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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
Smithway Motor Xpress Corp:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(No.'s 333-10249, 333-10251, 333-21253, 333-81855, 333-97195, and 333-126026) on
Form S-8 of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp. of our report dated March 29, 2007 with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2006, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, which report appears in
the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp.
Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to the Company's
adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004),
"Share-Based Payment," on January 1, 2006.


                                        /s/ KPMG LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
March 30, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MONTERRAY ROBINSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 130 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of August, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
* District Judge of the Southern District of Texas,

sitting by designation.

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 17, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

________________ No. 02-30291

_____________________ JAMES V. JIMINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,
v. PAW PAW’S CAMPER CITY, INC., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

00-CV-1756-N

_________________________________________________________________ Before KING, Chief Judge, DAVIS, Circuit Judge, and ROSENTHAL * , District Judge. PER CURIAM: ** After carefully reviewing the record and considering the briefs of the parties and the argument of counsel, we are satisfied that the district court committed no reversible error in this fact intensive case. AFFIRMED.2
November 7, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MAHA KHALIFA AL-LAHIQ, M.D., Appellant

NO. 14-13-00158-CV V.

ULYSSES L. ROSEMOND, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, ULYSSES L. 

ROSEMOND, signed, January 29, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. 

We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We REVERSE the 

trial court’s order, RENDER judgment dismissing Rosemond’s claims with 

prejudice, and REMAND to the trial court for determination of reasonable 

attorney’s fees and court costs.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellee ULYSSES L. ROSEMOND.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 07a0095n.06

Filed: February 6, 2007

No. 06-3648

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

MICHELE R. MOFFA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: SUHRHEINRICH, GIBBONS and COOK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to

the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) and affirming the Commissioner’s decision

to deny disability benefits to the Appellant. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, the

applicable law, and having had the benefit of oral argument, this court determines that no

jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion and affirms the district court’s decision

for the reasons stated in that court’s opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 30928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14126]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-179-000]


Notice of Complaint: MD Solar 3, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, 
L.L.C.

    Take notice that on June 22, 2018, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 
of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e and Rule 206 of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, MD Solar 3, LLC (Complainant) filed a 
formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Respondent) 
alleging that, Respondent violated its Open Access Transmission Tariff 
by terminating an interconnection service request submitted on behalf 
of the Complainant, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served 
on the contacts listed for the Respondent in the Commission's list of 
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's 
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before 
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and 
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
eLibrary link and is available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f5b3b0a7b6ba9b999c9b90a68085859a8781b593908796db929a83"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e282b3c2d21000207000b3d1b1e1e011c1a2e080b1c0d40090118">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 12, 2018.

    Dated: June 25, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14126 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### JOHN LOGAN *vs.*THE FARMERS’ BANK.

On a motion for a continuance of a cause, because of the plaintiff’s inability to procure certain papers as evidence, the court required a specification of the papers, to judge of their materiality.

*Mr. Rogers,*for the plaintiff,

moved a continuance, founded on the affidavit that the plaintiff had been unable to discover certain papers material to the case, and which he hoped to procure by the next term.

The continuance was opposed by Messrs. *Bradford*and *J. A. Bayard,*for the defendant, who contended that a lawful ground for the continuance had not been had. They insisted that the papers should be specified, in order that they might show not only their materiality, but ascertain what diligence had been used to procure them ; that they might produce them if in their power, or that the affirmant might be subjected to criminal liability in case he swears falsely. They said, by reference to the practice in continuing causes for inability to produce the attendance of witnesses, it was constantly required that the names of the witnesses should be dis*432closed; and under circumstances, that the matters to be proved by the witnesses shall be disclosed.

*The Court*

refused the continuance, unless the papers were specified. This was necessary, in order to test the amount of diligence used in discovering them.

The plaintiff, John Logan, was then called, and having been sworn, said the papers he wanted were a mortgage recorded in Maryland, and a bond. He had called on the counsel at the Bank, and on the President, for a copy of an agreement with the Bank, by which the Bank agreed not to charge interest on a part of the money secured by the bond and mortgage; and it was refused. This is one of the papers I refer to. There was such a paper.

*The Court*continued the cause, because of the want of this paper. The bond and mortgage do not present a legal ground; but they illustrate the necessity of disclosing the kind of papers in motion to continue a cause for want of them, in order to judge of the diligence used to procure them. The bond and mortgage are legally in the defendants’ custody or power, and a notice to them should have compelled the production of the original. The mortgage is on record, and a copy could be produced by the use of diligence. But in regard to this agreement to remit interest, it is sworn to have been refused, and the plaintiff has not yet been able to procure secondary evidence of it.

The case was continued*
#### Freddie Lee ODOM, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 41719.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 30, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
# C_2021182EN.01002703.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München (Germany) lodged on 28 January 2021 — Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-44/21)

(2021/C 182/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG

Defendants: HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 9(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) if German higher regional courts (Oberlandesgerichte), which have jurisdiction at last instance in proceedings for interim relief, refuse, in principle, to grant interim measures for patent infringement if the patent in dispute has not survived opposition or invalidity proceedings at first instance?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).

---
IV

House Calendar No. 173

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 454

[Report No. 103–546]

Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4556) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 14, 1994

Mr. GORDON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

1 Resolved, That points of order against consideration

2 of the bill (H.R. 4556) making appropriations for the De3 partment of Transportation and related agencies for the

4 fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other pur5 poses, for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI

6 or clause 7 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration

7 of the bill, all points of order against provisions in the

8 bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI
2

HRES 454 RH

1 are waived except as follows: beginning on page 53, line

2 9, through page 54, line 22.

House Calendar No. 173

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 454

[Report No. 103–546]

RESOLUTION

Waiving certain points of order against the bill

and for other purposes.for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995,partment of Transportation and related agencies(H.R. 4556) making appropriations for the DeJUNE 14, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
# C_2023071EN.01000701.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — RW v Österreichische Post AG

(Case C-154/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 15(1)(c) - Data subject’s right of access to his or her data - Information about the recipients or categories of recipient to whom the personal data have been or will be disclosed - Restrictions)

(2023/C 71/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RW

Defendant: Österreichische Post AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation),

must be interpreted as meaning that the data subject’s right of access to the personal data concerning him or her, provided for by that provision, entails, where those data have been or will be disclosed to recipients, an obligation on the part of the controller to provide the data subject with the actual identity of those recipients, unless it is impossible to identify those recipients or the controller demonstrates that the data subject’s requests for access are manifestly unfounded or excessive within the meaning of Article 12(5) of Regulation 2016/679, in which cases the controller may indicate to the data subject only the categories of recipient in question.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 237 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 237

  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require open 
committee meetings and to allow the broadcasting and still photography 
   of any committee meetings or hearings that are open to the public.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 4, 1993

   Ms. Dunn (for herself, Mr. Bacchus of Florida, Mr. Pombo, and Mr. 
 Zimmer) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                           Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require open 
committee meetings and to allow the broadcasting and still photography 
   of any committee meetings or hearings that are open to the public.

    Resolved, That (a) the first sentence of clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and with a majority present'' and by 
        inserting ``, approved by a majority of its total membership,'' 
        after ``rollcall vote''; and
            (2) by inserting ``because disclosure of matters to be 
        considered would endanger the national security, tend to 
        defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, jeopardize an 
        ongoing criminal investigation, or compromise a confidential 
        source of any criminal investigation'' after ``public'' the 
        second place it appears.
    (b) Clause 3(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by striking ``is a privilege made available 
by the House and''.
    (c) Clause 3(e) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by any committee of 
the House is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open to 
television broadcast, radio broadcast, and still photography, or by any 
of such methods of coverage. No committee or subcommittee chairman may 
limit the number of television or still cameras below 2 representatives 
from each medium.''.

                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 20, 2016

NO. 03-16-00118-CR

Benjamin Bustos, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 147TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the order to withdraw funds signed by the district court. Having reviewed 

the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay 

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
# C_2020095EN.01003401.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/34

---

Action brought on 8 January 2020 — Valiante v Commission

(Case T-13/20)

(2020/C 95/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Diego Valiante (Antwerp-Berchem, Belgium) (represented by: R. Wardyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission decision of 14 March 2019 rejecting the applicant’s request to be admitted to the internal competition COM/1/AD10/18 (AD10); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 14 March 2019 rejecting the applicant’s request to be admitted to the internal competition COM/1/AD10/18 (AD10);

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations by the decision refusing to admit the applicant to the internal competition due to the lack of minimum grade.






  — | The applicant alleges that the minimum grade is not the real indicator of the competencies. As a result, the requirement of a minimum grade prevents the recruitment of experienced and qualified candidates. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations by the decision refusing to admit the applicant to the internal competition due to the lack of minimum grade.

—

The applicant alleges that the minimum grade is not the real indicator of the competencies. As a result, the requirement of a minimum grade prevents the recruitment of experienced and qualified candidates.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment and Article 27 of Staff Regulations by requirement of a minimum grade which does not affect in the same way temporary agents and officials. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment and Article 27 of Staff Regulations by requirement of a minimum grade which does not affect in the same way temporary agents and officials.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations by the requirement to apply to one field only which prevents the recruitment based on highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity on the broadest possible basis. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations by the requirement to apply to one field only which prevents the recruitment based on highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity on the broadest possible basis.

---
```
                                                                      Exhibit 32

                   Certification Accompanying Periodic Report
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                              (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)

The undersigned, Christian Haub, Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. ("Company"), and Brenda M.
Galgano, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of our Company, each
hereby certifies that (1) the Quarterly Report of our Company on Form 10-Q/A for
the period ended September 12, 2009 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 the results of operations of our Company.

Dated:  October 20, 2009               /s/ Christian Haub
                                       ------------------
                                       Christian Haub
                                       Executive Chairman and
                                       Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  October 20, 2009               /s/ Brenda M. Galgano
                                       ---------------------
                                       Brenda M. Galgano
                                       Senior Vice President,
                                       Chief Financial Officer
```
No. 11484.

#### Swing, Trustee, *v.*Crane et al.

Decided January 19, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Mr. Smith W. Bennett*and *Mr. Patterson A. Reece,*for plaintiff in error.

*462
      *Messrs.*Stephens, *Lincoln &*Stephens, for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Si-iauck and Price, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Kenneth L. JOHNSTON v. H. Garland PAVY, Judge, 27th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry.

No. 62739.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 2, 1978.

In re: Kenneth L. Johnston applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of St. Landry.

Granted. It is ordered that a transcript of the habeas corpus proceeding be furnished to relator.