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




CONSENT
      OF GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP




CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




We
      consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
      Registration Statements and related Prospectus of MTM Technologies, Inc. listed
      below, and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report, dated June
      6, 2006, with respect to the audited consolidated balance sheets of MTM
      Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2006 and 2005, and the
      related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash
      flows for each of the three years in the period ended March 31,
      2006.




Registration Statements:




(1)
      Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-131089)


(2)
      Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-128434)


(3)
      Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-127587)


(4)
      Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-123144)


(2)
      Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-117549)


(3)
      Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333- 49718)


(4)
      Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-126322)


(5)
      Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-123147)


(6)
      Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333- 72269)








/s/ GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP


GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP


New York, New York




July 14, 2006


---
#### William Earl WEBB, Appellant, v. Betty N. WEBB, Appellee.

No. 69-865.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 16, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JALANI DUPREE MARTIN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 207 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 25th day of June, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Oscar RODRIGUEZ, Gordon Beverages, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Olin’s Rent-A-Truck System, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Marjorie RAMCHARAN and Winston Ramcharan, Appellees.

No. 71-116.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 13, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
ACTIO N 

SI 0-100304-05 I 9 

TRAVEL CENTER 

CONTROL NO. 

BENCHMARK OFFICE CENTCR II 

5900 HARPER ROAD • SOLON, OH 44139 

(440) 248-8388 • 1-800-854-0601 (Corporate Travel) 

(440) 248-4949 • 1-800-391-1167 (Leisure Travel) 

FAX 440-248-4082 g 

www.actiontravelnow.com CD 

February 16,2010 ci, § 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 

20590 

Subject: Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding DOT-OST-2010-0018 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

As a business partner of Continental Airlines and Continental Micronesia, I am writing in 

support of the carriers' joint application to provide new service to Tokyo Haneda Airport from 

New York/Newark (Continental) and from Guam (Continental Micronesia). 

I applaud your efforts on negotiating an historic open skies agreement v/ith Japan which will 

lead to an opening of Haneda airport for U.S. carrier service later this year. I now urge you to 

select Continental to provide service connecting the U.S.'s financial and commercial center 

atNew YorkZNewark with Tokyo's central/downtown airports 

Liberty - Haneda service would provide a critical link between two of the world's largest 

economies and v/ill help boost trade and commerce across the New York/Newark region. 

Continental has proven its commitment to the Asian region and to nonstop Tokyo service, and 

Haneda will be a valuable addition to our region and to Continental's network. The new 

York/Newark economy, millions of Americans on the U.S. east coast, the airline's thousands 

of employees and hundreds of thousands of U.S. consumers will benefit from Continental's 

proposed service and will work together to make Liberty International Airport - Haneda 

service a success much like Tokyo Narita has been and vynll continue to be a successful route 

from Newark Liberty. 

Regards, Arlene M. Goldberg, President 

/U^^.x^^-^^
U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Attn: Dockets OST 98-3304 

400 Seventh St. S.W. 

PL401 

Washington DC, 20590 

USA 

lOth January 2012 

Dear Sir, 

' -~ 

; ':; c .._1 ! . --, ,., 

i . .:~· CJ 

Kenyon House 

1 The Western Centre 

Western Road 

Bracknell 

RG121RW 

Telephone (24 hrs): 

+44 (0) 1344 316 650 

Fax: 

+44 (0) 1344 316 699 

Email: 

kenyon@ kenyonintemational.com 

Website: 

www.kenyonintemational.com 

This letter is to inform you that, Kenyon International Emergency Services has 

cancelled its contract to provide emergency response services to Dutch Antilles 

Express. 

From 17th January 2013 Kenyon will no longer provide third party support to Dutch 

Antilles Express, in the event of any incident, under the U.S. Aviation Disaster Family 

Assistance Act of 1996. 

Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to 

contact me at the above address. 

Yours sincerely, 

Jeremy Allen 

Vice President 

Cc: Arnold Leonora -CEO, Dutch Antilles Express 

Jeanette Martinez- Flight Safety Officer, Dutch Antilles Express 

Hughbert Delsol- Quality Assurance, Safety and Security Manager, Dutch 

Antilles Express
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53656-53657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27210]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. 
Washington Central Railroad Company, Inc., et al., No. CV97-1400-ST (D. 
Oregon), was lodged on September 30, 1997, with the United States 
District Court for the District of Oregon. With regard to the 
Defendants,

[[Page 53657]]

the Consent Decree resolves a claim filed by the United States on 
behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') 
pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq.
    The United States entered into the Consent Decree in connection 
with the Environmental Pacific Corporation Site located in Amity, 
Yamill County, Oregon, approximately 42 miles southwest of Portland. 
The Consent Decree provides that the Settling Defendants will reimburse 
the United States a total of $83,953.68 for past costs incurred by the 
United States at the Site.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 20530, and should refer to 
United States v. Washington Central Railroad Company, Inc., et al., DOJ 
Refs. # 90-11-2-1080 and # 90-11-3-1418.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney, 888 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204; the 
Region 10 office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Seattle, Washington; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G 
Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of 
the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained in person or by mail from 
the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, 
DC 20005. In requesting a copy refer to the referenced case and enclose 
a check in the amount of $20.25 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), 
payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Bruce S. Gelber,
Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section.
[FR Doc. 97-27210 Filed 10-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2925

___________ Mark B. Price, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * McDonnell Douglas Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 29, 2000 Filed: July 6, 2000

___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Mark B. Price appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment on his Americans w ith Disabilities Act (ADA) claim against his employer, McDonnell Douglas Corporation (MDC). Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the grant of summary judgment to MDC was proper. Price also contends the district court erroneously failed to address his Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) claim. While Price did move to amend his original complaint to include an MHRA claim, the motionwas dismissed without prejudice and Price failed to refile. Even assuming the MHRA claim was properly before the district court, MHRA claims are analyzed under-2-

the same standard as ADA claims, see Treanor v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. , 200 F.3d 570, 574 (8th Cir. 2000), and "resolution of the [ADA] claim also disposed of the state claim," Schuler v. Phillips Petroleum Co. , 169 F.3d 1171, 1172 (8th Cir. 1999). We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSE ALFONSO TIJER

INA, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. DEPAR TM ENT OF HOM ELAND SEC UR ITY DISTR IC T DIREC TOR U.S. IM M IGR ATION, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-55655

D.C . No. 2:12-c v-10805-DOC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dav id O. C arte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2014 ** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Jose Alfonso Tijerina

a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his pe tition for a

writ of e rror c oram

nobis. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C .



# F IL ED NOV 26 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1291. W e re vie wde novo thede nia l of a pe tition for a

writ of e rror c oram

nobis, se e U nite d State

s v . Rie dl , 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th C ir. 2007), a nd we a ffirm . In his pe tition, Tije

rina c onte nde d tha

t he wa s im

prope rly re m ove d from

the Unite d State s without re c e iving a he aring on his c la im

for re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture . The distric t c o urt prope rly

de c line d to e nt e rta i n Tije rina ’ s pe tition be c a

use the sole m e an s to c ha lle nge an orde r of re m ova l is by filing a pe tition for re vie w with thea ppropria te c ourt of a

ppe a ls. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(5) an d (b)(9); Martine z v . N apolitano , 704 F.3d 620, 622 (9th C ir. 2012). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 5 6 5 5 2
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.2(b)
                          INFONET SERVICES CORPORATION
                       1998 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

                               SECOND AMENDMENT TO
                       LOAN, SECURITY AND PLEDGE AGREEMENT
                       -----------------------------------

     This SECOND AMENDMENT TO LOAN, SECURITY AND PLEDGE AGREEMENT (the "Second
Amendment") is entered into as of December 31, 2001 (the "Effective Date")
between _______________, an individual (the "Borrower") and Infonet Services
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"). Borrower and the Company
are collectively referred to as the "Parties."

                                    RECITALS
                                    --------

     WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Company have previously entered into a Loan,
Pledge and Security Agreement and have entered into an Amendment to Loan,
Security and Pledge Agreement (collectively as amended, the "Agreement").

     WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Company wish to enter into an amendment to
the Agreement to provide for a new maturity date for the underlying loan and to
make certain other amendments to the Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual promises herein
made, and in consideration of the representations, warranties and covenants
herein contained, the Parties agree as follows:

     1. The words "January 1, 2002 (the "Maturity Date") shall be deleted from
Section 1 of the Agreement and the words "November 30, 2004 (the "Maturity
Date") shall be inserted in their place.

     2. The interest rate applicable to the Loan on and after January 1, 2002
shall be five percent (5%) per annum computed on the basis of a 365 day year.

     3. Borrower agrees to provide the Company with a personal balance sheet
dated as of a date no more than 30 days prior to the date of receipt by the
Company, which balance sheet shall be certified as true and correct by the
Borrower, (i) during January, 2003 and January, 2004 and (ii) as otherwise
reasonably requested by the Company.

     4. Borrower shall use his or her reasonable commercial efforts to make
periodic payments, no less frequently than annually, to reduce both the
principal and interest owed to Infonet under the Loan. Infonet and Borrower
mutually shall determine the amount of the periodic payments from time to time
based on Borrower's ability to make the payment at the time requested.

<PAGE>

     5.   All other terms of the Agreement shall continue unchanged. Capitalized
terms used but not defined in this Second Amendment shall have the meanings
assigned to them in the Agreement.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment
as of December 31, 200l.

INFONET SERVICES CORPORATION




BY   ____________________
     Name:
     Title:


The Borrower




BY   ____________________
     Name:
#### Fredric J. HODKIN, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent, (two cases).

Nos. 40338, 40488.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 16, 1970.

Fredric, J. Hodkin, pro se.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee-respondent.

PER CURIAM:

The appeal and petition for certiorari heretofore filed herein are considered to be a petition for review [Petition of Dade County Bar, etc., Fla., 116 So.2d 1] and the *133cause is hereby set for oral argument before this Court at 9:30 o’clock a. m., Wednesday, March 10, 1971 with thirty minutes to the side.

Pending disposition of the questions raised by the petitions for review, further action in the trial court is stayed.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ„ concur.
*	CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS HAVE BEEN OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY 
WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A 
CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST.



January 8, 1997
Our Ref: B96-7701-RJTL-RJ0350-002



Atlantic Coast Airlines
1 Export Drive, 
Sterling, Virginia,
U.S.A. 20164


Gentlemen,

Letter Agreement No. 002 to Purchase Agreement No. RJ-0350 dated January 8, 
1997 (the "Agreement" between Bombardier Inc. ("BRAD") and Atlantic Coast 
Airlines ("Buyer") relating to the purchase of twelve (12) Canadair Regional 
Jet Aircraft (the "Aircraft")

Subject:		Conditions Precedent

1.0	This letter constitutes an integral part of the Agreement and evidences 
our further agreement with the matters set forth below.  All terms used 
herein and in the Agreement and not defined herein, shall have the same 
meaning as in the Agreement.

2.0	In consideration of Buyer having entered into the above referenced 
Agreement for the purchase of twelve (12) Aircraft, BRAD and Buyer 
agree that the Agreement is subject to the following conditions:

2.1	*


*



2.2	Board Approval

BRAD and Buyer confirm to each other they have each obtained the 
required authorizations and fulfilled any conditions applicable to 
enable each of them to enter into this Agreement, except that 
Buyer's final acceptance of the Agreement will be conditioned on 
the approval of Buyer's Board of Directors to be obtained ten (10) 
business days following execution of the Agreement, failing 
receipt of which, either party may terminate this Agreement by 
providing ten (10) days prior notice.


2.3	*










3.0	The provisions of this Letter Agreement are personal to Buyer and 
shall not be assigned or otherwise disposed of by Buyer without 
the prior written consent of BRAD. 





Should there be any inconsistency between this Letter Agreement and the 
Agreement with respect to the subject matter covered by the terms hereof, then 
this Letter Agreement shall prevail.


Yours truly,
BOMBARDIER INC.



________________________				Date:_____________
Michel Bourgeois
Vice President, Contracts 





Acknowledged and Accepted


Atlantic Coast Airlines



________________________				Date:_____________
James B. Glennon
Sr. Vice President and C.F.O.

 

 
[Footnote continued from previous page]

[Footnote continued on next page]

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1999
<CASH>                                          11,740
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,821
<ALLOWANCES>                                       487
<INVENTORY>                                        400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,417
<PP&E>                                          40,815
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,329
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,736
<BONDS>                                          9,561
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           184
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,020
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,337
<SALES>                                         62,412
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,412
<CGS>                                           60,309
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,778
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (100)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,099
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,365)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       225
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,590)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,746)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
AMENDMENT TO MORGAN STANLEY DPSP/START PLAN



 
Exhibit 10.18

 
AMENDMENT TO DPSP/START PLAN 
 
Effective January 26, 2003, Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated (the “Corporation”) hereby amends the Morgan Stanley DPSP/START Plan (the “DPSP/START Plan”) as follows: 
 
1.    The second sentence of Section 8(d)(v) of the DPSP/START Plan shall be amended to read as
follows: 
 
“Without limiting the generality
of the foregoing, (i) the Administrative Committee may from time to time prescribe rules of uniform application to those Participants subject to Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, to ensure compliance with the conditions
for exemption in Rule 16b-3 under such Section, and (ii) except as the Administrative Committee may otherwise provide in its sole discretion, no acquisition or disposition of allocated Morgan Stanley Stock at the direction of a Participant or
Beneficiary may be effected unless directed by the Participant or Beneficiary at a time at which that particular Participant or Beneficiary would be permitted, under Morgan Stanley’s policies regarding insider trading by employees, to acquire
or dispose, respectively, of Morgan Stanley Stock owned by such Participant or Beneficiary other than under the Plan.” 
 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment to be executed on its behalf as of the 23rd day of January, 2003.

 

	  MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED

	
	  By:
	  	    /S/    MICHAEL T. CUNNINGHAM
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 10.3

                  EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WITH EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS

                             DATED DECEMBER 7, 2001.

                               Michael K. Bresson

                                Jeffrey C. Leathe

                               Gary J. Marmontello

                               Verner B. Andersen

                                   Peter Scheu
#### A. F. KILBRIDE, etc., Petitioner, v. Isaac BATTLE, et ux., Respondents.

No. 39693.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 8, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 234 So.2d 9.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2755 

To extend the requirement to staff Department of Defense Education Activity 

schools to maintain maximum student-to-teacher ratios. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. TILLIS, and Mr. KAINE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To extend the requirement to staff Department of Defense 

Education Activity schools to maintain maximum student-to-teacher ratios. 

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 ‘‘Success for Military 

5 Connected Students Act of 2023’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 2755 IS

1 SEC. 2. STAFFING OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDU2 CATION ACTIVITY SCHOOLS TO MAINTAIN 

3 MAXIMUM STUDENT-TO-TEACHER RATIOS. 

4 Section 589B(c) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry 

5 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 

6 (Public Law 116–283; 134 Stat. 3659) is amended by 

7 striking ‘‘2023–2024 academic year’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘2029–2030 academic year’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
EX 32.1



PRESIDENTS CERTIFICATION



CERTIFICATE 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 (the Report) on the Form 10-QSB/A of The Bralorne Mining Company (the Company) for the period ended August 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rene Bernard, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



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



2.     The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.







/s/ Rene Bernard



Rene Bernard



Chief Executive Officer

President and Director



Date:  June 9, 2004