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 the following Registration Statements:



|(1) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-136116) of Adept Technology, Inc.;
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-112360) of Adept Technology, Inc.;
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-130235) pertaining to the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan of Adept Technology, Inc.;
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(4) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-122155) pertaining to the 2004 Director Stock Option Plan of Adept Technology, Inc.;
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(5) | Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-112148 and Form S-8 No. 333-112213) pertaining to the 2003 Stock Option Plan, as amended, of Adept Technology, Inc.;
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(6) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-71374) pertaining to the 2001 Stock Option Plan of Adept Technology, Inc.;
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(7) | Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-66993 and Form S-8 No. 333-50292) pertaining to the 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Adept Technology, Inc.;
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(8) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-03656) pertaining to the 1995 Director Stock Option Plan, as amended, of Adept Technology, Inc.; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(9) | Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-92525, Form S-8 No. 333-39065, and Form S-8 No. 333-50296) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Plan of Adept Technology, Inc.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our report dated August 19, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Adept Technology, Inc. as of June
30, 2005 and for each of the two years in the period ended June 30, 2005, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2006.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

San Francisco, California

October 10,
2006
April 23, 2012 

Mr. Robert A. Stewart 

1907 Azure Drive 

Dothan, AL 36303 

Dear Mr. Stewart: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§ 65.71(a)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not 

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 4, 2012, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2012-0393), 

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not 

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any 

further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open during this 

period. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 

120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-4095. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda D. Courtney 

Manager, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
1PVC MACT HearingPresentation: Houston, TX &Baton Rouge, LAMary BachynskyFormosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.2Introduction• Mary Bachynsky of FPC USA– Chair of the VI’s Health, Environmental andSafety Committee– I have been involved in EPA’s regulations thataffect our industry since 1994– My oral comments will be technical in nature3Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.• Leading US manufacture of PVC andcopolymer resins• 4 Operating PVC Plants– 2 in TX, 1 in LA, 1 in DE– Producing dozens of PVC suspension,dispersion and copolymer products• From general purpose PVC to specialty, customerspecific PVC resins– Providing hundreds of jobs in the NJ, TX, LA& DE area4Technical Comment: ResinStripping Complexities• Formosa recognizes the extensivetechnical efforts that the Agency put intodeveloping the proposed rule.• Formosa will provide additional commentsincluding:– The need to consider furthersubcategorization of resins;– PVC particle morphology; and,– Operational conditions necessary for variousproduct specifications and quality5Particle Morphology• One of the key concepts of understandingPVC resins is “Particle Morphology”• Each PVC resingradehas uniquephysical characteristics, known as “particlemorphology”– This uniqueness is necessary in order tomake the variety of PVC products from:• A rigid blue sewer pipe to a soft flexible handle ona tool6Particle Morphology• “Particle Morphology” is made up of avariety of factors such as:–Particle Size(ranges from 1 to 425 microns)–Porosity(more pores; easier to remove VCMfrom the particle)–Mechanical Stability(Will it sheer oragglomerate?)–Heat Stability(How much heat can beapplied during processing without productdegradation?)7PVC Resin’s Characteristics areDifferent• PVC is apolymerwhich is very differentthan a commodity chemical like benzene,or toluene.– Historically, PVC has not been regulatedunder the CAA as a Synthetic OrganicChemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI),because, in part, of this characteristic8PVC Resin’s Characteristics areDifferent• Each PVC resin grade is produced for a specificend use that may be very different in nature:– Whether the PVC needs to flow onto a surface, beextruded, or poured into a mold.• The PVC Industry needs regulatory flexibility inorder to produce a full compliment of differentresins that are used for diverse final productssuch as vinyl siding, PVC pipe, window frames,electrical wiring insulations, roofing, flooring,credit cards and a host of other applications.9Agree: Resin Stripping is MACT• Formosa agrees with EPA statementsthat:– Steam stripping is the available controltechnology to reduce HAPs for PVC resin– Going “beyond the floor” by routing ventsdownstream of resin strippers to a additionalcontrol device is not appropriate• The residual HAP limits must beachievable on a daily basis for all gradesof PVC resins so that the United Statescan stay competitive in a global market10Thank You• Thank you for the opportunity to presentoral comments on this important matter.
No. 72-6323.

#### Pye *v.*Florida.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 32


                            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 Quarterly Report of First Wilkow Venture (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc R. Wilkow,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 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.


Marc R. Wilkow
--------------

Marc R. Wilkow
Chief Executive Officer

DATED: August 10, 2004

                            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 Quarterly Report of First Wilkow Venture (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas Harrigan,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 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.


Thomas Harrigan
---------------

Thomas Harrigan
Chief Financial Officer

DATED: August 10, 2004
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8148 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to enter into contracts for statistical analyses and data evaluation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 

Mr. LAMB (for himself and Mr. BANKS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into contracts 

for statistical analyses and data evaluation. 

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 ‘‘VA Data Analytics 

5 and Technology Assistance Act’’ or the ‘‘VA DATA Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STATISTICAL ANALYSES AND DATA EVALUATION BY 

7 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 38, United 

9 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing new section: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8148 IH

1 ‘‘§ 119. Contracting for statistical analyses and data 

2 evaluation 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may enter into a 

4 contract or other agreement with an academic institution 

5 or other qualified entity, as determined by the Secretary, 

6 to carry out statistical analyses and data evaluation as re7 quired of the Secretary by law. 

8 ‘‘(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec9 tion may be construed to limit the authority of the Sec10 retary to enter into contracts or other agreements for sta11 tistical analyses and data evaluation under any other pro12 vision of law.’’. 

13 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

14 at the beginning of chapter 1 of such title is amended by 

15 adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘119. Contracting for statistical analyses and data evaluation.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR THE 9 MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1997
<CASH>                                         142,412
<SECURITIES>                                   113,892
<RECEIVABLES>                                  860,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    326,024
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,521,483
<PP&E>                                       1,092,443
<DEPRECIATION>                                 303,541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,409,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,453,890
<BONDS>                                        779,941
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,743
<OTHER-SE>                                     585,040
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,409,378
<SALES>                                      3,025,742
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,125,390
<CGS>                                        2,772,708
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,980,060
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               156,713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,920
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,383)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,374
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,757)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,757)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)
        

</TABLE>
#### LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS v. E. J. NOSSER.

No. 54252.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 25, 1974.

In re: E. J. Nosser, applying for writs of certiorari, or review, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ denied. Under allegations made, no error of law or fact is shown in this contempt proceeding.

DIXON, J., is of opinion the writ should be granted.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         June 20, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 14, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 446 to Competitive Product List*. Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-176, CP2018-248.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-13182 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

# JUL 6 - 2011

OFFICE OF AIR AND RAelATiON Mr. Charles D. Connor President and ChiefExecutive Officer American Lung Association 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20004-1725 Dear Mr. Connor: Thank you for your letter ofMay 18, 2011, requesting that no extension be granted ofthe public commentperiod for the proposed "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards ofPerformance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units" (the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule), which was published in the FederalRegister on May 3,2011. The proposal identified apublic commentperiod of60 days; thatperiod would have ended on July 5, 2011. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, however, recently announced an extension ofthe comment period by 30 days to August 4. While we are extending the commentperiod,we are not seeking to extend the November 16, 2011, deadline for signature ofthe final rule, and remain committed to meeting that deadline. The 30-day extension will provide the public with a 140-dayperiod to review the proposal. As you know, interested parties were aware ofthe posting on March 16,2011, ofthe signed proposal on the EPA's website (http://www.epa.gov/ttniatw/utility/utilitypg.html), along with much ofthe pertinent supporting documentation (including the analyses used in establishing the proposed emission limits and the technical support documents). The proposal was published a little over six weeks later, onMay 3, marking the beginning ofthe formal public comment period. This will provide the public with approximately 140 days to review and provide written comments onthe proposed rule and supporting documents. 

### It will also provide at least 60 days for other documentation that was not posted on the website until after the proposed rule was signed. Due to the substantive issues specific to this rulemaking, this commentperiod is significantly longer than statutorily required.

Internet Address (URL) • http Ilwwwepa go'l Recycled/Recyclable' Printed With Vegetable Oil Based Inks en 100% Peslconsumer. Process CMlorone Free Recy(;ied PaperAgain, thank you for your letter. We look forward to the timely receipt ofyour comments.

. Sincerely,

arthy

Assistant Administrator
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF**

**CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**OF FORESTOIL CORPORATION**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and in connection with theaccompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005that is being filed concurrently with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of Forest OilCorporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
|           | /s/ H. CRAIG CLARK                    |   |
|----------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
| August 9, 2005 | H. Craig Clark                        |
|           | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6465
CHILES P. EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; FRED SCHILLING, Department of Corrections Medical (Head); L. KELLY, Warden - SX-1, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00404-JBF) Submitted: July 19, 2007 Decided: July 25, 2007 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chiles P. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Chiles P. Evans appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Evans v. Johnson , No. 2:06-cv-00404-JBF (E.D. Va. Mar. 7, 2007). 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
Page 1 of 2 

Bureau of Consumer Protection 

 Division of Enforcement 

 Julia Solomon Ensor 

 Attorney 

Email: jensor@ftc.gov 

Direct Dial: (202) 326-2377 

 November 20, 2015 

FEDERAL EXPRESS

Braden Perry, Esq. 

Kennyhertz Perry LLC 

420 Nichols Road, Suite 207 

Kansas City, MO 64112 

Dear Mr. Perry: 

 We received your submissions on behalf of your client, Niall Luxury Goods, LLC 

(“Niall”). During our review, we raised concerns that certain marketing materials may have 

overstated the extent to which Niall’s watches are made in the United States. Specifically, 

although Niall sources many parts in the United States, the watches’ movements are made in 

Switzerland. 

 As discussed, unqualified “Made in USA” or “Built in USA” claims likely suggest to 

consumers that products are “all or virtually all” made in the United States. The Commission 

may analyze a number of different factors to determine whether a product is “all or virtually all” 

made in the United States, including the proportion of the product’s total manufacturing costs 

attributable to U.S. parts and processing, how far removed any foreign content is from the 

finished product, and the importance of the foreign content or processing to the overall function 

of the product. 

In this case, though the cost of a Swiss movement may be small relative to Niall’s overall 

U.S. manufacturing costs, without a movement, a watch cannot tell time. Therefore, movements 

are essential to the function of a watch. Accordingly, to avoid deceiving consumers, Niall 

implemented a remedial action plan to qualify its representations. This plan included: 

(1) updating claims on watch dials and bezels to clarify that the watches contain Swiss parts; 

(2) updating websites and social media; and (3) adopting new compliance measures, including 

legal review of future marketing materials and a coordinated media plan. 

Based on your actions and other factors, the staff has decided not to pursue this 

investigation any further. This action should not be construed as a determination that there was 

no violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. The 

Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may require. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 
If you have any questions, you can reach me at (202) 326-2377. 

Sincerely, 

Julia Solomon Ensor 

Staff Attorney 

Page 2of2
Date: March 25 , 20 1 5 Meeting: Meeting with E D F Re: Oil and Gas E missions Rule(s) Discussed: Written Materials? Yes /N o Name Or ga ni za tion Phon e N umb e r 

## ED P

## F-**---------+ 1~o** **9s1-6~Y ~~**  t:_J) 

# F 

# 30 

# 3 ·- c;L((; ' 

# oc; u -

?

lr /(

--- r ---