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


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                      Consent of Independent Accountants


   We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (333-01574, 333-12789 and 333-24581); Form S-3 
(333-10383 and 333-14025); Form S-4 (333-13133); and Post-Effective Amendment 
No. 1 to Form S-4 on Form S-8 (333-36463) of our report dated June 24, 1998 
with respect to the financial statements of U.S. Office Products Company for 
the year ended April 25, 1998, which report appears in this Annual Report on 
Form 10-K of U.S. Office Products Company.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
July 20, 1998
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 24.2

POWER OF ATTORNEY
CARL W. SCHAFER

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, Carl W. Schafer
constitutes and appoints David T. Howard or Steven H. Moger his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, for him and his name, place and stead, in any and
all capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB of Nutraceutix, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, and any amendments or
supplements thereto, and to file this Power of Attorney and the Form 10-KSB with
all exhibits thereto, and to the documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the NASDAQ National Market System,
granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and
perform each requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as
fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, may do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         Dated this 23rd day of March, 2002.

Signature:



/s/ Carl W. Schafer
-------------------------
Carl W. Schafer
#### Daniel Emerson MORRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Mo. 72-345.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 2, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8117 

To hold individuals convicted of Federal offenses during the course of protests 

financially liable for the cost of Federal policing, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 28, 2020 

Mr. BANKS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To hold individuals convicted of Federal offenses during the 

course of protests financially liable for the cost of Federal policing, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Support Peaceful Pro5 test Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ORDER OF RESTITUTION. 

7 In the case of an individual convicted of a Federal 

8 offense related to the individual’s conduct at and during 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8117 IH

1 the course of a protest with respect to which a Federal 

2 law enforcement officer was engaged in policing activity, 

3 the court shall, in addition to the penalty for such convic4 tion, order the individual to pay an order of restitution 

5 to the appropriate Federal law enforcement agency in an 

6 amount that is equal to the cost of such policing activity, 

7 as determined by the court. 

8 SEC. 3. INELIGIBILITY FOR ENHANCED FEDERAL UNEM9 PLOYMENT BENEFITS. 

10 An individual convicted of a Federal offense related 

11 to the individual’s conduct at and during the course of 

12 a protest, is ineligible for any Federal Pandemic Unem13 ployment Compensation under section 2104 of the 

14 CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9023) or any other Federal sup15 plemental unemployment compensation during the 

16 COVID–19 public health emergency (as such term is de17 fined in section 2102 of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 

18 9021). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### John Willie McQUEEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 73-79, 73-110.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 19, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29568-29569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13504]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-860 (Third Review)]


Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet From Japan; Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
review, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on tin- and 
chromium-coated steel sheet from Japan would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the 
United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(c)), instituted this review on May 1, 2017 (82 FR 20378) and 
determined on August 4, 2017 that it would conduct a full review (82 FR 
40168, August 24, 2017). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's 
review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was 
given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing 
the notice in the Federal Register on October 20, 2017 (82 FR 49661). 
The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on February 27, 2018, and all 
persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in 
person or by counsel.

[[Page 29569]]

    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determination in this review on June 19, 2018. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4795 (June 2018), 
entitled Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet from Japan: Investigation 
No. 731-TA-860 (Third Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 19, 2018.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-13504 Filed 6-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>   This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
           from the Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations included in the
           Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 and is
           qualified in its entirety by reference to such Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1000

<S>                                                        <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                             Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                               Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              12-MOS
<CASH>                                                        5,300
<SECURITIES>                                                 44,987
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            485,076
<PP&E>                                                       24,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                               20,633
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              489,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        13,430
<BONDS>                                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         7,679
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                         33
<OTHER-SE>                                                  465,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                489,683
<SALES>                                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             33,607
<CGS>                                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             44,753
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              824
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             (12,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         (12,386)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                (12,386)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                ($0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                ($0.39)


</TABLE>
#### Freddie Lee ODOM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-421.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 28, 1971.

H. Clay Mitchell, Jr., Pensacola, for appellant.

*464Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Thomas B. Calhoun, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment after a jury trial on the charge of rape.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs filed herein. Upon our consideration thereof, we are of the view that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error in the judgment appealed herein, and the same is therefore affirmed. Johnson v. State, 166 So.2d 798 (Fla.App.2nd, 1964); Roberts v. State, 195 So.2d 257 (Fla.App.2nd, 1967).

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### PRESTRESS ERECTORS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. JAMES TALCOTT, INC., a New York corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-894.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 26, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 22, 1970.

See, also, Fla.App., 213 So.2d 296.

Richard L. Lapidus, Miami, for appellant.

Shapiro, Fried, Weil & Scheer, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

CARROLL, Judge.

The appellant Prestress Erectors, Inc., a Florida corporation, sued James Talcott, Inc., a New York corporation, in an action ex contractu in the circuit court of Dade County. After certain pleadings and discovery proceedings, the cause was set for jury trial September 22, 1969, by an order dated June 18, 1969.

On September 15, 1969, the defendant moved to dismiss the action, charging failure of the plaintiff corporation to pay its capital stock tax and that by reason thereof the corporation had been dissolved by proclamation of the Governor. The motion to dismiss was supported by a certificate of the Secretary of State of Florida, dated September 12,1969, revealing that the plaintiff corporation had been dissolved on May 13, 1969, pursuant to F.S.1967, § 608.36 F.S.A. On the date set for hearing the motion to dismiss, plaintiff’s counsel filed an affidavit stating that the funds necessary to reinstate the corporation had been forwarded to the Secretary of State by telegraph. Thereafter, on September 23, 1969, an order was entered dismissing the cause, reciting as the ground therefor the incapacity of the plaintiff corporation because of its prior dissolution for failure to pay its corporate stock tax.

On September 25, 1969, the plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for relief from the judgment of dismissal under Rule 1.540 FRCP, 31 F.S.A. In those motions it was alleged that the delinquent capital stock tax had been paid on September 17, 1969. The motions were supported by a telegram from the Secretary of State advising plaintiff’s attorney that the corporation had been reinstated on September 19, 1969. The trial court denied the motions for a rehearing and to vacate the dismissal, by an order dated October 10, 1969. Plaintiff filed its notice of appeal directed to the latter order and to the order of dismissal on October 30, 1969.

The failure of the plaintiff’s attorney to submit proof satisfactory to the trial court *740of the reinstatement of the corporation, prior to the entry of the order of dismissal, may have justified the dismissal order when entered. However, the timely motion for rehearing disclosing a communication from the Secretary of State, informed the court that the delinquent tax was paid and that the plaintiff corporation had been reinstated on September 19, 1969. In that situation the plaintiff’s motions for rehearing and for reinstatement of the cause should have been granted. American Land Development Corporation v. Hillman, Fla.App. 1962, 138 So.2d 756.

The orders appealed from are reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1134

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

John Anthony Welch, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 2, 2005

Filed: December 8, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Welch pleaded guilty to a firearm charge, a Class D felony, and was

sentenced to 60 months in prison and 3 years supervised release. While Welch was

serving his supervised release, the district court1

 revoked supervised release upon

Welch’s pleas of no contest and guilty to various alleged violations of his release

conditions. Noting Welch’s past behavior, his noncompliance with supervision, and

the need for mental health treatment, as well as the need to promote respect for the law

and to provide just punishment and afford deterrence, the district court sentenced
-2-

Welch to 24 months in prison without further supervised release. Welch appeals,

arguing the sentence was unreasonable because it was much higher than the range

recommended under Chapter Seven of the Guidelines, and because the district court

failed to consider that range and misapplied the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

We reject Welch’s arguments and affirm his revocation sentence. The sentence

was within statutory limits, and in fashioning Welch’s sentence the district court

explicitly considered, in open court, appropriate sentencing factors under section

3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (district court must consider § 3553(a) factors

when deciding whether to revoke supervised release; authorizing up to 2 years

imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release where original offense is Class

D felony). As for the Chapter Seven recommended range, a violation worksheet

reflecting that range was available to the court, and Welch’s attorney discussed the

range at the revocation hearing, urging the court to impose a sentence within that

range. We will not presume that the court failed to consider the range. See United

States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (all that is required is

evidence that court has considered relevant matters and that some reason be stated for

its decision; if sentencing judge references some considerations contained in

§ 3553(a), appellate court is ordinarily satisfied that district court was aware of entire

contents of relevant statute). Finally, we find that the revocation sentence is not

unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per

curiam) (standard of review; sentence within statutory range and grounded in concerns

regarding defendant’s past behavior was not unreasonable). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
#### SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, Appellant, v. TRI-COTE, INC., a Florida corporation, and Perkins Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 72-289.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 1, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 19, 1973.

Dabney L. Conner, of Boswell & Boswell, Bartow, for appellant.

J. Thomas Cardwell of Akerman, Senter-fitt, Eidson & Wharton, Orlando, for ap-pellee, Perkins Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc.

Kingswood Sprott, Jr., of Langston & Massey, Lakeland, for appellee, Tri-Cote, Inc.

*298PER CURIAM.

One or two of the points raised on appeal at first gave us pause, but after having carefully considered those points and having meticulously reviewed the record herein we conclude that no reversible error has been made to appear. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
#### MILLER MECHANICAL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Allan F. RUTH, Appellee.

No. 72-527.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 14, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Rini-Rego Supermarkets, Inc. Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheet, Consolidated
Condensed Statement of Income, and Notes to the Consolidated Condensed Financial
Statements for the second quarter ended 1/11/97 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such Form 10-Q for the second quarter ended 1/11/97.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   QTR-2
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-11-1997
<CASH>                                           3,699
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,741
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,289
<INVENTORY>                                     73,744
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               124,595
<PP&E>                                         224,205
<DEPRECIATION>                                  87,645
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 272,599
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          111,203
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            82
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      99,136
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   272,599
<SALES>                                        726,377
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               726,377
<CGS>                                          584,832
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  584,832
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               122,649
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,465
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,677
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,672
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,005
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,005
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.23
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

            Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Forest Laboratories, Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the "Report"), I, Francis I. Perier, Jr., Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

            1.         TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            2.         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operationsof the Company.

 

/s/ Francis I. Perier,Jr.         Francis I. Perier, Jr.Senior Vice President - Finance andChief Financial OfficerAugust 9, 2007
#### Angeline PAIGE v. Dennis TREGRE.

No. 53984.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 19, 1973.

In re: Dennis Tregre applying for cer-tiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Pointe Coupee. 283 So.2d 777.

Not considered. Not timely filed.
Below is the list of subsidiaries of Rick's Cabaret International, Inc.:


Name:                                            State of.
                                                 Incorporation:

Trumps, Inc.                                     Texas
RCI Holdings, Inc.                               Texas
RCI Entertainment Texas, Inc.                    Texas
RCI Entertainment Minnesota, Inc.                Minnesota
RCI Internet Services, Inc.                      Texas
RCI Entertainment Houston, Inc.                  Texas
RCI Entertainment San Antonio, Inc.              Texas
RCI Internet Holdings, Inc.                      Texas
RCI Entertainment Fort Worth, Inc.               Texas
Citation Land LLC                                Texas
XTC Cabaret, Inc.                                Texas
Bobby's Novelty, Inc.                            Texas
Broadstreets Cabaret, Inc. - Inactive            Texas
RCI Debit Services, Inc. - Inactive              Texas
Tantra Parking, Inc. - Inactive                  Texas
Tantra Dance, Inc. - Inactive                    Texas
SRD Vending Company, Inc. - Inactive             Texas
RCI Billing, Inc. - Inactive                     Texas
RCI Entertainment New York, Inc.                 New York


<PAGE>