alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet of Global Marine Inc. and subsidiaries
as of 3-31-97 and the related condensed consolidated statement of operations
for the three months ended 3-31-97, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          92,800
<SECURITIES>                                    31,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  119,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,600
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               264,500
<PP&E>                                         786,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                 265,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 900,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           95,500
<BONDS>                                        223,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     527,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   900,900
<SALES>                                          2,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               210,300
<CGS>                                            1,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  148,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (24,600)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             78,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    78,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit  32.2

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                       RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C.  1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Rick's Cabaret International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form  10-KSB  for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Eric S. Langan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  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.

Date: May 4, 2004                         By:     /s/ Eric S. Langan
                                                  ------------------
                                                  Eric S. Langan
                                                  Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
# C_2020191EN.01002101.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/21

---

Action brought on 19 March 2020 — BSH Hausgeräte v EUIPO (Home Connect)

(Case T-152/20)

(2020/C 191/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BSH Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark Home Connect — Application for registration No 18 077 851

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 January 2020 in Case R 1751/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<Page>


                                                                   Exhibit 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-86192) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-42398,333-42400,
333-42402, 333-42404, 333-62744) of Manufacturers' Services Limited of our
report dated January 28, 2003, except for Note 1 and Note 20, as to which the
date is March 27, 2003, relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedules, which appears in this Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 31, 2003
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 4, 2009 

0128 

Order 

 

February 4, 2009 

137421 

ROBERT SUTKOWI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 137421 

 COA: 283994 

WCAC: 07-000068 

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 25, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
257 La. 862

#### Succession of B. J. CHAUVIN, Sr.

No. 51180.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1971.

In re: Southern Savings Association applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 242 So.2d 340. ' •

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.

DIXON, J.,

is of the opinion that writs should be granted on whole case, instead of on one application only.
# Official Journal C 368A/11 O

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 368A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6111 October 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 368A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6111 October 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2018/C 368 A/01 | Notice of Open Competition — EPSO/AD/363/18 — Administrators (AD 7) in the following fields: 1. Customs, 2. Taxation | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2018/C 368 A/01

Notice of Open Competition — EPSO/AD/363/18 — Administrators (AD 7) in the following fields: 1. Customs, 2. Taxation

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC RESEARCH ASSOCIATES



We hereby consent to the references to our firm with respect to Georgia-Pacific Corporations projected liability for
its asbestos-related liabilities and defense costs contained in the Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 2, 2005 of Georgia-Pacific Corporation and any amendments, and to all references to us as having conducted such analysis. In giving the
foregoing consent, we do not admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder,
nor do we admit that we are experts with respect to any part of such Form 10-Q within the meaning of the term experts as used in the Securities Act or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.



National Economic Research AssociatesBy:

/s/ DENISE N. MARTINName:

Denise N. MartinTitle:

Senior Vice President




New York, New York

April 28, 2005
#### ROBERT PERRY’S Adm’r. *vs.*JOHN STEWART.

Belief in the existence of a Deity and a future state of rewards and punishments, necessary to qualify a man to bo a witness.

Replevin.

In this case James Stevenson was called by plaintiff as a witness and objected to, on the ground of a want of religious belief.

*The Court*

said it had frequently been decided that a witness must believe in a God, and a future state of rewards and punishments. The constitution itself, in the declaration of essential rights, implies a belief in a Deity; and there can be no sanction for an oath without a belief in a future state, where secret falsehood may be punished. The court may not interfere with or control the rights of conscience, or the free exercise of religious worship, or give a preference to any religious societies, denominations or inodes of worship; but it may protect the tests of truth, by refusing to administer an oath to a man who disavows all modes of worship, denies the existence of any object of worship, or any power to punish falsehoods hereafter.

The witness was proved to have frequently asserted it to be his belief, that there was an end of us after this life, and that we perished like the brutes.

He was rejected.
#### Matter of the Application of William A. H. Ely, an Attorney, to Determine and Enforce an Attorney’s Lien.

(Supreme Court, Westchester Special Term,

January, 1913.)

Liens — attorney’s lien — service in certiorari to review assessment — taxes.

Under sections 474 and 475 of the Judiciary Law, an attorney for the owners of real property has no lien thereon for services and disbursements in a certiorari proceeding to review an assessment on such property for taxation.

*119Proceeding by an attorney to determine and enforce an attorney’s lien.

H. H. and W. L. Morse, for the petitioner.

Duer, Strong & Whitehead, for the respondents.

Tompkins, J.

The question in this proceeding is whether an attorney can assert and enforce a lien for his services and disbursements against real estate which has been the subject matter in a certiorari proceeding to review the assessment of such real estate for the purpose of taxation, where the petitioner was the attorney for the owners of the property. The claim by the attorney is made under sections 474 and 475 of the Judiciary Law.

Section 475 provides as follows: “From the commencement of an action or special proceeding, and of the service of an answer containing a counterclaim, the attorney who appears for a party has a lien upon his client’s cause of action, claim or counterclaim, which attaches to a verdict, report, decision, judgment or final order in his client’s favor, and the proceeds thereof in whosoever hands they may come.”

I think the petitioner cannot maintain this proceeding, and that his remedy is by an action at law. It does not appear that there has been a “ verdict, report, decision, judgment. or final order in his client’s favor,” or that his clients have the “ proceeds ” of any *“*cause of action, claim or counterclaim.”

The certiorari proceeding appears to have been settled before reaching a final order or judgment, and it does not appear that the owners reaped any direct benefit from that proceeding. For a subsequent year, it is alleged in the petition the assessment upon the property upon the client’s real estate was materially reduced, and the petitioner claims that he accomplished that reduction. This is denied, however, by the respondents. Conceding that the petitioner’s claim in this respect is true, I cannot see how a lien can he *120asserted against the real estate for the attorney’s services before the town assessors in securing a reduction of the assessment. The provisions of section 475 of the Judiciary Law were not, in my opinion, intended to cover such a proceeding, nor do I think an attorney’s lien can be enforced against real estate which is the subject of a certiorari proceeding, upon the theory that such real estate is the “ proceeds thereof,” within the meaning of section 475.

Motion denied.
H. Res. 326

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

January 25, 1994.

Resolved, That the Clerk of the House inform the Senate

that a quorum of the House is present and that the House

is ready to proceed with business.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2023024EN.01000601.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 — Vincent Thunus and Others v European Investment Bank (EIB)

(Case C-90/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) - Remuneration - Annual salary adjustment - Action for annulment and damages)

(2023/C 24/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Vincent Thunus, Jaime Barragán, Marc D’hooge, Alexandra Felten, Christophe Nègre, Patrick Vanhoudt (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: A. V. García Sanchez, T. Gilliams, J. Klein and E. Manoukian, acting as Agents, and by P.–E. Partsch, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Vincent Thunus, Mr Jaime Barragán, Mr Marc D’hooge, Ms Alexandra Felten, Mr Christophe Nègre and Mr Patrick Vanhoudt to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Vincent Thunus, Mr Jaime Barragán, Mr Marc D’hooge, Ms Alexandra Felten, Mr Christophe Nègre and Mr Patrick Vanhoudt to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-99070) pertaining to the Chicago Miniature Lamp, Inc.
1995 Incentive and Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan of our report dated January
9, 1998, except for the 1998 stock split as described in Note 2, as to which the
date is February 11, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of SLI, Inc. (formerly Chicago Miniature Lamp, Inc.) included in
the Amended Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended November 30, 1997.


Ernst & Young LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 2, 1999
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60289

Summary Calendar

MUHAMMAD NAVID ASRAR,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A078 961 229

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Muhammad Navid Asrar, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his 

untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings, in which he unsuccessfully 

sought withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against 

Torture. Asrar moved to reopen based on an alleged breach of confidentiality, 

which he asserted resulted in changed conditions or circumstances in Pakistan.

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-60289 Document: 00512984361 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2015
No. 14-60289

Asrar asserts: the BIA’s rejection of his claim that the removal proceedings 

should be reopened based on his breach-of-confidentiality claim was arbitrary 

and contrary to law; and the BIA erred in concluding there was no evidence of 

a breach, and in determining he failed to show changed-country conditions.

Asrar was convicted of an aggravated felony (unlawful possession of 

ammunition) and sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment. Subsequently, he 

was ordered removed to Pakistan. His petition for review was dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction because he was removable as an alien who had been 

convicted of an aggravated felony and failed to raise a constitutional claim or 

a question of law. Asrar v. Gonzales, 229 F. App’x 326 (5th Cir. 2007). 

Therefore, with respect to the denial of Asrar’s motion to reopen, we have 

jurisdiction to review only constitutional and legal questions. E.g., EscuderoArciniega v. Holder, 702 F.3d 781, 785 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Whether the BIA erroneously weighed or ignored evidence regarding 

changed conditions in Pakistan, which Asrar alleged resulted from the 

purported confidentiality breach, and whether the evidence Asrar presented 

established such changed conditions, are questions of fact and do not raise 

either a constitutional or legal question. E.g., id.

DISMISSED.

2

 Case: 14-60289 Document: 00512984361 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2015
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23
                                                                                
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33- 98314, 33-98316, 33-98318, 33-98320, 33-99464,
33-99466, 33-99470, 333-04008), on Form S-4 (Nos. 333-68385 and 333-51491) and
on Form S-3 (No. 333-486663) of PSINet Inc. of our report dated March 9, 1999,
except as to Note 11, which is as of March 25, 1999, appearing on page 55 of
this Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Washington, D.C.
March 26, 1999
#### Thomas M. Boyle, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and Harry Macklowe et al., Respondents.

[655 NYS2d 23]

Appeals by plaintiff from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about February 13, 1996, which in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by a defective sidewalk, granted, on default, defendant landlords’ motion for summary judgment on their cause of action against defendant tenants to compel them to defend and indemnify the landlords herein, and from the order of the same court and Justice, entered May 20, 1996, which denied the tenants’ motion, joined in by plaintiff, to vacate their default, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Plaintiff is not an aggrieved party with standing to appeal the instant orders, *which*have no direct effect on his right to recover a full judgment *(see, D'Ambrosio v City of New York,*55 NY2d 454, 459-460). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the motion court did not make any "judicial determination, prior to trial, of lack of liability on the part of the [landlord] *231defendants”. Rather, the court merely found that the tenant defendants had breached their contractual duty to procure and maintain an insurance policy naming the landlord defendants as additional insureds, which is distinct from common-law and contractual indemnity (see, *Kinney v Lisk Co.,*76 NY2d 215, 218; *Spencer v B.A. Painting Co.,*224 AD2d 307). Plaintiff will be able to recover from the landlord defendants such damages as plaintiff can prove at trial were due to their fault. This is a plainly meritless appeal and should never have been brought. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.
Revised preamble Bill Maxwell to: Cortney_Higgins 11/15/2012 04:43 PM Cc: RobertJ Wayland

Cortney --

Attached are the revised MATS proposed reconsideration preamble and a redline/strikeout of that version vs. the version you have.

Thanks.

EO12866_MATS_Reconsideration_2060- AR62_Proposal_20121115.pdf

EO12866_MATS_Reconsideration_2060-AR62_Pro posal_redline_20121106 vs 20121115.pdf

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919-541-5430 FAX: 919-541-5450
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,575,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             4,940,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 50,687,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      37,717,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        33,984,000
<LOANS>                                    356,934,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,845,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             468,730,000
<DEPOSITS>                                 324,106,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          4,251,000
<LONG-TERM>                                108,002,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,344,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             468,730,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             25,978,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            5,238,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               562,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            31,778,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          13,532,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          19,370,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       12,408,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  969,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              71,000
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              7,219,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,291,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,548,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.13
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.37
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,524,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               446,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,425,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  564,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    15,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,845,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,845,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>