alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
23.01

















CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (No. 333-122183 and No. 333-27271) of our report dated April 15, 2008
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Nestor, Inc. which is
incorporated by reference in such Registration Statement and to the use of our
name and the statements with respect to us, as appearing under the heading
“Experts” in such Registration Statement.








/s/
Carlin, Charron & Rosen,
LLP





Carlin,
Charron & Rosen, LLP


Providence,
Rhode Island


April 15,
2008
#### V.L. WALKER CO., INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Jerry Oscar PUGH and Lisa Pugh, Appellees.

No. 98-1797.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 28, 1999.

J. James Donnellan, III, Miami, for appellant.

Proenza, Roberts & Hurst and H. Clay Roberts, Miami, for appellees.

Before NESBITT, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Gupton v. Village Key & Saw Shop Inc.,*656 So.2d 475, 478 (Fla.1995)(party cannot successfully complain about an error for which it is responsible.); *Markham v. Fogg,*458 So.2d 1122, 1126 (Fla. 1984)(appellate court should not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact as long as there is competent substantial evidence); *City of Miami v. Carter,*105 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1958)(trial judge has discretion in balancing the equities between pai'ties in cases involving equitable accounting); *Zerquera v. Centennial Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc.,*721 So.2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(in a bench trial, judge’s findings of fact will not be disturbed unless totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence); *Dreyfuss v. Dreyfuss,*701 So.2d 437, 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(appellate court has the duty to affirm trial court findings supported by competent substantial evidence); *Marrone v. Miami Nat’l Bank,*507 So.2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)(trial court must evaluate and weigh conflicting testimony after observing the credibility of the witness).
No. 44431.

#### Protests 957007-G, etc., of M. H. Greenebaum, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that 10 percent allowance should have been made for the weight of the gelatmous material in question.
No. 43306.

#### Protests 809796-G, etc., of Frank Allaire Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the -protests were dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-01-1997
<CASH>                                           9,290
<SECURITIES>                                     1,533
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,422
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,545
<INVENTORY>                                     20,184
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,685
<PP&E>                                         130,286
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 175,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,825
<BONDS>                                        109,045
<COMMON>                                            65
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,848
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   175,505
<SALES>                                        585,746
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               585,746
<CGS>                                          431,851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  145,631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,211
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,877
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,613)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       727
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,886)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,886)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.42)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 2 7 , 2018 

# Order

Clerk September 2 7 , 2018

158077 ( 3 8 )

In re PAROLE OF RONALD IRWIN

____________________________________

MACOMB COUNTY PROSECUTING

ATTORNEY,

Appellee,

SC: 158077

v COA: 342963

Macomb CC: 2017

- 000053

- AP

RONALD IRWIN,

Appellant.

___________ __________________________

PAROLE BOARD,

Intervenor

- Appellee.

____________________________________ _/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of appellant to extend the time for filing

his reply is GRANTED. The reply submitted on September 5, 2018, is accepted for filing.
AFS-14-164-E

June 19, 2014

Mr. Lyle Panepinto

Director of Operations

Southern Seaplane, Inc.

#1 Coquille Drive

Belle Chasse, LA 70037

Dear Mr. Panepinto:

This is in response to your letters, dated February 10th and March 17, 2014, (public docket 

No. FAA-2014-0086) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 

Southern Seaplane, Inc. (Southern Seaplane) for an exemption from part 141, Appendix I of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption, if granted, would allow

Southern Seaplane relief from Private Pilot/Additional Class Rating aeronautical experience 

requirements.

The FAA has determined that an exemption is not the means to obtain the relief you seek. 

Section 141.55(d) and (e) contain provisions that enable a pilot school to request and receive 

approval for any training course under part 141 that does not meet the minimum ground and 

flight training requirements provided certain provision and conditions are met.

The FAA Flight Standards Service, through your local Flight Standards District Office

(FSDO), has the authority to review any request that is submitted under § 141.55. The final 

decision to approve or reject such a submission remains with the FSDO. 

Accordingly, because the relief you seek is already covered under different regulations, we 

will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

James A. Viola

Manager, General Aviation and Commercial Division
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7069

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KOVA DUAN WRIGHT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00005-RLV-12)

Submitted: March 30, 2012 Decided: April 12, 2012

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kova Duan Wright, Appellant Pro Se. John George Guise, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kova Duan Wright appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s order. United States v. Wright, No. 

5:01-cr-00005-RLV-12 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 2011); see United 

States v. Brown, 653 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 

S. Ct. 1003 (2012). 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.

AFFIRMED
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# British Royal Navy strengthening strategic partnership with DLA

By Dominique J. Shelton

                RICHMOND, Va.  –              
British Royal Navy RAdm. Andy Kyte, third from left, met with Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Sean Tyler and other senior DLA Aviation leaders during his visit to Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 2023. The meeting focused on availability, supply chain resiliency, reducing the demand signal, and the F-35 Lightning II program. Kyte has also been meeting with key strategic leaders in the U.S. to help forge a stronger partnership. Kyte is slated to be the Royal navy’s next Chief of Defence Logistics and Support. (Photo courtesy of Navy Lt. Gregory Shumaker, Aide-de-Camp).

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

British Royal NavyDepartment of DefenseChief of Defence Logistics and SupportDLA AviationDefense Logistics Agency
January 24, 1939

No. 40569.

#### Protest 808106-G (A) of David Farber.

Abstract 39999. Application by plaintiff for rehearing granted.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19746]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3581-000]


Montaup Electric Company; Notice of Filing

July 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 1, 1997, Montaup Electric Company 
(Montaup), in accordance with the Commission's order in Atlantic City 
Electric Co., et al., 77 FERC para. 61,144, 61,533 (1997), filed 
amendments to its open access transmission tariff to change the 
scheduling minimum for firm and non-firm point-to-point service from 
1,000 kW to 10 kW and to provide for a method for Montaup to calculate 
Available Transmission Capability if the New England Power Pool 
(NEPOOL) is not in a position to do so.
    In addition, Montaup filed amendments to revise the tariff rates to 
include a pass-through of monthly NEPOOL charges for ancillary services 
and to establish a formula for determining the annual transmission 
revenue requirement.
    Montaup requests waiver of the notice requirement so that these 
amendments may be allowed to become effective July 1, 1997.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before July 31, 1997. Protests filed 
with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make the 
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing a re on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19746 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
exv10w4



 





Exhibit 10.4




ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION

1999 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN




AMENDMENT TO PERFORMANCE UNIT AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”), effective as of November 6, 2007 (the “Effective Date”),
amends the Performance Unit Agreement, dated December 11, 2006 (the “Agreement”), by and between
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”) and                                          (“Employee”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to amend and terminate the Agreement by canceling the
entire Agreement and forfeiting all performance units awarded thereunder; and



     WHEREAS, the Company and Employee recognize and acknowledge that the performance units granted
under the Agreement have not vested and have no value whatsoever as of the Effective Date;



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Employee hereby agree as follows:




	 	1.	 	The Agreement is hereby terminated and shall be void, in its entirety, as of the
Effective Date;
	 
	 	2.	 	All performance units under the Agreement are cancelled and forfeited;
	 
	 	3.	 	None of the performance units awarded under the Agreement have vested;
	 
	 	4.	 	None of the performance units awarded under the Agreement have any value; and
	 
	 	5.	 	No payment shall be made to Employee due to such termination of the Agreement or
forfeiture of the performance units.





     The Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed by an officer thereunder duly
authorized, and Employee has executed this Amendment, effective as of the Effective Date.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Name:	 	Preston Johnson, Jr.	 	 	 	Date
	 	 	Title:	 	Vice President, Human Resources	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EMPLOYEE	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Name	 	 	 	Date
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: Ma n i sch Sohani and Anis Virani v. Nizar Sunesara

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 00 46 0

- C V

Trial court case number: 1 058441

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

On June 6, 2016, the appellants, Ma n i sch Sohani and Anis Virani, filed a notice of

appeal from the final judgment, signed by the trial court on March 9 , 2016, after filing a

motion for new trial

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2 6

. 1 (a)( 1 )

. On June 30, 2016, the parties filed

this agreed motion to abate requesting that this Court abate this appeal to permit

mediation pursuant to a Rule 11 agreement in which the parties, among other things,

agreed to file this joint motion to abate this appe al to allow for mediation.

Accordingly, the Court grants the joint motion and abate s the appeal and

remand s the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Th is appeal is abated, treated

as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be

reinstated on this Court’s active docket when either party files a motion to reinstate this

appeal with the Clerk of this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes



Date: July 1 9 , 2016
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,
                                  AS ENACTED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Form 10-Q, Third Wave Technologies, Inc. (the "Company")
for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Lance Fors, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and David Nuti, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, 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.

                                                         /s/ Lance Fors
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Lance Fors
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         November 14, 2003

                                                         /s/ David Nuti
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         David Nuti
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                         November 14, 2003
----

----

| (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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  November 12, 2010 |   |   /s/ Jamie L. Mancl     |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                                |   | Jamie L. Mancl                |
|                                |   | President                     |
|                                |   | (principal executive officer) |

----

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lonnie G. RAYBON.

No. 59954.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 10, 1977.

In re: Lonnie G. Raybon applying for writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and review.

Writ refused. On the circumstances shown, relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

SUMMERS, J.,

concurs in denial. In my view it is implicit from this record that at the time of the guilty plea applicant was *1107aware of the consequences of his plea and that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily made. The law requires no more.

TATE and MARCUS, JJ.

We are not convinced that the trial court erred in the holding, on the basis of the evidentiary hearing, that the record establishes that the state bore its burden of proving an intelligent and knowing plea of guilty. Nevertheless, we feel that the present protracted post-conviction proceeding supports reiteration of the principal that the preferred procedure under the present circumstances is for the trial court to ascertain independently at the time of the plea that the accused is aware of the rights he relinquishes by his plea and of the consequences thereof.

DIXON, J.,

dissents from the denial. The record establishes that neither the judge nor the lawyer informed applicant of the rights he waived by pleading guilty, and the record does not establish that applicant knew he could demand a trial. The record does establish that he steadfastly maintained his innocence, and does not establish that he knew the minimum sentence was a jail term.

CALOGERO, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
#### Edward A. Curry *v.*James A. West, Appellant.

*Real estate*— Brolcers—Commissions—Evidence—Sufficiency.

In an action of assumpsit for commissions earned in a sale of real estate, the case was for the jury, and a verdict for the plaintiff will be sustained, where the issue was one of fact as to whether the sale was the result of the efforts of the plaintiff, and whether the conveyance to a third party was merely a subterfuge to escape the payment of commissions.

Argued April 26, 1926.

Appeal No. 23, April T., 1926, by defendant, from C. P. Allegheny County, April T., 1925, No. 385, in the case of Edward A. Curry v. James A West.

Before Porter, P. J., Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn, Gawthrop and Cunningham, JJ.

Affirmed.

Petition to appeal from County Court. Before Evans, Carnahan and Drew, JJ,

*262The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The court dismissed the petition.

*Error assigned,*among others, was the decree of the court.

*S. M. Lewinter,*for appellant.

O. *K. Eaton,*and with him *W. H. Coleman*and *Arthur L. McLaughlin, Jr.,*for appellee.

July 8, 1926:

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

This is an appeal from ia case tried before a jury in the County Court of Allegheny County.

No point for binding instructions was presented nor any exception taken to the charge of the court. The Common P'leas court refused the appeal. Such an appeal should not be allowed unless a retrial on the issues of fact is necessary to prevent injustice, and we may not reverse where an appeal has been refused in the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Harris & Rhodes v. Brinton, 75 Pa. Superior Ct. 68, and cases there cited.

Plaintiff, a real estate agent, claimed that he sold a property for the defendant and thereby earned his commission. As ia result of advertisements spread by him, he received a call from one of the future purchasers of the property. The property was deeded to a third party by the defendant, but was later transferred to the person with whom the plaintiff had had negotiations and whose attention he had brought to the property. There was evidence that confirmed the plaintiff’s claim that the introduction of the third party was a mere subterfuge to get rid of paying him commissions.

The comment of the lower court was justified that *263“the trial was full and fair, the weight of the testimony, and the fair inference to be derived from it, ¡all favored the plaintiff.”

The order is affirmed.