalty Actions) 

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

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue; S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2 
FDMS Nos. F AA-2012-0468 

& FAA-2012-0469 

(Civil Penalty Actions) 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

3
No. 96-6659.

No. 96-6684.

No. 96-6973.

No. 96-7290.

#### Scott *v.*Recession Hearing Official et al., Bast *v.*Glasberg et al., Fleming *v.*United States, Foster *v.*Giant Food, Inc., *1152Schwarz *v.*Clinton et al., In re Visintine, Foster *v.*United States Marshals Service,

*1151519 U. S. 1095;

519 U. S. 1095;

519 U. S. 1083;

519 U. S. 1153;

*1152No. 96-7343.

No. 96-7539.

No. 96-7570.

519 U. S. 1135;

519 U. S. 1107; and

519 U. S. 1154. Petitions for rehearing denied.
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Agreements Adopted by the Traffic 

Conferences of the International Air 

Transport Association 

OST-2009-0346 

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS 

BY THE 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

IMA AGREEMENT APPROVED & IMMUNIZED 

DOCKET OST- ^ - 0 ^ 1^0 ACTION DATE XA^ 1 ^ ^/ O 

This approval and grant of antitrust immunity i: i'jbject, where applicable, 

to conditions previously imposed. 

This action is eflictive after 7 days unless a petition is filed under 

14 CFR 385.30 or a review is undertaken on the Department's own motion. 

In view of the agreement's noncontroversial nature and the availability of 

the aboveprtS^edure, the 2U ^ perigtUn L4 CFR 303.42 is waived. 

Aviation 

16 December 2009 

Communications with respect to 

this document should be sent to 

Douglas E. Lavin 

Regional Vice President - North America 

International Air Transport Association 

lATA Washington, 

601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 - North Building 

Washington DC 20004
**Exhibit
        32.2**
 
 CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
        PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES- OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Friendly Energy Exploration(the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        "Report"),
  I,
        Donald
        Trapp, Director 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:
  (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
        15th
        day September 2008.
 
 By:
        /s/ Donald Trapp
 Donald
        Trapp, Director and Chief Financial Officer
#### Henry B. Hendershott, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Hugh R. Thompson, defendant in error.

*Error to Besmoines.*

The omission of the initial *oí*the second Christian name of the-assignor, in a writ, is immaterial.

Assignment of errors :

The court erred in admitting themote to be read in evidence, inasmuch *187as there is a variance'between said note and the original-summons, and the record of the justice, the error being the admission of a different ¡note from the one declared upon.

' Woods, for plaintiff in error.

Grimes, for defendant in error.

The only error assigned, is a variance between the desrciption of the plaintiff and the payee of the note.

The variance is none in fact, the middle letter or name is no name, and the variance should have been suggested in the magistrate’s court.

Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The only error assigned in this caséis, that the summons issued by the justice, discribed Thompson as the assignee oí vVilliam C. Harris, whereas, that offered in evidence, was executed to Wm. Harris, and by him assigned to Thompson. This variance is clearly immaterial, especially under the circum-stances of this case. Judgment affirmed.
# C_2012355EN.01001301.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/13

---

Appeal brought on 26 September 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2012 in Case T-27/12 Marcuccio v Court of Justice

(Case C-433/12 P)

2012/C 355/22

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside in its entirety and without any exception the order of the General Court of 3 July 2012 in Case T-27/12; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside in its entirety and without any exception the order of the General Court of 3 July 2012 in Case T-27/12;

| — | order the Court of Justice to pay the costs incurred by the appellant relating to the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings and allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought in the main body of the application at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Justice to pay the costs incurred by the appellant relating to the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings and allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought in the main body of the application at first instance;

| — | in the alterntive, refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision on the substance. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alterntive, refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision on the substance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The order under appeal is clearly defective on account of a total failure to state reasons, unreasonableness, illogicality and distortion of the facts. The General Court erred in classifying certain letters sent by the appellant to the First Advocate General of the Court of Justice as requests for review within the meaning of Article 256(2) TFEU.

---
No. 74-6013.

#### Bell *v.*South Carolina.

Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 43272.

#### Protest 998751-G of Paola Randazzo (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The record showed that at the time of importation the barrels containing the olive oil were marked with the word “Itali.” The protest was sustained on the authority of Abstract 42271.
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE



UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE



SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Global-Tech Appliances Inc. (the Company)
on Form 20-F for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John C.K. Sham, President and 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:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/    JOHN C. K. SHAMJohn C. K. ShamPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: September 30, 2005
No. 96-1190.

#### Kern *v.*City of Rochester et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 25772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10031]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,718]


Fraser Timber Limited, Ashland, ME, Notice of Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated April 10, 2008, a company official requested 
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding 
workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on 
March 14, 2008. The Notice of determination was published in the 
Federal Register on March 26, 2008 (73 FR 16064).
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that imports of lumber and woodchips did not 
contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no 
shift of production to a foreign source occurred.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided 
additional information regarding aggregate imports of lumber and the 
impact of Canadian imports on lumber industry in the United States.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of April 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E8-10031 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Opinion filed December 8 , 2011



### In The



# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________



### No. 11

- 03

- 00 129

- CV

__________

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. , Appellant

V.

ROBERT HUTCHINSON AND JOYCE HUTCHINSON , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 32nd District Court

Nolan County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18,215

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellee s have filed in this court a m otion to d ismiss this appeal , which was suspended

in 2003 due to appellant’s bankruptcy

. A ppelle es state in their motion that “ [t] he parties have

reached an agreement and have settled and compromised their differences in the suit.” Appellant

has notified this court that it doe s not oppose the motion to dismiss. Th erefore, we dismiss the

appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1 (a)

.

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

December 8 , 2011 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.
# C_2014071EN.01003503.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/35

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-133/12)

(Civil service - Officials - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Compensation for the damage resulting from the fact that a letter was sent by the institution to the applicant’s lawyer concerning costs the applicant had been ordered to pay - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

(2014/C 71/70)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, G. Gattinara, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the fact that a letter concerning the applicant was sent by the defendant to the applicant’s lawyer, and a claim for damages.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2 000. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2 000.

---
No. 55620.

#### J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58348-K/90300, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eduardo Baez, Appellant.

[614 NYS2d 216]

—Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), both rendered April 7, 1993.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed *(see, People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.
# C_2013147EN.01000802.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud) (Czech Republic) lodged on 15 February 2013 — ACO Industries Tábor s. r. o. v Appellate Tax Directorate (Odvolací finanční ředitelství)

(Case C-80/13)

2013/C 147/14

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Administrative Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ACO Industries Tábor s. r. o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Appellate Tax Directorate

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Articles 18, 45, 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude provisions under which an employer established in one Member State is obliged to make advance payments of tax on the income of workers (nationals of another Member State) temporarily assigned to the employer by a temporary work agency established in another Member State through a branch established in the first Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Articles 18, 45, 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude provisions under which an employer established in one Member State is obliged to make advance payments of tax on the income of workers (nationals of another Member State) temporarily assigned to the employer by a temporary work agency established in another Member State through a branch established in the first Member State?

| 2. | Do Articles 18, 45, 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude provisions under which the basis of assessment of such workers is set at a flat rate of at least 60 % of the amount invoiced by the temporary work agency in cases where the intermediation fee is included in the amount invoiced? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Articles 18, 45, 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude provisions under which the basis of assessment of such workers is set at a flat rate of at least 60 % of the amount invoiced by the temporary work agency in cases where the intermediation fee is included in the amount invoiced?

| 3. | If the answer to the first or second question is yes in the affirmative, is it possible, in a situation such as the present case, to restrict the said fundamental freedoms for reasons of public policy, public security or public health, or for the effectiveness of fiscal supervision? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the first or second question is yes in the affirmative, is it possible, in a situation such as the present case, to restrict the said fundamental freedoms for reasons of public policy, public security or public health, or for the effectiveness of fiscal supervision?

---