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

                                  EXHIBIT 23.2

September 12, 2000


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
Composite Solutions, Inc. ("CSI") on Form S-8 of the following reports: our
report dated 1/13/2000, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of CSI for
the year ended December 31, 1999 and our report dated 5/26/2000, appearing in
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of CSI for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2000.


/s/ Peterson & Company
San Diego, California







                                       7
#### Steven WASHINGTON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-14.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 19, 1971.

Steven Washington, Jr., in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Warren H. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

*787ON MOTION TO DISMISS

MANN, Judge.

All that the record before us shows is that the Public Defender for the Sixth Circuit filed in the trial court a motion to withdraw, which was granted. The appellant filed a motion to reinstate the Public Defender, which was denied. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute the appeal. It seems too much to expect the appellant without assistance of counsel to prepare and file assignments of error and directions to the clerk. Whether there is arguable merit in the appeal is a question which must be determined on more than we now have. Accordingly, we deny the motion to dismiss and request that the Public Defender for the Twelfth Circuit, who has been authorized by law to handle appeals within this district, represent him.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                               Exhibit 23

                                                              [Letterhead]
                                                          Deloitte & Touche LLP
                                                          Two Prudential Plaza
                                                        180 North Stetson Avenue
                                                         Chicago, Illinois 60601



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
-----------------------------



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-86790 of John Deere Capital Corporation on Form S-3 of our report dated
November 19, 2002, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of John Deere
Capital Corporation for the year ended October 31, 2002, and to the reference to
us under the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of such
Registration Statement.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Chicago, Illinois

December 19, 2002
#### Floyd Lee WHITE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43493.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 21, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 272 So.2d 209.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. ABRAHA M GO NZALEZ - LOPE Z, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 09- 10357 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 3 2 3 - L DG ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da L l oy d D . G e or ge , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B e f o r e : S I L V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN .R . S M I T H , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . A braham G on za l ez -L op ez appeal s f rom the 84 -m on th sent ence i m po se d fol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty- pl eaconv i ct i on for bei ng a deport ed al i en foun d i n the U ni t ed S t at es , i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6, and from the 9-m on th sent ence i m po se d 

# FI LED OC T 04 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 10357 2 up o n r e v o c a tio n o f

s up e rv is e dr e le a s e . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f

f i rm. G o n z a le z - L o p e z c o n te n d s th a t h is s e n te n c e is s ub s tan tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le b e c au s e , a m o n g o th e rth in g s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t g iv e a d e q u a te w e ig h t to h is m i t i ga t i ng f

a c t or s . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notpr oc e dur a l l ye rri n i m pos i ng G o n z a le z - L o p e z ’s s e n te n c e . Se e U ni te d States v . R es s am , 59 3 F . 3d 10 95 (9th C i r. 2 0 1 0 ) ; see a l

so U n ite d Sta tes v . Ca r ty , 52 0 F . 3d 98 4, 99 1-93 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc). M oreover, i n l i gh tof the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s, i ncl ud i ng G on za l ez L ope z ’ s e xt e ns i ve c r i m i na l r e c or d and i m m i gr a t i on hi s t oryi nc l udi ng f i ve d e p o rta tio n s , h is w ith in g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e is s ub s tan tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . Se e G a ll v. U ni ted States , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ; s e e a ls o Ca r ty , 520 F . 3d a t991- 93. AF F I RME D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME FROM THE COMPANY'S 1995
ANNUAL REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,092,894
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    139,423
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         245,455
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       251,644
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 137,249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,866,685
<COMMON>                                       136,713
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      504,865
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            281,862
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 923,440
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    168,085
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           853,904
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              63,154
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    1,485
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     20,768
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                12,604
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 823,245
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,866,685
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      995,103
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            73,561
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     743,136
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     816,697
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        178,406
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               5,411
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 183,817
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        66,329
<NET-INCOME>                                   117,488
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      9,942
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  107,546
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        92,686
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       61,511
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         239,428
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.79
        

</TABLE>
#### MELFI CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellant, v. COASTAL THEATERS, INC., Appellee.

No. 72-355.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 27, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 23, 1973.

James A. Week, of Week & Stone, Pompano Beach, for appellant.

Louis M. Jepeway, Jr., of Jepeway Gassen & Jepeway, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. The final judgment was entered in favor of the defendant on its counterclaim. There was no evidentiary basis to support the final judgment which was an apparent attempt to enforce what the appellee here, defendant below, characterizes as a stipulation for settlement. In our opinion, the so-called stipulation provided no evidentiary or other basis for *342the final judgment for several reasons. In the first place, it appears that the stipulated method for settling the cause was-abandoned by the parties. Secondly, the stipulation was unenforceable for failure to conform with Rule 1.030(d), RCP, 30 F.S.A. Finally, it appears that the final judgment ignored certain of the provisions in the stipulation which provided a credit in favor of the plaintiff. For the foregoing reasons, the final judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to afford the parties a trial on the issues raised by the pleadings, without regard to the stipulation agreement.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                              Washington D.C. 20549


                                    FORM 6-K


                            REPORT OF FOREIGN ISSUER
                    PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16 OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                        For the month of September, 2000




                               724 SOLUTIONS INC.




                          4101 Yonge Street, Suite 702
                        Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2P 1N6
                    (Address of principal executive offices)


       Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
       reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F

                  Form 20-F         X         Form 40-F
                            ----------------            ---------------

       Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the
       information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the
       information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the
       Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                  Yes                 No      X
                     ----------------    ------------

       If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
       registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b):

                  82-      N.A.
                     ---------------

<PAGE>

                               724 SOLUTIONS INC.
                                    Form 6-K

                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             PAGE
                                                                             ----
<S>                                                                          <C>

Signatures                                                                    3

     724 Solutions Inc. - Material Change Report on Section 75(2) of the     Exhibit
     Securities Act (Ontario) - 724 Solutions Acquires Spyonit.com             99.1

</TABLE>










                                        2

<PAGE>


                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

                                        724 SOLUTIONS INC.


                                        By:   /s/ Karen Basian
                                              ------------------------------
                                              Name: Karen Basian
                                              Title: Chief Financial Officer


Date:  September 19, 2000


                                       3
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroom

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

## Edward J. Welniak

### Chief, Income Statistics BranchHousing and Household Economic Statistics Division

Ed Welniak is chief of the Income Statistics Branch in the Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division at the U.S. Census Bureau. The branch is primarily responsible for collecting, processing, analyzing and publishing income data collected in the Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement, the American Community Survey and the decennial census.

Welniak began his federal career at the Census Bureau in 1978 as a statistician. He received his bachelor's degree in applied statistics from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. He lives in Southern Maryland with his wife, Kim, and their two children.

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

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
## The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

NATHAN P. WILSON 300 DEXTER AVENUE LYNN DEVAUGHN CLERK MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104-3741 ASSISTANT CLERK TELEPHONE 334-229-0733 June 14, 2024 CL-2023-0792 A.A. v. Lauderdale County Department of Human Resources (Appeal from Lauderdale Juvenile Court: JU-22-137.04).

ORDER You are hereby notified that the following action was taken in the above cause by the Court of Civil Appeals: Application for Rehearing Overruled. No opinion written on rehearing. Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, Fridy, and Lewis, JJ., concur.

Nathan P. Wilson, Clerk
<PAGE>
  
                                                  EXHIBIT 13.d
  CORPORATE INFORMATION
  
  Crown Central Petroleum Corporation is one of the
  largest independent refiners and  marketers of petroleum
  products in the United States.  The Company operates two
  high-conversion  refineries in Texas with a combined
  capacity of 152,000 barrels per day.  Crown markets its
  refined products at 336 retail gasoline stations and
  convenience stores in seven Mid-Atlantic and
  Southeastern states.  Crown's wholesale operations
  extend from its Texas refineries into the Southeastern,
  Mid-Atlantic and Midwestern regions of the United States
  via 13 product terminals along the Colonial, Plantation
  and Texas Eastern Products pipelines.
  
  By concentrating on its core business and maintaining a
  strong financial position, Crown is able to offer
  quality products to its customers and long-term value to
  its shareholders.
#### Stephen B. PASKIND, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43205.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 22, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 14, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

The Washington Department of Ecology is seeking final authorization from 

the·U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a state dangerous 

waste program in lieu of. the federal program. In this regard, the Department has submitted an application to the EPA and expect to receive final 

authorization on January 26, 1984. 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PL&~

Th~ public was' notified. of 't.he, comment period via the major newspapers inthe state, i.e., the Seattle Times, Bellingham Hearald, Vancouver 

Columbian, Tacoma ,-News Tribune, Yakima Hearald Republic'" t:he Tri-City 

Hearald, and the Spokesman Review. The comment period began on May 11, 

1984 and ended on'June, 11,1984. 

( -r" , : \ II... ··. >\'; '-./..( 

1 -.I Jl , . 

Public hearings 

DATE 

were a~so.conduct~~ as 

PLACE 

follows: 

TIME 

June 5, 1984 Port of Seattle' 

Commissioners, Chamber.s 

" , 2201 Alaskan Way South 

Pier 66' 

Seattle, Washington 

7: 00 p.m. 

June 6, 1984 Spokane County Health 

District 

Auditorium 

W. 1101 College 

Spokane, Washington 

7:00 p.m. 

'June 11, 1984 Washington Department of 

Ecology (ROWESIX) 

4224 - 6th Avenue S.E. 

Building 4 

Olympia, Washington 

2: 00 p.m. 

// 

" •....,...... 

" 

There were no questions or comments 

application at any of the hearings. 

received during the comment period. 

concerning the final 

However, two written 

authorization 

comments were 
".
 

- \

RES·P·ONSE TO COMMENTORS ()) 

,.;. ~", . 

;.;., 

.....\ 

" ~"~' ' 

. -.-."; 

.........,..
 

Comment #1 from the United States Department of Interior Bureau of Indian '
 

Affairs ....
 

The commentor opposes the approval and authorization of a state .progr~ by
 

the EPA on the basis that the program asserts its authC?rity' to regulate the
 

activities of Indians on reservation land~.
 

Comment #2 from the Colville Confederated Tribes 

Commentor opposes the approval ofa ~tate' prograIIl on' the basis that it may 

: give. the state administrative and enforcement °authority wit.hin the boundaries 'of the Colvii.le .Indian Reservation'. ' .', .. : ": .-'\..;.. 

Response to Both Comments 

The D.ep'artment "is seeking authority, t'o ,regulate ~-:::ALL~ ba~a~c:lpus waste
 

activities in the state 'including federal 'and reservation lands•
 

• : .:.'~ '"t' • .. .' 

",' ...,." ...~. '. . 

\. r ,_.' (-''''''' :,~~'l\f:r: ", ,,"':' ?:' '.: o;' ~.':.:, •• : ',' : .•:•..• - "".l,!..',~~ _ '•.,. 

' 

.. ,. .. "'.;""",".". . Jf • .' .," -".. ••,. • • - •• "", '" . ."••, I , , -I.,.
#### John H. ANDERSON and Noemie L. Anderson v. Jessie B. WEST, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company.

No. 61834.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 31, 1978.

In re: John H. Anderson and Noemie L. Anderson, applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 354 So.2d 636.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS, J., vote to grant.
#### Cleveland CLARK, as father of Joseph James Clark, a minor, deceased, and Cleveland Clark, individually, Appellant, v. CITY OF ORLANDO, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. 1586.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 17, 1968.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Parker Lee McDonald, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### BANKERS LIFE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Hubert B. WALKER and Tressie C. Walker, his wife, Appellees.

No. 71-609.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 24, 1972.

Herman T. Isis, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Thomas E. Kirkland, of Kirkland & Kirkland, Orlando, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

REED, C. J., MAGER, J„ and CARLTON, CHARLES T., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Boyce Lee RUSSELL, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent. Boyce Lee RUSSELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 71-713, 71-983.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 31, 1972.

*376Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, Charles W. Musgrove and Edward H. Fine, Asst. Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellees.

OWEN, Judge.

Boyce Lee Russell was convicted of first degree murder with recommendation of mercy, and sentenced to life imprisonment. No direct appeal was taken, but by means of writ of habeas corpus we have afforded to him delayed appellate review of his conviction.

Before this court Russell contends that (1) the identification of the deceased victim was not proved with the requisite sufficiency and (2) he was deprived of a fair and impartial trial because the prosecution used a member of the victim’s family as a witness. Neither point has merit.

As to identification of the deceased victim, we find that the record affirmatively establishes such identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

As to the use of the victim’s son as a state witness, his testimony was directed to relevant matters other than mere identification of the victim. More importantly, however, the defendant did not make any objection to the witness testifying, nor make objection to any question propounded to the witness, nor move to strike any of the witnesses’ testimony, nor in any other manner make known to the trial court any claim of prejudice arising out of the state’s use of the victim’s son as a witness. The absence of a timely objection at trial will preclude a consideration of the issue on appeal. Rowe v. State, 1935, 120 Fla. 649, 163 So. 22; McGriff v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 454; Powell v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 146. The argument submitted here that this is “fundamental error” and thus necessarily entitles Russell to a new trial despite the absence of any timely objection in the trial court, is unsound and has been answered by our opinion in the case of Barrett v. State, Fla.App., 266 So.2d 373, opinion filed this day.

Having given petitioner the benefit of a full appellate review of his conviction and sentence (on the basis of the record, briefs and oral argument before this court), we conclude that there is no need to disturb the judgment and sentence reviewed, that petitioner is not unlawfully in custody, and that the writ should be and is hereby discharged.

CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
No. 11470.

#### The City of Columbus et al. *v.*Krigbaum.

Decided January 18, 1910.

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Mr. George S. Marshall,*city solicitor, and *Messrs. Weinland, Hoover, Carter & Davies,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Arnold, Morton & Irvine,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur. Summers, C. J., dissents.