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

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 14, 2002 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Cox Communications, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001, in the following Registration Statements of Cox Communications, Inc. and to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in the Registration Statements on Form S-3:

Form

File No.S-8

33-80993S-8

33-80995S-8

33-91506S-8

333-44399S-8

333-43764S-8

333-85055S-8

333-43738S-3

333-03766S-3

333-82575S-3

333-82575-01S-3

333-82575-02S-3

333-54450S-3

333-54450-01S-3

333-59150S-3

333-65102S-3

333-65102-01


/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 2002

---

QuickLinks
[LETTERHEAD OF RALPH E. DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC.]





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS





We hereby consent to the
references to our firm and to its having reviewed the report of Consolidated Natural Gas Companys staff engineers with regard to Consolidated Natural Gas Companys estimated proved reserves of gas and oil at December 31, 2001 appearing in
Consolidated Natural Gas Companys Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 and in all current and future registration statements of Consolidated Natural Gas Company that incorporate by reference such Form 10-K.





We further wish to advise that we are not employed on a contingent basis and that at the time of the preparation of our report, as well as at present,
neither Ralph E. Davis Associates, Inc., nor any of its employees had, or now has, a substantial interest in Consolidated Natural Gas Company, or any of its subsidiaries, as a holder of its securities, promoter, underwriter, voting trustee,
director, officer, or employee.





RALPH E. DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC.





/s/ Allen C. Barron, P.E.


---

Allen C. Barron, P.E.


President





Date: March 11,
2002




1
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS APOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906

## OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

I, Eddie D. Canterbury, state and attest that:

 

(1)          I am the President andChief Executive Officer of Logan County Bancshares, Inc.(the “issuer”).

 

(2)          Accompanying thiscertification is Logan County Bancshares, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2003, a periodic report (the “periodic report”)filed by the issuer with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant toSection 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “ExchangeAct”), which contains financial statements.

 

(3)          I hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

 

•                  Theperiodic report containing the financial statements fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

 

•                  Theinformation contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer forthe periods presented.

 

 
| /s/     Eddie  D. Canterbury |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                                  |   |   |
| Eddie D. Canterbury                                   |   |   |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer                |   |   |
| April, 14, 2004                                       |   |   |

 

 

*Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Logan County Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Logan CountyBancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.*

 

----
Exhibit 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-109345, 333-109346, 33-14531, 33-54483, 33-64998, 33-65440, 33-68336, 333-04775,333-04823, 333-62087, 333-62103, 333-95409, 333-41328, 333-71502 and 333-97713) of Novell, Inc. ofour report dated May 25, 2007 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>
<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                            2,884,790
<SECURITIES>                      1,078,800
<RECEIVABLES>                     3,208,678
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                       5,630,576
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 13,526,229
<PP&E>                            1,541,519
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   15,174,785
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             3,136,833
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                              6,630
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                       11,877,708
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     15,174,785
<SALES>                           4,280,167
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  4,280,167
<CGS>                             2,118,852
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     2,777,622
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  <19,776>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    <596,531>
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                <596,531>
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       <596,531>
<EPS-BASIC>                           <0.10>
<EPS-DILUTED>                         <0.10>
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-231-CV

GRAHAM GENERAL HOSPITAL	APPELLANT

	V.

JACQUELINE A. PHILLIPS	APPELLEE

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

	FROM THE 90TH DISTRICT COURT OF YOUNG COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

	Appellant Graham General Hospital and Appellee Jacqueline A. Phillips have filed an agreed motion asking this court to set aside the trial court’s judgment as void and to reverse and remand this case to the trial court for entry of judgment in compliance with the law.  The parties agree that the trial court’s judgment is void for failure to comply with Texas Labor Code section 410.258(a).  Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 410.258(a) (Vernon 2003) (requiring  proposed judgment in workers’ compensation proceeding to be filed with executive director of Texas Workers Compensation Commission thirty days before judgment entered); § 410.258(f) (providing that a judgment is void if it fails to comply with section 410.258); see also Ins. Co. of Penn. v. Martinez, 18 S.W.3d 844, 847-48 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2000, no pet.).  We likewise agree that the trial court’s judgment is void.  We set aside the trial court’s judgment and dismiss this appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(e).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by Graham General Hospital, for which let execution issue.

							PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and DAY, J.

DELIVERED: October 2, 2003
#### Al J. SCHECHTER, Trustee, Appellant, v. Salvatore MASSARO et al., Appellees.

No. 72-892.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 8, 1974.

Shirley Z. Small, of Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick & Schneider, Hollywood, for appellant.

James D. Druck and James M. Norman, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee-City of Tamarac, Florida.

*384DOWNEY, Judge.

This is an interlocutory appeal from orders granting a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint and denying a motion for clarification.

We have read the briefs and the record and find the second amended complaint was legally sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the order granting appellee’s motion to dismiss is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

We have found it unnecessary to consider the order denying appellant’s motion for clarification.

Reversed.

OWEN, C. J., and PAUL, MAURICE, Associate Judge, concur.
NO. 07-05 -033 2-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C MA Y2, 2007

_________

_________

_________

____ CH RI STIAN BJ OR GAAR D, Appel lan t
v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 69 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF DA L L AM COU NT Y; TH NO. 386 8; HON. RON ENNS, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

_____ On Mot ion for Rehea ring

_________

_________

_________

_____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. Pendi ng before the c our t i s t he St ate’ s mot ion for rehear ing

. I ts cont ent l eads us to th e s am e en d en coun tered af ter read ing the Sta te’s initial brief . Despite th e ab sence of fact s sur ro undi ng the manner or means under ly ing appel lan t’ s p ri or co nv ic ti on, t he St ate
se e ks t o u se i t for li ttl e more tha n prov idi ng the jurors b asi s from w hic h to infer that becau se appel lan t di d i t before, he m usthav e done itagai n. Thoug h one’s pas t ac ts may be in d ic a tors of

f utu re cond uct, e v iden ce use d simp ly to show that the accuse d acte d in2

li ne w it h hi s c haract er

i s i nadmis si ble under

the Rul es of Ev id e n ce . W hether the lat ter shoul d be re cons ide re d is not w it hin our prerog ati v e. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le the mot ion before us.

Per C ur iam Do not p ubl is h.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MARGARET STEWART a/k/a )

MARGARET ROSE STEWART, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2120

)

CIT BANK, N.A. f/k/a ONEWEST )

BANK, N.A., )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed January 23, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco 

County; Declan P. Mansfield, Judge.

Margaret Stewart, pro se Appellant.

Brandon S. Vesely, and Shannon T. Sinai 

(substituted as counsel of record) of 

Albertelli Law, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1672 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1672

 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to empower individuals 
  with disabilities to establish their own supplemental needs trusts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 7, 2013

 Mr. Nelson (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Enzi) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to empower individuals 
  with disabilities to establish their own supplemental needs trusts.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Special Needs Trust Fairness Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. FAIRNESS IN MEDICAID SUPPLEMENTAL NEEDS TRUSTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1917(d)(4)(A) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(4)(A)) is amended by inserting ``the individual,'' 
after ``for the benefit of such individual by''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to trusts established on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 23(b)****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Citizens, Inc.:We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-77698,333-58698, 333-118134 and 333-139473) of Citizens, Inc. of our reports dated March 30, 2007, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Citizens, Inc., Citizens, Inc.management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2006, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Citizens,Inc. as of December 31, 2006, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2006.                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLPAustin, Texas
#### Herman ROACH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-408.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 8, 1970.

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARK-DULL, JJ.

*743PER CURIAM.

The appellant in this case was charged by information with assault with intent to commit murder and the separate offense of improper exhibition of a firearm. He was tried by jury. Before the case went to the jury the court withdrew the second charge and granted acquittal thereof, and reduced the first charge to aggravated assault, of which offense the jury found the defendant guilty. His appeal from the judgment thereon challenges only the refusal of the court to grant a mistrial when the assistant state attorney, in closing argument, made reference to the fact that as a convicted felon he was not even entitled to possess a firearm. No error was committed in denying the motion for mistrial, because in the course of the trial while the defendant was testifying, the fact that he had been convicted of a felony was properly revealed.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                   Amendment No. 8 to
         Raymond J. McCann Compensation Agreement

     WHEREAS, Raymond J. McCann (the "Employee") and Consolidated
Edison Company of New York, Inc. (the "Company") entered into an
Agreement dated February 28, 1989 (the "Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, paragraph 9 of the Agreement provides that the
Agreement may be amended from time to time by a written
instrument executed by the Company and the Employee;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the
parties hereto agree as follows:

     1.  The Agreement is amended, effective February 1, 1996, to
increase the Employee's basic salary set forth in clause (i) of
paragraph 1(A) of the Agreement from $342,000 per annum to
$367,000 per annum, subject to all the terms and conditions set
forth in the Agreement relating to basic salary.

     2.  In all other respects, the Agreement remains in full
force and effect as amended hereby.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to
be executed by its duly authorized officer and its Corporate seal
to be fixed hereto, and the Employee has hereto set his hand the
day and year set forth below.

                        CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY
                          OF NEW YORK, INC.

                        By: RICHARD P.COWIE
                            Richard P. Cowie
                            Vice President

                        RAYMOND J. MCCANN
                        Raymond J. McCann

Dated:    March 28, 1996


Attest:
Approved by the Board of Trustees
the 28th day of November, 1995.

ARCHIE M. BANKSTON
Archie M. Bankston
   Secretary
#### Lee HENRICH, Appellant, v. The BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-372.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 22, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### William HARNS, Appellant, v. Hilda HARNS, Appellee.

No. 73-119.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 26, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
262 La. 1085

#### Mrs. Cordella R. REED, natural tutrix of the minors, Helen Reed, Hazel Reed and Doris Reed et al. v. John H. MEAUX.

No. 52661.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 1972.

In re: Mrs. Cordelia R. Reed et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Cameron, 262 So.2d 570.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### Joseph Legette, Appellant, v County of Nassau, Defendant, and Town of North Hempstead, Respondent.

[721 NYS2d 278]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), dated May 22, 2000, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Town of North Hempstead which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered August 22, 2000, upon the order, as dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Town of North Hemp-stead.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is modified by adding a provision thereto severing the action against the remaining defendant; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The respondent was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it *(see, Amabile v City of Buffalo,*93 NY2d 471; *Kiernan v Thompson,*73 NY2d 840; *Mayer v Town of Brookhaven,*266 AD2d 360; *Yarshevitz v Town of N. Hempstead,*240 AD2d 737; *Giganti*v *Town of Hempstead,*186 AD2d 627). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
#### Shelly LEIDER, Appellant, v. ROBERT L. FERMAN & CO., Inc., Appellee.

No. 71-626.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 21, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1972.

Myers, Kaplan, Porter, Levinson & Kenin and Thomas R. Spencer, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

*258Cohen & Angel, Miami Beach, and Howard J. Feinberg, North Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

See Mass v. Gordon, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 836.
**Exhibit 32.2**Certification     I, Larry E. Carson, certify that:     In connection with the Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Citizens, Inc. (the “*Company*”)for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “*Report*”), I, Larry E. Carson, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                 /s/ Larry E. Carson   Name:  Larry E. Carson   Title:  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer  Date: May 25, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
     FROM THE MARCH 31, 1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COATES INTERNATIONAL
     LTD. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
     STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000948426    
<NAME>                        Coates International, Ltd.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1998
<CASH>                                         144,690
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               144,690
<PP&E>                                       1,936,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                 355,771
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,727,638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,189,160
<BONDS>                                        160,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                      6,572
<COMMON>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     531,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,727,638
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    94
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               187,739
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (187,245)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (187,245)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (187,245)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03)
        



</TABLE>
887 A.2d 654

#### Keli Lea DAUGHERTY v. Floyd W. and Karen DAUGHERTY.

No. 46,

Sept. Term, 2005.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 8, 2005.

Susan Mays, Glen Burnie, for petitioner.

*89Amy D. Welch (Cumberland & Erly, LLC, on brief), Prince Frederick, for respondents.

PER CURIAM ORDER.

The petition for -writ of certiorari in the above-entitled case having been granted and argued, it is this 8th day of December, 2005,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the writ of certiorari be, and it is hereby, dismissed with costs, the petition having been improvidently granted.