alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT
      18**







February
      17, 2006




Board
      of
      Directors


Chattem,
      Inc. ******


1715
      W.
      38 th Street


Chattanooga,
      TN 37409





As
      stated
      in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements of Chattem, Inc. and
      subsidiaries (the “Company”)
      for the year
      ended November 30, 2005, the Company’s domestic operations changed the method of
      accounting for the cost of inventories from the last-in, first-out inventory
      method to the first-in, first-out inventory method. Management believes the
      new
      method of accounting for inventories results in conforming all of the
      Company’s
      inventories to a uniform method of accounting to more accurately measure
      operating results, to more accurately present financial position by reflecting
      more recent costs at the balance sheet date, and to provide more meaningful
      reporting to lenders. At your request, we have reviewed and discussed with
      management the circumstances, business judgment, and planning that formed the
      basis for making this change in accounting principle.





It
      should
      be recognized that professional standards have not been established for
      selecting among alternative principles that exist in this area or for evaluating
      the preferability of alternative accounting principles. Accordingly, we are
      furnishing this letter solely for purposes of the Company's compliance with
      the
      requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and it should not be
      used or relied on for any other purpose.





Based
      on
      our review and discussion, we concur with management's judgment that the newly
      adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances. In formulating
      this position, we are relying on management's business planning and judgment,
      which we do not find unreasonable.





Very
      truly
      yours,











/S/
      GRANT
      THORNTON LLP
193 P.3d 437

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

August 26, 2008

27331

#### Ching v. Valencia

Affirmed
^ Memorandum 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

^Ns"l& ' v^RTMENTOF 

"i :\N3PORWiON 0PQnATI0N8 

Subject: INFORMATION: Meeting with r.-^.m-.n A W f Q AUG 18 2010 

Amy Hall, President, Ebony Construction - - i- - ^ .'-\ lu- oo 

From: Allen Masuda /^^^^ ^ In Reply Refer To: 

Associate AdmirfKfrator for Civil Rights HCR-1 

To: Docket #OST-2010-0118-

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 

(DBE) Program 

I received an email from Terrence Hicks, Director of the Office of Business Development, 

Michigan Department of Transportation on June 9, asking that I arrange a meeting so that 

Amy Hall, President, Ebony Construction (a DBE for asphalt paving, milling and 

supplying materials from Sylvania, Ohio) could meet with Victor Mendez, FHWA 

Administrator, while Amy was in DC. Because Administrator Mendez was expected to be 

on travel during the time she was going to be in town, I agreed to meet with Amy. 

I met with Amy in my office on June 16 and Vickie Anderson of my staff was in 

attendance. Amy's issue is not getting DBE credit for the asphalt materials she has to 

purchase from her prime contractor who is also the only asphalt supplier in a particular 

region of a State. If she purchases from someone else, the cost is higher and the prime will 

not accept her bid...plus it is not his asphalt. Since a prime/supplier cannot get credit for 

using her paving company, her business has dropped off significantly. Under the current 

regulations, materials and services provided by the prime contractor to its DBE 

subcontractor cannot be counted towards the project DBE goal because it clouds whether 

or not a DBE is doing a commercially useful function. The Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making addresses this issue by requesting comments on some possible alternatives. I 

encouraged her to submit her concerns/suggestions to the docket. 

During our conversation she indicated she did not know about the Office of Small and 

Disadvantage Business Utilization (OSDBU). After our meeting, I realized that if she did 

know about OSDBU, she did not know about the Recovery Act bond fee reimbursement 

program. By email I sent her information about the program so she could apply for 

reimbursement if she incurred a bond fee on a Recovery Act project.
Exhibit 99.3





KPMG LLP
Telephone
(514)840-2100600 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West
Fax
(514)840-2187Suite 1500
Internet
www.kpmg.caTour KPMGMontréal, Québec H3A 0A3







Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm






The Board of Directors


Canadian National Railway Company




We consent to the incorporation by reference of our Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm both dated February 2, 2015 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Canadian National Railway Company (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 and the consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2014, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014, in this annual report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2014.




We also consent to the incorporation by reference of such reports in the registration statements (No. 333-5258, No. 333-53420, No. 333-53422, No. 333-59337, No. 333-71270, No. 333-163860, No. 333-163862 and No. 333-197799) on Form S-8 of the Company and in the registration statement (No. 333-192522) on Form F-10 of the Company.






/s/ KPMG LLP






February 2, 2015




Montréal, Canada






*FCPA auditor, FCA, public accountancy permit No. A106087




KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG

network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative

(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, November 27, 2023, 10:00 a.m. to November 28, 2023, 05:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 13, 2023, FR Doc 2023-24961, 88 FR 77597.                

This notice is being amended to change the dates of this two-day meeting to December 14, 2023, and December 15, 2023. The meeting time remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: November 28, 2023.

David W. Freeman, 

Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-26450 Filed 11-30-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23(a)

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                          -----------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-33520 on Form S-8, Amendment 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-38349 on Form
S-3, Amendment 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-81278 on Form S-3, Amendment
1 to Registration Statement No. 333-81278-01 on Form S-3, Amendment 1 to
Registration Statement No. 333-81278-02 on Form S-3, Amendment 1 to Registration
Statement No. 333-81278-03 on Form S-3, Amendment 1 to Registration Statement
No. 333-69738 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-70332 on Form S-8,
Amendment 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-47910 on Form S-3, Registration
Statement No. 333-52328 on Form S-8, Amendment 1 to Registration Statement No.
333-89685 on Form S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-48164 on Form S-8 of
Progress Energy, Inc. of our report dated February 15, 2002, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Progress Energy, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 2001

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-58800 on Form S-3 of Carolina Power & Light Company of our report dated
February 15, 2002, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for Carolina
Power & Light Company for the year ended December 31, 2001.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Raleigh, North Carolina
March 27, 2002
#### Inez Charles, Plaintiff, *v.*A. Basil Charles, Defendant.

Supreme Court, .Special Term, Kings County,

May 25, 1959.

*Milton E. Friedman*for plaintiff.

*Charles L. Kellar*for defendant.

Benjamin Brenner, J.

Defendant husband’s motion to preclude is denied. The plaintiff wife’s affidavit and her pleadings indicate that she is relying on a course of conduct rather than any specific acts to prove her cause of action of cruel and inhuman treatment. She has sufficiently particularized such conduct in her bill of particulars. *(Plucer*v. *Plucer,*8 A D 2d 713; *Loeb*v. *Loeb,*240 App. Div. 912; *Earle*v. *Earle,*79 App. Div. 631; *Shanik*v. *Shanik,*207 Misc. 685; *Kraus*v. *Kraus,*120 N. Y. S. 2d 845.)

Motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint and reply is denied on condition that she appear at Special Term, Part II on June 4, 1959 at 10:00 a.m., at which time she shall answer such unanswered or partially answered questions of the previous examination as the Justice sitting in Special Term, Part II shall direct; otherwise granted. In the event the defendant’s attorney does not appear the motion is denied unconditionally.

Settle order on notice.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply615Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Latisha Willia... (not verified)PermalinkJanuary 3, 2019 - 3:39pmThank you for sharing. This is so cool! I look forward to hearing about other discoveries since we have 3 more phases to go. Keep it coming! :)
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
#### Campbell et al., Appellants, *v.*The Monaco Coal Mining Co. et al., Appellees.

(No. 31689

Decided March 16, 1949.)

*Mr. Joseph C. Allen*and *Mr. A. G. Lancione,*for appellants.

*Mr. G. J. Buffing, Messrs. Thornburg <& Lewis*and. *Messrs. Michener & Dankworth,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart and Turner, JJ., concur.
October Docket M US Dep a 1200 Ne w SE Wes t Room W Washing To Who m United A of Exem p allows d e §121.61 9 (a) No p e alternat e conditio n addition a hour bef o appropri a (1) T (2) V (b) For t h airport m (c) No p e release. Reques t As curre n Referen c January A ugust 1 Thank y o required Sincerel y
Ellen Bir m Manage r United A Tel 872 8 ellen.bir m 9, 2013 M anagemen t a rtment of T r wJersey Av tBuilding G r W 12-140

ton, DC 20 5 m It May Co n ir Lines, Inc
. p tion 8653F e viation fro m 9Alternate e rson may d e airport for e n s forecast f o a l alternate m o re and 1 h o a te weather T he ceiling w V isibility will h e purposes m ust meet th e

e rson may d t ed Relief: n tly stated i n c ing regulat o 31, 2014. A , 2005, and o u for your c

for your rev y ,

m ingham r- Flight Op e irlines, 233 S 8 25 5193 m ingham@ u
233 South tFacility ransportatio n v enue round Floo r 5 90 n cern:

. , operating in accorda n m 14 CFR S e

airport for d ispatch an a e ach destin a o r the desti n m ust be des i o ur after the

reports or f o w ill be at lea

be at least 3 of paragra p e requireme ispatch a fli g

n Exemptio n o ry docket n u A ll reasons a

as most re c c onsideratio n

iew.

e rations Re g S outh Wac k u nited.com
hWacker Drive 2 n

certificate C n ce with the e ction 121.6 d estination a irplane und a tion airport n ation and fi r i gnated. Ho w estimated ti o recasts, or st 2,000 fe e 3miles. p h (a) of this nts of § 121 g ht unless h

n No. 8653F

u mber FAA a nd substan c ently grant e n of this peti t

g ulatory Co m k er Drive - 2 3

3 rd

Floor WHQFO C ALA014 A , p

provisions o 19(a)(1) & ( 2 : IFR or ove er IFR or o v in the dispa t rst alternate w ever, no al me of arriva any combin a t above the section, th e .625. e lists each

– with no a d

- 2005-2210 5 tiation cont a e d on April 1 t ion. Please

m pliance 3 rd Floo rW H

O , Chicago, IL 6 p etitions the o f FAR 11.1 5 2 ). er -the-top: D v e r -the-top u t ch release. airport are m ternate airp o a l at the des t

ation of the m airport elev a
eweather c o

required alt e

d ditions or c 5 , Exemptio n a ined in the 0, 2012 re m advise if a n

H QFO, Chi c

0606 Administrat o 5 and 11.63
. D omestic o u nless he lis t

When the w m arginal at l o rt is requir e t ination airp o m , indicate — ation; and
o nditions at t
e rnate airp o
hanges. n No. 8653 F original peti t m ain the sa m n y further inf o

c ago, IL 606 0 or for a ren e

. This exe m
o perations.

t s at least o n w eather

l east one e d if for at l e o rt the

—

t he alternat e
o rt in the dis p

Fwill expire o t ion dated m e. f ormation is

0 6 e wal m ption

n e
e ast 1

e p atch

o n
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  UT
<CIK> 0000018734
<NAME>  CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
<SUBSIDIARY>
<NUMBER> 003
<NAME> CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                        PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                          3,247,969
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                            2,552
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                               241,206
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                              50,551
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     1,305,572
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     4,847,850
<COMMON>                                             168,888
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            405,000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                  764,225
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                     1,338,113
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                            5,967
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                               1,454,541
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   322,158
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                             0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        150,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                                  0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                                0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                           0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                     1,577,071
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                      4,847,850
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                          1,482,475
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                 103,895
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         1,083,908
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         1,187,803
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                              294,672
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                     8,113
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                       302,785
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             114,380
<NET-INCOME>                                         182,888
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            6,931
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                        173,194
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             148,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                             87,413
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                               303,184
<EPS-BASIC>                                                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0



</TABLE>
#### Michael Barlow, an Infant, by Blanche Barlow, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, *v.*Prudential Insurance Company of America, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 2, 1959.

*Le Vine $ Schechter (Merwin F. Le Vine*and *Ferdinand M. Schwarts*of counsel), for appellant.

*Benjamin N. Brody*and *Solomon Millendorf*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The court below was in error in charging the jury that section 341 of the Civil Practice Act placed the burden on the defendant insurance company to come forward with evidence to rebut the presumption of death because of the insured’s seven years’ absence. The “ due proof ” required as a condition precedent to an insured’s liability upon a policy of life insurance is not met by relying upon the presumption and by casting upon the insurer the burden of affirmatively proving that the insured was alive within the period of seven years ’ disappearance. While death in an action on an insurance policy may be established by proof of disappearance under circumstances that indicate death rather than concealment, the burden of proof in such situation is at all times upon the plaintiff. Such an action is not one of those ‘1 certain cases ’ ’ coming within the statute.

The verdict, moreover, was clearly against the weight of the evidence. The presumption could not arise, since the facts of the insured’s disappearance could not create “in reasonable *865minds conflicting inferences”. *(Stevens*v. *Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*151 Misc. 676, affd. 241 App. Div. 857, affd. 266 N. Y. 485.)

The order and judgment appealed from should be reversed, with $30 costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs, without prejudice, however, to the bringing of another action upon new proof.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

Order and judgment reversed, etc.
Court ov CexhimAlJWekls 55/1/W-33

Jl'h i-orifih^ £on£*rru'-df any mforh^MDn

COUBTOFCRililNRiAPPEALe

APR 20 2015

V • V V v X > *

AbelAoosfeCterk

1 upuli \vW4o \m6m\1 you:uf\\\.stM ht Ac&py

S&>j)y a*4^l LfcTfeil'. B*caui* hak3 knotting 4U <4>uH r^iWz'fl

\+^J yob (ft) Mt in 4Vvi 0U'^)A.I ftO)4*v' ta a Jtefd >^pv^i^ Hi/ cont^rru lh 4U4 LEltclf?. 1 &.U 4k*

r>d<A 4t> W ±c&yy di 4U hpfK^ioh V Ur»4 ^ VUW Carfuj 4kM I'hWihf +& 4U inX! Cto^ .1tal 4W h^tD 4b W *Copy +6 yalj/MLir d-WW 4o Wm^ 4a ^^44^1^ df ^ foirrf.Oh

hanky, ftpr'il 4U 2?lk, 2/)ir. J'n film? J\pft\">^tDhfoy UirRft* HdUu

Corpusj 11.0?/ j^. ^O) fcl. Ufeftpy yjauvimO. rk IWe Vu Itour*., a*)

ltfhW)£ lOa,-kr yoU\r £6njlVr*fe'i0h...hfcy fiob BLE# >6U fc-b*l l^oif.

QMwSwx

Huch£J UUirt

rtr-2.. Bdx^oo
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 1, 2013

p0325

Order 

April 1, 2013

146396

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146396

COA: 307248 

Hillsdale CC: 11-352537-FH; 11-352538-FH; 11-352539-FH

AINSLEY ANDERSON PARTRIDGE, III,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 27, 2012 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### State v. Ikeda

24868

08/19/2003

Affirmed