alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Del Laboratories, Inc.:



We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
033-64777, 333-92249 and 333-91134) on Form S-8 of Del Laboratories, Inc. of our
report dated February 24, 2004, except as to note 6 which is as of March 12,
2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Del Laboratories, Inc.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the related consolidated
statements of earnings, shareholders' equity, and cash flows and the financial
statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form
10-K/A of Del Laboratories, Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP


Melville, New York
December 2, 2004





<PAGE>
NUMBER 13-11-00224-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ALEJANDRO LOPEZ AND LINDA LOPEZ, APPELLANTS,

v.

ALICE ENTERPRISES, INC., APPELLEES. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 79th District Court 

of Jim Wells County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, Alejandro Lopez and Linda Lopez, appealed a judgment entered by 

the 79th District Court of Jim Wells County, Texas. On May 16, 2011, the Clerk of this

Court notified appellants, in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), 

that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $175.00 filing fee was paid. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellants have not responded to the notice from the Clerk or paid the 
2

$175.00 filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 12.1(b). Appellee has filed a motion to 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and for failure of appellants to comply with 

requirement of rules.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants’ failure to pay 

the filing fee, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 42.3(b),(c). 

Accordingly, appellee’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED for 

want of prosecution. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

14th day of July, 2011.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7498

ELBERT SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:19-cv-00523-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: March 18, 2021 Decided: March 22, 2021

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elbert Smith, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Elbert Smith, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 

as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & 

n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, 

running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez, 565 

U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Smith’s 

motion for the appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
tln2016930ex101







JOINDER TO CONSENT AGREEMENT Reference is made to that certain Consent Agreement, dated as of April 26, 2016 and effective as of the Consent Effective Date (as defined therein) (as the same may be amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Consent Agreement”), among TALEN ENERGY SUPPLY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Borrower”), CITIBANK, N.A., as administrative agent (in such capacity, together with any permitted successor thereto, the “Administrative Agent”) and as collateral trustee (in such capacity, together with any permitted successor thereto, the “Collateral Trustee”), and the Lenders (as defined therein) party thereto.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Consent Agreement.  Each of the undersigned Lenders hereby accedes to the Consent Agreement as a Lender party thereto and agrees to and acknowledges each of the provisions thereunder in all respects, including, without limitation, the consent and waiver set forth in Section 2 thereof.  Each such Lender further acknowledges that the Consent Effective Date occurred on June 2, 2016 and the Consent Agreement is in full force and effect as of such date pursuant to the terms of Section 5.1 thereof. The Consent Agreement is hereby supplemented by adding each of the undersigned Lenders as a Lender party thereto with the same effect as if each such Lender were an original signatory to the Consent Agreement in such capacity on the date of its execution.  For the avoidance of doubt, the Borrower hereby acknowledges that each of the undersigned Lenders shall be deemed to have delivered its counterpart signature page to the Consent Agreement at or prior to 1:00 p.m. on April 26, 2016 for purposes of receiving the Consent Fee set forth in Section 6.1 of the Consent Agreement.           Except as supplemented hereby, all of the terms and conditions of the Consent Agreement are unaffected and shall continue to be in full force and effect and shall be binding on the parties thereto in accordance with its terms.  Each reference to the Consent Agreement therein or in any agreement, document or instrument executed and delivered in connection with the Proposed Transfer or in any other agreement, document or instrument shall mean and constitute a reference to the Consent Agreement as supplemented hereby.  This Joinder to the Consent Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall be governed by, and construed and interpreted in accordance with, the law of the State of New York. By its acceptance hereof, the Borrower hereby ratifies and confirms its obligations under the Consent Agreement, as supplemented hereby. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]





 












 












 












 






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed and delivered this Joinder to the Consent Agreement as of this day of , 2016. MIZUHO BANK, LTD. By: N e: Nelson h g Title: Authori ed ignatory [Signature Page to Joinder to Consent Agreement] 26th September
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 April 25, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-13481

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-01236-CV-ORL-31-JGG

RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY,

In Liquidation,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SAFEHARBOR EMPLOYER SERVICES I, INC.,

the surviving corporation of a merger with Able

Staffing & Leasing, Inc., f.k.a. BNA Group II, Inc.,

PROFESSIONAL STAFFING-A.B.T.S., INC.,

a Florida Corporation,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(April 25, 2007)

Before BIRCH and FAY, Circuit Judges, and DUFFEY,* District Judge.

__________________________________________________________________

*Honorable William S. Duffey, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District

of Georgia, sitting by designation.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants challenge the final judgments entered in this matter following a

non-jury trial. We have carefully studied the briefs of the parties and considered

the issues raised. After review of the record, we find no merit in the appellants’

contentions. The judgments are therefore

AFFIRMED.
# C_2013347EN.01000301.xml

| 28.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7067 — 3i/Scandferries Holdings)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 347/03

On 18 November 2013, 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 32013M7067. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7067. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---
#### WEST COAST INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BARBER.

No. 39172.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3181

To redesignate the J. Edgar Hoover Federal Bureau of Investigation Building

located at Ninth and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, as

the Federal Bureau of Investigation Building.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 29, 1993

Mr. MORAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Public Work’s and Transportation

A BILL

To redesignate the J. Edgar Hoover Federal Bureau of Investigation Building located at Ninth and Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, as the Federal Bureau

of Investigation Building.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION AND RENAMING OF THE FED4 ERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION BUILDING.

5 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The J. Edgar Hoover Federal

6 Bureau of Investigation Building located at Ninth and

7 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, is redesig8 nated as the Federal Bureau of Investigation Building.
2

HR 3181 IH

1 (b) SIGNS.—The Administrator of the General Serv2 ices Administration shall cause all signs and engravings

3 designating the J. Edgar Hoover Federal Bureau of Inves4 tigation Building to read the Federal Bureau of Investiga5 tion Building.

6 (c) LEGAL REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law,

7 regulation, document, record, map, or other paper of the

8 United States to the J. Edgar Hoover Federal Bureau of

9 Investigation Building shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Federal Bureau of Investigation Building’’.

Æ
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 97-41186

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

NOEMI DUARTE FREEMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(C-94-CR-68-7)

______________________________________________________

December 18, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After a careful review of the record and based upon the briefs

and argument of counsel, the judgment of the district court is

affirmed essentially for the reasons assigned by the district court

in its careful opinion of June 25, 1997. 

AFFIRMED. 
2
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3050 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3050

 To expand the boundaries of the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation 
                                 Area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 13, 1993

 Mr. Bilbray introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To expand the boundaries of the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation 
                                 Area.

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

SECTION 1. BOUNDARY EXPANSION.

    Section 3(a)(2) of the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area 
Establishment Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 460ccc-1(a)(2)) is amended to read 
as follows:
            ``(2) The conservation area shall consist of approximately 
        176,500 acres as generally depicted on a map entitled `Red Rock 
        Canyon National Conservation Area--Proposed Expansion', 
        numbered NV-RRCNCA-002, and dated August 1993.''.

                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of North American Scientific, Inc. (“Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2003, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, L. MichaelCutrer, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange of 1934; and

 

(2)     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  March 7, 2003 |                                   |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                      |
| By:                       | /s/ L.  Michael Cutrer                 |   |
|                      | L. Michael  Cutrer                     |
|                      | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                           |                                        |  |  |

 

----
CHARLES CASTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

aka ELIJAH MUHAMMAD, JR., Plaintiff,**III~II~I_------** 

# FILED FEB 

## 1 J 2009**NAN~Y**MAYER WHITT. . U.S. D1STftt!T

### ~~Q,fR«

v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 

# 09 0281 SWITZERLAND, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on review ofplaintiffs application to proceed in formapauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint. The court must dismiss a complaint ifit is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted. 28 U.S.c. § 1915(E)(1)(B). InNeitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the Supreme Court states that the trial court has the authorityto dismiss not only claims based on an indisputablymeritless legal theory, but also claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios fall into the category of cases whose factual contentions are clearlybaseless. Id. at 328. The trial court has the discretion to decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged are irrational orwhollyincredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Plaintiffalleges that defendants, among which are a foreign nation and professional sports teams, have violated unspecified rights protected bythe Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth 1,,11111_1____ _

Amendments to the United States Constitution. He further alleges that defendants have stolen oil paintings and photographs from him and have deprived him ofsleep. Plaintiffdemands the replacement ofall courtjudges and all police officers, as well as the return ofproperty seized by Switzerland. The court is mindful that complaints filed bypro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted bylawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Having reviewed plaintiffs complaint, it appears that its factual contentions are baseless and whollyincredible. Forthis reason, the complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

Date:

## ~. ;).

## ~I D2.0t)

# 'I

2
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 26 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-170695) and Amendment No. 435 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 12, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.


 


 


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP












Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


November 10, 2016
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pharmacyclics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert W. Duggan, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:




(1)  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/ ROBERT W. DUGGANRobert W. DugganChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerMay 7, 2010





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pharmacyclics, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Rainer M. Erdtmann, Vice President, Finance and Administration and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:




(1)  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/ RAINER M. ERDTMANNRainer M. ErdtmannVice President, Finance and Administration and Secretary (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)May 7, 2010
# C_2014066EN.01000101.xml

| 6.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 66/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66/1

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Ukraine

2014/C 66/01

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Ukraine.

1

2

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the above mentioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2014/119/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Ukraine. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web sites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 208/2014, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 26.

1

(2)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 1.

2

---
##### 



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 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vodavi Technology, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory K. Roeper, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ Gregory K. Roeper
Gregory K. Roeper
Chief Executive Officer
April 27, 2005