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

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

SemGroup Corporation: 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of SemGroup Corporation (the Company) Form S-8 (FileNo. 333-170968, effective December 3, 2010) of our reports dated February 29, 2012, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of SemGroup Corporation and thefinancial statements of White Cliffs Pipeline, L.L.C., all of which appear in this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011. 

/s/BDO USA, LLP 

BDO USA, LLP 

Dallas,Texas 

February 29, 2012
Exhibit 10.3.8

Supplemental Compensation Agreement

This supplemental compensation agreement is made and entered into this 1 day of April, 2001, by and between The Wet Seal, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Wet Seal"), Kathy Bronstein ("Bronstein"), and specifies compensation that will be paid to Employee in addition to the compensation specified in the Service Agreement dated
December 30, 1998, as amended, between Wet Seal and Bronstein.

In
consideration of Bronstein's continued employment with the Wet Seal, the Wet Seal agrees to pay all interest relating to outstanding loan balances on a $2,000,000 line of credit, to
be arranged by Bronstein at her convenience and liability, relating to the construction of Bronstein's personal residence beginning March 1, 2001, and ending when the line of credit is
converted by Bronstein into a mortgage on her personal residence. Thereafter, the Wet Seal agrees to pay interest on $2,000,000 of the mortgage loan balance on Bronstein's personal residence through
the month of March, 2006, or the end of Bronstein's employment, whichever is sooner.

The
Wet Seal will make the payments specified in this agreement on a monthly basis based upon documents produced by the lending institutions issuing the line of credit and mortgage loan
discussed in the preceding paragraph.

Executed
by the Wet Seal and Bronstein on the dates set forth as written above.

|"Wet Seal"                                                   |  | "Bronstein"                       
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------
|THE WET SEAL, INC.,
A Delaware Corporation                   |  |                                   
|/s/ Irving TeitelbaumIrving Teitelbaum
Chairman of the Board |  | /s/ Kathy BronsteinKathy Bronstein

---

QuickLinks
#### Willie Mae ANDREWS, Appellant, v. MOTHER’S AUTO SALES, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-829.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 31, 1973.

David H. Zoberg, David S. Wieder, and Alfred Fineberg, Miami, for appellant.

Maurice Jay Kutner, Miami, for appel-lees.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

*218PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by plaintiff in an action for conversion of an automobile brought against the defendants-appellees. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the individual defendants and struck plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages against the corporate defendant. The jury returned a verdict against the corporate defendant in the amount of $2,000.00 as compensatory damages. Upon motion of the defendant the trial court granted a new trial on the ground that the amount of the verdict shocked the judicial conscience of the court. Appellant has assigned these rulings of the trial court as error and urges reversal.

From our consideration of the record on appeal, briefs and argument of counsel we have concluded that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the individual defendants and striking the claim for punitive damages.

 The rule in Florida is that “punitive damages are allowable where circumstances surrounding the conversion are such as to show fraud, actual malice, deliberate violence or oppression or such gross negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard of rights of others.”1 We think there was sufficient proof adduced as to all the defendants’ involvement in the alleged conversion as to have required submission of the question of liability and punitive damages to the jury. We hold that it was error for the court to rule otherwise.

As to the trial court’s order granting a new trial to the corporate defendant, we have concluded that no error has been made to appear. Therefore we affirm the order granting a new trial and reverse the order granting a directed verdict in favor of the individual defendant and the order striking plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages against the corporate defendant.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

1

. Doral Country Club, Inc. v. Lindgren Plumbing Co., Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 570; Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Waters, Fla.App.1973, 273 So.2d 96, and cases cited therein.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3942]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institute of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Name of SEP: Program Project Grant Review Teleconference 
Meeting.
    Date: March 17, 1997.
    Time: 1:00 p.m.
    Place: Teleconference, Executive Plaza North, Room 611B, 6130 
Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Harvey P. Stein, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Executive Plaza 
North, Room 611B, 6130 Executive Boulevard, MSC 7405, Bethesda, MD 
20892-7405, Telephone: 301/496-7481.
    Purpose/Agenda To evaluate and review grant applications.

    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
for the secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. Applications 
and the discussions could reveal confidential trade secrets or 
commercial property such as patentable material and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the applications, 
the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion 
of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number: 93.393, 
Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 
Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, 
Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, 
Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control)

    Dated: February 10, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-3942 Filed 2-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
EXHIBIT 11

                          COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE DATA
                                  (UNAUDITED)

                                                      Year             Year
                                                      Ended            Ended
                                                   December 31,     December 31,
                                                      1996             1995
                                                   -----------      -----------
Net loss                                           $(1,823,000)     $(3,652,000)

Preferred stock dividend                              (384,000)        (354,000)
                                                   -----------      -----------

Loss applicable to Common Stock                    $(2,207,000)     $(4,006,000)
                                                   ===========      =========== 
Primary:
    Weighted average number of common
    shares outstanding                               4,682,000        4,461,000
                                                   ===========      =========== 
Net loss per share of Common Stock
    (Primary):                                     $      (.47)     $      (.90)
                                                   ===========      =========== 
Assuming Full Dilution:
    Weighted average number of common
    shares outstanding                               4,682,000        4,461,000
                                                   ===========      =========== 
Net loss per share of Common Stock
    (assuming full dilution): (a)                  $      (.47)     $      (.90)
                                                   ===========      =========== 

(a) Not presented because dilution is less than 3 percent from primary amounts.
#### Nanette REDLICH, Appellant, v. Arnold REDLICH, Appellee.

No. 72-1214.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 21, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03- 10 -00 374 -CV Sc ot t D upuie , A ppe lla nt

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s , Appellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 201ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1- F M- 09- 0054 85 , HO NORAB LE DARLENE BY RNE , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Appellant Scott Dupuie has f iled a mot ion reque sting that this appea l be dismissed. See Te x. R. A

pp . P. 42 .1 (a)( 1) . We gra nt t he mot ion

and dis mis s th e a

pp e a l.

_____________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Waldrop and H enson Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: September

10, 2010
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Oliver MARTIN, Jr. v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 61024.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1977.

In re: Oliver Martin, Jr. applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied. Based on review of eviden-tiary hearing held on June 22, 1977, we find no merit to relator’s application.
Addendum A
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65081-65082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32220]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company that engages either

[[Page 65082]]

directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking 
activity that is listed in Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) 
or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to 
banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise 
noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than December 24, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Regions Financial Corporation, Montgomery, Alabama; to acquire 
PALFED, Inc., and thereby indirectly Palmetto Federal Savings Bank of 
South Carolina, both of Aiken, South Carolina, and thereby engage in 
operating a savings association, pursuant to Sec.  225.28(b)(4)(ii) of 
the Board's Regulation Y. Comments regarding this application must be 
received by January 2, 1998.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (D. Michael Manies, 
Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 
64198-0001:
    1. Stockmens Financial Corporation, Rushville, Nebraska; to acquire 
Electronic Commerce Management Group, LLC, Greenwood, Colorado (a joint 
venture), and thereby engage in leasing personal or real property, 
pursuant to Sec.  225.28(b)(3) of the Board's Regulation Y; management 
consulting services, pursuant to Sec.  225.28(b)(9) of the Board's 
Regulation Y; and data processing activities, pursuant to Sec.  
225.28(b)(14) of the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 4, 
1997.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-32220 Filed 12-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
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

RAJINDER SINGH JOHAL,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-35407

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01075-RSL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert S. Lasnik, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

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

Federal prisoner Rajinder Singh Johal appeals pro se from the district court’s

order denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. 

FILED

JUN 14 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-35407

Johal contends that he is entitled to a sentencing reduction under United

States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008), because the district court enhanced his

sentence based upon the gross receipts rather than the net profits of his money

laundering offense. This contention is foreclosed because no merger problem of

the kind posed in Santos exists in this case. See United States v. Van Alstyne, 584

F.3d 803, 814-17 (9th Cir. 2009) (reasoning that, under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and the

relevant Guidelines, “‘proceeds’ means ‘profits’ where viewing ‘proceeds’ as

‘receipts’ would present a ‘merger’ problem of the kind that troubled the plurality

and concurrence in Santos”). 

Johal also contends that the district court erred by resolving his section 2255

motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. This contention lacks merit. See

United States v. Johnson, 988 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Merely conclusory

statements in a § 2255 motion are not enough to require a hearing.”) (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted).

Because we affirm on the merits, we do not address the Government’s

untimeliness and procedural bar arguments.

Johal’s motion for expedited appeal is granted.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Jun-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              Mar-31-1998
<CASH>                                         591033
<SECURITIES>                                   354016
<RECEIVABLES>                                  279828
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                    350471
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1778445
<PP&E>                                        2101633
<DEPRECIATION>                                1197413
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                3010900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1042542
<BONDS>                                          2816
<COMMON>                                       188371
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                    1576187
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  3010900
<SALES>                                        150471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              6425226
<CGS>                                          118813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              6892893
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10682
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (636441)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17297
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (653738)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (653738)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.84)
        

</TABLE>
#### Deborah BELLA and Russell Bella, her husband, Appellants, v. WELDER’S EQUIPMENT and Roberto Del Prado, Appellees.

No. 72-385.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 28, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Gregg L. Engles, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dean Holding Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of Dean Holding Company as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report; 4. Dean Holding Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for DeanHolding Company and have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to DeanHolding Company and its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of Dean Holding Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this quarterly report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the period covered by this quarterly report, based onsuch evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in Dean HoldingCompany’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring Dean Holding Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,Dean Holding Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
5. Dean Holding Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to Dean Holding Company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect Dean Holding Company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in Dean Holding Company’sinternal control over financial reporting.
 /s/ GREGG L. ENGLES      Gregg L. Engles *Chief Executive Officer*
November 15, 2004
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Jerry M. Keepers, M.D., Eric Kay-Fung Chan, M.D., and Vista 

Community Medical Center, LLP d/b/a Surgery Specialty Hospitals of 

America v. Michael Smith and Valerie Smith

Appellate case number: 01-20-00463-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-47101

Trial court: 295th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: August 5, 2022

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing filed by appellant, Jerry M. Keepers, M.D., is 

denied.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Julie Countiss_____

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Goodman, Landau, and Countiss.

Date: ___August 23, 2022_____
```

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 68279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-459-000]

Banjor Energy Resale, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

December 23, 1997.
    Bangor Energy Resale, Inc. (Banjor Energy) filed an application to 
engage in wholesale power sales at market-based rates, and for certain 
waivers and authorizations. In particular, Bangor Energy requested that 
the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all 
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liabilities by Bangor 
Energy. On December 23, 1997, the Commission issued an Order 
Conditionally Accepting For Filing Proposed Market-Based Rates (Order), 
in the above-docketed proceeding.
    The Commission's December 23, 1997 Order granted the request for 
blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in 
Ordering Paragraphs (D), (E), and (G):
    (D) Within 30 days of the date of this order, any person desiring 
to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket approval of 
issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by Bangor Energy 
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practices and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214.
    (E) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in 
Ordering Paragraph (D) above, Bangor Energy is hereby authorized to 
issue securities and assume obligations and liabilities as guarantor, 
indorser, surety or otherwise in respect of any security of another 
person; provided that such issue or assumption is for some lawful 
object within the corporate purposes of Bangor Energy, compatible with 
the public interest, and reasonably necessary or appropriate for such 
purposes.
    (G) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to 
require a further showing that neither public nor private interests 
will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of Bangor 
Energy's issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities * * *.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is January 22, 1998.
    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.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-34118 Filed 12-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```