alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23
                                                                              --



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Measurex Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-65762, 33-22589,
2-76707 and 2-67736) of our report dated December 19, 1995 on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of Measurex Corporation and Subsidiaries as of
December 3, 1995 and November 27, 1994 and for each of the three fiscal years in
the period ended December 3, 1995 appearing on page 30 of Measurex Corporation's
1995 Annual Report to Shareholders and incorporated by reference in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K and our report dated December 19, 1995 on the financial
statement schedules of Measurex Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 3,
1995 and November 27, 1994 and for each of the three fiscal years in the period
ended December 3, 1995, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.



                                       /S/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
                                       ----------------------------
                                       COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.



San Jose, California
February 29, 1996
# C_2023024EN.01001101.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — CIG Pannónia Életbiztosító Nyrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-458/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(c) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - Service used by an insurance company to review the accuracy of a diagnosis of serious illness and find and provide the best possible care and treatment abroad)

(2023/C 24/14)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CIG Pannónia Életbiztosító Nyrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as meaning that services consisting in verifying the accuracy of an insured person’s diagnosis of serious illness, in order to determine the best possible health care with a view to the insured person’s recovery and to ensure, where that risk is covered by the insurance contract and where the insured person so requests, that the medical treatment is provided abroad, are not covered by the exemption provided for in that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---
H. Res. 484

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

July 21, 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 (H.R. 4604) to establish direct spending targets, and

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and

the amendments made in order by this resolution and shall

not exceed one hour, with thirty minutes equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Rules and thirty minutes equally divided

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member

of the Committee on Government Operations. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute

rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting

of the text of the bill modified by the amendment printed in
2

HRES 484 EH

part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying

this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute

shall be considered as read. No other amendment shall be in

order except those printed in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the

order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member

designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be

debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not

be subject to amendment except as specified in the report,

and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All

points of order against the amendments printed in part 2 of

the report are waived. If more than one of the amendments

printed in part 2 of the report is adopted, only the last to

be adopted shall be considered as finally adopted and reported to the House. 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

finally adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in

the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of

the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of

a substitute made in order as original text. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening mo-
3

HRES 484 EH

tion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2022138EN.01000401.xml

| 28.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/4

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon — France) — Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance v Les Anges d’Eux SARL, Echo 5 SARL, Cletimmo SAS

(Case C-191/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 392 - Margin taxation scheme - Scope - Supply of buildings and building land purchased for the purpose of resale - Taxable person for whom the VAT on the purchase of buildings was not deductible - Resale subject to VAT - Concept of ‘building land’)

(2022/C 138/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance

Respondents: Les Anges d’Eux SARL, Echo 5 SARL, Cletimmo SAS

Operative part of the order

Article 392 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax is to be interpreted as precluding the application of the margin taxation scheme to transactions involving the supply of building land where that purchased land which has been built on has become, between the time of its purchase and the time at which it is resold by the taxable person, building land; however, it is to be interpreted as not precluding the application of that scheme to transactions involving the supply of building land where that land has been subject, between the time of its purchase and the time at which it is resold by the taxable person, to alterations such as its partitioning into lots.

---

(1)  Date of filing: 25.3.2021.

---
#### Joseph NUZZO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 71-906, 71-907.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 8, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1972.

Harry W. Fogle, of Fogle & Wilson, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to each of two informations and enter pleas of not guilty thereto.

Appellant proffered testimony to corroborate his allegations in the motion; however, the trial court denied the proffer and summarily denied the motion.

We hold that the appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing in view of the allegations of his motion which were in part corroborated by the proffered evidence.1

Reversed and remanded.

LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.

McNULTY, J., dissents.

1

. Bartz v. State, Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 7.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-04-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-01-1996
<CASH>                                         109,027
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,056
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (524)
<INVENTORY>                                     16,186
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,835
<PP&E>                                          57,791
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,640)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,585
<BONDS>                                          5,863
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           195
<OTHER-SE>                                     150,969
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212,002
<SALES>                                         94,171
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                94,171
<CGS>                                           61,147
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,699
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1,294)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 301
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,465
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,029
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,436
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,436
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .83
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification

I, Frank A. Lodzinski, certify that:

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of GeoResources, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank A. Lodzinski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Frank A. LodzinskiFrank A. LodzinskiChief Executive OfficerNovember 13, 2007
#### Vernon BARLOW, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 41969.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 6, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 255 So.2d 559.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,108
<SECURITIES>                                    12,301
<RECEIVABLES>                                      346
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,161
<PP&E>                                           7,585
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,580
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,671
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,710
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,627
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,158
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,590
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,886)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,786)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.53)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022284EN.01001001.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Get Fresh Cosmetics Limited v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba

(Case C-122/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 87/357/EEC - Article 1(2) - Scope - Non-food products that may be confused with foodstuffs - Concept - Risk of suffocation, poisoning, or the perforation or obstruction of the digestive tract - No presumption of danger - Proof)

(2022/C 284/09)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Get Fresh Cosmetics Limited

Defendant: Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba

Intervening party: V.U.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 87/357/EEC of 25 June 1987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning products which, appearing to be other than they are, endanger the health or safety of consumers must be interpreted as meaning that it is not necessary to demonstrate by objective and substantiated data that placing in the mouth, sucking or ingesting products which, although not foodstuffs, possess a form, odour, colour, appearance, packaging, labelling, volume or size, such that it is likely that consumers, especially children, will confuse them with foodstuffs and in consequence place them in their mouths, or suck or ingest them may entail risks such as suffocation, poisoning, or the perforation or obstruction of the digestive tract. Nevertheless, the competent national authorities must assess on a case-by-case basis whether a product meets the conditions listed in that provision and justify their assessment that that is the case.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
THE FORM 10-KSB FOR THE ANNUAL PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         566,767
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  144,652
<ALLOWANCES>                                    23,350
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               700,774
<PP&E>                                         600,798
<DEPRECIATION>                                 388,619
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 919,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          437,690
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,671
<OTHER-SE>                                     456,943
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   919,304
<SALES>                                      1,856,336
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,856,336
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,890,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             203,604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,227,718)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,227,718)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,227,718)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements Form S-8 (No. 333-08847) pertaining to the Lark Sequencing
Technologies, Inc. 1990 Stock Option Plan, Form S-8 (No. 333-35675) pertaining
to the Lark Technologies, Inc. 1997 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors and Form S-8 (No.333-46280) pertaining to the Lark
Technologies, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan of our report dated February 22, 2001
with respect to the financial statements of Lark Technologies, Inc. included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Houston, Texas
March 29, 2002
ex_232086.htm



EXHIBIT 4.1

 


DESCRIPTION OF COMMON STOCK


 


First Capital is authorized to issue 7,500,000 shares of common stock having a par value of $.01 per share. Each share of First Capital's common stock has the same relative rights as, and is identical in all respects with, each other share of common stock.


 


Dividends.    First Capital can pay dividends out of statutory surplus or from certain net profits if, as and when declared by its board of directors. The payment of dividends by First Capital is subject to limitations that are imposed by law and applicable regulation. The holders of common stock of First Capital are entitled to receive and share equally in any dividends as may be declared by the board of directors of First Capital out of funds legally available for the payment of dividends. If First Capital issues preferred stock, the holders of the preferred stock may have a priority over the holders of the common stock with respect to dividends.


 


Voting Rights.    The holders of common stock of First Capital possess exclusive voting rights in First Capital. They elect First Capital's board of directors and act on any other matters as are required to be presented to them under applicable law or as are otherwise presented to them by the board of directors. Each holder of common stock is entitled to one vote per share and does not have any right to cumulate votes in the election of directors. First Capital's articles of incorporation, however, provide that a holder of First Capital common stock who owns, together with certain affiliates or persons acting in concert, in excess of 10% of the then-outstanding shares of common stock cannot vote any shares in excess of 10% unless permitted by the board of directors of First Capital. If First Capital issues preferred stock, holders of preferred stock may also possess voting rights. Certain matters require the vote of 80% of the outstanding shares entitled to vote thereon.


 


Liquidation.    In the event of liquidation, dissolution or winding up of First Capital, the holders of its common stock would be entitled to receive, after payment or provision for payment of all its debts and liabilities, all of the assets of First Capital available for distribution. If First Capital issues preferred stock, the holders of the preferred stock may have a priority over the holders of the common stock in the event of liquidation or dissolution.


 


Preemptive Rights.    Holders of the common stock of First Capital are not entitled to preemptive rights with respect to any shares that may be issued. The common stock is not subject to redemption.
EXHIBIT 24.2

Power of Attorney

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Harris Ravine, David Kirwan and Mary Beth Wallingford the undersigned's true
and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, each with full power and substitution for the undersigned and in the undersigned's name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to
sign Fischer Imaging Corporation's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Form 10-K") and any or all amendments to the
Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto each of said
attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to
all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that either of said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or his substitute
or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereto.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to be executed as of this 13th day of April, 2004.

| |  | /s/GAIL S. SCHOETTLERSignature
| |  | ------------------------------
| |  | Gail S. SchoettlerPrint Name: 

---

QuickLinks
#### Anne M. MUNN and Clifford B. Munn, her husband, Appellants, v. Frank MARTY and Allstate Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida, Appellees.

No. T-28.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 28, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.