alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.2**
**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ONSCHEDULE**
The Board of Directors and StockholdersBowne & Co., Inc.:
     Under date of February 11, 2004, we reportedon the consolidated balance sheets of Bowne & Co., Inc.and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 and therelated consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the yearsin the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, ascontained in the annual report on Form 10-K for the year2003. In connection with our audits of the aforementionedconsolidated financial statements, we also audited the relatedconsolidated financial statement schedule,Schedule II — Valuation and Qualifying Accounts.This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of theCompany’s management. Our responsibility is to express anopinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits.
     In our opinion, such financial statementschedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidatedfinancial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in allmaterial respects, the information set forth therein.
     As discussed in Note 7 to the consolidatedfinancial statements, the Company adopted Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards No. 142, *“Goodwill and OtherIntangible Assets,”*in the year ended December 31,2002. As discussed in Note 8 to the consolidated financialstatements, the Company adopted Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards No. 146, *“Accounting for CostsAssociated with Exit or Disposal Activities,”*in thefourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2002.
/s/ KPMG LLP     
New York, New YorkFebruary 11, 2004
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

INFORMATION SHEET BY COURT REPORTERS 

You are expected to file the reporter’s record by the original due date. See Tex. R. App. P.35. If 

a reporter determines that the due date may not be met, please advise the Clerk of the Court of 

Appeals immediately in writing, stating the reason and the due date by which the record will be 

filed. Generally speaking, for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two 

extensions from the original record due date, each extension not to exceed 30 days in regular 

appeals and 10 days in accelerated appeals for a total period not to exceed 60 days in regular 

appeals and 20 days in accelerated appeals.

 

Appellate Case Number: Trial Court Case Number: 

(1) Is there a Reporter's Record? Y N

(2) Are you the only court reporter involved in this appeal? Y N

If not, please provide the names and addresses of all other court

reporters below.

(3) Has the appellant requested that the reporter’s record be prepared or 

has the trial court ordered that the record be prepared?

 Y N

(4) Please select from the following options:

 A. The appellant has paid for the record.

 B. The appellant has made arrangements to pay for the record

 C. The appellant is appealing as indigent.

 D. The appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the

 record and is not appealing as indigent.

(5) Extension (fill out if extension is required for any reason other than payment)

I was unable to file the record in this appeal by ________. I expect the record 

in this appeal to be approximately _______ pages. The record covers 

_______days of testimony. I believe that I can file the record by _________. I 

ask that the court grant an extension until that time for filing the record.

Additional Comments: ___________________________________________

Court Reporter's Signature, Full Address, Email Address and Telephone Number: 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/8/2015 9:04:26 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Agricultural Marketing Service, Specialty Crops Program, Specialty Crops Inspection Division

Inspection or Audit Services Rendered to Other SC Program Divisions

SCP DIVISION

RECEIVING SERVICE

MONTH AND YEAR OF

SERVICE(S)

LOCATION OF SERVICE MONTH AND YEAR OF

CORRESPONDING FV-218

(ENTERED BY FPM OR OIC)

SERVICE DESCRIPTION

(DATES, NAMES OF INSPECTORS, COMMODITIES ,

DOCUMENT OR CERTIFICATE NUMBERS)

HOURS

WORKED

HOURLY

RATE ($)

TOTAL

CHARGE FOR

TIME ($)

EXPENSES

INCURRED

($)

TOTAL

CHARGEFOR

SERVICE(S)

REMARKS:

GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL

SERVICES

CREDIT THE INSPECTION PROGRAM OF THE STATE OF : Instructions: Prepare form in accordance with

instructions in Federal and Federal-State

Supervisors Manual. Remit the completed form with

corresponding SF-270 to the Federal Program 

Managers and:

(ENTERED BY FPM OR OIC) Email: FPBStatePartners@ams.usda.gov

or Mail to:

USDA AMS SCP SCI Division

Federal-State Accounts

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Room 1536-S Stop 0240

Washington, DC 20250-0240

FEDERAL MARKET PROVIDING SERVICE(S):

SIGNATURE OF FEDERAL SUPERVISOR OR OFFICER IN CHARGE: DATE:

SC-213 (02-17) Destroy previous editions. Reproduce locally
I57f-/V

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA #14-13-00263-CR

STYLE: Christopher Lamont Penn vThe State of Texas

COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed

DATE: September 16, 2014 Publish: No

OFFENSE: Capital Murder

COUNTY: Harris

th r>:. TRIAL COURT: 1851" District Court

TCCASE#:1345118

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Christopher Lamont Penn vThe State of Texas

CCA#

PRO SF. Petition

CAIS:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:.

SIGNED:

1574-W

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN 0

DATE: n^il^/^Oir PC:

JUDGE: [JA [JaA+4^ PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

FOR REHEAI

JUDGE:

^INGINCCAIS:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

[DESCRIPTION] Exhibit 27 Financial Data Schedule for 1999.
              This form contains summary financial information
              extracted from Form 10K for California-Engels
              Mining Company for the year ended 12/31/98 and is
              qualified in its entirety by reference to such
              financial statements.
[TEXT]
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. Dollars
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       YEAR
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1

<S>                                                 <C>
<CASH>                                                 71,295
<SECURITIES>                                            4,339
<RECEIVABLES>                                          36,147
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       76,612
<PP&E>                                                493,111
<DEPRECIATION>                                         24,210
<depletion>                                            18,097
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        562,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   4,697
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                              190,241
<OTHER-SE>                                            187,673
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          562,585
<SALES>                                               248,928
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      257,502
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         214,182
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        37,633
<INCOME-TAX>                                            8,697
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    28,936
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           28,936
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.029
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.029


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tomas Muniz, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered September 7, 1988, convicting him of murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the hearing court erred in refusing to suppress the lineup identification testimony of the witnesses. The court’s determination that the lineup was fair and nonsuggestive is supported by the record, and we see no basis for disturbing that determination *(see,*
      *636
      *People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759; *People v Gairy,*116 AD2d 733). The fact that the lineup contained more than one perpetrator did not render the identification improper *(see, People v Cicero,*119 AD2d 687; *see also, People v Garcia,*153 AD2d 951).

We further find that the photographs of the dead victim were properly admitted into evidence, since they were introduced on the issue of intent, and not for the sole purpose of arousing the emotions of the jury *(see, People v Pobliner,*32 NY2d 356, 369-370, *cert denied*416 US 905; *People v Stroh,*111 AD2d 196).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit, or, to the extent that any error may have occurred, harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Roopchand,*65 NY2d 837; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Mangano, P. J., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of James K., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

—Appeal unanimously *1030dismissed without costs *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; *Matter of Shawn C. A.,*110 AD2d 697, 698, *Iv denied*65 NY2d 605). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Hunt, J.—Juvenile Delinquency.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
#### In the Matter of William F. Wray (Admitted as William Frank Wray, Jr.), an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Second Department,

January 13, 1992

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Gary L. Casella (Gary D. Egerman*of counsel), for petitioner.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

By judgment of the County Court, Rockland County, rendered October 29, 1991, the respondent was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in violation of Penal Law § 265.02, a class D felony.

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), the respondent ceased to *82be an attorney and counselor-at-law upon his conviction of a felony.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion is granted. The respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.

Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent William F. Wray is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent shall promptly comply with this court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent William F. Wray is commanded to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Osvaldo Garcia Vargas, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.), rendered January 4, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On his direct examination, the defendant testified that the instant incident occurred while he was on parole, and that the arresting officer decided to arrest him only after the officer learned that the defendant was on parole. Therefore, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by permitting the prosecutor to attack the defendant’s credibility on cross examination by asking him a few questions concerning the effect of a conviction in this case on his parole status *(see,*
      *644
      *People v Chaitin,*61 NY2d 683, 684-685; *People v Brown,*157 AD2d 790, 791; *People v Watts,*154 AD2d 723, 724; *People v McCullough,*141 AD2d 856, 858; *cf., People v Astacio,*131 AD2d 684).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), and in any event, are without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-21-00003-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

County Court at Law No. 1 of Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-007958-1

Before Walker, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE ADRIANO BUDRI, Relator
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: January 8, 2021
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           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 Quarterly Report of American Bar Association
Members/State Street Collective Trust (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Beth M. Halberstadt, as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


                                                     /s/ Beth M. Halberstadt
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Beth M. Halberstadt
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     August 14, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Francisco Diaz, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Galligan, J.), rendered July 18, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of five to ten years, unanimously affirmed.

At the trial, an undercover officer testified that he purchased two glassine envelopes of heroin from defendant for $20. At the pretrial suppression hearing that immediately preceded the trial, the arresting officer testified that only $10 in prerecorded buy money was recovered from defendant. In his opening arguments, defense counsel outlined a mistaken identification case noting, *inter alia,*that "the evidence is going to show that only half of the marked money had been recovered”. Following testimony by the undercover officer and the police chemist, the prosecutor informed court and counsel that the arresting officer had discovered over the luncheon recess that the second $10 had in fact been recovered. The court suggested compromise, including a proposal that the second $10 would be received only if defendant argued that police had not recovered all the money. The defendant’s attorney elected the admission of the second $10 and full cross-examination over limiting testimony to the first $10 and restricted examination.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial. The "surprise” evidence was not so inconsistent with defendant’s mistaken identification defense as to deprive him of a fair trial. (CPL 280.10; *People v Woods,*165 AD2d 798, 799; *People v Williams,*140 AD2d 970, *lv denied*73 *378NY2d 861.) Moreover, the trial court not only told the jury that the defense was belatedly advised of the late discovery of the additional money, but defense counsel incorporated the late discovery of the money into his argument that the police had made errors in this case. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
```

[Federal Register: August 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 159)]
[Notices]               
[Page 51016]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18au10-62]                         

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday September 10, 2010.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-20598 Filed 8-16-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
Exhibit 32.2



Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b)
or

Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code



In connection with the Quarterly Report of OHA
Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, L. Scott Biar, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Secretary
and Chief Compliance Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|Date:	May 8, 2015 | /s/ L. SCOTT BIAR                                                      
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  | L. Scott Biar                                                          
|                  | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
        Chief Compliance Officer
Agricultural Marketing Service, Specialty Crops Program, Specialty Crops Inspection Division 

PATCH # 101 

DOCUMENT: Fresh Electronic Inspection Reporting/Resource System (FEIRS) electronic 

programs revision. 

REMARKS: The following instruction will be followed for entering an application for appeal 

remark statement on FV-E300 (FEIRS) certificates. 

All FV-E300 (FEIRS) certificates shall have the following statement regarding application for 

appeal inspection added under REMARKS prior to issuance: 

• “An application for appeal inspection may be made by any financially interested person 

regarding the results or accuracy of this inspection or certificate. Contact the market 

office listed on the certificate or email SCIinspectionoperations@usda.gov for details.” 

The inspector will add the remark by selecting it from the Remarks dropdown under the 

Summary tab. 

This PATCH represents official guidance. This PATCH is scheduled to be incorporated into the 

document listed above. After incorporation into the document listed above this PATCH will 

become obsolete. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

PATCH # 101 FEIRS Appeal Application Remark (March 18, 2024) 

SCI Division Inspection Series 

Page 1 of 1
#### George Petermann et al., Respondents, v Hugo Koch et al., Appellants.

—Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Finger-hood, J.), entered March 16, 1990, which, *inter alia,*enjoined defendants from representing George Petermann in any action, and adjudged that all powers of attorney signed by George Petermann are deemed invalid, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

While there appears to be some question concerning the service of the summons and complaint upon defendant Koch, this as well as all other issues raised on appeal are rendered moot as a result of the recent death of plaintiff, George Petermann. *(See, Knoer v Pace,*125 AD2d 1006.) Concur— Murphy, P. J., Carro, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We have issued our reports dated November 16, 2018, with respect to the consolidated financial statements, and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Luby’s, Inc. and its subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended August 29, 2018 . We consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Luby’s, Inc. Forms S-8 (File No. 333-210790, effective April 15, 2016; File No. 333-186326 effective January 30, 2013; File No. 333-135058, effective June 16, 2006; File No. 333-81606, effective January 29, 2002; File No. 333-81608, effective January 29, 2002; File No. 333-55140, effective February 7, 2001; and File No. 333-70315, effective January 8, 1999).





/s/    GRANT THORNTON LLPHouston, TexasNovember 30, 2018