alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-43981 and Form S-8 No. 33-63456) pertaining to the Stock Option Plans
of U.S. Bioscience, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-77376) and
related prospectus of U.S. Bioscience, Inc. for the registration of 1,096,634
shares of its common stock issuable upon exercise of certain warrants issued
pursuant to the January 19, 1995 settlement of certain class-action suits and
derivative litigations brought against U.S. Bioscience, Inc and the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-00077) and related prospectus of U.S. Bioscience,
Inc. for the registration of 8,142,578 shares of its common stock issuable in
connection with the December 1995 private placement, of our report dated
February 16, 1996, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of U.S.
Bioscience, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1995.



                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 20, 1996
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eagle Hospitality Properties Trust, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, J. William Blackham, President and 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; 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/ J. William Blackham              
|J. William Blackham                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|October 31, 2005
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Carolyn M. DELANEY, Appellee.

No. 87-663.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 23, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1987.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Erica M. Raffel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.

LEHAN, Judge.

We affirm the trial court’s suppression of evidence seized upon an unlawful stop of the car in which defendant was a passenger.

The car was parked during daylight hours in a parking lot of a bar in an area where narcotics were known to be distributed. The arresting officer had seen no more activity involving the car than that a man approached, leaned into, and walked away from the car. Thus, the stop was based upon no more than a bare suspicion. *See Cobb v. State,*511 So.2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); *Carter v. State,*454 So.2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); *State v. Beja,*451 So.2dx 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

We agree with the trial court that the defendant properly challenged the stop, *Beja,*and that *Dean v. State,*478 So.2d 38 (Fla.1985), effectively overruled *Kayes v. State,*409 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), *petition for rev. denied,*424 So.2d 762 (Fla.1982), to the extent that *Kayes*held that a passenger in a car has no standing to challenge the stop of the car. *See Delaware v. Prouse,*440 U.S. 648, 662, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1400-01, 59 L.Ed.2d 660, 672-73 (1979).

Affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,280,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,146,466
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (212,040)
<INVENTORY>                                  4,617,680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,631,788
<PP&E>                                       3,154,329
<DEPRECIATION>                                 290,662
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,230,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,623,909
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 10,453,512
<COMMON>                                         4,585
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,354,741)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,230,400
<SALES>                                      3,020,874
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,020,874
<CGS>                                        2,481,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,196,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (2,391,408)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,622
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,312,278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,312,278)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,312,278)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (17.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (17.04)
        


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Curtis R. JAMES.

No. 88-KH-0206.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re James, Curtis R.; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW87-1100.

Denied. No particularized need shown.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

National Defense University, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The National Defense University (NDU), Designated Federal                               ( print page 19266)                            Officer, has scheduled a meeting of the Board of Visitors. The National Defense University Board of Visitors is a Federal Advisory Board. The Board meets twice each year in proceedings that are open to the public.                    

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on May 2 and 3, 2012, from 11:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on May 2 and continuing on May 3 from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The Board of Visitors meeting will be held at Marshall Hall, Building 62, Room 155, the National Defense University, 300 5th Avenue SW., Fort McNair, Washington, DC 20319-5066.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        The point of contact for this notice of Open Meeting is Ms. Dolores Hodge at (202) 685-0082, Fax (202) 685-3920 or                         *HodgeD@ndu.edu.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The future agenda will include discussion on Defense transformation, faculty development, facilities, information technology, curriculum development, as well as other operational issues and areas of interest affecting the day-to-day operations of the National Defense University and its components. The meeting is open to the public; limited space made available for observers will be allocated on a first come, first served basis. Written statements to the committee may be submitted to the committee at any time or in response to a stated planned meeting agenda by fax or email to the point of contact person listed in                     **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                    . (Subject Line: Comment/Statement to the NDU BOV).                

Dated: March 27, 2012.

Aaron Siegel,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2012-7653 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                     4736877
<SECURITIES>                                315244
<RECEIVABLES>                              2731915
<ALLOWANCES>                               (174578)
<INVENTORY>                                3202271
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          10971393
<PP&E>                                     8139473
<DEPRECIATION>                            (1591610)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1808341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      8429924
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                    118
<COMMON>                                     12900
<OTHER-SE>                                  887812
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              18083431
<SALES>                                   11911497
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          12675819
<CGS>                                      3452329
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             22335594
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (9192196)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (9192196)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (9192196)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.83)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 17479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7115]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under the 
Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.), and Regulation 
LL (12 CFR part 238) or Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239) to engage de 
novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a 
company, including the companies listed below, that engages either 
directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking 
activity that is described in Sec. Sec.  238.53 or 238.54 of Regulation 
LL (12 CFR 238.53 or 238.54) or Sec.  239.8 of Regulation MM (12 CFR 
239.8). Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted 
throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 10a(c)(4)(B) of HOLA (12.U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)).
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than April 19, 2012.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. HomeTrust Bancshares, Inc., Clyde, North Carolina, to become a 
savings and loan holding company upon the conversion of HomeTrust Bank, 
Clyde, North Carolina, from a mutual to stock form.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 20, 
2012.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-7115 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Richard D. HANNON.

No. 87-KH-0961.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1987.

In re Hannon, Richard D.; applying for habeas corpus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “C”, No. 316-632.

Denied. Adequate remedy on appeal.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION [4910-13-PJ

"CUJUlf.N(;ES ROUTING SYMBOL Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39

Ainvorthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-IAIl (CL-600), CL-600-2AI2 (CL-601), and CL-600-2BI6 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) forthe products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing ainvorthiness information (MeAl) originated byan aviation authority ofanother country to identify Ol.lT1NO .IYMBOl and correct anunsafe condition on anaviation product. The MeAl describes the unsaf, lTlAI..5/SlG condition as:
Aspecific batch ofnose landing gear (NLG) andNLG door selector valves, part number (pIN)601R75146-1 (Kaiser Fluid Technologics PIN 750006000), may have had their end caps incorrectly lock-wired and/or incorrectly torqued during assembly. This condition can lead to the end cap backing off. with consequent damage to a seal and intemalleakage within thevalve. Subsequently, ifelectrical power istransferred or removed from the aircraft before the NLG safety pin is installed, any pressure, including residual pressure, inthe No.3 hydraulic system can result inanuncommanded NLG retraction.
Exhibit 13

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 CRH plc (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, A. Manifold, Director and Chief Executive of the Company, certify, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Signature:

/s/ A. ManifoldA. ManifoldDirector and Chief Executive 10 March
2017




---

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 CRH plc (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, S. Murphy, Finance Director of the Company, certify, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Signature:

/s/ S. MurphyS. MurphyFinance Director 10 March
2017
#### Jack BROOKS v. MISSISSIPPI STATE PROBATION AND PAROLE BOARD, Morris Thigpen, Donald Cabanna, Eddie Lucas, Linda Rogers and Joann Ross, Respondents.

Misc. Nos. 2157, 2157a.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 13, 1988.

Jack Brooks, Parchman, pro se.

Edwin Lloyd Pittman and Mike Moore, Attys. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellees.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sunflower County; Arthur B. Clark, Jr., Judge.

*1231Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ.

Affirmed in Substantial Part; Complaint for Monetary Damages Dismissed Without Prejudice.

HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6963

WARREN CHASE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
JACKY HENDRICKS, Classification Counselor; RICHARD WARREN; MR. ADAMS; DR. CATCHER; DR. ANAWAILLEY; MR. CRAIG; MR. PATTERSON; BOB CRAFT; R. BOND; DR. SHAPIRO; M. MUNGAI; DR. MEILLER; JOSEPH HENNEBERRY; ARCHIE GEE; ROBERT SPANGLER; THOMAS R. CORCORAN; SMITH, Assistant Warden; MRS. SORENSON; JOHN SWIVEL; MS. FAUNTLEROY; SWENDOLIN DUCKETT; MR. THEADWELL; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; EUGENE M. NUTH; JACK KAVANAGH; JOSEPH ZBOZIEN, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-2966-CCB)
Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: November 10, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Wendy Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We presume for the purpose of this appeal that Appellant deposited this document and his subsequent notice on appeal in the prison’s internal mail system on the date the documents were prepared. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

3 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days withinwhich to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).The district court entered its order disposing of the complaint on March 31, 1998. On May 2, 1998, Appellant filed a pleading construed by the court as a motion for reconsideration. * Because it was filed more than ten days after the March 31 order, the motion did not toll the thirty-day appeal period in which to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). The district court denied the motion on May 18, 1998; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on June 25, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal period as to both the March 31 order and the May 18 order. Appel-4 lant’s failure to note a timely appeal or to obtain an extension ofthe appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We deny Appellant’s motion for an injunction or a temporary restraining order. 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.

DISMISSED
NO. 07-05-0250-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	DECEMBER 2, 2005

	______________________________

	JOHN ZAVALA, 

								Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

								Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY;

	NO. 0943395D; HON. GEORGE GALLAGHER, PRESIDING

	________________________________

	Memorandum Opinion

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	 Appellant, John Zavala, appealed his convictions for arson and burglary of a habitation.  His appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief.  He certified that, after diligently searching the record, he found the appeal meritless.  Appellate counsel served his client with a copy of his brief and motion.  So too did he tell appellant of his conclusions and of appellant’s right to file a pro se response or brief and review the record.  This court also informed appellant of the same matters and directed him to file any response or brief he cared to by November 30, 2005.  To date, appellant has neither filed a response, brief, or request for an extension. 

	Per Anders, appellate counsel explained, in his brief, why the appeal was meritless.  We conducted our own review of the record to uncover potential error, reversible or otherwise, pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  Like that of appellate counsel, our review uncovered none. 

	Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

	                                               			Brian Quinn

							          Chief Justice

Do not publish.