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





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 28, 2011, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership and subsidiaries as of and for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the effectiveness of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership's internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2010, and to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of this Registration Statement .





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP





Birmingham, Alabama


May 6, 2011
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7224 

To amend section 212(a)(3)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

with respect to inadmissibility based on membership in the Chinese 

Communist Party, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2020 

Mr. RESCHENTHALER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 212(a)(3)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to inadmissibility based on 

membership in the Chinese Communist Party, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘End Chinese Com5 munist Citizenship Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7224 IH

1 SEC. 2. INADMISSIBILITY BASED ON MEMBERSHIP IN A TO2 TALITARIAN PARTY. 

3 Section 212(a)(3)(D) of the Immigration and Nation4 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182 (a)(3)(D)) is amended— 

5 (1) in clause (i), by inserting ‘‘(I) Chinese Com6 munist Party or its successor, or (II)’’ after ‘‘with 

7 the’’; and 

8 (2) by striking clauses (iii) and (iv). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7055 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7055

To provide for an increased fine and term of imprisonment for fraud in 
     connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 28, 2020

Mr. Meuser (for himself and Mr. Suozzi) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for an increased fine and term of imprisonment for fraud in 
     connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Coronavirus Scammers, Crooks, and 
Manipulators Act'' or the ``SCAM Act''.

SEC. 2. MAIL FRAUD AND OTHER FRAUD OFFENSES.

    (a) Frauds and Swindles.--Section 1341 of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended by inserting after ``30 years, or both.'' the 
following: ``If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any 
benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, 
or paid in connection with the emergency declared on March 13, 2020, by 
the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act relating to Coronavirus Disease 2019, such 
person shall be fined not more than $1,500,000 or imprisoned not more 
than 45 years, or both.''.
    (b) Fraud by Wire, Radio, or Television.--Section 1343 of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended by inserting after ``30 years, or 
both.'' the following: ``If the violation occurs in relation to, or 
involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, 
transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with the emergency 
declared on March 13, 2020, by the President under the Robert T. 
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act relating to 
Coronavirus Disease 2019, such person shall be fined not more than 
$1,500,000 or imprisoned not more than 45 years, or both.''.

SEC. 3. COUNTERFEIT GOODS AND SERVICES.

    Section 2320(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) COVID-19.--Any person who commits an offense under 
        subsection (a) involving a counterfeit good, which is 
        advertised by the person as having the ability to treat, 
        prevent, or cure COVID-19, shall, in the case of an individual, 
        be fined not more than $2,500,000, or imprisoned not more than 
        45 years, or both, or in the case of a person other than an 
        individual, be fined $5,500,000.''.
                                 <all>
```
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In re Richard Carl Peppers * Original Mandamus Proceeding

No. 11-14-00344-CR * December 19, 2014

 * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has considered Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and 

concludes that the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied in part and 

dismissed in part. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, we deny 

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against the trial court and dismiss for want 

of jurisdiction Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against the district clerk and 

the court reporter for the 70th District Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<CIK>                               0000027748
<NAME>                              DEL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                        1
<CURRENCY>                          U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   AUG-02-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      AUG-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        NOV-02-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                     1.000
<CASH>                                 5,804,358
<SECURITIES>                             579,346
<RECEIVABLES>                          9,216,955
<ALLOWANCES>                             232,109
<INVENTORY>                           24,700,070
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      41,808,841
<PP&E>                                14,198,594
<DEPRECIATION>                         4,283,934
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        58,721,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  8,075,732
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                 746,209
<OTHER-SE>                            47,440,624
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          58,721,415
<SALES>                               12,311,384
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      12,311,384
<CGS>                                  7,506,238
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          7,506,238
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       3,402,366
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       (19,456)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        1,422,236
<INCOME-TAX>                             433,782
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      988,454
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             988,454
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.12
        

</TABLE>
#### A. G. ALIZZI and June McNeely Alizzi v. EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU and Kenneth Dubose.

No. 61177.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 11, 1978.

In re: Employers Ins. of Wausau and Kenneth Dubose applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Sabine. 351 So.2d 258.

Writ denied.

SANDERS, C. J. and SUMMERS, J., would grant the writ.
Order entered August 30 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 1 5
- 0 0633
- CV
WASH TECHNOLOGIES OF AMERICA CORPORATION AND

JON K. BANGASH , APPELLANT S

V.
JOHN T. PAPP AS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 1 93rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 11
- 16090



### O RDER
We GRANT court reporter Stephanie S. Moses’ August 17 , 2016 request to extend time
to file the reporter ’s record and ORDER the rep orter ’s rec ord filed no later than September 29 , 2016.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
#### EATON, YALE AND TOWNE, INC. and Royal Indemnity Company, Appellants, v. Charles Samuel MOYER, an incompetent, by and through William Trickel, Jr., et al., Appellees.

No. 71-180.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 29, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Roger A. Barker, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
O'Charley's Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-39872, No. 33-51316, No. 33-51258, No. 33-83172, No. 33-69934, No. 333-63495,
and No. 333-59484 on Form S-8) of O'Charley's Inc. of our report dated March 25,
2005 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of O'Charley's Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 26, 2004 and December 28, 2003, and the related
consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders' equity and comprehensive
income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 26, 2004 and the related financial statement schedule, which report
appears in the December 26, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of O'Charley's Inc.
Our report refers to a change in method of accounting for goodwill and other
intangible assets in 2002 and refers to the Company's restatement of its 2003
and 2002 consolidated financial statements.

Our report dated March 25, 2005, on management's assessment of the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting as of December 26, 2004, expresses our opinion
that O'Charley's Inc. did not maintain effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 26, 2004 because of the effect of a material weakness
on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria and contains an
explanatory paragraph that states that the Company's management identified
deficiencies in the Company's internal control over financial reporting
regarding the selection, monitoring, and review of assumptions and factors
affecting lease accounting and leasehold improvement depreciation practices.



                                            /s/ KPMG LLP


Nashville, Tennessee
March 25, 2005
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6048

FRIEL MONROE HAWKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID MITCHELL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-204-1) Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 20, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Friel Monroe Hawks, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Friel Monroe Hawks seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hawks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
August 31, 2015

Dear Mr. Aschoff:

This letter is to inform y ou that the following informati on is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-1802). This informati on is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture a nd Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove clos ed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information desc ribed above by 9/14/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the doc ket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712.

Sincerely,

/s/
Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3788

___________ Maxine D. King, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Michael Leavitt, Secretary, Department * District of Minnesota. of Health and Human Services; * Healthpartners, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 14, 2005 Filed: December 16, 2005

___________ Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. This action for review of an administ rative claim for Medicare benefits was brought by Maxine King (King), who died in August 2003. King’s daughter, Peggy Anderson (Anderson), has filed a motion to be substituted as the appellant. Anderson1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and reco mmendations of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- argues this appeal from the district court’s 1 adverse judgment is not moot. Following careful review, we disagree.
Anderson does not seek mone tary relief or reimburseme nt, but rather seeks to challenge (1) the finding that King was not entitled to coverageunder the Medicare Act for skilled nursing care during some period in the past, and (2) the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Medicare Act. Both issues were mooted by King’s death, and an exception to the m ootness doctrine does not apply here. See Iowa Prot. & Advocacy Servs. v. Tanager, Inc. , 427 F.3d 541, 544 (8th Cir. 2005) (“To come within [the capable of repetition, yet evading review] exception, . . . there must be a reasonable expectation that th e same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again, and . . . the challenged action must be of a duration too short to be fully litigated before b ecoming moot.”); Schutz v. Thorne , 415 F.3d 1128, 1138 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Count y of Los Angeles v. Davis , 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979)) (“Constitutional mootness exists ‘when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally congnizable in terest in the outcome.’”). In addition, Anderson lacks standing–in her own right or as her deceasedmother’s representative– to pursue this appeal on behalf of Me dicare beneficiaries in general. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the pending motion is denied.

______________________________
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2616 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

provide for the eligibility of Transportation Security Administration employees to receive public safety officers death benefits, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 16, 2021 

Ms. BROWNLEY (for herself, Mr. MOULTON, Ms. NORTON, Mr. FOSTER, Mr. 

PHILLIPS, Mr. PETERS, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. SHERMAN, Ms. BASS, 

Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. VAN DREW, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. KIM of New Jersey, Mr. VELA, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. CROW, Ms. NEWMAN, Mr. CRIST, Mr. 

ZELDIN, Mr. RYAN, Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, and Ms. 

OMAR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to provide for the eligibility of Transportation Security Administration employees to receive public safety officers death benefits, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Honoring Our Fallen 

5 TSA Officers Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2616 IH

1 SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION EM2 PLOYEES ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE PUBLIC 

3 SAFETY OFFICERS’ DEATH BENEFITS. 

4 Section 1204(9) of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

5 Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10284(9)) is amend6 ed— 

7 (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

8 the end; 

9 (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period 

10 at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

11 (3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the fol12 lowing: 

13 ‘‘(E) an employee of the Transportation 

14 Security Administration who is performing offi15 cial duties of the Administration, if those offi16 cial duties are related to protecting the Nation’s 

17 transportation systems to ensure freedom of 

18 movement for people and commerce.’’. 

19 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

20 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

21 take effect as if they had been enacted on October 31, 

22 2013. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3760]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER97-828-000]


Resource Energy Services Company, LIC; Notice of Issuance of 
Order

February 10, 1997.
    Resource Energy Services Company, LIC (RESC) submitted for filing a 
rate schedule under which RESC will engage in wholesale electric power 
and energy transactions as a marketer. RESC also requested waiver of 
various Commission regulations. In particular, RESC requested that the 
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by RESC.
    On January 22, 1997, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Applications, Office of Electric Power Regulation, granted 
requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by RESC should file a 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 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, RESC is authorized 
to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a 
guarantor, endorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of 
another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some 
lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of RESC's issuances of securities or assumptions of 
liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is February 21, 1997. Copies 
of the full text of the order are available from the Commission's 
Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3760 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Johnnie Gregory ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-128.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 12, 1973.

Ernest D. Jackson, Sr., Jacksonville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael M. Gorin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                              NUEVO ENERGY COMPANY

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              State of
      Name                                  Incorporation
      ----                                 ---------------
      <S>                                  <C>
      Rubicon Venture, Inc.                Delaware

      The Nuevo Congo Company              Delaware

      The Congo Holding Company            Texas

      Nuevo Financing I                    Delaware

      Nuevo Ghana, Inc.                    Delaware

      Nuevo International Inc.             Delaware

      Nuevo Congo Ltd.                     Cayman Islands

      Nuevo International Holdings Ltd.    Cayman Islands

      Nuevo Tunisia Ltd.                   Cayman Islands

      Pacific Interstate Offshore Company  California

      Nuevo Anaguid Ltd.                   Cayman Islands

      Nuevo Alyane Ltd.                    Cayman Islands

      Nuevo Canada Inc.                    Alberta, Canada
</TABLE>