alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit23.2**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements(Form S-8 Nos. 33-44012, 33-44599, 33-64032, 333-2676, 333-70057 and 333-57130) pertaining to the Stock Option Plan and theNon-employee Director Stock Option Plan of our report dated April 14,2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule ofFischer Imaging Corp. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for theyear ended December 31, 2005.

 
| /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |
| Denver,  Colorado               |
| March  30, 2006                 |

 

1

----
263 La. 375

#### EMPLOYERS OVERLOAD COMPANY v. EMPLOYERS OVERLOAD COMPANY OF NEW ORLEANS, INC., et al.

No. 52947.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 16, 1972.

In re: Employers Overload Company, of Minnesota applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 266 So.2d 546.

Writ refused. There is no error of law in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
#### Mary Esther FOWLER, Appellant, v. John Harold CLARK, Appellee.

No. 73-360.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 16, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 557 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 557

                 Commending the Police Athletic League.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 30, 1994

 Mr. Miller of California (for himself, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
Stearns, and Mr. Washington) submitted the following resolution; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
                 Commending the Police Athletic League.

Whereas juvenile crime in the United States is on the rise and contributes to 
        the increasing amount of fear and apprehension in the communities of the 
        Nation;
Whereas one of the best hopes of reducing crime is by involving police officers 
        in community efforts to prevent crime;
Whereas the Police Athletic League (also known as the Police Activities League 
        and PAL) involves police officers in prevention as well as law 
        enforcement activities;
Whereas PAL has been in existence for more than 50 years;
Whereas PAL has 246 local organizations throughout the United States, Puerto 
        Rico, and the Virgin Islands;
Whereas more than 25,000 police officers volunteer many hours protecting the 
        communities of the Nation, thus fulfilling the PAL motto ``Filling 
        Playgrounds, Not Prisons'';
Whereas one of PAL's principal purposes is to promote trust and understanding 
        between youth and police officers in an atmosphere of cooperation rather 
        than confrontation;
Whereas PAL provides recreational and educational programs, including athletic 
        tournaments, police cadet clubs, and computer training, for more than 
        3,000,000 youth nationwide; and
Whereas PAL provides at-risk youth with an alternative to drugs and crime: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives commends the Police 
Athletic League for establishing a bond between youth and police 
officers, and for contributing to the national effort to prevent crime.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6653

JERRY NATHAN DEAL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, SCDC Commissioner; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1676-0-21) Submitted: December 8, 1998 Decided: January 13, 1999 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Nathan Deal, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jerry Deal appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and findno reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Deal v. Moore , No. CA-97-1676-0-21 (D.S.C. Mar. 27, 1998).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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE GREAT
ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 10-Q FOR THE 16 WEEKS ENDED JUNE 17, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-24-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-17-2000
<CASH>                                          107115
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   190153
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     798890
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1173473
<PP&E>                                         1936774
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3332561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1124380
<BONDS>                                        1004735
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         38347
<OTHER-SE>                                      810787
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3332561
<SALES>                                        3199820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3199820
<CGS>                                          2280475
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2280475
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                881532
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (28936)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  10741
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (5157)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5584
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5584
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15


</TABLE>
#### Carlos Manual RAMOS v. STATE.

No. 38344.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Appeal dismissed without opinion. 218 So.2d 250.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1359

_____________________________

PHILLIP KESSLER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Martin A. Fitzpatrick, Judge.

February 25, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Phillip Kessler, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Steven E. Woods, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit No. 32

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) UNDER
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. 1350

Each of the undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Gerber Scientific, Inc., hereby certifies that, on the date hereof:

(i)	The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gerber Scientific, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2005 filed the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)	Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gerber Scientific, Inc.



|Date:  December 1, 2005 | /s/ Marc T. Giles                                   | 
|----------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | 
|                        | Marc T. Giles
President and Chief Executive Officer | 



| | /s/ Jay Zager                                               | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | Jay Zager
Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
IN THE FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000041296
<NAME> GIANT GROUP, LTD.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,164
<SECURITIES>                                     9,201
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,863
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,472
<PP&E>                                           6,142
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,168
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,089
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,503
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   745
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,693
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   143
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,092)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,092)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
AP-77,046 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 4/9/2015 12:42:57 PM Accepted 4/9/2015 12:49:54 PM 

### INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS OFTEXAS ABELA£°|TM AT AUSTIN



## vs. § 4 HENRY W. SKINNER 

# No.AP-77,046 (V ^

THE STATE OF TEXAS §

APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: 

### This Court has advised the parties that "there is a question
... whether this 

### appeal arises from a properly filed Texas Code ofCriminal Procedure Chapter 64 motion requesting DNA testing ...," suggesting they "be prepared to address this issue at oral argument." Order, Skinner v. State, No. AP-77,046 (Tex. Crim. App. March 18, 2015) (citation omitted). 

### In response, Mr. Skinner seeks leave to file the accompanying supplemental memorandum oflaw. An opportunity to review written arguments, as well as to hear from the parties during oral argument, will better ensure that the Court accuratelyresolves thejurisdictional question it askedthe parties to address. 

### WHEREFORE, Appellant HENRY W. SKINNER requests that the Court 

### granthim leave to file the accompanying SupplementalMemorandum ofLaw. Respectfully submitted,s/ Robert C. Owen ROBERT C. OWEN Texas BarNo. 15371950 

### BluhmLegal Clinic Northwestern University School ofLaw 375 EastChicago Ave. Chicago, IL 60611-3069 (312) 503-0135 voice (312) 503-8977 facsimile robert.owen@law.northwestern.edu DOUGLAS G. ROBINSON 1440 New YorkAvenue, N.W. 

### Washington, DC 20005-2111 (202) 371-7800 voice (202) 393-5760 facsimile 

### Counsel for Appellant Henry W. SkinnerCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This certifies that on April 9, 2015, a true and correct electronic copy of the foregoing document was served via the Court's electronic filing system upon counsel for the State ofTexas: Katherine D. Hayes (katherine.hayes@texasattorneygeneral.gov), Edward L. Marshall (edward.marshall@texasattorneygeneral.gov), FranklinMcDonough (Franklin.McDonough@graycch.com).

s/ Robert C. Owen
Robert C. Owen Texas Bar No. 15371950 Counsel for Appellant
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The data reported in this exhibit are based on unaudited statements but
include all adjustments which the company considers necessary for a fair
presentation of results for this period.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000041499
<NAME> THE GILLETTE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                     112,000
<SECURITIES>                                 3,400
<RECEIVABLES>                            2,207,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                74,500
<INVENTORY>                              1,519,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         4,308,800
<PP&E>                                   4,614,600
<DEPRECIATION>                           2,018,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          10,052,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    2,314,500
<BONDS>                                  1,488,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                 94,700
<COMMON>                                   672,500
<OTHER-SE>                               3,995,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            10,052,600
<SALES>                                  2,180,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         2,180,000
<CGS>                                      825,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              825,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           888,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          19,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            441,600
<INCOME-TAX>                               157,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        283,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               283,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.50
        


</TABLE>
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



I, Vicente B. Wright, in my capacity as the President and Chief Executive Officer of
California Steel Industries, Inc., for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:



the annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003, filed by California Steel Industries, Inc., on
March 8, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in such annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of California Steel Industries, Inc.



Dated: March 8, 2004



By:

/s/    VICENTE B. WRIGHTVicente B. Wright,President and Chief Executive Officer
# Official Journal C 15A/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.015.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 15A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5518 January 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.015.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 15A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5518 January 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 015A/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — first supplement to the 30th complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 015A/01

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — first supplement to the 30th complete edition

1

---

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

EN
257 La. 447

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Warren WALKER v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary et al.

No. 51059.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1971.

In re: Warren Walker applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus.

Application denied. Considering the evidence taken at the hearing, we find no merit in the complaint.
# C_2023054EN.01001201.xml

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 December 2022 — Maxime Picard v European Commission

(Case C-366/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Pension - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - 2014 reform - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 - Annex XIII to those regulations - Second paragraph of Article 21 and second subparagraph of Article 22(1) - Transitional measures relating to the annual rate of accrual of pension rights and retirement age - Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Annex - Article 1(1) - Application of those transitional measures by analogy to other staff employed on 31 December 2013 - Signature of new contract as a member of the contract staff - Act adversely affecting an official - Effective judicial protection)

(2023/C 54/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Maxime Picard (represented by: S. Orlandi, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021, Picard v Commission (T-769/16, EU:T:2021:153), as rectified by the order of 16 April 2021, Picard v Commission (T-769/16, EU:T:2021:200). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021, Picard v Commission (T-769/16, EU:T:2021:153), as rectified by the order of 16 April 2021, Picard v Commission (T-769/16, EU:T:2021:200).

| 2. | Annuls the reply of 4 January 2016 of the manager of the Pensions Sector of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) and the decision of 25 July 2016 of the Director of Directorate E of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security dismissing the complaint of 4 April 2016 lodged by Mr Maxime Picard against that reply. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the reply of 4 January 2016 of the manager of the Pensions Sector of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) and the decision of 25 July 2016 of the Director of Directorate E of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security dismissing the complaint of 4 April 2016 lodged by Mr Maxime Picard against that reply.

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Maxime Picard in the present appeal and at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Maxime Picard in the present appeal and at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---
#### Ben BENNETT v. ANCHOR MARINE, INC.

No. 11469.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

July 11, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 24, 1977.

*973Jerry H. Bankston, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee Ben Bennett.

Bailey E. Chaney, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant Anchor Marine, Inc.

Before ELLIS, CHIASSON and PONDER, JJ.

PONDER, Judge.

This is a suit for cancellation of a sale and the return of the purchase price. The trial court granted judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant has appealed.

The only issue before this court is whether the trial judge erred.

We affirm.

Plaintiff entered into a sales agreement with defendant for the purchase of a used boat and trailer. The agreement contained this provision: “Pending customers test ride on first weekend of use. _”

When plaintiff tested the boat he noticed that the oil pressure was low; that the engine would skip and miss; that after slowing down he could not get the engine to accelerate. Several passengers in the boat on this particular weekend corroborated plaintiff’s testimony.

Plaintiff returned the boat to defendant’s place on November 3. Due to a backlog of work, defendant told plaintiff to take the boat home and return it on November 5. With defendant’s approval, plaintiff took it out again the following weekend to check. He again returned the boat on the 10th, but was advised that no work could be performed until the 13th.

On November 25, plaintiff and one of defendant’s employees took the boat out for a test run. The engine started to miss and then stopped completely; it was later discovered that a broken valve had caused extensive damage.

The trial judge found that the plaintiff promptly returned the boat to defendant after discovering defects during the first weekend of use; that the boat had never performed satisfactorily, and that defendant had failed to complete the necessary repairs, despite plaintiff’s tender. He therefore rescinded the sale and awarded $3,727.50 to plaintiff.

Although this case might be decided on the question of redhibition, we prefer to decide it on the failure to meet the suspen-sive condition of the sales agreement. There is no doubt that the boat did not run to plaintiff’s satisfaction on the first weekend of use, and has never been delivered to and accepted by plaintiff in satisfactory condition.

Since the suspensive condition did not occur, plaintiff’s obligation to pay never matured. *Zemurray v. Boe,*235 La. 623, 105 So.2d 243 (1958). It is immaterial that the motor was seriously damaged by a condition unrelated to the complaints.

For the above reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed; defendant is to pay all costs.

AFFIRMED.