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


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


Board of Directors
Brake Headquarters U.S.A., Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-12821 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-44615 on Form S-3 of
Brake Headquarters U.S.A., Inc. of our report dated March 20, 1999, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Brake Headquarters U.S.A., Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 1997.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
April 14, 1998



                                      -26-
#### Vega v. Vega

22732

09/13/2000

Affirmed
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 4 - 0 423 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 233 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### 120L/4716/13 **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f yes, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by iss ue**  (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998               
<CASH>                          461544               
<SECURITIES>                    0               
<RECEIVABLES>                   13933762               
<ALLOWANCES>                    787042       
<INVENTORY>                     0        
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0               
<PP&E>                          0              
<DEPRECIATION>                  0               
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  14005660               
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0              
<BONDS>                         0               
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           2056953              
<PREFERRED>                     0               
<COMMON>                        0              
<OTHER-SE>                      11948707              
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    14005660               
<SALES>                         0               
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1657728             
<CGS>                           0               
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   217236               
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0               
<LOSS-PROVISION>                423054             
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              170867              
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 846571             
<INCOME-TAX>                    0             
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             846571              
<DISCONTINUED>                  0               
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0               
<CHANGES>                       0              
<NET-INCOME>                    846571               
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0               
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0              
        

</TABLE>
November 24, 1997

19337

#### State v. Kanoa

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


     The following are the  subsidiaries  of the Company,  for each of which the
voting  stock is 100% owned by the  Company.  Employment  Solutions,  Inc. is an
active subsidiary. Each of the remaining subsidiaries is inactive.

(1)      Employment Solutions, Inc., incorporated in South Carolina

(2)      RSI Holdings of Florida, Inc., incorporated in Florida.

(3)      Sunbelt Distributors, Inc., incorporated in South Carolina.

(4)      HomeAdd Financial Corporation, incorporated in South Carolina.

(5)      HomeAdd Financial Services Corp., a wholly owned  subsidiary of HomeAdd
         Financial Corporation, incorporated in North Carolina.
933 P.2d 87

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

18612

#### Bumanglag v. Meyer

January 31, 1997

Order No. 97-9

Affirmed
Establishment: Enter Est Code.  Product Code: Enter product code.

True Name: Click here to enter True Name.

 Label Type: Select a label type.           Pkg Size:  Enter a package size.

# image1.emf
ANIMAL CARE AID

Questions? Email us at CenterforAnimalWelfare@usda.gov 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Animal Care • AC-19-003

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Issued June 2019 • Reviewed February 2024

Identifying Healthy and Unhealthy Skin in Dogs

This Animal Care Aid is part of a series developed to provide information about skin issues in dogs. 

Refer to the other topics in the series for more information on skin, feet, and ear care.

No redness or hair 

loss around the 

eyes or on 

the muzzle.

Note the redness 

and hair loss 

around the eyes 

and on the muzzle.

This ear is clean, inside 

and out; there is no 

redness, inflammation, 

or discharge.

Note the redness 

and inflammation 

of the earflap and 

the yellowish, crusty 

discharge.

There is no missing or 

patchy hair on this dog. 

It is thick and covers the 

whole body. There is no 

redness on the skin.

Note the patchy, 

missing hair on this 

dog. The exposed skin 

is red and scaly.

The abdomen 

(stomach) of this dog 

shows no redness or 

inflammation. The hair 

covers the abdomen 

and inner thighs.

The abdomen (stomach) 

of this dog shows red, 

inflamed spots.

This paw has no 

hair loss, redness, 

or swelling.

This paw has hair 

loss, inflammation, 

and redness between 

the toes and on top 

of the paw.

WHY IS SKIN IMPORTANT TO DOG HEALTH AND WELL-BEING?

• It is the largest organ of the body.

• It acts as a physical barrier to protect the body from the environment.

• Skin problems may be the first sign of disease in other parts of the body.

Many skin diseases have similar symptoms. If you see abnormal skin, even if it looks like something you 

have seen before, it is important to consult with your veterinarian for proper diagnosis and treatment. 

HEALTHY SKIN

is free of dandruff, scabs, bumps, and pustules.

The hair coat will be intact (no bald spots), shiny, and mat-free. 

UNHEALTHY SKIN

may have dandruff, scabs, bumps, scales, and/or pustules.

The hair coat may have missing fur or be dull, dry, and/or matted.
October 2, 2015

Mr. William Taek Lim

10472 San Andreas Drive

Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737

Dear Mr. Lim:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your June 8, 2015, exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2828, but 

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Alan Vituli, Chief Executive Officer of Carrols Corporation. (the
Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ ALAN VITULI                                                
|Alan Vituli                                                    
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer March 9, 2009
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 1860** 

INDIAN MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY , Petitioners ,

v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; EMILY BOLLING , Respondents

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board

. (09

- 0180

- BLA)

Submitted : March 29, 2011 Decided: April 8, 2011

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Mark E. Solo mons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner s . M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Rae Ellen James, Associate Solicitor, Patricia M. Nece, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Barry H. Joyner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Joseph E. Wolfe, Ryan C. Gilligan, WOLFE, WILLIAMS, RUTHERFORD & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia, for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Indian Mountain Coal Company and Old R epublic
Insurance Company seek review of the Benefits Review Board ’ s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge ’ s
award of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901

- 945
(2006) . Our review of the record discloses that the Board ’ s
deci sion is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Indian Mountain Coal

Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs , No.
09

- 0180

- BLA (BR B Sept. 23, 2009) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32



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 Report of Terra Industries Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their best
knowledge:



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



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



|                                                                                                    |  |  |  |                                                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    |  | 
|/s/ MICHAEL L. BENNETT                                                                              |  |  |  | /s/ FRANCIS G. MEYER                                                                         
|Michael L. Bennett President and Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer) |  |  |  | Francis G. Meyer Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
|                                                                                                    |  | 
|Dated: May 16, 2005                                                                                 |  |  |  | Dated: May 16, 2005                                                                          



The certification set forth above is
being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document of the company or the certifying officers.
NOTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
GOOGLE LLC, Appellant

v.

ECOFACTOR, INC., Cross

- Appellant

______________________

2023

- 1414, 2023

- 1429

______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021

- 00982.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M ATTHEW A. S MITH
, Smith Baluch LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by E LIZABETH L AUGHTON

.

J AMES P ICKENS
, Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA, argued for cross

- appellant. Also represented by K RISTOPHER D AVIS
, R EZA M IRZAIE

.

______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is Case: 23-1414 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 07/15/2024O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST
, L INN
, and H UGHES
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 15, 2024 Date Case: 23-1414 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 07/15/2024
Monica Reising, MS, PhD

Center for Veterinary Biologics

Statistics Section

1920 Dayton Ave

Ames, IA 50010

Monica.M.Reising@aphis.usda.gov

Veterinary Services
 Background

 Considerations

 Potency Specifications

 The Power is in Your Hands

 Benefit to You (Examples)

 Practical Impacts of Draft 440
 Administrative Inspection Review 

(2009)

 Draft Notice 440 (2011)

 Draft Memorandum 440 (2013)

◦ Live products only

 Draft Memorandum 440 Revised 

(2014)

◦ All classes of products
 What considerations must be made 

when attempting to develop policy 

related to setting release and 

throughout-dating specifications for a 

specified dating period?
 What is potency?

 What does it mean for a serial to be 

potent?

 What is the expectation of the potency 

of a serial at release? 

 What is the expectation of the potency 

of a serial throughout its dating 

period?
 Any policy should encourage/reward

◦ Precise assays

◦ Consistency in manufacturing

◦ Stable products/antigens

◦ More testing, not less
 What does one vial represent in terms 

of a serial?

◦ Does the result of potency testing a single 

vial provide you any level of comfort 

regarding your expectation of a serial at 

release?

◦ Does the result of potency testing a single 

vial provide you any level of comfort 

regarding that serial at any point 

throughout-dating?
 Increase the precision of the assay.

◦ Use a smaller dilution factor.

◦ Use data from more dilutions.

◦ Use more wells per dilution.

◦ Consistency among operators.
 Test each vial multiple times.

◦ Reduces assay variance
 Sloppy assays may mask/obscure 

potency loss.

◦ May result in higher throughout-dating 

specification due to lack of precision in 

the COD data.

◦ May result in closer release and 

throughout-dating specification but at the 

cost of a higher throughout-dating 

specification and in terms of formulation.
 What would you do?

◦ The antigen was difficult and very 

expensive to produce 

◦ Conducting potency tests was relatively 

inexpensive

 What would you do? 

◦ The antigen was easy and inexpensive to 

produce 

◦ Conducting the potency test was relatively 

expensive?
 Evaluated All Confirmation of Dating 

(COD) studies using a in vitro assay 

submitted after January 1, 2013

◦ 46 total fractions

 67% had a lower release or throughout-dating 

specification or both under Draft 440

 7% showed no change to either the release or 

throughout-dating specification

 26% showed both a higher release and 

throughout-dating specification
THE END
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

March 25, 2015

s0318 

# Order

Clerk March 25, 2015

149773

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149773

COA: 315987

Ingham CC: 12

- 000551

- FC

KENYARTA JEREMY GETER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 17, 2014

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.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01

INTERLAND, INC.
EXHIBITS TO FORM 10-K

                            Listing of Subsidiaries

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                            STATE (OR
                                                            JURISDICTION) IN                   PERCENTAGE
                                                            WHICH                              OWNERSHIP
NAME                                                        INCORPORATED                       BY REGISTRANT
--------------------------------------------------          ----------------                   -------------
<S>                                                         <C>                                <C>
CommuniTech.Net, Inc.                                       Missouri                               100%
DialTone, Inc.                                              Florida                                100%
iNNERHOST, Inc.                                             Florida                                100%
Interland B.V                                               Netherlands                            100%
HostPro, Inc. (f/k/a Micron PC Web Services, Inc.)          Delaware                               100%
HostPro Acquisition Canada                                  Canada                                 100%
Wazoo Web, Inc.                                             Missouri                               100%
MEI California, Inc.                                        California                             100%
Micron Electronics (H.K.) Limited                           Hong Kong                              100%
Micron Electronics Overseas Trading, Inc.                   Barbados                               100%
Micron Electronics International, Inc.                      Delaware                               100%
Micron Computer of Canada, Inc.                             Canada                                 100%
Micron Electronics Asia-Pacific Holdings, Inc.              B.V.I                                  100%
Micron Electronics Asia-Pacific Operations, Inc.            B.V.I                                  100%
Micron Electronics Asia-Pacific Trading, Ltd.               Hong Kong                              100%
iNNERHOST Holdings, Inc.                                    B.V.I                                  100%
iNNERHOST de Mexico, S. DE R.L                              Mexico                                 100%
iNNERHOST de Brazil, LTDA                                   Brazil                                 100%
iNNERHOST de Panama, S.R.L                                  Panama                                 100%
iNNERHOST de Costa Rica, S.R.L                              Costa Rica                             100%
iNNERHOST de Venezuela, S.R.L                               Venezuela                              100%
</Table>
28081

#### McKinley v. State

Affirmed