alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the Registration Statement onForm S-3 (No. 333-125870) of Consolidated Edison, Inc. relating to the Con Edison Automatic Dividend Reinvestment and Cash Payment Plan; (ii) the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-04463-99) relating to the Con Edison 1996 Stock OptionPlan; (iii) the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-118159) relating to The Consolidated Edison Stock Purchase Plan; (iv) the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-108903) relating to The Consolidated Edison, Inc. Long Term IncentivePlan and Senior Executive Restricted Stock Awards; and (v) the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-136267) relating to debt and equity securities of Consolidated Edison, Inc. of our report dated February 15, 2007 relating to the financialstatements, financial statement schedules, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

New York, New York 

February 21, 2007
Exhibit 32
 
  1.
    
    The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended September 30,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 /s/ Walter E. Standish, IIIWalter E. Standish, IIIChief Executive OfficerNovember 13, 2009/s/ Gary S. AustinGary S. AustinChief Financial OfficerNovember 13, 2009
Document

Exhibit 10.1C

AMENDMENT NO. 3 to EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of November 1, 2022 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Jay D. Debertin (the “Executive”) and CHS Inc. (the “Company”) and amends that certain Employment Agreement dated May 22, 2017 and amended by Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, dated November 5, 2020 and November 3, 2021, respectively, by and between Executive and the Company (the “Employment Agreement”).  All terms capitalized herein shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.  In the event of any conflict between the terms of the Agreement and the terms of this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall prevail.
WHEREAS, Executive and Company have entered into the Employment Agreement;
WHEREAS, Executive and Company desire to amend the Employment Agreement to extend the term of Executive’s employment pursuant to the Employment Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties amend the Employment Agreement as follows:
•Section 1 of the Agreement (“Term”) is amended by deleting the date “August 31, 2023” and inserting the date “August 31, 2026”.

•The opening paragraph of Section 8(e) is amended to read as follows:
“Expiration of Employment Term After Notice of Non-Renewal by the Company or Termination by Executive Upon Retirement.  If the Executive’s employment terminates either, 1). at the end of the Employment Term because the Company has delivered a notice of non-renewal (as described in Section 1), or 2). on or after August 31, 2025, because of the Executive’s retirement (for clarity, which retirement would be without Good Reason) Executive shall be entitled to the following payments and benefits:” 


Except as herein above modified, the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
This Amendment No. 3 may be executed in counterparts and signatures transmitted electronically shall be deemed to be original signatures.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer and Executive has executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.




CHS INC.                            JAY D. DEBERTIN


By:     _______________________________               _____________________________


Name:  Daniel Schurr    
Title:     Chair of the Board of Directors
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVE KLEIN; et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH and DOES, 1 

through 10, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56309 

D.C. No. 

8:08-cv-01369-JLS-MLG 

ORDER*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 6, 2018**

Pasadena, California

Before: W. FLETCHER and OWENS, Circuit Judges***.

Appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition for review, Dkt # 38, is 

GRANTED. Accordingly, the memorandum disposition, Klein v. City of Laguna 

Beach, 710 F. App’x 766 (9th Cir. 2018) (unpublished), is VACATED. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** Judge Reinhardt was on the original panel. The motion for voluntary 

dismissal was voted upon only by Judges Fletcher and Owens.

FILED

AUG 27 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

The filing of this order shall serve as the court’s mandate.
#### Walter M. KEEHN v. STATE.

No. 38643.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

. Certiorari denied without opinion. 221 So.2d 26.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB10-CR.135 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
(301) 763-3691
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 2010 2010 Census: Minnesota Approaches Its 2000 Mail Participation Rate As of Friday, April 16, Minnesota is just one percentage point away from matching the mail participation rate it achieved in the 2000 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau announced today.  New rates released today show that 77 percent of Minnesotans have mailed back their forms so far, compared with 78 percent in 2000. The nation as a whole — at 69 percent — is still three percentage points away from matching the mail response rate achieved in 2000 (72 percent). A number of counties and cities across the country have already matched or exceeded their Census 2000 rates (see: http://2010.census.gov/news/xls/match_surpassed_4-16.xls [Excel] for the full list). “If you mail back your 2010 Census today you can ensure that your household is counted,” U.S. Census Bureau Director Robert Groves said. Households that normally pick up their mail from a post office box are already slated for in-person follow-up from census workers. The rates for all states, counties, places, towns and townships are updated each afternoon through April 23 at 4:00 p.m. on the Take 10 Challenge Map (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/take10map/). A final rate will be announced May 3. ABOUT THE 2010 CENSUS The 2010 Census is a count of everyone living in the United States and is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Census data are used to apportion congressional seats to states, to distribute more than $400 billion in federal funds to tribal, state and local governments each year and to make decisions about what community services to provide. The 2010 Census form is one of the shortest in U.S. history, consisting of 10 questions, taking about 10 minutes to complete. Strict confidentiality laws protect the respondents and the information they provide.
 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office/troubleshoot/excel/get-latest-excel-viewer
 CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### Lawrence ISAAC v. PATENT SCAFFOLDING CO. et al.

No. 9314.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

April 24, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 31, 1973.

A. G. Seale and Ken Barnette, Seale, Smith, Phelps, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellants Pacific Signal Ins. Co. and Sky Climbers, Inc.

John I. Moore, and Wm. L. Wilson, Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees Travelers Ins. Co., Patent Scaffolding, and others.

H. Alva Brumfield, Jr., and H. Alva Brumfield, III, Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before LOTTINGER, ELLIS, and CRAIN, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

This case, which is consolidated with cases Nos. 9313, 9315, 9316, and 9317, involves the identical parties and issues as does Harris v. Patent Scaffolding Company et al., 277 So.2d 483 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1973), this day decided.

For reasons therein assigned, the judgment herein is affirmed, at appellants’ cost.

Affirmed.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1936 

To improve the response to missing children and victims of child sex 

trafficking. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 16, 2014 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To improve the response to missing children and victims 

of child sex trafficking. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RESPONSE TO MISSING CHILDREN AND VIC4 TIMS OF CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING. 

5 (a) MISSING CHILDREN’S ASSISTANCE ACT.—Section 

6 404(b)(1)(P)(iii) of the Missing Children’s Assistance Act 

7 (42 U.S.C. 5773(b)(1)(P)(iii)) is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘child prostitution’’ and inserting ‘‘child sex trafficking’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1936 IS

1 (b) CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1990.—Section 3702 

2 of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 5780) is 

3 amended— 

4 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

5 end; 

6 (2) in paragraph (3)— 

7 (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) 

8 and (C) as subparagraphs (C) and (D), respec9 tively; and 

10 (B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) 

11 the following: 

12 ‘‘(B) a recent photograph of the child, if 

13 available;’’; and 

14 (3) in paragraph (4)— 

15 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘60 

16 days’’ and inserting ‘‘30 days’’; 

17 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking 

18 ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

19 (C) in subparagraph (C)— 

20 (i) by inserting ‘‘State and local child 

21 welfare systems and’’ before ‘‘the National 

22 Center for Missing and Exploited Chil23 dren’’; and 

24 (ii) by striking the period at the end 

25 and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1936 IS

1 (D) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(D) grant permission to the National 

3 Crime Information Center Terminal Contractor 

4 for the State to update the missing person 

5 record in the National Crime Information Cen6 ter computer networks with additional informa7 tion learned during the investigation relating to 

8 the missing person.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and President

|I, | David J. Barrett, certify that:
|-- | -------------------------------
|   |                                
|1. |                                
|   |                                
|2. |                                
|   |                                
|3. |                                
|   |                                
|4. |                                
|   |                                
|   |                                
|   |                                
|   |                                
|   |                                
|   |                                
|   |                                
|5. |                                
|   |                                
|   |                                
|   |                                
|   |                                

Date: October 29, 2004

| |                                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/   DAVID J. BARRETT                               
| |                                                      
| | David J. BarrettChief Executive Officer and President
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  First Quarter 2003 and 2004




                                       First      First     Standard    Standard
Area                                  quarter    quarter    error on    error on
                                        2003       2004     2004 rate  difference

United States.....................      68.0       68.6        0.2         0.2

  Inside MAs......................      66.2       66.9        0.2         0.2
   In central cities..............      51.9       52.6        0.3         0.4
   Not in central cities (suburbs)      74.7       75.3        0.2         0.3
  Outside MAs.....................      75.6       76.1        0.3         0.4

 Northeast........................      64.2       65.1        0.4         0.5
 Midwest..........................      72.9       73.5        0.3         0.4
 South............................      69.9       70.3        0.2         0.3
 West.............................      62.8       63.7        0.3         0.5
# C_2011290EN.01000101.xml

| 1.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/1

---

2011/C 290/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 282, 24.9.2011

OJ C 282, 24.9.2011

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 269, 10.9.2011

OJ C 252, 27.8.2011

OJ C 238, 13.8.2011

OJ C 232, 6.8.2011

OJ C 226, 30.7.2011

OJ C 219, 23.7.2011

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

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

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         881,498
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,906,827
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               850,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  9,627,456
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     30,728,457
<ALLOWANCE>                                    376,268
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,936,707
<DEPOSITS>                                  37,500,707
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            217,213
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,900,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       735,868
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,579,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              45,936,707
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,730,038
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              468,938
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                36,692
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,235,668
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,028,616
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,033,094
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,202,574
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  119,168
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (29,573)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,138,885
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,733
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      46,733
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,560
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.44
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               263,215
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    6,115
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              376,268
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           376,268
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
# C_2011336EN.01000101.xml

| 17.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6276 — AIF VII Euro Holdings/Ascometal)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 336/01

On 17 August 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6276. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6276. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit 32
CERTIFICATION

We, Ronald W. Kaplan, President and Chief Executive Officer, and J. L.
Dickinson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of Continental Global
Group, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.     The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
       annual period ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully
       complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ Ronald W. Kaplan                        /s/ J. L. Dickinson
--------------------------------------      -----------------------------------
Ronald W. Kaplan, President and Chief       J. L. Dickinson, Vice President and
    Executive Officer                           Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  April 2, 2007


This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by Continental Global Group, Inc. for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
Act, except to the extent that Continental Global Group, Inc. specifically
incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Mason, Appellant.

[722 NYS2d 840]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]). Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in allowing a witness to testify to a conversation that she overheard. The witness testified that the conversation was between her neighbor and a man she believed to be defendant, but she was unable to identify defendant’s voice. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly allowed the testimony. The identity of a party to a conversation may be established by circumstantial evidence *(see, People v Lynes,*49 NY2d 286, 291-292; *see also, People v Shapiro,*227 AD2d 506, 507, *lv denied*88 NY2d 1024). Here, the witness testified that she knows defendant, observed the car that he drives parked in front of her neighbor’s house, and, immediately after the conversation ended, observed defendant leave her neighbor’s house and drive away. Those circumstances provide sufficient “indices of reliability” *(People v Lynes, supra,*at 291-292) to allow the jury to determine whether defendant was the other party to the conversation.

The court properly allowed the emergency room physician to testify concerning the type of force necessary to cause the victim’s injuries because it involved a matter that is not within the ken of the average juror *(see, People v Eberle,*265 AD2d 881, 882). The admissibility of expert testimony, even when it concerns an ultimate issue to be determined by the jury, is within the sound discretion of the trial court *(see, People v Miller,*91 NY2d 372, 379; *People v Cronin,*60 NY2d 430, 433). *894The conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wisner, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present: Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Burns, JJ.