alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.0


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-69616, 333-49027 and 333-69618 of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. on Form S-8
and Registration Statement No. 333-13431 of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. on
Form S-3 of our report dated February 12, 2002, appearing in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 2001.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina

March 27, 2002
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50585

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARK ANTHONY EVANS, also known as Mark Evans,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-96-CR-2-1

- - - - - - - - - -

March 18, 1998

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mark Anthony Evans was convicted of conspiracy to possess

with the intent to distribute cocaine. He challenges his

conviction and sentence on several grounds. 

Evans first argues that the district court erred in

increasing his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for his

role in the offense. We have reviewed the record and the briefs

on appeal and find that the district court did not clearly err in
No. 97-50585

-2-

assessing a four-level increase in Evans’ offense level for his

leadership role. See United States v. Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d 929,

944 (5th Cir. 1994).

Evans argues next that the district court erred in

calculating his criminal history score. The district court's

calculation of Evans’ criminal history score did not rise to the

level of plain error. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d

160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc).

Evans also avers that the district court erred in failing to

hold a formal evidentiary hearing regarding his claim made

pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). A review of

the record reveals that Evans was granted the necessary

procedural protections in the trial court's review of his Batson

challenge. United States v. Clemons, 941 F.2d 321, 324 (5th Cir.

1991). 

Lastly, Evans argues that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 are

unconstitutional and violate the Tenth Amendment to the

Constitution. His contentions are foreclosed by this court’s

precedent. This court has determined that §§ 841 and 846 are

valid exercises of Congress' commerce power. United States v.

Owens, 996 F.2d 59, 61 (5th Cir. 1993); see also United States v.

Lopez, 2 F.3d 1342, 1367 n.50 (5th Cir. 1993), aff’d, 115 S. Ct.

1624, 1630-31 (1995) (reaffirming that all drug trafficking,

intrastate as well as interstate, is subject to regulation under

the Commerce Clause). Sections 841 and 846 also do not violate
No. 97-50585

-3-

the Tenth Amendment. Owens, 996 F.2d at 60-61 (if the challenged

statute is a proper exercise of congressional power under the 

Commerce Clause, the statute does not violate the Tenth

Amendment).

AFFIRMED.
#### Edward WHITE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-378.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Materials Referenced in Speaker Presentations

Cognitive Models 

Michael S. Wogalter

Multiple publications

Evaluation Procedures and Methods 

Ilana Westerman

Craig Andrews

Adherence of Prime-Time Televised Advertising Disclosures to the “Clear and Conspicuous” 

Standard: 1990 Versus 2002

Copy Test Methods to Pretest Advertisements

Legal Developments: Special Issue on Advertising Law and Regulation

Methodological Issues and Challenges in Conducting Social Impact Evaluations

Chapter 12 in Scaling Social Impact – New Thinking

Warnings and Disclosures

Chapter 15 in Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based Users Guide

Your Attention Please!

Rebecca Balebako:

The Impact of Timing on the Salience of Smartphone App Privacy Notices

Nathaniel J. Evans
2

Coddling Our Kids: Can Parenting Style Affect Attitudes Toward Advergames?

Parents' Presumed Persuasion Knowledge of Children's Advergames: The Influence of 

Advertising Disclosure Modality and Cognitive Load

Pinpointing Persuasion in Children's Advergames: Exploring the Relationship Among Parents’ 

Internet Mediation, Marketplace Knowledge, Attitudes, and the Support for Regulation

(abstract, full text requires payment)

Mariea Grubbs Hoy

David A. Hyman

Search Bias and the Limits of Antitrust: An Empirical Perspective on Remedies

Trademarks as Search Engine Keywords: Much Ado About Something?

Comprehension

Elizabeth Howlett

Effects of Objective and Evaluative Front-of-Package Cues on Food Evaluation and Choice: The 

Moderating Influence of Comparative and Noncomparative Processing Contexts

Susan Kleimann

Evolution of a Prototype Financial Privacy Notice A Report on the Form Development Project

How We Improved the Disclosures

Joel R. Reidenberg

Impact on Decision Making and Behavior

Lillian Ablon:

Consumer Attitudes Toward Data Breach Notifications and Loss of Personal Information

(Infographic)

Idris Adjerid:

Beyond the Privacy Paradox: Objective versus Relative Risk in Privacy Decision Making

Choice Architecture, Framing, and Layered Privacy Choices
3

Ginger Zhe Jin

Adair Morse:

Multiple publications

Case Studies 

Colin Campbell

Sarah J. Farnsworth

Manoj Hastak

Heidi Johnson

The Future of Disclosures?

Serge Egelman

Android Permissions Remystified: A Field Study on Contextual Integrity

Android Permissions: User Attention, Comprehension, and Behavior

How to Ask For Permission

Tamar Krishnamurti

A Patient-Centered Approach to Informed Consent: Results from a Survey and Randomized Trial 

(abstract, full text requires payment) 

Florian Schaub

Context-Adaptive Privacy: Leveraging Context Awareness to Support Privacy Decision Making

Expecting the Unexpected: Understanding Mismatched Privacy Expectations Online

Follow My Recommendations: A Personalized Privacy Assistant for Mobile App Permissions

How Short is Too Short? Implications of Length and Framing on the Effectiveness of Privacy 

Notices
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2052

JO ANN COLE REHFUSS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GREENVILLE GENERAL HOSPITAL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-3116) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 16, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jo Ann Rehfuss, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah McMillan Purnell, George Dewey Oxner, Jr., HAYNSWORTH, MARION, MCKAY & GUERARD, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Rehfuss v. Greenville General Hosp. , No. CA-97-3116 (D.S.C. June 29, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Vital Signs, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Mark D. Mishler, Chief Financial
and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | The Report
  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
  Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                                                            
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | (2) | The
  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates
  presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the
  periods presented.

|                                       | 
|-------------------------------------- | 
|Dated:
  December 14, 2007             | 
|                                      
|/s/ Mark D.
  Mishler                  | 
|                                       | 
|Mark D.
  Mishler                      | 
|Chief Financial and Accounting Officer | 

64

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            YEAR
<CASH>                                    514
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                           2,351
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS><F1>                        0
<PP&E>                                174,392
<DEPRECIATION>                         39,430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        182,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES><F1>                   0
<BONDS>                               122,391
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                   60
<OTHER-SE>                             20,878
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          182,521
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       24,919
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          21,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          718
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     11,348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         3,165
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     3,165
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                 612
<NET-INCOME>                            3,777
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .73
<FN>
<F1> Mid-Atlantic Realty Trust (MART) is in the specialized real estate
<F1> industry for which the current/noncurrent distinction is deemed in
<F1> practice to have little or no relevance.  Therefore, MART prepares
<F1> unclassified balance sheets which do not report current assets or
<F1> current liabilities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11
                                                                            

                SHELLS SEAFOOD RESTAURANTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      YEAR (53 WEEKS) ENDED JANUARY 3, 1999

Net income                                                          $   831,117
Preferred share accretion                                              (110,644)
                                                                    ===========
Net income for the computation of per share earnings                $   720,473
                                                                    ===========

Basic net income per share of common stock                          $      0.16
                                                                    ===========

Diluted net income per share of common stock                        $      0.15
                                                                    ===========

Weighted average common stock issued and outstanding                  4,447,881

Options and warrants granted:

                                Number of         Exercise Price
             Date          Exercisable Shares        Per Share

          April 23, 1996         360,793          $5.00 to $5.75          28,743
           June 30, 1995         350,000                  $ 3.15         215,774
           June 30, 1995          75,000                  $ 3.75          40,759
      September 19, 1995         200,000                  $ 3.50         114,777
        February 1, 1996         150,000                  $ 3.50          72,386
            May 13, 1996         210,000                  $ 6.00          37,732
                                                                       ---------
                                                                       4,958,052
                                                                       =========

*  Diluted net income per common share is computed by dividing net income by the
   weighted average number of shares of common stock and dilutive options and
   warrants using the treasury stock method.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                       Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of the Catellus Development Corporation 2000 Performance
Award Plan, the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of the Catellus Development
Corporation Amended and Restated Executive Stock Option Plan, the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of the Catellus Development Corporation Profit Sharing &
Savings Plan & Trust, the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of the Catellus
Development Corporation Long Term Incentive Compensation Plan, Stock Purchase
Program, Incentive Stock Compensation Plan and Stock Option Plan, the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 of the Catellus Development Corporation 1995
Stock Option Plan and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of the Catellus
Development Corporation 1996 Performance Award Plan (Nos. 333-69806, 333-58143,
333-38827, 333-42124, 333-01215 and 333-04293, respectively) of our report dated
February 1, 2002, appearing on Page F-2 of this Form 10-K. We also consent to
the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 1, 2002 relating to
the financial statement schedules, which appears on page S-1 of this Form 10-K.

San Francisco, California
March 25, 2002
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 27976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12850]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

[Docket ID: USN-2018-HQ-0004]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: 30-Day information collection notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance 
the following proposal for collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 16, 
2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, 
at [email protected]. Please identify the proposed 
information collection by DoD Desk Officer, Docket ID number, and title 
of the information collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: CATCH Program; DD-XXXX; OMB 
Control Number 0703-XXXX.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    Number of Respondents: 300.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 300.
    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 150.
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
to assist with the identification of serial sexual assault offenders 
within the military services.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by 
Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. 
The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of 
the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on 
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.
    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should 
be sent to Mr. Licari at [email protected].

    Dated: June 11, 2018.
Shelly E. Finke,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2018-12850 Filed 6-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
WINTHROP
REALTY TRUST
 FORM
10-Q MARCH 31, 2009


Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Winthrop Realty Trust (“the Company”) for theninemonths endedMarch 31, 2009as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael L. Ashner, Chief Executive Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted, pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            the Report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934;
      and





(2)
            the information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the
Company.




By:
              /s/ Michael L.
      AshnerName:
              Michael L.
      AshnerChief Executive
      Officer




May 11, 2009
#### HANSEN ENGINEERING CO., Appellant, v. Attmar Theodore RISSART et al., Appellees.

No. 72-553.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct 2, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
261 La. 225

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Bernard GREENE, Sr.

No. 52274.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 22, 1972.

In re: Bernard Greene, Sr. applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ refused. The showing made is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge 

Maurice King 

Attorney GenerallCarson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A er,
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/28/2022 | Document No. 606028 | PAGE Page 1 of 1 * PUBLIC *; 

__________________________________________ 

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Intuit, Inc., ) Docket No. 9408

 a corporation, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

__________________________________________) 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

Non-party Camelot Communications Ltd. (“Camelot”) and Complaint Counsel for the 

Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a joint motion to extend the time for Camelot to file a 

motion to quash or to limit a subpoena duces tecum served on Camelot by Complaint Counsel 

(“Joint Motion”). 

Upon review and consideration of the Joint Motion, the Joint Motion is GRANTED. It is 

hereby ORDERED that Camelot’s deadline to file a motion to quash or to limit the FTC’s 

subpoena duces tecum is hereby extended until and including November 10, 2022. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: October 28, 2022
#### Willie James HOLMES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1272.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 29, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Eldridge E. PAYTON and Robert E. Husband.

No. 61093.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1977.

In re: Eldridge E. Payton and Robert E. Husband applying for bond reduction. Parish of Orleans.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         501,417
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,580
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               518,997
<PP&E>                                         250,430<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,977,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,188,644
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,504,187<F2>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,977,014
<SALES>                                      5,150,000<F3>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,150,000
<CGS>                                        3,451,964
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,451,964
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,835
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,660,436
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,660,436
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,660,436
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.904
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.904
<FN>
<F1>EXCLUSIVE OF LAND, PURCHASE RIGHTS, CONCESSIONS AND RELATED CAPITALIZED COSTS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,342,062.
<F2>STATED AND PAID-IN CAPITAL OF $7,659,392, LESS RETAINED DEFICIT OF $3,155,205.
<F3>SALE OF REAL ESTATE CONCESSION AND RELATED REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>