alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Viatel, Inc.:


    The audits referred to in our report dated March 1, 2000, included the
related financial statement schedule as of December 31, 1999 and for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999, included in and
incorporated by reference in the registration statement. This financial
statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial statement schedule
based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a
whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein.


    We consent to the use of our reports incorporated herein by reference and to
the references to our firm under the headings "Selected Consolidated Financial
Data" and "Experts" in the prospectus.

                                        /s/ KPMG LLP
                                          KPMG LLP


New York, New York
August 24, 2000
#### HERLONG AVIATION, INC., Petitioner, v. Ray W. JOHNSON and Rita L. Johnson, his wife, Respondents.

No. 43431.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 10, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 15, 1974.

*604Robert E. Banker and Edward M. Waller, Jr., of Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey, Kinney & Boggs, Tampa, and Smith, Hul-sey, Schwalbe, Spraker & Nichols, Jacksonville, for petitioner.

Ronald H. Schnell of Carr & Schnell, St. Petersburg, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, reported at 271 So.2d 226. The District Court has certified its decision as one passing on a question of great public interest, to-wit:

> “Can a plaintiff recover for mental pain and anguish in the absence of impact?”

The District Court, in reversing summary judgment for defendants and reinstating plaintiff’s complaint, answered the certified question in the affirmative, but recognized that such result was at variance with the controlling precedent in Florida.

The issue presented on certification has been fully considered by this Court and answered in the negative in Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So.2d 593. We are therefore compelled to quash the decision of the District Court insofar as it permits a plaintiff to recover for mental pain and anguish in the absence of impact. Specifically, the reinstatement by the District Court of Count III of the plaintiff’s complaint was error.

In all other respects, the decision below is approved, and the cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determine d 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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 97-50718

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUZ MARIA URIAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

(P-97-CR-13-1)

______________________________________________

May 25, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Luz Maria Urias appeals her conviction following a jury trial

for possession of marihuana with the intent to distribute. She

argues that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that she

knowingly possessed the marihuana, which was contained in two links2

of PVC pipe wired underneath the truck she was dr iving. We

disagree.

Viewing the evidence in th e light most favorable to the

verdict, we find that the government produced sufficient evidence

to sustain the jury’s finding that Uria s knowingly possessed the

marihuana hidden in the carriage of her truck. To begin with,

Urias had control over the truck in which the drugs were concealed.

United States v. Sacerio

, 952 F.2d 86 0, 866 (5th Cir. 1992). In

addition, Urias was nervous and evasive while being questioned by

United States Border Patrol Agent Rodolfo Garcia. This behavior

supports an inference that Urias was aware of the drugs hidden in

her truck. U nited States v. Diaz-Carreon

, 915 F.2d 951, 954-55

(5th Cir. 1990). Finally, the jury was free to credit Garcia’s

testimony that Urias asked him why she was being arrested for

marihuana before he had informed her that the substance found in

the two links of PVC pipe was in fact marihuana.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2015217EN.01002301.xml

| 2.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/23

---

Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU — Suspension of the deadline

Request made by a Contracting Entity

(2015/C 217/09)

On 16 January 2015 the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 19 January 2015.

1

This request is made by Flughafen Wien and concerns activities relating to the exploitation of a geographical area for the purposes of provision of airports or other terminal facilities to carriers by air on the territory of Austria. The relevant notice was published in the OJ C 93 of 20 March 2015, page 22.

Pursuant to Annex IV, paragraph 1, point b of Directive 2014/25/EU, the Commission is allowed a period of 130 working days to take a decision on this request. This initial period expires on 30 July 2015.

Pursuant to Annex IV, point 2 of Directive 2014/25/EU, the Commission may require the Member State or the applicant or the independent national authority competent or any other competent national authority to provide all necessary information or to supplement or clarify information given within the appropriate time limit. On 27 February 2015 the Commission asked Flughafen Wien to provide additional information by 13 March 2015. On 20 April 2015 the Commission asked the Austrian authorities to provide additional information by 18 May 2015.

Pursuant to Annex IV, point 2, second phrase of Directive 2014/25/EU in case of late or incomplete answers to the Commission’s request for clarification or for the additional information, the period of 130 days as set out above, shall be suspended for the period between the expiry of the time limit set in the request for information and the receipt of the complete and correct information.

The final deadline will therefore expire after 90 working days after the receipt of complete and correct information.

---

(1)  OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243.

1

---
#### Conoiso Servando FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-476.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 2, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Record of Discussion

Docket No. FAA
- 

### 2013 - 0204 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2012 - NM - 229
- AD **With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc**  **?** ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE A4A Jo e White 12/7/12 No response. Boeing Barry Bannister 12/7/12 No response.

Other/Additional Information:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       6,054,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,259,000
<PP&E>                                         959,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              95,634,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,069,000
<BONDS>                                          7,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       168,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  94,240,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                95,634,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,404,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,336,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,336,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,336,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.80)


</TABLE>
258 La. 967

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Sherman L. ROBERTS.

No. 51505.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 14, 1971.

In re: Sherman L. Roberts applying for writs of certiorari and mandamus.

Application granted. Bond reduced to $2500.00.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0626

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JESSICA ELAINE HURT,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension 

of time, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 22, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 10 2023

02/10/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0626
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 S.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ended March 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry H. Keener, 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 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|             |  |                                     
|------------ |  | ------------------------------------
|             | 
|By:          |  | /s/    LARRY H. KEENER              
|             |  | Larry H. Keener                     
|             |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|            
|June 4, 2007
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.4

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the
use of our report dated January 14, 2000, with respect to the financial
statements on Linc.net Inc. included in the Registration Statement (Form S-1
No. 33-XXXXX) and related Prospectus of Linc.net Inc. for the registration of
XX,XXX,XXX shares of its common stock.

MARDEN, HARRISON & KREUTER
Certified Public Accountants, P.C.

/s/ MARDEN, HARRISON & KREUTER, CPAS, P.C.

White Plains, New York
September 8, 2000
Opinion issued February 11, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00579-CV

———————————

ALEX LYON & SON SALES MANAGERS AND AUCTIONEERS, INC., 

Appellant

V.

TRUSTMARK NATIONAL BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2018-87986

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The parties, representing that they have reach a settlement, have filed a joint 

motion to vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss this appeal. The parties have 

filed a signed agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2). No opinion has issued. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(c).
2

Rule 42.1 authorizes this Court to set aside the trial court’s judgment without 

regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of a judgment 

in accordance with the agreement. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B); see also TEX. R.

APP. P. 43.2(d). 

Accordingly, without regard to the merits, we grant the parties’ motion, set 

aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case to 

the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B), 43.2(e).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Guerra.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

Michael 

### H. Scheible DeputyExecutive Officer California Air Re.sourcesBoard Post Office Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

On April 29, 2009, CARB submitted revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We have reviewed materials submitted with the following rules and found that they fulfill the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix 

### V.

This addresses all revisions in this submittal except for San Diego. 

### Inthe coming months we will review the complete revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 11 O(k). APCDIAQMD Sacramento Metro SanJoaquin Valley South Coast South Coast

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Cynthia 

### G. Allen at (4 15) 947-4 120. Sincerely, Rule # 450 4902 1156 1168

Deborah ~ordah Rule Title Graphic Arts Operations Residential Water Heaters Further Reductions of Particulate Emissions from Cement Manufacturing Facilities Adhesive and Sealant Applications

Director, Air Division

Printed on Recycled Paper

### Cc: Mr. Larry Greene, APCO Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Mr. Seyed Sadredin, APCO SanJoaquin ValleyUnified APCD Dr. Barry Wallerstein Executive Officer South Coast AQNID Mr. Jorge L. Fernandez, Chief Program Evaluation Branch, CARB
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Roy CLARK, Jr. and Brent Mikell.

No. 59482.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 1977.

James J. Gleason, III, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Woodrow W. Erwin, Dist. Atty., Kurt F. Sins, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2016310EN.01009501.xml

| 25.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/95 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/95

---

P8_TA(2015)0024

The accession of Albania to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 11 February 2015 on the proposal for a Council decision on the declaration of acceptance by the Member States, in the interest of the European Union, of the accession of Albania to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (COM(2011)0912 — C8-0262/2014 — 2011/0448(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2016/C 310/21)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2011)0912), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2011)0912),

| — | having regard to Article 38, fourth paragraph, of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 38, fourth paragraph, of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,

| — | having regard to Article 81(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0262/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 81(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0262/2014),

| — | having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice of 14 October 2014, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice of 14 October 2014,

| — | having regard to Rules 59 and 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 59 and 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0002/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0002/2015),

| 1. | Approves the proposal for a Council decision and approves the acceptance of the accession; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the proposal for a Council decision and approves the acceptance of the accession;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Albania. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Albania.

---
# C_2014414EN.01000801.xml

| 20.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/8

---

Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Union of melamine originating in the People’s Republic of China: change of the name of one company subject to the minimum import price

2014/C 414/05

Imports of melamine originating in the People’s Republic of China are subject either to a minimum import price or an anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 457/2011 (1) (‘Regulation (EU) No 457/2011’).

1

On 6 August 2014, Shandong Liaherd Chemical Industry Co., Ltd, a company subject to the minimum import price, notified the Commission of its change of name to Holitech Technology Co., Ltd.

The company argued that their change of name does not affect their right to continue to benefit from the minimum import price.

The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name in no way affects the findings of Regulation (EU) No 457/2011.

Therefore, the reference in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 457/2011 to:

Shandong Liaherd Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.

should be read as:

Holitech Technology Co., Ltd.

The TARIC additional code A987, previously attributed to Shandong Liaherd Chemical Industry Co., Ltd, shall apply to Holitech Technology Co., Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ L 124, 13.5.2011, p. 2.

1

---
# C_2015367EN.01000501.xml

| 5.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/5

---

EUROPEAN CHEMICALS AGENCY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2014

(2015/C 367/16)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13611/echa_annual_accounts_2014_en.pdf

---
CERTIFICATION

I, Maureen d. Schimmenti, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Donnkenny, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The Company's other certifying officers/employees and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules  13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e) for the Company and we have:

      a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
      being prepared;

      b. evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c. disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control
      over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent
      fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial
      reporting; and

5. The Company's other certifying officers/employees and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee
of the Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

      a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
      reasonable likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record,
      process, summarize, and report financial information; and

      b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control
      over financial reporting.


Date: March 30, 2004                      /s/ Maureen d. Schimmenti
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Maureen d. Schimmenti
                                          Vice President
                                          and Chief Financial Officer,
                                          (Principal Financial Officer)