alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Public Accountants

The Board of Directors
CSW UK Holdings:

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the registration  statements on
Form S-8 and on Form S-3 of  Central  and South West  Corporation  of our report
dated 17 January 2000, with respect to the consolidated  balance sheet of CSW UK
Holdings as of 31 December  1999,  and the related  consolidated  statements  of
earnings and cash flows for the year then ended,  which report appears in the 31
December 1999, annual report on Form 10-K of Central and South West Corporation.

KPMG Audit Plc                                               London, England
Chartered Accountants                                        3 February 2000
Registered Auditors



                                      4-23
28291

#### Yoshimi Hala v. Muñoz

Affirmed
23777

#### State v. Detroy

Dismissed
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50294 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS CARLOS CANTU, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-99-CR-346-ALL-OG

-------------------- February 13, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Luis Carlos Cantu appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress his confession for possession of marijuana in San Antonio. Cantu argued that his confession was involuntary because he had been misled to believe he would not be criminally prosecuted based on any information which he provided. Following a hearing, the district court found that the law enforcement officers had not offered Cantu immunity from prosecution in theNo. 00-50294 -2- offense of conviction. This finding is based on the clear and unequivocal testimony given by officers at the suppression hearing and is not clearly erroneous. United States v. Restrepo , 994 F.2d 173, 183 (5th Cir. 1993). We review de novo whether statement was voluntary, considering the totality of the circumstances. Restrepo , 994 F.2d at 184. It is undisputed that the officers were seeking Cantu’s cooperation in an investigation into large-scale drug trafficking in Houston. The totality of the circumstances confirm the district court’s conclusion that Cantu’s confession was voluntary and not induced by any misunderstanding that the promise of immunity included the offense of conviction.
AFFIRMED.
19377

#### Stutheit v. County of Hawai'i

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,083,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,856,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   314,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,254,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,746,000
<PP&E>                                       3,158,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 843,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              68,475,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,454,000
<BONDS>                                     17,570,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,912,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                68,475,000
<SALES>                                     52,046,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            52,046,000
<CGS>                                       23,649,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,649,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,338,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,390,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,200,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,190,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,007,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,183,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        
<FN>
<F1> Restated to reflect subsequent adoption of SFAS 128.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY

(required by Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 of Union Electric Company (the Registrant) as filed by
the Registrant with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), each undersigned officer of the Registrant does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 2, 2009



/s/    Thomas R. VossThomas R. Voss Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)/s/    Warner L. BaxterWarner L. Baxter Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
21468

#### State v. Garcia

Affirmed
**Exhibit 32.1**
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of infoUSA Inc. (the“Company”), hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, (i) the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31,2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: May 10, 2004 */s/ Vinod Gupta*   Vinod Gupta, Chief Executive Officer
August 26, 2008

27719

#### Stale v. Hinton

Vacated and Remanded
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136319 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. RUBY & ASSOCIATES, P.C., and DAVID Stephen J. Markman, I. RUBY, Justices 

Plaintiffs, Counter

Defendants-Appellees, 

v SC: 136319 

 COA: 274348 

Oakland CC: 03-054535-NM 

GEORGE W. SMITH & COMPANY, P.C.,

GEORGE W. SMITH, and JOYCE W. MILLER, 

Defendants, Counter 

Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 18, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0721 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 29, 2008 

 Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-92906) pertaining to the Second Amended and Restated
Stock Option Plan of Standard Management Corporation, the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-41119) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Stock Option
Plan of Standard Management Corporation, the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-41117) pertaining to the Standard Management Corporation Savings Plan,
and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-101359) pertaining to the 2002
Stock Incentive Plan of Standard Management Corporation of our report dated
March 2, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedules of Standard Management Corporation and subsidiaries included in this
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

                                                Ernst & Young LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
March 24, 2004
#### In the Matter of Maurice Schlang, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioner, against Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

May 22, 1959.

*Gallop, Climenko & Gould (Martin I. Shelton and Martin London*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Be Forest, Elder & Mulreavy*for Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, respondent.

*Breed, Abbott & Morgan (John J. Shurtleff*and *Clifford B. Storms*of counsel), for Associated Hospital Service of New York, respondent.

Samuel M. Gold, J.

Motion by defendant-third-party plaintiff [Schlang] to remove an action now pending in the Municipal Court to this court pursuant to section 110-a of the Civil Practice Act, and to amend the third-party complaint.

The action in the Municipal Court is based on the failure of the defendant to pay a hospital bill. Defendant, in turn, impleaded the third-party defendant [Associated Hospital Service of New York] alleging the existence of a contract pur*486snant to which the third party was obligated to provide hospitalization. In defense, the contract is admitted but liability denied because of a certain exclusion clause in the contract.

Section 110-a of the Civil Practice Act provides for removal where a question as to the title to real property was raised in a court which has no jurisdiction to decide such questions or where the amount of damages turned out to be greater than the power of the court to award.

Section 110-a affects procedure only and creates no now right of action.

The defendant-third-party plaintiff seeks in the instant motion to remove the action to this court for the purpose of amending the third-party complaint so as to allege an action for a declaratory judgment, accounting, injunction and the other relief in behalf of himself and in a representative capacity on behalf of all such subscribers similarly interested.

The relief herein does not come within the purview of section 110-a of the Civil Practice Act. The objection raised is that a different type of complaint should have been alleged in the third-party proceeding even though the third-party complaint therein would be sufficient to fully determine the issue between the parties thereto. *(Matter of Yaras [City of Albany],*283 App. Div. 214, affd. 308 N. Y. 864.)

The Municipal Court has jurisdiction of the action pending therein. Accordingly, the motion to remove is denied.
Opinion issued April 21, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00276-CV

———————————

IN RE PAULA TOMASI, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 26, 2015, relator Paula Tomasi filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus requesting that we compel the trial court to rule on her “Petition for 

Enforcement of Property Division by Contempt.”* On March 31, 2015, relator filed 

a motion requesting voluntary dismissal of her petition for writ of mandamus, 

stating that the trial court subsequently ruled on her petition for enforcement. No 

 * The underlying case is In the Matter of the Marriage of Diego David Tomasi and 

Paula Tomasi, cause number 2012-03438, pending in the 245th District Court of 

Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Roy Moore presiding.
2

prior opinion has issued in this original proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the 

motion and dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We dismiss any other 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHET AT DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         642,886
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  389,210
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,032,096
<PP&E>                                      17,587,240
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,519,342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,099,994
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,099,994
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,099,994
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,648,740
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,062,825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   647,151
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 911 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 911

 To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
  issue an order with respect to secondary cockpit barriers, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2015

Mr. Fitzpatrick (for himself, Mr. Israel, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Marino, Mr. 
Swalwell of California, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. 
  Cummings, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. 
Sires, Mr. Takano, Mr. Capuano, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Lance, Mr. Deutch, Mr. 
 Courtney, Mr. Wittman, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Meeks, 
 and Mr. Perlmutter) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
  issue an order with respect to secondary cockpit barriers, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Saracini Aviation Safety Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. SECONDARY COCKPIT BARRIERS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration shall issue an order that requires--
            (1) on each covered aircraft the installation of a barrier, 
        other than the cockpit door, that prevents access to the flight 
        deck of the aircraft; and
            (2) for a covered aircraft--
                    (A) that is equipped with a cockpit door, that the 
                barrier required under paragraph (1) remain locked 
                while--
                            (i) the aircraft is in flight; and
                            (ii) the cockpit door separating the flight 
                        deck and the passenger area is open; and
                    (B) that is not equipped with a cockpit door, that 
                the barrier required under paragraph (1) remain locked 
                as determined appropriate by the pilot in command.
    (b) Covered Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``covered 
aircraft'' means a commercial aircraft--
            (1) operating under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal 
        Regulations;
            (2) equipped with more than 75 passenger seats; and
            (3) with a maximum gross takeoff weight that exceeds 75,000 
        pounds.
                                 <all>
```
• 11/01/93 

RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 89 

Revision to the PetroLeum Refini~g Primary and Secondary 

OiL/Water/SoLids Separation SLudge Listings (F037 and F038) 

56 FR 21955-21960
 

May 13, 1991
 

(RCRA CLuster I, HSWA Rule)
 

Note: This checkList amends the Listings of F037 and F038 which.were made at·55 FR 46354 (November 2, 1990; 

Revision CheckList 81). This ruLe revises and narrows these listings by 1) excLuding non-contact, once-through 

cooLing water from F037 and F038 Listings and 2) not including, within the scope of the F038· listing, floats 

generated in or after aggressive biologicaL treatment units. States wishing to adopt this optional change are strongly encouraged to adopt this change at the same time the Revision Checklist 81 provisions are adopted. 

FEDERAL 

REQUIREMENT 

FEDERAL 

RCRA 

CITATION 

ANALOGOUS 

STATE 

CITATION 

STATE ANALOG IS: 

MORE 

EQUIV- STRINALENT. GENT 

BROADER IN· 

SCOPE 

PART 261 • IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS· WASTE WAC 173-303 

SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES 

t HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES 

revise description of 

F037 and F038 261.31(a) 9904 x 

• 

• May 13, 1991 - Page 1 of 1
December 24, 1998

21466

#### Samonte v. State

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                      
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars               
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAR-31-1999         
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1998   
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998   
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1   
<CASH>                             1,912,000  
<SECURITIES>                               0   
<RECEIVABLES>                      4,884,000  
<ALLOWANCES>                       1,496,000  
<INVENTORY>                          132,000  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  84,760,000  
<PP&E>                               894,000  
<DEPRECIATION>                       601,000  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    87,451,000  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             55,673,000  
<BONDS>                                    0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0  
<PREFERRED>                                0  
<COMMON>                              78,000  
<OTHER-SE>                        31,700,000  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      87,451,000  
<SALES>                           11,393,000  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  11,393,000  
<CGS>                             10,122,000  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     10,122,000            
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    1,271,000  
<INCOME-TAX>                         572,000  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0  
<DISCONTINUED>                             0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0  
<CHANGES>                                  0  
<NET-INCOME>                         699,000  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .09  
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .09  
        


</TABLE>
25933

#### Parker v. State

Affirmed
November 6,2006

27272

#### State v. Deparini

Affirmed
October 

Docket M

US Depa

1200 New

SE West

Room W

Washing

To Whom

United A

of Exemp

allows de

§121.619

(a) No pe

alternate

condition

additiona

hour befo

appropria

(1) T

(2) V

(b) For th

airport m

(c) No pe

release. 

Request

As curren

Referenc

January 

August 1

Thank yo

required 

Sincerely

Ellen Birm

Manager

United A

Tel 872 8

ellen.birm

9, 2013 

Management

artment of Tr

w Jersey Av

t Building Gr

W12-140 

ton, DC 205

m It May Con

ir Lines, Inc.

ption 8653F 

eviation from

9 Alternate 

erson may d

e airport for e

ns forecast fo

al alternate m

ore and 1 ho

ate weather 

The ceiling w

Visibility will 

he purposes

must meet the

erson may d

ted Relief: 

ntly stated in

cing regulato

31, 2014. A

, 2005, and 

ou for your c

for your rev

y, 

mingham 

r - Flight Ope

irlines, 233 S

825 5193 

mingham@u

233 South

t Facility 

ransportation

venue 

round Floor

590 

ncern: 

., operating 

in accordan

m 14 CFR Se

airport for d

ispatch an a

each destina

or the destin

must be desi

our after the 

reports or fo

will be at lea

be at least 3

 of paragrap

e requireme

ispatch a flig

n Exemption

ory docket nu

All reasons a

as most rec

consideration

iew. 

erations Reg

South Wack

united.com 

h Wacker Drive 2

n

certificate C

nce with the 

ection 121.6

destination

airplane und

ation airport 

nation and fir

ignated. How

estimated ti

orecasts, or 

st 2,000 fee

3 miles. 

ph (a) of this

nts of § 121

ght unless h

n No. 8653F 

umber FAAand substan

cently grante

n of this petit

gulatory Com

ker Drive - 23

3rd Floor WHQFO

CALA014A, p

provisions o

19(a)(1) & (2

: IFR or ove

er IFR or ov

in the dispat

rst alternate 

wever, no al

me of arriva

any combina

t above the 

section, the

.625. 

e lists each 

– with no ad

-2005-22105

tiation conta

ed on April 1

tion. Please 

mpliance 

3rd Floor WH

O, Chicago, IL 6

petitions the 

of FAR 11.15

2). 

er-the-top: D

ver-the-top u

tch release. 

airport are m

ternate airpo

al at the dest

ation of them

airport eleva

e weather co

required alte

dditions or c

5, Exemption

ained in the 

0, 2012 rem

advise if an

HQFO, Chic

0606 

Administrato

5 and 11.63.

Domestic o

unless he list

When the w

marginal at l

ort is require

tination airpo

m, indicate—

ation; and 

onditions at t

ernate airpo

hanges. 

n No. 8653F

original petit

main the sam

ny further info

cago, IL 6060

or for a rene

. This exem

operations.

ts at least on

weather 

least one 

ed if for at le

ort the 

—

the alternate

ort in the disp

F will expire o

tion dated 

me. 

formation is 

06 

ewal 

mption 

ne 

east 1 

e

patch 

on