alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|Exhibit 23.1
|------------



|CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
|---------------------------------------------------



|We have issued our report dated February 24,
2004 accompanying the consolidated  financial statements and schedule included in the
Annual Report of Bradley  Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the
year ended December  31, 2003. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of
said report in  the Registration Statements of Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form S-3
(No.  333-75997), Form S-3 (No. 333-74724), Form S-3 (No. 333-108596) Form S-3 (No.
333-110312) Form S-3 (333-111078), Form S-8 (No. 333-75382), Form S-8 (No.  333-112456)
and on Form SB-2 (No. 333-60879).
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|GRANT THORNTON LLP
|------------------



|New York, New York  February 24, 2004
|-------------------------------------



| |  | 
| |  | 



---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Paula DYAN.

No. 62691.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 18, 1978.

In re: Paula Dyan applying for stay order and writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied. Adequate remedy by review in event of conviction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
HAVANA REPUBLIC, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FORM 10-QSB FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER 31,1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                           <C>    

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          594,761
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    11,218
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                     718,838
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1,645,084
<PP&E>                                          977,989
<DEPRECIATION>                                  100,377
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,891,523
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           796,887
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                   1,245,610
<COMMON>                                      2,871,510
<OTHER-SE>                                   (2,022,484)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,891,523
<SALES>                                         587,929
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                587,929
<CGS>                                           287,195
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   287,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                503,223
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (202,489)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               10,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (195,772)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (195,772)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (195,772)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.01)


        




</TABLE>
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 DONALD RAY BISHOP,

3 Petitioner-Appellant,

4 v. NO. 32,597

5 LEA COUNTY COMMISSIONER,

6 DISTRICT 1, JOHN DOE I, 

7 LEA COUNTY COMMISSIONER,

8 DISTRICT 2, JOHN DOE II, 

9 LEA COUNTY COMMISSIONER,

10 DISTRICT 3, JOHN DOE III,

11 LEA COUNTY COMMISSIONER,

12 DISTRICT 4, JOHN DOE IV,

13 LEA COUNTY COMMISSIONER,

14 DISTRICT 5, JOHN DOE V,

15 Respondents-Appellees.

16 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY

17 William G. W. Shoobridge, District Judge 

18 Donald Ray Bishop

19 Las Cruces, NM

20 Pro se Appellant 

21 Maddox, Holloman & Kirksey, P.C.
1 Lee A. Kirksey

2 Hobbs, NM 

3 for Appellees

4 MEMORANDUM OPINION

5 WECHSLER, Judge.

6 {1} Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

7 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has

8 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

9 {2} DISMISSED.

10 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 __________________________________

12 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

13 WE CONCUR:

14 _________________________________

15 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

16 _________________________________

17 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
2008 2012 BP Not reported 24.41 Chevron 2.35 0.29 Exxon 0.05 2.01 P66 Carson Not reported Not submitted Tesoro Not reported 4.93 Valero Not reported Not reported Total (tons) 2.40 31.63 

### Coker VOC Emissions R. 1114 Form B4
From: Caitlin Johnson  

Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 1:10 PM

To: jerry.allen@metglas.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; bermaneconomics@gmail.com;

greg.coulter405@gmail.com; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com;

rgreeson@federalpacific.com; jmauer@standardsasap.org; dave.millure@metglas.com;

snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com; eric.petersen@aksteel.com; srosenstock@eei.org;

rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; kwinder@mleainc.com;

jim.creevy@nema.org; Cla_Silcox@nema.org; jhodge@howard.com; daniel.cohen@hq.doe.gov;

raymond.polinski@atimetals.com; BLongstreth@nrdc.org; jhmpinc40@aol.com; wingy51@aol.com;

GJRosenquist@lbl.gov

Cc: Michael Rivest; Brian Coffey; Zhimei Luo; Matthew Nardotti; Richard Parker; Freeman, Jeremiah

(CONTR)

Subject: Distribution Transformers Stakeholder Meeting July 28, 2011

Distribution Transformers Stakeholder Meeting

July 28, 2011, 1:30 pm ‐ 5:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

1801 K Street NW

Suite 500

Capitol Hill Conference Room (next to receptionist)

Washington, DC 20006

Call‐in Number: 866‐411‐8313 (US and Canada)

702‐599‐4018 (International)

Conference code: 012 029 7324

AGENDA

This meeting is to update you on developments and discuss the process by which a negotiated

rulemaking for distribution transformers would proceed.  We will focus on issues such as the scope and

timetable for negotiations, and, as time permits, overview key issues of concern to stakeholders and

priority areas that may require further supporting analysis.   This is an informal meeting for discussion

purposes only. No consensus opinions or recommendations will be developed at this meeting. If this

process moves forward, a negotiating committee will be formed under the Negotiated Ruleamaking Act

to seek consensus on a proposed rule setting forth standards for each category of covered transformers.

1:30 Introductions; Overview of negotiated rulemaking process;  status of rulemaking supporting

analysis
2:30 Discussion of scope of rulemaking (e.g. whether to include low voltage dry‐type transformers),

process, timetable for decision

3:30 Break

3:45 Discussion of major issues and concerns to be addressed in rulemaking, supporting analysis needs

5:00 Adjourn

If you have not done so already, please RSVP to Navigant Consultant Caitlin Johnson at 1‐914‐815‐

5234 or Caitlin.johnson@navigant.com.  Please indicate whether you will be attending in‐person or

calling in.

Caitlin Johnson | Consultant | Energy | Navigant

77 South Bedford Street | Suite 400 | Burlington, MA 01803

781.270.8398 Office | 781.270.0418 Fax

www.navigant.com

Visit our website for Expert Perspectives and Navigant Events

DISPUTES & INVESTIGATIONS • ECONOMICS • FINANCIAL ADVISORY • MANAGEMENT CONSULTING
#### Theotis Fontenot LEJEUNE et al. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. Danny LaFLEUR v. Randall MOLITOR et al.

No. 62173.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 19, 1978.

In re: Danny LaFleur, applying for Cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Evangeline. 356 So.2d 537, 356 So. 550.

Not considered. Not timely.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8957-8958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4908]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Sixth Meeting of the WRC-97 Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this 
notice advises interested persons that the next meeting of the WRC-97 
Advisory Committee will be held on Wednesday, March 5, 1997 at the 
Federal Communications Commission. The purpose of the meeting is to 
continue preparations for the 1997 World Radiocommunication Conference.

DATES: March 5, 1997; 9:30 am-11:30 am.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 
856, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Foster, FCC International 
Bureau, Satellite and Radiocommunication Division, at (202) 418-0749.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established the 
Advisory Committee for the 1997 World Radiocommunication Conference to 
provide advice, technical support and recommendations relating to the 
preparation of recommended United States proposals and positions for 
the 1997 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-97). In accordance 
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, 
this notice advises interested persons of the sixth meeting of the WRC-
97 Advisory Committee.
    2. This meeting will continue reviewing the work of the Advisory 
Committee. The draft conference proposals developed by the Committee's 
Ad Hoc and Informal Working Groups (IWGs) will be considered for 
approval.
    3. The WRC-97 Advisory Committee has an open membership. All 
interested parties are invited to participate in the Advisory Committee 
and to attend its meetings. Further information regarding the WRC-97 
Advisory Committee is available on the World Wide Web at: <a href="http://
www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc97/">http://
www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc97/</a>.
    4. The proposed agenda for the sixth meeting is as follows:

[[Page 8958]]

Agenda--Sixth Meeting of the WRC-97 Advisory Committee

Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 856, 
Washington, D.C. 20554

March 5, 1997; 9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
1. Opening Remarks
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Administrative Matters & Approval of Minutes
4. Update on NTIA Radiocommunication Conference Subcommittee
5. Reports on Significant International Meetings
6. Reports from the Chairs of the Informal and Ad Hoc Working Groups & 
Consideration/Approval of Draft Proposals
7. Advisory Committee Schedule
8. Other Business

Federal Communications Commission
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4908 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-5064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. GEORGE GRAHAM, III, a/k/a G, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00049-JPB-DJJ-2)

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 2, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jacob A. Manning, DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: George Graham, III, pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute 9.03 grams of cocaine base and was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising one issue: whether the district court plainly erred by accepting Graham’s guilty plea. Despite notice, Graham has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss in part and affirm in part. There is a pending motion by the Government to dismiss the appeal. We grant the motion in part, noting that the record reveals that Graham knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence in his plea agreement and that this waiver was specifically reviewed by the magistrate judge at Graham’s plea hearing in compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. United States v. Broughton-Jones , 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Marin , 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992). Moreover, we find no exceptions to the waiver rule as the sentence imposed was not in excess of the statutory maximum, United States v. General , 278 F.3d 389, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2002), there is no evidence that the sentence was based on a constitutionally impermissible factor, Marin , 961 F.2d at 496,

23 and there is no indication that the proceedings were conducted in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. United

States v. Attar , 38 F.3d 727, 732-33 (4th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of Graham’s sentence. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Graham’s conviction. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
#### In re Jack P. F. GREMILLION

No. 60632.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1977.

In re: Jack P. F. Gremillion applying for reinstatement.

The petition is granted.

Petitioner is reinstated as á member of the Louisiana State Bar Association effective this day and his name shall be rein-scribed on the roll of attorneys in this Court.
##### 



Exhibit
10.59
 (LOGO)
    
    
    
    David S. WisePower To Renew A Life
    
    Vice President & General Counsel281.228.7268 office281.283.5369 facsimiledavid .wise@cyberonics.com
  
 Advancement of Attorneys Fees
       Cyberonics, Inc.       100 Cyberonics Blvd.       Houston, TX 77058       800.332.1375       www.VNSTherapy.com




---



##### 



/s/
David S.Wise
  AGREED AND ACCEPTED:/s/ Pamela B. WestbrookPrint Name:
    
    Pamela B. WestbrookDate:
    
    October 12, 2006
 Cyberonics, Inc. 100 Cyberonics Blvd. Houston, TX 77058 800.332.1375       www.VNSTherapy.com
#### Louis Joseph SPURLING, Petitioner, v. Honorable Claude R. EDWARDS, Judge, Respondent.

No. 72-886.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 15, 1972.

Prohibition denied.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,q.· I" 

ORIGINAL

FEDERAL TRADE COMMIS~I.O~ .... 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LA~GES:;" ; 

, :,,1 , 

.. •j,~ • , 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

McWANE, INC., ) 

a corporation, and ) DOCKET NO. 9351 

) 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., ) 

a limited partnership, ) 

Respondents. ) 

) 

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION OF 

CUSTOM FAB, INC. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

On April 16, 2012, non-party Custom Fab, Inc. ("Custom Fab") submitted an unopposed 

motion to extend the time for Custom Fab to move to limit or quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum, with 

a response date ofApril 22, 20121 and a Subpoena Ad Testificandum, with a response date ofApril 

26,2012 (collectively, the "Subpoenas") served on it by Respondent McWane, Inc. ("McWane") on 

April 2, 2012. Custom Fab seeks an order extending its deadline to May 26,2012. 

In support ofits motion, Custom Fab asserts that the parties have entered negotiations 

regarding the scope ofthe Subpoena, its objections, and the time required for Custom Fab to 

produce its documents and data and to conduct depositions. Custom Fab further states that 

McWane does not oppose an extension oftime in order to afford both parties' counsel sufficient 

time to continue to negotiate the limitations and modifications ofMcWane's request to reduce or 

limit the scope ofCustom's Fab production, thereby potentially avoiding the necessity offiling a 

motion to quash or limit the Subpoenas. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. It is hereby 

ORDERED that the deadline for non-party Custom Fab to file any motion to limit or quash the 

Subpoenas shall be May 25,20122

• 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

ChiefAdministrative Law Judge 

Date: April 20, 2012 

1 April 22, 2012 falls on a Sunday, therefore the actual response date would be Monday, April 23, 2012. 

2 Although Custom Fab requested an extension oftime until May 26,2012, because May 26 falls on a Saturday, the 

deadline for filing any motion to limit or quash shall be Friday, May 25,2012.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7597 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7597

 To direct the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a report on 
the research and studies being conducted or funded by the Department of 
           Defense to assess the health effects of burn pits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 2020

  Mr. Ruiz (for himself, Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr. Welch) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a report on 
the research and studies being conducted or funded by the Department of 
           Defense to assess the health effects of burn pits.

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

SECTION 1. REPORT ON RESEARCH AND STUDIES ON HEALTH EFFECTS OF BURN 
              PITS.

    The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense 
committees and the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate a detailed report on the status, 
methodology, and culmination timeline of all the research and studies 
being conducted or funded by the Department of Defense to assess the 
health effects of burn pits. The report shall include an identification 
of any challenges and potential challenges with respect to completing 
such research and studies and recommendations to address such 
challenges.
                                 <all>
```
## NO. 12

- 15

- 00021

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:
KEITH PATRICK MCKAY,

RELATOR §
§
§ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Relator, Keith Patrick McKay, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault, injury to an elderly individual, burglary of a habitation, and burglary of a habitation with intent to commit an assault. This Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. See McKay v. State , No.
12

- 05

- 00282

- CR, 2006 WL 2106981 (Tex. App.

– T yler July 31, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). In this original mandamus proceeding, Relator complains that his trial counsel was ineffective and the DNA evidence is legally insufficient to convict him of sexual assault.
Conse quently, he asks that his four felony convictions be set aside. These convictions have been final for over eight years. 1 Thus, although Relator characterizes the relief he seeks as mandamus relief, he is, in substance, seeking post conviction habeas relie f. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.07 § 1 (West Supp. 2014). We are not authorized to act on a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from a final felony conviction. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 22.221(d) (West 2004). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has e xclusive jurisdiction over post conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.07 § 3 (West Supp. 2014). Moreover, t he Texas Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedure for filing a postconviction habeas

1 This Court’s mandate issued on November 20, 2006.2

application to seek relief from a final felony conviction in a Texas court. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2014). The intermediate courts of appeals have no role in this procedure. See id. Because the court of criminal appeals has exclusive authority to grant postconviction relief from a final felony conviction, we are without jurisdiction to consider Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is
dismissed f

or want of jurisdiction

. Opinion delivered February 27 , 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUAR Y 27 , 2015

NO. 12

- 15

- 00021

- CR

KEITH PATRICK MCKAY,

Relator

v. HON. PAM FLETCHER, Respondent

O RIGINAL P ROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Keith Patrick McKay ; who is the relator in Cause No. 05

- CR

- 005
, pending on the docket of the 349 th
Judicial District Court of Houston County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having
been filed herein on January 27 , 201 5 , and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that i t lacks jurisdiction, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction

.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen , C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley , J

.
#### GONDAS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and Southeast Machinery Company, a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. W. E. GREEN, Jr., Appellee.

No. 72-1087.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.