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

Exhibit 23.3

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form S-1 of Merrill Corporation of our report dated April 27, 2000 relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Merrill Corporation which appears in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the references to us under the headings
"Experts" and "Selected Historical Consolidated Financial Data" in such Registration Statement.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
St. Paul, Minnesota
August 25, 2000

---

## QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.7

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

The Management of
CS Integrated LLC and Subsidiaries

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of CS Integrated
LLC (a Limited Liability Company) and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and
1998, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in members'
equity, and cash flows for the years then ended. These consolidated financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial
statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An
audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of CS Integrated LLC
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.

                                       KPMG LLP


January 24, 2000, except as to the
fourth paragraph of note 4 which is
as of March 21, 2000
<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.1
                CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Annual Report of Coram Healthcare Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Allen
J. Marabito, Executive Vice President and principal executive officer fulfilling
the duties and responsibilities of president and 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; 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/  ALLEN J. MARABITO
                              --------------------------------------------------
                                               Allen J. Marabito
                                            Executive Vice President, Secretary
                                and Principal Executive Officer Fulfilling the
                              Duties and Responsibilities of President and Chief
                                     Executive Officer of the Corporation

Date:  April 14, 2004
# C_2013211EN.01000201.xml

| 25.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

24 July 2013

2013/C 211/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3246 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,60 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4583 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86260 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,5521 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2388 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7845 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,930 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 295,59 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7025 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2075 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3903 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,5278 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4361 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3604 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2753 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6606 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6764 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 474,50 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,7500 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,1264 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4953 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 617,35 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2222 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,262 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 42,8003 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,983 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9396 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5509 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,2570 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3246

JPY

Japanese yen

132,60

DKK

Danish krone

7,4583

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86260

SEK

Swedish krona

8,5521

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2388

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7845

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,930

HUF

Hungarian forint

295,59

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7025

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2075

RON

Romanian leu

4,3903

TRY

Turkish lira

2,5278

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4361

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3604

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2753

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6606

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6764

KRW

South Korean won

1 474,50

ZAR

South African rand

12,7500

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,1264

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4953

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 617,35

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2222

PHP

Philippine peso

57,262

RUB

Russian rouble

42,8003

THB

Thai baht

40,983

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9396

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5509

INR

Indian rupee

78,2570

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Exhibit 13.1

                    PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with this Annual Report of CalPetro Tankers (Bahamas II) Limited
(the "Company") on Form 20-F for the annual period ended December 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tor Olav Troim, the Principal 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; and

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

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date:  June 26, 2007


/s/ Tor Olav Troim
------------------
    Tor Olav Troim
    Principal Executive Officer
# C_2016346EN.01015101.xml

| 21.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/151 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/151

---

P8_TA(2015)0117

Rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 April 2015 on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (codified text) (COM(2014)0534 — C8-0212/2014 — 2014/0246(NLE))

(Consultation — codification)

(2016/C 346/37)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2014)0534), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2014)0534),

| — | having regard to Article 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0212/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0212/2014),

| — | having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 — Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 — Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1),

1

| — | having regard to Rules 103 and 59 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 103 and 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0047/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0047/2014),

| A. | whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance;

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

1

---
Ed Feltcorn Ed Feltcorn /

/ DC / USEPA / US 10/29/2007 02:17 PM To Raymond Lee/DC/USEPA/US@EPA cc bcc Subject Fw: Don Hancock comments
----- Forwarded by Ed Feltcorn/DC/USEPA/US on 10/29/2007 02:15 PM -----

Ed Feltcorn Ed Feltcorn /

/ DC / USEPA / US 10/09/2007 12:46 PM To Court Fesmire, j .r.stroble@wipp.ws cc Subject Don Hancock comments
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Village Medical Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Stephane Philogene, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Citiwide Auto Leasing Ins. Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Darya Klein, Esq.), for appellant.Miller, Leiby &amp; Associates, P.C. (Melissa M. Wolin, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered December 10, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the affirmation defendant submitted from the doctor who was to perform the IMEs of plaintiff's assignor was sufficient to establish that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs (<a href="../2006/2006_09604.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720</a> [2006]), and defendant established that the denial of claim forms which denied plaintiff's claims on that ground had been timely mailed (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]). Furthermore, plaintiff's argument regarding the tolling of defendant's time to pay or deny the claim lacks merit (<i>see Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.</i>, 38 Misc 3d 143[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50258[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2013]; <i>cf. <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.</i>, 262 AD2d 553 [1999]). Plaintiff's remaining contention is similarly without merit.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed. </p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 22, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-575

In Re: JOHN H. LEA, JR.,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 1997

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John H. Lea, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John H. Lea, Jr., a federal prisoner, brought this petition

for writ of mandamus alleging that the district court had unduly

delayed acting on a matter pending before it. Lea alleges that he

filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) motion in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division in

December 1994. Lea did not submit any portion of the district court

record to aid in understanding the matter set forth in the petition. See Fed. R. App. P. 21(a). The Alexandria Division of the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

has no record of any pending actions involving Lea before it, nor

does it have any record of any action filed in December 1994. We

therefore deny the petition.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### In re Validation of $1,875,000 URBAN RENEWAL BONDS, CITY OF LAUREL, JONES COUNTY, Mississippi, Dated May 1, 1971. Shirley LEE et al. v. CITY OF LAUREL.

No. 46524.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 14, 1971.

Rehearing Denied July 9, 1971.

*803L. Percy Ouinn, Laurel, for appellant.

Deavours, Weems & Gilchrist, Laurel, for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Presiding Justice:

This is an appeal by Shirley Lee (objector) from a decree of the Chancery Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County, Mississippi, validating $1,875,000 urban renewal bonds proposed to be issued by the City of Laurel to finance the aiding, planning and carrying out of urban renewal projects in the City of Laurel. Another case decided this day involved the same bond issue. Wilson, et al. v. City of Laurel, Miss., 249 So.2d 801.

The objections of Shirley Lee in the trial court raised questions not before us on appeal. It is contended in this Court that the City of Laurel failed to comply with the applicable statutes and that certain resolutions of the City of Laurel are vague and indefinite and are of no legal effect. We have carefully considered the contentions of the objector and find no merit therein. Moreover, it is our considered Opinión'‘that a discussion of these various statutes and the resolutions of the governing body of the City of Laurel would serve no useful purpose.

Therefore, the decree validating the aforesaid bonds is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

RODGERS, JONES, BRADY and IN-ZER, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.2

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, Robert T. Knight,
hereby constitutes and appoints William H. Parsons his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, for him and his name, place and stead, in any and
all capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB of Data Dimensions, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1996, and any amendments or
supplements thereto, and to file this Power of Attorney and the Form 10-KSB,
with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Nasdaq National Market System,
granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and
perform each and every each and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and
about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do
in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and
agent, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         Dated this 25th day of March, 1997.



Signature:



/s/  ROBERT T. KNIGHT
-----------------------
Robert T. Knight
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 3, 2018

Decided May 17, 2018

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 17‐3392

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

COREY A. WILLIAMS,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of

Illinois.

No. 4:00‐CR‐40065‐JPG‐1

J. Phil Gilbert,

Judge.

O R D E R

In 2001, Corey Williams was found guilty of conspiring to distribute crack,

possessing with intent to distribute crack, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

He received a sentence of life imprisonment. In 2003, he filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied it, and we denied

Williams’s request for a certificate of appealability. He then asked this court for

permission to file a successive § 2255 motion, which we denied in 2005.

Since then, Williams has repeatedly attempted to file unauthorized successive

§ 2255 petitions with the district court, disguising them as motions for relief from

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 17‐3392    Page 2

judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). One of those motions, filed in 2017 in his original

criminal case, is before us now.   

The district court cautioned Williams that if he did not withdraw the Rule 60(b)

motion at issue here, it would construe it as a successive petition. He did not do so, and

the district court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Because the district court

dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, Williams needed to obtain a certificate of

appealability in order to appeal the dismissal. United States v. Carraway, 478 F.3d 845,

849 (7th Cir. 2007). He does not expressly seek one here, but in the absence of an express

request, his notice of appeal constitutes a request. West v. Schneiter, 485 F.3d 393, 394–95

(7th Cir. 2007). Nonetheless, the district court correctly interpreted the Rule 60(b)

motion as an unauthorized successive collateral attack, so we DENY a certificate of

appealability, see Sveum v. Smith, 403 F.3d 447, 448 (7th Cir. 2005), and DISMISS this

appeal.
#### Roy Lee SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-464.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 21, 1973.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and John W. Watson, III, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and H. Tucker Cotten, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. .

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60345 Conference Calendar

ELLIS MANN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LEON SMITH; MAXINE SMITH; JOHN DOES, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:04-CV-469-GuRo

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ellis Mann appeals the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit seeking to have custody of his daughter restored to him. He argues that the dismissal was erroneous because the district court had jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as he has recently moved to California. The district court lacked the authority to assume jurisdiction over Mann’s attempt to modify the terms of a state-No. 04-60345 -2- court child custody order. See Rykers v. Alford , 832 F.2d 895, 900 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Chrissy F. by Medley v. Miss. Dept. of Public Welfare , 995 F.2d 595, 599 (5th Cir. 1993). The appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2; Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). We caution Mann that the filing of frivolous appeals and motions will invite the imposition of a sanction.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.