alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Plant Variety Protection - 25 Certificates Issued on April 28, 2023

APPLICATION 

NUMBER

VARIETY NAME CROP APPLICANT / OWNER *CERTIFIED 

SEED ONLY?

202200086 Suzaku HYDRANGEA Shinsuke Tanaka No

202200087 Tentei HYDRANGEA Shinsuke Tanaka No

202200142 Tsubasa HYDRANGEA Shinsuke Tanaka No

202200143 Junrenka HYDRANGEA Shinsuke Tanaka No

202200144 Renaimonogatari HYDRANGEA Shinsuke Tanaka No

202200145 Okaranbu HYDRANGEA Shinsuke Tanaka No

202200146 Hozan HYDRANGEA Shinsuke Tanaka No

202200147 Miren HYDRANGEA Shinsuke Tanaka No

202200157 PSQ9Z166525V TOMATO Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. No

202200158 Jerome PEA W. Brotherton Seed Com. Inc. No

202200159 Mach Two RYEGRASS DLF Pickseed USA, Inc. and Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey No

202200160 SVTM9021 TOMATO Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. No

202200161 SVTM9023 TOMATO Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. No

202200162 PSQ9Z153778V TOMATO Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. No

202200163 PSQ9Z151572V TOMATO Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. No

202200196 SVTM9024 TOMATO Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. No

202200197 SVTM9025 TOMATO Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. No

202200204 Pacifico RYEGRASS Pure-Seed Testing, Inc. No

202200206 NF95319B RYE Noble Research Institute, LLC No

202200210 Plover Russet POTATO Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation No

202200211 TILBURY POTATO GERMICOPA BREEDING No

202200224 LION FLAX Terre de Lin Developpement No

202200250 Bentley FESCUE, TALL DLF Pickseed USA, Inc. No

202200251 Rowdier FESCUE, TALL DLF Pickseed USA, Inc. No

202200252 SR 8700 FESCUE, TALL DLF Pickseed USA, Inc. and Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey No

* Certified seed - seed which has been determined by an official seed certifying agency to conform to standards of genetic purity and identity as to variety, 

which standards have been approved by the Secretary.

USDA, AMS, Science and Technology, Plant Variety Protection Office (202) 260-8983 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 10(B)

                                 SHEA & GARDNER
                         1800 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C. 20036

                                 (202) 828-2000
                               Fax: (202) 828-2195



                                 April 30, 2002


Board of Directors
The Prudential Insurance Company of America
751 Broad Street
Newark, NJ 07102

Ladies and Gentlemen:


     We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption "Legal
Matters" in the State of Additional Information filed as part of Post-Effective
Amendment No. 3 to the registration statement on Form N-4 for The Prudential
Discovery Premier Group Variable Contract Account (File No. 333-95637). In
giving this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons
whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.


                                            Very truly yours,

                                            SHEA & GARDNER

                                            By: /s/ CHRISTOPHER E. PALMER
                                                -------------------------------
                                                     Christopher E. Palmer





                                      C-14
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 State

          - [Public Notice 8144]

Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Abdelbasit Alhaj Alhassan Haj Hamad, also known as Abd Al-Basit, also known as Abdelbaset Alhaj Alhassan, also known as Abdel Basit Hag El-Hassan Hag Mohamed, also known as Abd-al-Basit Al-Hadj Hasan, and also known as Abdel Basit al-Hajj Hassan committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.

Consistent with the determination in Section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that “prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,” I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: December 18, 2012.

Hillary Rodham Clinton,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2013-00164 Filed 1-7-13; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
Exhibit 23.1
                                                                     
                                                                     
              Consent of Independent Public Accountants
                                   
                                   
As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our reports included and incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, into
the company's previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statements, File Numbers,
033-65256, 033-65254, 033-65890, 333-07735, 333-46791, 333-46795, 333-46797,
333-46809, and 333-46811.



                                                                    
                           ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Kansas City, Missouri,
July 17, 1998


<PAGE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10720

Summary Calendar

 

DAGOBERTO NEVAREZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT; JOHN E. STICE; S.O. WOODS, JR.;

BRUCE ZELLER; B. CHEATHAM; BUENTELLO; 

MIKE W. MOORE; RONALD D. DREWRY; CHARLES C. BELL;

JOHN CASTILLO; JOSE HERNANDEZ; J.V. YOUNG,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:95-CV-134-BA

- - - - - - - - - -

December 3, 1997

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dagoberto Nevarez, Texas prisoner # 437273, filed a civil

rights complaint against various officials of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division. The

district court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to state

a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. 

Giddings v. Chandler, 979 F.2d 1104, 1106 (5th Cir. 1992). 
No. 97-10720 

-2-

Nevarez’s specific complaint is that the classification

committee erroneously classified him as a member of a disruptive

group. A prisoner’s liberty interest is “generally limited to

freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in

such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the

due process clause of its own force, nonetheless imposes atypical

and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct.

2293, 2300 (1995) (citation omitted); see also Moody v. Baker,

857 F.2d 256, 257-58 (5th Cir. 1988) (an inmate has neither a

protected property nor liberty interest in his custody

classification). Nevarez’s complaint is based on his assertions

regarding the effect that the classification will have on him

following release. Such claims are too tenuous to constitute a

liberty interest. Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1690 (1996) ("speculative, collateral

consequences of prison administrative decisions do not create

constitutionally protected liberty interests"). 

Nevarez failed to state a claim of retaliation because he

did not allege "evidence of motivation or, the more probable

scenario, allege a chronology of events from which retaliation

may plausibly be inferred.”. Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166

(5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 800 (1996)(internal

quotation marks omitted). 
No. 97-10720 

-3-

The district court properly dismissed the complaint against

the defendants in their official capacities under the Eleventh

Amendment. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985). Also, 

Nevarez’s allegations of racial and ethic discrimination were at

best conclusional and were insufficient to state an equal

protection claim. Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 309 (5th

Cir. 1997) (internal quotation and citation omitted), petition

for cert. filed, 66 U.S.L.W. 3178 (September 2, 1997) (No. 97-

403). 

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Floyd McDowell, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the People failed to disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, his agency defense. From our review of the record, we conclude that there was legally sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to determine that defendant was not merely an agent of the buyer and that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant’s further contentions that prosecutorial misconduct during summation mandates reversal and that the trial court’s interested witness charge was improper have not been preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the trial court’s interested witness charge was in all respects proper *(see, People v Agosto,*73 NY2d 963, 967).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present-Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
**COURT OF APPEALS**

**TENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS**

****

September 21, 2016

No. 10-16-00276-CR

RUEBEN EARLE WALKER

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-1744-C2

**JUDGMENT**

	This appeal has been considered by the Court.  Because the Court finds that a certification of defendant’s right of appeal that shows Rueben Earle Walker has the right of appeal has not been made a part of the record, it is the judgment of this Court that the appeal is dismissed.  

	A copy of this judgment will be certified by the Clerk of this Court and delivered to the trial court clerk for enforcement.

							PER CURIAM

****SHARRI ROESSLER, CLERK			

						By: ___________________________

							Nita Whitener, Deputy Clerk

# image1.png

# image2.jpeg

# image3.png
Filed 4/15/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2015 ND 83

Spencer Curtiss, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20140365

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Lee M. Grossman, P.O. Box 475, Valley City, N.D. 58072, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.

Pamela A. Nesvig, Assistant State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 5518, Bismarck, N.D. 58506-5518, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.

Curtiss v. State

No. 20140365

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Spencer Curtiss appealed from a district court order summarily dismissing his second application for post-conviction relief.  In December 2010, a jury convicted Curtiss of gross sexual imposition, and we summarily affirmed his conviction on  appeal.  State v. Curtiss, 2011 ND 175, 803 N.W.2d 834.  In September 2012, Curtiss filed his first application for post-conviction relief, and the district court subsequently held an evidentiary hearing on the application.  While that application was pending, Curtiss filed this second post-conviction relief application in August 2014.  The State requested the application be dismissed.  The district court summarily dismissed his second application because it was filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations.  See N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(2).

[¶2]On appeal, Curtiss argues the district court erred in summarily dismissing his second post-conviction relief application because his allegations of newly discovered evidence fall within an exception to the two-year statute of limitations.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).  See Johnson v. State, 2015 ND 7, ¶ 7, 858 N.W.2d 632 (summary disposition is appropriate when the petitioner fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the alleged newly discovered evidence, which if proved and reviewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would establish the petitioner did not engage in the criminal conduct for which he was convicted, so as to satisfy the newly discovered evidence exception under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3)(a)(1)).

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Carol Ronning Kapsner
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10(b)  


  
 

  Consent of Independent Accountants    
  


We hereby consent to the use, in this Registration Statement on Form N-4 (File No. 333-94047) of our report dated March 1, 2002, relating to
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Protective Life Insurance Company and Subsidiaries, which appears in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the use
in this Registration Statement of our report dated April 2, 2002, on our audits of the financial statements of The Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account, which appears in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Independent Accountants" in such Registration Statement. 


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, Alabama

April 25, 2002 









QuickLinks


Consent of Independent Accountants
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference of our report included in this Form 10-K, into Tom Brown, Inc.'s
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 Nos. 33-42991, 33-44225,
33-60191, 33-60842, 33-13157, 33-30069, 33-42011, 333-56577, 333-69353,
333-31426, 333-89031 and 333-89033.



ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Houston, Texas

March 17, 2000
Exhibit 10.8                                                       Annex M

                                  SUBORDINATION


     1. Payment of the Promissory  Note will be  subordinate  and subject to the
prior  payment  in  full  in  cash  of all of  Buyer's  Indebtedness  (including
Indebtedness   of  the  Company)  to  any  senior,   secured   lender   ("senior
indebtedness").

     2. Upon any payment,  distribution or other transfer of the assets of Buyer
to creditors  upon any  dissolution,  winding-up,  liquidation,  reorganization,
arrangement,  composition,  adjustment or readjustment or similar  proceeding of
Buyer, then:

     (a) the holders of senior indebtedness shall be entitled to receive payment
in full in cash of all senior  indebtedness,  before any payment or distribution
of assets of Buyer is made on account of or applied to the Promissory Note; and

     (b) any payment or  distribution  of assets of Buyer to which the holder of
the  Promissory  Note would be entitled  will be paid or delivered by any person
making  such  payment  or  distribution  directly  to the  holders of the senior
indebtedness,  for application to the payment of all the senior  indebtedness to
the extent necessary to pay the senior indebtedness in full.

     3.  Following  any payment  default on the senior  indebtedness  and at all
times thereafter,  all senior  indebtedness shall first be paid in full in cash,
or provision  for such  payment  shall be made in a manner  satisfactory  to the
holders of the senior indebtedness, before any payment is made on the Promissory
Note.

     4. Such other customary  subordination  provisions as the holders of senior
indebtedness may reasonably request.






                                                  -1-
Exhibit 4.2



Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated June 14, 2022, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2116 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-264631) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


June 14, 2022
RE: Case No. 15-0293

CoA #: r3-13-00368-CV rC#:

STYLE: JOHN H. CARNEY & ASSOCTATES

v. MTCHAEL ROSELIINI, D. D. S.

Today the Supreme Court of Texas granted the motion for extension of time to fife petition for review under Trx. R. App. p. 53.7(f) in the above- referenced case. The petition for review is due to be

f iled no .Later than f{,ay 18, 2015..

MS, DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

CLERK, THIRTEENTH COURT OF

APPEAL S

901 LEOPARD STREET, lOTH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78401

FILE COPY

DATE': 4/1,6/2015

DC-12-008 6 9
2017 Annual Industry Meeting* 

for USDA Foods Contractors and Suppliers

WHEN: Tuesday, October 24, 2017

9:00-10:00am

Curious about becoming a vendor with the USDA Foods Program?

 Learn the necessary steps to become an approved vendor

 Receive a one-on-one review of your application

 

Already an approved USDA Foods vendor, but want to learn more?

 Learn about what is needed to bid on products if you are a nonmanufacturer

 For large businesses, receive help on subcontracting plans

 For small businesses, learn more about how we establish set asides

 Pre-registration is open now!

 Visit https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food and click “Stay up to date on USDA food purchases” for 

email news and updates

 Email questions to CPDConference@ams.usda.gov or call (202) 720-4517

* The conference will be held on Tuesday, October 24 – Wednesday, October 25, 2017, at the DoubleTree by Hilton, 

Washington DC- Crystal City located at 300 Army-Navy Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202.

AMS Commodity Procurement Staff: Together We’re Making a Difference- American Agriculture for the American People

NEW VENDORS SESSION

USDA is an equal opportunity employer and provider.
an abuse of discretion. Id. The district court must consider the 

underlying basic policy of deciding a case on the merits. Id. 

Appellant contends that respondent did not establish 

excusable neglect, intended to delay the proceedings, and lacked good 

faith.' Appellant asserts that the respondent's principal's heart attack, 

the closure of respondent's offices for the holidays, and allegations that 

respondent did not receive copies of the motion sent to respondent's 

registered addresses did not render its neglect excusable. 

The district court first found that the motion was timely as it 

was filed ten days after service of the notice of entry of its order. This 

constitutes a reasonable time for this rule where six months may be 

considered the extreme limit of reasonableness. NRCP 60(b); see Union 

Petrochemical Corp. of Nev. v. Scott, 96 Nev. 337, 339, 609 P.2d 323, 324 

(1980). Second, the district court found no intent to delay in light of 

respondent's counsel's withdrawal and re-engagement. Despite falling 

beyond DCR 13(3)'s deadline, respondent's prompt efforts to remedy the 

situation by re-engaging counsel and opposing the motion do not suggest 

an intent to delay. See Kahn v. Orme, 108 Nev. 510, 514, 835 P.2d 790, 

793 (1992) (concluding no abuse of discretion when district court found 

intent to delay the proceedings by waiting almost five months after the 

entry of default to obtain counsel to seek relief). Third, the district court 

found that respondent was unaware of its obligation because it lacked 

'Appellant also argues that respondent failed to tender a 

meritorious defense. This court has abandoned the requirement that 

NRCP 60(b)(1) relief in setting aside a default judgment requires showing 

a meritorious defense. Epstein v. Epstein, 113 Nev. 1401, 1405, 950 P.2d 

771, 773 (1997). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
counsel when the motion for summary judgment was filed. Nothing in the 

record suggests that respondent was aware of the deadline imposed by 

local court rules. See Stoecklein, 109 Nev. at 273, 849 P.2d at 308. 

Finally, the district court found that respondent acted in good faith by 

promptly filing a motion to extend the deadline to object to appellant's 

motion and that the interests of justice warrant adjudicating the matter 

on the merits. In light of the preceding, the record does not suggest that 

respondent acted in bad faith. 

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district 

court's findings are supported by the record and that the district court has 

not abused its discretion. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

, J. 

9 I( 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge 

• Charles L. Geisendorf, Ltd. 

Oshinski & Forsberg, Ltd. 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 19474 4(geg. 

, J.
. 1

K •

-d

A/cr

• • • -. - RECEIVED IN

MS** *. VJMl/HX COURTOFCR...NALAPPEALS

- v* ~ APR 15 2015

jot fl??eflLAiori0/-H-oon3 -cfi _ filedin

APR 17 2015

F?g&f ffi-fad fr*g F-y ia&^r^o/ IfrtC fa Ai'/f/ Abel Acosta, Clerk

anted- W MxKtfct. ~fa#;. TAefAX /,)&(*&;*>*/ fe-Sto So/sl

fcz-
EXHIBIT 23







INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
2-54345,  2-63803,  2-75715, 2-88474, 2-96491, 33-32465 and 33-57537 on Form S-8
and in Registration Statement Nos. 33-55136,  33-53817,  33-57325,  33-59784 and
333-631 on Form S-3 of our report  dated  October 31,  1997,  appearing  in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bergen  Brunswig  Corporation  for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 1997.




/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Costa Mesa, California
December 19, 1997















                                 EXH 23 - Page 1