alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement Nos. 333-108941 and 333-123881 of Washington GroupInternational, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated February 6, 2006 relatingto the audit of the consolidated balance sheets of MitteldeutscheBraunkohlengesellschaft mbH, Theissen (Germany) and its subsidiaries as ofDecember 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income,shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2005 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofWashington Group International, Inc. for the year ended December 30, 2005. Inthe report, we express the opinion that the consolidated financial statementsreferred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidatedfinancial position of Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH, Theissen(Germany), and the consolidated results of its operations and cash flows inconformity with accounting principles generally accepted in Germany. The effectof applying accounting principles generally accepted in the United States ofAmerica on the results of operations for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2005 and on shareholders’ equity as of December 31,2005 and 2004, audited by us, is fairly presented in Note C to the consolidatedfinancial statements.

 

 
| /s/ DELOITTE  & TOUCHE GMBH |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
| Deloitte &  Touche GmbH     |
| Leipzig, Germany                |
| March 2, 2006                   |

 

----
|  |  | [if !vml]>[endif]>

You have  reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection  (FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the  FDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's  suite of cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S.  Government Publications (CGP).
Title:    Assessment of the cattle and hog industries 
 
SuDocs Number: [if !vml]>[endif]>[if !vml]>[endif]>A 113.2:C 28/
 
Item    Number: 0031-F    (online)
GPO    System Number: 000825121
 
 
2001
2000
A service of the Superintendent of Documents,  U.S. Government Printing Office..

 

Last updated:  May 21, 2020  Page Name:  http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/
perm |
|--|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Shirley HEBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clarence A. MESTAYER, Jr., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3525.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

July 13, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 16, 1971.

Gold, Hall, Hammill & Little by James Davis, Alexandria, and Theodore M. Haik, Jr., New Iberia, for plaintiff-appellant.

Henry A. Bernard, Jr., New Iberia, for defendant-appellee.

*68Before FRUGÉ, MILLER and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.

FRUGÉ, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of custody.

The facts of this case are set forth in the companion case, Hebert v. Mestayer, 251 So.2d 66 (La.App.3rd Cir., 1971), decided this date.

Affirmed.

DOMENGEAUX, J., concurs.
J. 

ruling on a trial de novo request for an abuse of discretion. Casino 

Properties, Inc. v. Andrews, 112 Nev. 132, 135-36, 911 P.2d 1181, 1183 

(1996). Having reviewed the briefs and appendices on appeal, we conclude 

that the district court incorrectly dismissed appellant's trial de novo 

request based on the failure to pay the jury fees. NSTR 4(a)(1) requires 

the payment of "applicable juror fees." As argued by appellant, he did not 

seek a jury trial in his request for a trial de novo. Respondent likewise did 

not file a demand for a jury trial. Therefore, no jury fees were necessary 

in this proceeding. As there were no "applicable juror fees," appellant was 

under no obligation to pay for unnecessary jury fees. The same outcome 

results under the requirements of NSTR 31(b)(1). Accordingly, the district 

court abused its discretion in dismissing the request for a trial de novo 

and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED and we 

REVERSE AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings 

consistent with this order. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge 

Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge 

Donald D. Beury 

Jazz Aldrich 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A ' 

2
#### John SKISTMAS, Maremont Corp., an Illinois corporation, doing business in Florida, and Gelco Leasing Corp., a Minnesota corporation, Petitioners, v. Norton BLOOM, Respondent.

No. 69-910.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 29, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
#### Arthur L. CARTER v. Emily Fisher CARTER.

No. 11630.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1977.

*489Robert R. Rainer, Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendant-appellee, Emily Fisher Carter.

C. Emitte Core, Baton Rouge, of counsel for plaintiff-appellant, Arthur L. Carter.

Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and PONDER, JJ.

EDWARDS, Judge.

Plaintiff, Arthur L. Carter, appeals the dismissal of his divorce suit against the defendant, Emily Fisher Carter.

Plaintiff obtained a separation from the defendant on February 6, 1975. On April 23, 1976, plaintiff filed a petition for a divorce based on LSA-R.S. 9:302, alleging that more than one year had passed since the date of the signing of the judgment of separation without reconciliation of the spouses. Defendant answered and pleaded reconciliation as an affirmative defense.

The trial court found that the parties reached a reconciliation after the judgment of separation and dismissed plaintiff’s suit.

The issue of reconciliation is a question of fact to be determined considering all the circumstances surrounding the actions of the parties involved. *Garrett v. Garrett,*324 So.2d 494 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1975), *writ denied,*326 So.2d 372 (La.1976).

The record in the instant case indicates that plaintiff and defendant remained on the most amicable of terms following their separation. Defendant testified that she frequently visited plaintiffs apartment in Baton Rouge and that plaintiff frequently visited her at their farm in Denham Springs. Defendant further testified that they would often engage in sexual intercourse during these visits. Defendant detailed numerous specific occasions when they had marital relations.

The defendant’s assertions were corroborated by the testimony of two other witnesses, a neighbor and the defendant’s nephew. Both witnesses stated that they observed plaintiff at the farm, under circumstances which led each to believe that plaintiff was “spending the night” with defendant at the farm house.

Additionally, defendant offered evidence concerning various real estate transactions conducted by plaintiff and defendant with various third parties. During one such transaction on April 17, 1975, the issue of marital status was raised because the act of sale stated that plaintiff and defendant were legally separated and living separate and apart from each other. Defendant testified that plaintiff conceded that they had reconciled and consequently had the act of sale retyped to show that the parties were married to and living with each other.

Another real estate sale passed the following day likewise showed that the parties were married to and living with each other. Similarly, the language in a mineral deed executed by the parties which stated that the parties were legally separated was stricken out and initialed by both parties.

We find that these circumstances, words and actions of the parties support the trial court’s conclusion. *Garrett, supra; McVay*v. *McVay,*276 So.2d 926 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1973).

For the above reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

AFFIRMED.
# L_2005058EN.01001301.xml

| 4.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 58/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 58/13

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 368/2005

of 3 March 2005

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1757/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1757/2004 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1757/2004 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 25 February to 3 March 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1757/2004.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 March 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 March 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 313, 12.10.2004, p. 10.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.37.6    
  


AGREEMENT AND RELEASE  


December 20,
2002 


To:
Thomas G. Boren 


Dear
Tom: 


        This
letter agreement (the "Agreement") by and between PG&E Corporation (the "Company") and you ("Executive") addresses Executive's supplemental executive retirement plan benefits (the
"SERP") as defined in your offer letter dated July 21, 1999. 


RECITALS  


        1.    Executive
is a participant in the SERP. 


        2.    The
Company has agreed to purchase annuity contracts on Executive's behalf with AIG Life Insurance Company and John Hancock Life Insurance Company in complete
satisfaction of Executive's benefits accrued under the SERP through December 31, 2001. 


AGREEMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  



        1.    In
consideration of the establishment and funding of contract number GA-1147 with AIG Life Insurance Company and contract number 15340 with John Hancock Life
Insurance Company (the "Annuity Contracts") and the delivery to Executive of certificates under the Annuity Contracts, Executive acknowledges and agrees that all of Executive's benefits accrued under
the SERP as of December 31, 2001 ("Accrued Benefits") have been fully satisfied and discharged. 


        2.    Executive
further acknowledges and agrees that the Company and its subsidiaries and affiliates shall have no further liability or obligation with respect to payment of
the Accrued Benefits. 


        3.    Executive
further agrees that any claim or dispute related to the Accrued Benefits shall relate not to the SERP but rather solely to the Annuity Contracts, and Executive
releases from all liability and agrees not to bring any claim, complaint or dispute against the Company or any of its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, employees or consultants with respect to the
Accrued Benefits. 


        4.    The
Company and Executive agree that all of their respective rights under Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, arising at any time prior to
the date this Agreement is mutually executed by the parties, which are related or in any manner incidental to the matters encompassed by this Agreement are hereby waived. Section 1542 provides
as follows: 




"A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST
HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR."





        This
Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Executive and the Company with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and may only be modified or amended by a writing
signed by Executive and the Company. 


        By
signing below, you agree to all the terms of this Agreement. 



	 	PG&E CORPORATION
	

 	

By	
G. BRENT STANLEY
 G. Brent Stanley
 Senior Vice President
	

 	

 	
THOMAS G. BOREN
 Thomas G. Boren




[AGREEMENT
AND RELEASE BY AND BETWEEN PG&E CORPORATION AND [EXECUTIVE]] 









QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.37.6
exv10w02



 



Exhibit 10.2



Amendment No. 1 dated
January 15, 2002,

to U.S. Bancorp 2001 Stock Incentive Plan



Section 2(h) Fair Market Value



     “Fair Market Value” shall mean, with respect to any property (including,
without limitation, any Shares or other securities), the fair market value of
such property determined by such methods or procedures as shall be established
from time to time by the Committee.
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

No. Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Accessed Applicant County

Fiscal 

Year*

WV-07 Fayette Station Road - Phase 

2 Roadway Resurfacing

National Park Service - 

New River Gorge National 

River

WV Division of 

Highways - 

District 9

Fayette 2017

WV-08 Gauley River Access Road Roadway 

Reconstruction

National Park Service - 

Gauley River National 

Recreation Area

WV Division of 

Highways - 

District 9

Nicholas 2016

WV-09 Replace Informational Signs Wayfinding Signage 

Upgrades

National Park Service - 

Gauley River National 

Recreation Area

WV Division of 

Highways - 

District 9

Various 2016

WV-11 Allegheny Highlands Trail - 

Phase 2

Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Facilities

U.S. Forest Service - 

Monongahela National 

Forest

WV Division of 

Highways Randolph 2016

WV-12 Gandy Creek Road Roadway 

Reconstruction

U.S. Forest Service - 

Monongahela National 

Forest

WV Division of 

Highways Randolph 2018

WV-13 Laneville Road Roadway Resurfacing

U.S. Forest Service - 

Monongahela National 

Forest

WV Division of 

Highways Tucker 2018

The Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for the West Virginia Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) has selected its multiyear 

Program of Projects. The projects identified for programming for the West Virginia FLAP are listed below in no particular order and include:

West Virginia Program of Projects for Federal Fiscal Years 2015-2018

* Fiscal Year Programmed/Project Schedule is subject to change
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

No. Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Accessed Applicant County Fiscal Year*

WV-15 New River Recreational Trail Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Facilities

National Park Service - 

New River Gorge National 

River

Town of 

Fayetteville Fayette 2017

* Fiscal Year Programmed/Project Schedule is subject to change

West Virginia Program of Projects for Federal Fiscal Years 2015-2018

The next step in the process will be to develop project agreements between Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division and the State/Local Agency 

partners. The amount of funds allocated will depend on finalizing these project agreements. The West Virginia PDC does not have a firm date for the 

next Call for Projects under the Access Program, but another call is anticipated within the next year. 

If you have any questions regarding the Call for Projects, please contact Mr. Lewis Grimm, Planning Team Leader, at 703-404-6289 or 

Lewis.Grimm@dot.gov. For questions regarding project agreements and funding, please contact Ms. Jacinda Russell, Access Program Manager, at 

571-434-1543 or Jacinda.Russell@dot.gov.
256 La. 324

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles McDANIELS.

No. 50681.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 19, 1970.

In re: Charles McDaniels applying for writ of certiorari.

The application is denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.25
                            HERITAGE COMMUNITY BANK
                            MODIFICTION AGREEMENT
                            To a Promissory Note


This AGREEMENT to modify an outstanding Promissory Note is hereby made and
entered into this 16th day of DECEMBER, 2002 by and between Dialysis
Corporation of America (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower") and Heritage
Community Bank (hereinafter referred to as "Bank").

Background: Whereas, Borrower executed and delivered to Bank that certain
Promissory Note on the 3rd day of April, 2001, evidenced by loan number
4670003369-101 in the original principal amount of $787,500, and bearing
interest at the rate of 8.29% per annum, and:

Whereas, the Bank and the Borrower have agreed to modify the terms and
conditions of the aforesaid Promissory Note;

MODIFICATION: Now therefore, it is hereby agreed between the parties that the
aforesaid Promissory Note shall be modified as follows: Change structure of
rate term from the existing fixed rate of 7.59% to a variable rate based on a
spread of 0.50% over PRIME (floating daily), with a floor or minimum rate of
6.0%.  In addition, the existing guaranty of Medicore, Inc. will no longer be
required.  A fee of $1,500 will be required as a part of this transaction.

CONTINUATION of All Other Terms and Conditions: All other terms and
conditions contained in the Promissory Note not specifically referred to and
modified herein shall continue in full force and effect.

RECEIPT of Copy: Borrower acknowledges receiving a copy of this Agreement.

In WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Modification Agreement
to be duly executed, and their respective seals to be hereunto affixed, on
the day and year first above written.

BORROWER Signatures:                         Heritage Community Bank:

/s/ Daniel R. Ouzts                          /s/ Tim Jones
-----------------------------------          --------------------------------
Daniel R. Ouzts, V. Pres./ Finance           Tim Jones, President

<PAGE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAGNOLIA SILVERIO KIM,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73311

Agency No. A099-578-353

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Magnolia Silverio Kim, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,

FILED

JUN 14 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-73311

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence, Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny 

in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We reject the government’s argument that we lack jurisdiction on the basis

that Kim was found to be removable based upon her prior criminal conviction. See

Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071, 1075-76 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008) (jurisdiction

exists where the agency has denied relief on the merits, notwithstanding

removability based upon an aggravated felony).

Kim does not raise any challenge to the agency’s determination that her

asylum application is time-barred. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review as

to Kim’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Kim did not

establish past persecution because she failed to show the sexual assaults she

suffered occurred on account of a protected ground. See Molina-Estrada v. INS,

293 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2002). We lack jurisdiction to review Kim’s

contention that she is a member of a particular social group because she failed to

exhaust the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78

(9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Kim’s
3 07-73311

fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable because she testified her

persecutor is now deceased. See Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739, 747

(9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Kim’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Kim cannot

show a likelihood of torture by or with the acquiescence of government officials if

returned to the Philippines, and therefore we deny the petition as to Kim’s CAT

claim. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L15, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 87 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 14 04 2- CR-KM M UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JAM ES M. HENDERSON, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S tate s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 15 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BIRCH an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es PER CURI AM: Tho m as Jo hn Bu tl er, ap po in te d c ou ns el for James M. Hen de rs on , inth is di rectcri m in al ap pe al , has m ov edto withd raw fro m furth er re pr es en ta ti on of t he ap pe ll an t an d fi le d abri ef p ur su an t t o And er s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct .13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the en ti re re co rdrev eal s

th atco un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re rec or d re ve al s n o arg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andHend ers on ’s con vi ct io n and se nt en ce ar e AFFIRMED .

2