alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-35855 and 333-42929), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 18, 1997 pertaining to the shares issued in
conjunction with the acquisition of Ben Watson Associates Limited and on
December 22, 1997 pertaining to the shares issued in conjunction with the
acquisition of CBT Systems Middle East Limited, on Form S-4 (No. 333-51159), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 1998 pertaining
to the shares issued in conjunction with the acquisition of the Forefront Group,
Inc., on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-06409, 333-25245, 333-35745, 333-57031 and 333-
68499), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 20, 1996
pertaining to the 1994 Share Option Plan, on April 16, 1997 pertaining to the
1996 Supplemental Stock Plan and Applied Learning Limited Executive Stock Plan,
on September 16, 1997 pertaining to the 1994 Share Option Plan, on June 17, 1998
pertaining to the Forefront Group, Inc. Amended and Restated 1992 Stock Option
Plan, the Forefront Group, Inc. Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Option Plan and
the Forefront Group, Inc. 1996 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan, and on
December 7, 1998 pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1994 Share Option Plan
of our reports dated January 19, 1999, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in this annual report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1998.


/s/ Ernst & Young


Dublin, Ireland
March 30, 1999
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 301 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 301

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 10, 1993.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3116) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1994, and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Hiram L. MONK, Appellant, v. Albert BREWER, doing business under the trade name and style of Albert Brewer Dirt Service and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a Massachusetts corporation, doing business in the State of Florida, Appellees.

No. 71-409.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 21, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### HARKER *vs.*ELLIOTT, executor of HARKER.

The Superior Court cannot reserve questions for hearing before all the judges in a case pending in that court, on appeal from the Register’s court.

Appeal from the Register for the probate of wills, &c. &c.

An application was made to the court to reserve the questions *481arising in this case for hearing in bank ; and, after debate, the court considei ed they had not the power to reserve the questions in a case pending in this court as a court of appeals from the register’s decree. If such power does exist, then the court would have the same power in a case here on appeal from the Orphans’ Court, which the constitution certainly does not contemplate.

It is true, the expressions in the constitution (sec. 7,) are large ? but they evidently have reference to cases standing originally in the Superior Court, from the provision immediately following in reference to *proceeding*in the cause to verdict, &c„

*Wales,*for appellant.

*J. A. Bayard,*for respondent.

Motion refused,
#### George Allen McCRANEY, Petitioner, v. L. A. MASTERS et al., Respondents.

No. 41987.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 6, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and Mc-CAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., dissents.
___________________ ________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

133371 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 133372 Marilyn Kelly 133373 Maura D. Corrigan 133374 Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

JAMES RICHARD ARNOLD, and CAROL ARNOLD,Plaintiffs-CounterDefendants-Appellees,

v SC: 133371-133372 COA: 262349, 263157 St. Joseph CC: 96-001144-CH DENNIS R. KEMP, and MICHAEL D. KEMP,Defendants-CounterPlaintiffs-Appellants,

and

DALE ARNOLD, WILLIAM C. DUNN, and IOLA C. DUNN, Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.

JAMES RICHARD ARNOLD, and CAROL ARNOLD, Plaintiffs-Counter- Defendants Third-Party Defendants-Appellees,

V SC: 133373 COA: 264126 St. Joseph CC: 96-001144-CH

DENNIS R. KEMP, and MICHAEL D. KEMP,Defendants-CounterPlaintiffs-Appellants,

and_______________________________________ __ ___________________ ________________ 2

V WILLIAM D. DUNN, a nd IOLA C. DUNN, Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.

JAMES RICHARD ARNOLD, and CAROL ARNOLD, Plaintiffs-Counter- Defendants Third-Party Defendants-Appellees,

SC: 133374 COA: 264578 St. Joseph CC: 96-001144-CH

DENNIS R. KEMP, and MICHAEL D. KEMP,Defendants-CounterPlaintiffs-Appellants,

and

DALE ARNOLD, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee,

and

WILLIAM C. DUNN, a nd IOLA C. DUNN, Third-Party Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
#### Joan BROWN and Melvyn Brown, Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42469.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 17, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ADKINS, J., dissents.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 18

- 00272

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K .H.M., A CHILD

From the 249th District Court

Somervell County, Texas

Trial Court No. D05371

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.

42.1(a). The motion states that the parties reached an agreement on the request for a new

trial and that the trial court granted the motion for new trial. Dismissal of this appeal

would not prevent a party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entit led.

The motion is granted , and the appeal is dismissed.

AL SCOGGINS

JusticeIn the Interest of K.H.M. Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 26, 2018

[CV06]
1

Panel Members for the Meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide 

and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP)

to Consider and Review

Scientific Issues Associated with Insect Resistance Management for 

SmartStaxTM Refuge-in-the-Bag, a Plant-Incorporated Protectant (PIP) 

Corn Seed Blend

December 8-9, 2010

Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0772 OPP Docket Tel: 703-305-5805

FIFRA SAP Chair

Steven G. Heeringa, Ph.D.

Research Scientist & Director for Statistical Design

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research

Ann Arbor, Michigan 

Designated Federal Official

Sharlene R. Matten, Ph.D.

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science Coordination & Policy

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

EPA East Building, MC 7201M

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Tel: 202-564-0130, Fax: 202-564-8382, matten.sharlene@epa.gov

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members

Janice E. Chambers, Ph.D., DABT, ATS 

William L. Giles Distinguished Professor 

Director, Center for Environmental Health Sciences 

College of Veterinary Medicine 

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State, Mississippi 

Kenneth M. Portier, Ph.D.

Program Director, Statistics

American Cancer Society

National Home Office

Atlanta, Georgia 
2

Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D.

Professor of Aquatic Ecotoxicology & Environmental Toxicology

Department of Environmental Sciences 

University of California, Riverside 

Riverside, California 

FQPA Science Review Board Members

David A. Andow, Ph.D. 

Distinguished McKnight University Professor, Insect Ecology

Department of Entomology

University of Minnesota 

St. Paul, Minnesota

Fred L. Gould, Ph.D.

William Neal Reynolds Professor of Agriculture

Department of Entomology &

Adjunct Professor

Department of Genetics

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, North Carolina

Anthony R. Ives, Ph.D. 

Professor, Department of Zoology

University of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin 

Jeremy A. Kroemer, Ph.D.

Research Entomologist

USDA-ARS, CICGRU

Genetics Laboratory c/o Insectary

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa 

Steven L. Peck, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor

Department of Integrative Biology

Brigham Young University

Provo, Utah

Susan T. Ratcliffe, Ph.D.

Director, USDA North Central Region Integrated Pest Management Center

Department of Crop Sciences

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Urbana, Illinois 
3

Richard T. Roush, Ph.D.

Professor & Dean

Melbourne School of Land & Environment

University of Melbourne

Victoria, Australia 

Mark Sears, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Department of Entomology

University of Guelph

Guelph, Ontario

Jon J. Tollefson, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Entomology

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa 

John K. Westbrook, Ph.D.

Research Meteorologist

Areawide Pest Management Research Unit

USDA, ARS, SPARC

College Station, Texas
IV

House Calendar No. 172

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 449

[Report No. 103–540]

Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4506) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending

September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 9, 1994

Mr. HALL of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4506)

making appropriations for energy and water development

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for

other purposes.

1 Resolved, That during consideration in the Committee

2 of the Whole House on the state of the Union of the bill

3 (H.R. 4506) making appropriations for energy and water

4 development for the fiscal year ending September 30,

5 1995, and for other purposes, all points of order against
2

HRES 449 RH

1 provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2

2 or 6 or rule XXI are waived. The amendment printed in

3 section 2 of this resolution may be offered only by Rep4 resentative Bevill of Alabama or his designee, may amend

5 portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, and shall

6 not be subject to a demand for division of the question

7 in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

8 SEC. 2. The amendment that may be offered only by

9 Representative Bevill of Alabama or his designee is as fol10 lows:

11 Page 21, line 24, strike ‘‘$3,164,369,000’’ and

12 insert ‘‘$3,201,369,000’’.

13 Page 23, line 10, strike ‘‘$1,879,204,000’’ and

14 insert ‘‘$1,842,204,000’’.

House Calendar No. 172

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 449

[Report No. 103–540]

RESOLUTION

Waiving certain points of order against the bill

September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.and water development for the fiscal year ending(H.R. 4506) making appropriations for energy

JUNE 9, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50625

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LUIS ESTRADA-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant;

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50712

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERMAN GALAVIS-ACOSTA,

Defendant- Appellant;

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50729

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS ELIAS MENDOZA-CASTANEDA, also known as Lucio HernandezGarcia

Defendant-Appellant;
No. 00-50625

c/w Nos. 00-50712 & 

00-50729 & 00-50788

- 2 -

* 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.

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50766

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAFAEL TALAVERA-ROSAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50788

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUSTAVO CALDERA-ROMERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - -

February 15, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*
No. 00-50625

c/w Nos. 00-50712 & 

00-50729 & 00-50788

- 3 -

Jose Luis Estrada-Garcia, German Galavis-Acosta, Jesus Elias

Mendoza-Castaneda, Rafael Talavera-Rosas, and Gustavo CalderaRomero (collectively the Defendants) appeal their sentences

following their guilty plea convictions for illegal re-entry

after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The

Defendants argue that their sentences should not have exceeded

the two-year maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The

Defendants acknowledge that their argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but they

seek to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). 

The Defendants’ argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres,

523 U.S. at 235. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgments of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### Miss Catherine CELESTINE et al. v. D. H. HOLMES Co., Ltd.

No. 62013.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Catherine Celestine and Priscilla Celestine applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Jefferson.

Denied.

CALOGERO, J., would grant.
|    |
|----|
|    |  |  |
| 1. |   | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Darden Restaurants, Inc.; |
| 2. |   | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |
| /s/ Ricardo Cardenas                              |
| Ricardo Cardenas                                  |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| July 26, 2017                                     |
Government Travel Charge Card Program

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION                Washington, DC 20405

 

OAS 5740.1 CHGE 2January 17, 2023 

GSA ORDER

**SUBJECT: Government Travel Charge Card Program**
                            - Purpose . This Order provides guidance for the management and use of the GSA SmartPay® individually-billed account travel charge card (travel card) and centrally-billed account.  	 
                            - Background . The Travel and Transportation Reform Act (TTRA) of 1998 (Public Law 105-264), as implemented by the Federal Travel Regulation and OMB Circular A-123 Appendix B,  Improving the Management of Government Charge Card Programs , mandates that Federal Government cardholders use the travel card for official Government travel expenses. Public Law 112-194, the Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act of 2012, amends Section 2 of TTRA and outlines the minimum requirements to ensure effective management controls.  	 
                            - Scope and Applicability . This Order provides policy, standards, instructions, and procedures governing the management and use of the travel card. The provisions apply to all GSA employees. This Order applies to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to the extent that the OIG determines it is consistent with the OIG’s independent authority under the Inspector General Act and does not conflict with other OIG policies or the OIG mission. This Order applies to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) to the extent that the CBCA determines it is consistent with the CBCA’s independent authority under the Contract Disputes Act and applicable Federal Court decisions and does not conflict with other CBCA policies or its mission.  	 
                            - Cancellation . This Order cancels and supersedes GSA Order OAS 5740.1 CHGE 1.  	 
                            - Summary of Changes . This Order updates policy where needed to reflect the transition of the program to GSA SmartPay® 3, expands the Responsibilities section to update duties of the Chief Administrative Services Officer and Agency/Organization Program Coordinator, changes the title of the Charge Card Coordinator to Travel Card Program Analyst, adds the use of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) and Innovative Mobility Technology Companies (IMTCs), and removes the Travel Card Program Analyst appointing duties of the Regional Commissioners (RCs) to reflect the consolidation of Travel Card Program Analysts into the Office of Administrative Services (OAS). Minor editorial and clarifications are also made.  	 
                            - Signature .

 

/S/     _____________________BOB STAFFORDChief Administrative Services OfficerOffice of Administrative Services

          Printer Friendly Format      

        Problems viewing this page?                    directives@gsa.gov        

Are you a GSA employee? Use the Directive Library on InSite to access referenced information.

Print PageEmail Page

Top
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 5 - 1480 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 4 - SW - 0 7 1 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **:** 

### Helene Gandy **Date**

**B ranch Manager**  **Date**
#### INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner, v. Robert BROWN, Respondent.

No. J-133.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Oct. 5, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1967.

Isler & Welch, Panama City, for petitioner.

Robert B. Staats, Panama City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied. Pullman Company v. Fleishel, (Fla.App.1958) 101 So.2d 188; Patten v. Daoud, 152 Fla. 448, 12 So.2d 299; State ex rel. Auchter v. Luckie, (Fla.App.1962) 145 So.2d 239.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL.

77-623.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 28, 1978.

MADDOX, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.