alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 23.1




                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8) pertaining to the Chicago Miniature Lamp, Inc. 1995 Incentive and
Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan of our report dated January 10, 1997 except for
Note 14, for which the date is January 30, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statement and schedule of Chicago Miniature Lamp, Inc.
and Subsidiaries in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended 
December 1, 1996.




                                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Chicago, Illinois
February 25, 1997
#### Edward STAUBER, Petitioner, v. F. F. FARVER, as Chairman, et al., Respondents.

No. 67-594.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 8, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

RYAN DENNIS SNYDER,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 280 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

RYAN DENNIS SNYDER,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 281 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

RYAN DENNIS SNYDER,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 282 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 283 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court
[280 WAL 2022, 281 WAL 2022, 282 WAL 2022, 283 WAL 2022 and 284 WAL 2022] - 2

RYAN DENNIS SNYDER,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

RYAN DENNIS SNYDER,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 284 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
AEE

- 15

- 2 6 51

- E , AEE

- 15

- 2 6 52

- E , AEE

- 15

- 2856

- E August 13, 2015

Mr. Jack Bart President Tej

- Jet, Inc. 98 Byram Shore Road Greenwich, CT 06830

Dear Mr. Bart :
Th is letter responds to your three petitions for exemption dated June 3 , 2015, requesting an exemption from Title 14 of The Code of Federal Regulations, §91.881 , for your (or your corporation’s) Morane Saulnier MS

- 760 airplanes. These letters were docketed as No s

. FAA

- 2015

- 234 3 (Tej

- Jet, Inc) , FAA

- 2015

- 2344 (your personal request) and FAA

- 2015

- 2345 (Tej

- Jet of Del LLC)

. Section 91.8 81 requires that after December 31, 2015, jet airplanes with a maximum takeoff weight of 75,000 pounds or less must meet Stage 3 noise requirements to operate in the contiguous United States.

Section 506 of the FAA Modern ization and Reform Act o f 2012 (FMRA) prohibit s the operation of jets weighing less than 75,000 pounds that do not meet Stage 3. The FMRA also allows for the limited operation of prohibited jets for certain purposes. These provisions are listed in the codified statute at 49 USC 47534, and were adopted in 1 4 CFR at §§91.881 and 91.883.
The FAA is unable to grant your request for exemption from §91.881 because we have no authority to do so. The statute did not grant the FAA any authority to make exceptions to the prohibition other than as specified for limited special flight authorizations for specified purpose s identified in the law.

You noted th at your aircraft was excluded from the FAA’s rulemaking that adopted this statutory change. Since the FAA was given no authority to change t he statute, our analysis conducted a t the time w as not required by law and was not meant to be comprehensive. It was designed to give interested persons and affected operators a sense of the range of aircraft subject to the statutory prohibition and the a nticipated economic impact for some of the more common models in operation.2 Accordingly, we are taking no further action on your requests and the dockets for these requests are being closed.
Sincerely,

//s//

Lourdes Maurice Director, Environment and Energy
# Official Journal L 386/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 386 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6429 October 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 386

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6429 October 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1885 of 20 April 2021 on the State aid SA.43127 – 2018/C (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2015/N) implemented by Poland for Przewozy Regionalne sp. z o.o.
  (notified under document C(2021) 855)

   (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1886 of 27 October 2021 amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/570 as regards stockpiling rescEU capacities in the area of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents
  (notified under document C(2021) 7570)

   (
  1
  ) | 35 |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Decision No 2/2021 of the Association Committee in Trade Configuration of 8 October 2021 on the positive assessment of Phase 1 as set out in Annex XVI-B to the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part [2021/1887] | 40 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1885 of 20 April 2021 on the State aid SA.43127 – 2018/C (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2015/N) implemented by Poland for Przewozy Regionalne sp. z o.o.
  (notified under document C(2021) 855)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2021) 855)

1

1

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1886 of 27 October 2021 amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/570 as regards stockpiling rescEU capacities in the area of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents
  (notified under document C(2021) 7570)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2021) 7570)

1

35

ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Decision No 2/2021 of the Association Committee in Trade Configuration of 8 October 2021 on the positive assessment of Phase 1 as set out in Annex XVI-B to the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part [2021/1887]

40

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### JACOB PRICKETT, d. b. *vs.*ABNER HERRING, p. b.

Tho rule of court requiring a plaintiff in certiorari, to file exceptions or alledge diminution by the first Friday of the term, does not extend to the defendant*

Kent,

October term, 1845.

This was a certiorari directed to Justice Walston, who returned the record at the term, and the plain*324tiff in error filed exceptions in due time. When the case was called for hearing,

*Bates,*for plaintiff.

*Smithers,*for defendant.

*Mr. Bates,*for the plaintiff below,

asked to alledge diminution of the record; and the question arose whether the rule No. 36, which requires the plaintiff in a certiorari to file exceptions or alledge diminution by the first Friday [of the term, should apply also to the defendant; and the court thought it would not be reasonable to require the party who supports the judgment to use the same diligence, for he necessarily awaits the proceeding of the other party.

Leave given to alledge diminution and continued.
#### Clinton WALKER, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-695.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 14, 1971.

Habeas corpus voluntary dismissal.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**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 ofCoinstar, Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Form 10-K***”), I, Paul D. Davis,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o(d)); and 

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company. 

Dated: February 23, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
       
<S>
                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      MAY-2-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           AUG-2-1997
<CASH>                                                   964
<SECURITIES>                                          20,396
<RECEIVABLES>                                         13,367
<ALLOWANCES>                                             414
<INVENTORY>                                           15,940
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      52,976
<PP&E>                                               115,442
<DEPRECIATION>                                        80,348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       139,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 18,764
<BONDS>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                 858
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                            91,063
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         139,170
<SALES>                                               53,052
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      53,052
<CGS>                                                 32,082
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         10,107
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       9,218
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        2,259
<INCOME-TAX>                                             842
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    1,417
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                           1,417
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              0.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
        

</TABLE>
263 La. 100

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Lee LANE v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 52859.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 17, 1972.

In re: Lee Lane applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



In connection with the Annual Report of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership (the Operating Partnership) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Terry L. Stevens, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Highwoods Properties Inc., general partner of the Operating Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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 Operating Partnership.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ TERRY L. STEVENS                                             
|Terry L. Stevens                                                 
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner
|February 17, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7287

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JASON JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge; Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-64)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Joseph Shea, Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, 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 his "Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc." We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Jones, No. CR-95-64 (E.D. Va. July 11, 1997). 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
# June 2021
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 39

Electing Representative Sabo of Minnesota to the Committee on the Budget.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1993

Mr. HOYER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Electing Representative Sabo of Minnesota to the Committee

on the Budget.

1 Resolved, That the following named Member be and

2 is hereby elected as chairman of the following standing

3 committee of the House of Representatives:

4 COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET: Martin Olav Sabo,

5 Chairman.

Æ
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0633 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-CE-018-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. 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 same 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 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: 

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, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: G. Keith Noles Date

Branch Manager Date
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 502 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 502

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        August 3, 1994.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (S. 1066) to restore Federal services to the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi 
Indians. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the five-minute rule. Each section of the bill shall be 
considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 
the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments 
as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 285 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 285

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Attorney 
General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation should 
  cooperate with the United States Postal Service and the Polly Klaas 
 Search Center to disseminate information regarding the kidnapping of 
                              Polly Klaas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 26, 1993

  Ms. Woolsey submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
 jointly to the Committees on the Judiciary and Post Office and Civil 
                                Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Attorney 
General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation should 
  cooperate with the United States Postal Service and the Polly Klaas 
 Search Center to disseminate information regarding the kidnapping of 
                              Polly Klaas.

Whereas Polly Klaas was abducted at knifepoint by a stranger who entered her 
        home in Petaluma, California, late at night on October 1, 1993, while 
        her mother was sleeping in the adjacent room;
Whereas hundreds of generous volunteers have donated their time, energy, and 
        funds to the search for Polly by establishing the Polly Klaas Search 
        Center, which has distributed over 7,000,000 flyers with pictures of 
        Polly and her suspected abductor nationwide;
Whereas the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Petaluma Police Department 
        have also dedicated substantial resources and worked tirelessly on the 
        search for Polly;
Whereas despite the continuing work of the community and law enforcement 
        agencies, efforts to locate Polly have not yet succeeded;
Whereas abducted children are often recovered as a direct result of photographs 
        that are distributed nationwide;
Whereas the United States Postal Service is not permitted to offer free postage 
        for mailings concerning kidnapped children; and
Whereas the Polly Klaas Search Center is currently facing severe financial 
        difficulties due to the high cost of postage: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the Attorney General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation should cooperate with the United States Postal Service 
and the Polly Klaas Search Center to use nationwide mailings to 
disseminate as quickly as possible information concerning the 
kidnapping of Polly Klaas.
    Sec. 2. The community of Petaluma, California, the Petaluma Police 
Department, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are commended for 
their hard work on the Polly Klaas kidnapping case.

                                 <all>
```
#### David EVANS, Petitioner, v. The PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, FOURTH DISTRICT, APPELLATE DIVISION, West Palm Beach, Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-590.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 21, 1971.

Mandamus denied.