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

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
of Equity Compression Services Corporation (formerly Hawkins Energy Corporation,
the "Company") on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-74640 and 333-23925) of our report
dated March 25, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of
the Company as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for the years ended December
31, 1996, 1995 and 1994, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-KSB.



                                   COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.



Tulsa, Oklahoma
March 28, 1997
#### Quiaoit v. State

21412

12/14/98

Affirmed
#### Dohmen-Ramirez v. Fries

20476

5/27/98

Vacated & Remanded
BiotechnologyRegulatoryServices, APHIS, USDA March 1, 2018

Data Definitions:

PermitNumber

Assigned BRS permit or notification number. The formatis yy-jjj-sstwhere

 yy = Year the permitrequestwas received

 jjj = Numeric Julian day the requestwas received

 ss = Sequence number for that day for the application type

 t = Request Type (n - notification, r -release permit, m- movementpermit)

Type Notification orPermit

Action

Action or purpose of the request: 

 Import (Foreign import of material) 

 Interstate (controlledmovement of material)

 Interstate/Release (controlledmovement of material + controlled open air 

field release)

 Release (controlled open air field release)

Institution Institution or Organization making the request

Article Species or crop(s) for the request

Receive Date Date the requestwasreceived by BRS

Status Currentstatus of the request(e.g., Acknowledged, Issued, Pending, Withdrawn)

Effective Date Earliest date any action is allowed to startfor the Notification or Permit

Expire Date Date thisrequested action is no longer valid for the stated activity

Locations

States of Release and Movement

 Rel - States for Release

 Orig - Origin statesforMovement

 Dest- Destination statesfor Movement

Sites

MaximumNumberof sites or locations where the release willtake place

Acres

IfrequeststatusisIssued orAcknowledged,thisisthe numberof acres

approved for field releaseby APHIS-BRS.

Ifthe requeststatusis other than Issued or Acknowledged,thisisthe amount

of acresthe applicant hasrequested for field release.

Issue Date Date the Notification or PermitwasAuthorized, Withdrawn or Denied

CBI

CBI meansthe request contains Confidential (or proprietary) Business

Information (and thatportion of the data is not availableto the public).

noCBI meansthe request does not contain any ConfidentialBusiness Information.

Phenotypes Phenotype Categories and Phenotypes of the requested article(s).

Multiple phenotypes are separated by a slash (/).

Genotypes Genotypes(donors and gene designations) of the regulated article(s).

(SM indicatesselectable marker.)
 

Phenotype Categories

AP Agronomic Properties

BR Bacterial Resistance

FR Fungal Resistance

HT Herbicide Tolerance

IR Insect Resistance

MG Marker Gene

NR Nematode Resistance

OO Other

PQ Product Quality

VR Virus Resistance
**Exhibit10.5**

**New HireAuthorization—Updated Appendix**

Stockoptions covering an aggregate of 100,000 shares of common stock were granted toCarl Cohen on June 28, 2006 in connection with his appointment as President,Marketing Services, and stock options covering an aggregate of 25,000 shareswere granted to Ronald Pearce on June 26, 2006 in connection with hisappointment as Vice President and Corporate Controller. Also, stock optionscovering an aggregate of 30,000 shares of common stock were granted to onenon-executive officer employee on April 24, 2006.

Allsuch option grants were made under the Company’s New Hire Authorization asinducements to entering into employment with the Company. All options grantedinclude a ten-year duration and an exercise price equal to the closing price ofDendrite’s stock on the business day immediately preceding the date of grant.The vesting schedule for the options is as follows: (i) twenty-five percent(25%) of the options shall first become exercisable on the first anniversary ofdate of grant and (ii) the remaining seventy-five percent (75%) shall becomeexercisable pro rata over the following three (3) year period, on a monthlybasis, commencing on the first anniversary of the date of grant and ending onthe fourth anniversary of the date of grant.

----
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appell ee , UN PUBLI SHED November 19, 2020

v No. 349105 Wayne Circuit Court DWIGHT ANDREW JONES

, LC No. 18

- 002173

- 01

- FC

Defendant

- Appell ant

.

Before: G LEICHER , P .J., and K. F. K ELLY and S HAPIRO , JJ.

K. F. K ELLY , J

. ( concurring and d issenting ).

I join in the majority opinion in all respects except sentencing. Rather, I would conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences.

As the majority observes, a trial court’s decision whether to impose a discre tionary consecutive sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v Norfleet , 317 Mich App 649, 654; 897 NW2d 195 (2016). Although concurrent sentencing is the norm, a consecutive sentence may be imposed only if specifically authorized by statu te , People v Ryan , 295 Mich App 388, 401; 819 NW2d 55 (2012)

, and consecutive sentencing applicable to this case is set forth in MCL 750.520b(3)

. The purpose of consecutive

- sentencing statutes is to deter individuals from committing multiple crimes by removing the security of concurrent sentences , and the Legislature intended real and substantial consequences by authorizing the imposition of lengthy prison terms. Ryan , 295 Mich App at 408.

In this case, the trial court justified its imposition of con secutive sentences by commenting on the egregious nature of defendant’s conduct, which involved multiple acts of sexual penetration committed against defendant’s own five

- year

- old daughter, the court’s opinion that defendant was a sexual predator, and the absurdity of defendant’s defense that he simply awoke to find his daughter’s mouth on his penis. Indeed, the record indicates that defendant removed his child from her siblings and committed multiple acts of penetration, including vaginal penetration that caused her to bleed. Further, defendant merely asserted that he was asleep naked and awoke to find the victim touching his penis and part of his penis was in her mouth. Defendant opined that the victim was not being “all the way truthful.” Under the ci rcumstances, t he trial court adequately articulated- 2

-

its reasons for ordering defendant’s sentences to be served consecutively , and I cannot conclude that the sentences imposed were outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.

I would affirm d efendant’s convictions and sentences.

/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. WINGS *&*WHEELS, INC., Respondent.

No. 14407.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Oct. 24, 1963.

Decided Nov. 7, 1963.

Robert Sewell, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Atty., N.- L. R. B., on the brief), for petitioner.

Roland Morris, Philadelphia, Pa. (Duane, Morris & Heckscher, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for respondent.

Before STALEY and GANEY, Circuit Judges, and NEALON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court on the petition of the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519 (1947), 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. (1952), for enforcement of its order issued against respondent, Wings & Wheels, Inc. The Board *496found that respondent violated Sections 8(a) (1), (3) and (5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), (3) and (5) (1952), by discharging its three driver employees in order to avoid bargaining with the Union; bargaining directly with the employees after they had designated the Union as their bargaining representative; conditioning re-employment on the employees withdrawing from the Union and accepting terms proposed during the unlawful direct bargaining; threatening reprisals for the employees’ Union activity, and coercively interrogating the employees concerning their Union affiliation. In its order the Board directed respondent to bargain collectively with the Union, reinstate the three employees with back pay, and to cease and desist from engaging in unfair labor practices.

 The record in this case abounds with testimony showing that respondent completely repudiated its duty to bargain with the Union after being notified that the Union represented its truck drivers, sought instead to undermine the Union’s status as bargaining representative by dealing directly with the employees, and finally discharged all three drivers to avoid bargaining with the Union. The respondent challenged this testimony, but the Board resolved the issue of credibility in favor of the employees and against the respondent. The responsibility to resolve issues of credibility is for the Board and not for the Court. National Labor Relations Board v. Buitoni Foods Corporation, 298 F.2d 169 (3d Cir. 1962). It is the function of the Court to determine whether or not, on a consideration of the record as a whole, the findings of fact are supported by “substantial evidence.” Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). A consideration of the entire record convinces us that the findings of the Board are amply supported by the evidence.

Therefore, the petition for enforcement will be granted and an appropriate form of decree may be submitted by the Board.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134395 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134395 

 COA: 274815 

Macomb CC: 03-002203-FC 

JEFFREY L. MCCUTCHEON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 1, 2007 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1022 

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. 

October 29, 2007 

 Clerk
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC17

- 1480

____________ RONNIE JOHNSON, Appellant,

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

____________ No. SC17

- 1484

____________ RONNIE JOHNSON, Appellant,

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [March 27, 2018]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Ronnie Johnson’s appeal s of the circuit court’s order s denying Johnson’s motion s filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.851. This Cour t has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.- 2

-

Johnson’s motion s sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme
Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida , 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on
remand in Hurst v. State ( Hurst ), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). This Court stayed Defendant’s appeal s pending the disposition of
Hitchcock v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017)

. After this Court decided Hitchcock , Johnson responded to this Court’s order s to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in these cases.
After reviewing Johnson’s response s to the order s to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Johnson is not entitled to relief

. Johnson was sentenced to death for the murder of Lee Arthur Lawrence following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of seven to five. Johnson v. State , 696 So. 2d 317, 320 (Fla. 1997). Johnson was also sentenced to death for the murder of Tequila Larkins following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote
of nine to three. Johnson v. State , 696 So. 2d 326, 329 (Fla. 1997)

. Both of
Johnson’s sentence s of death became final in 1998. Johnson v. Florida , 522 U.S. 1120 (19 98); Johnson v. Florida , 522 U.S. 1095 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Johnson’s sentence s of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Johnson’s motion s
.- 3

-

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Johnson , we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so
ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. LEWIS and CANADY, JJ. , concur in result. PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock
v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere t o the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock

. Appeal s from the Circuit Court in and for Miami

- Dade County, Nushin G. Sayfie , Judge

- Case No s
. 131989CF0149980001XX & 131989CF012383B000XX Charles G. White of Charles G. White, P.A. , Miami, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney Ge neral, Tallahassee, Florida, and Melissa J. Roca, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, Florida, for Appellee
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 22, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00245

- CV

Larry CONN , Laura Conn, and L

- C Concrete, Inc. d/b/a Texas Concrete Construction Company, Appellants

v.

Paul BISHOP , Individually And Derivatively On Behalf Of Medina Valley Materials, LLC, Medina Valley Holdings, LLC, Medina Valley Land, LLC, Medina Valley Equipment, LLC, And Medina Valley Concrete Construction, LLC, And Jacob Bishop, Individually And Derivatively On Behalf Of Medina Valley Materials, LLC, Medina Valley Holdings, LLC,

Medina Valley Land, LLC, and Medina Valley Equipment, LLC, Appellees

From the 289th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CI02401

Honorable David A. Canales , J udge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant s ’ reply brief i s due on September 19, 2022. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(c).

Before t he due date , Appellant s filed a n unopposed motion for a seven

- day exten sion of time to

file the reply brief

. Appellant s ’ motion is granted ; the reply brief i s due on September 26, 2022

. See id. R.
38.6(d).

It is so ORDERED Sept ember 22 , 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
# C_2018352EN.01001801.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 2 July 2018 — ML v OÜ Aktiva Finants

(Case C-433/18)

(2018/C 352/23)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ML

Defendant: OÜ Aktiva Finants

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the procedure for granting leave for further consideration which is part of the national system of appeals compatible with the effective rights of appeal that are guaranteed for both parties in Article 43(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) where an appeal is lodged against the decision of a district court which relates to the recognition or enforcement of a judgment under Regulation No 44/2001? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the procedure for granting leave for further consideration which is part of the national system of appeals compatible with the effective rights of appeal that are guaranteed for both parties in Article 43(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) where an appeal is lodged against the decision of a district court which relates to the recognition or enforcement of a judgment under Regulation No 44/2001?

| 2. | In the procedure for granting leave for further consideration, are the requirements in relation to a procedure in contradictory matters within the meaning of Article 43(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 satisfied if the respondent is not heard in relation to the appeal before the decision on leave is taken? Are they satisfied if the respondent is heard before the decision on leave for further consideration is taken? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the procedure for granting leave for further consideration, are the requirements in relation to a procedure in contradictory matters within the meaning of Article 43(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 satisfied if the respondent is not heard in relation to the appeal before the decision on leave is taken? Are they satisfied if the respondent is heard before the decision on leave for further consideration is taken?

| 3. | Does the fact that the appellant may be not only the party who has applied for enforcement and whose application has been refused, but also the party against whom enforcement has been applied for when that application has been allowed, have any significance for the above interpretation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the fact that the appellant may be not only the party who has applied for enforcement and whose application has been refused, but also the party against whom enforcement has been applied for when that application has been allowed, have any significance for the above interpretation?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

---
# C_2018328EN.01002902.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/29

---

Action brought on 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-487/18)

(2018/C 328/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of its national programme for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, the Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of its national programme for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, the Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste; (1)

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Up to the present, the defendant has merely notified the Commission of a draft national programme. In its replies to the letter of formal notice and the reasoned opinion it explained that the national programme had still to be adopted by the Federal Government, something which had not yet occurred. Only after that adoption would notification of the national programme be possible. However, the defendant has not yet followed up on those announcements. The defendant has thus still not notified a national programme and has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of the directive.

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 199, p. 48.

---
# C_2019423EN.01003801.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Colombani v EEAS

(Case T-372/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2017 promotion year - Decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 14 - Article 43 and Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Consideration of comparative merits - Taking into account staff reports for the purpose of promotion - Purely literal assessments - No method enabling staff reports to be compared for the purpose of promotion)

(2019/C 423/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Marc Colombani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer, F.-M. Hislaire and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 9 November 2017 (ADMIN(2017) 21) not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 14 in the 2017 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 9 November 2017 (ADMIN(2017) 21) not to promote Mr Jean-Marc Colombani to Grade AD 14 in the 2017 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 9 November 2017 (ADMIN(2017) 21) not to promote Mr Jean-Marc Colombani to Grade AD 14 in the 2017 promotion exercise;

| 2. | Orders the EEAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the EEAS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.

---
24254

#### Myers v. Administrative Director of Courts

Affirmed
# E **C** 

# / **R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989** 

501 Eastowne Dr., Suite 250  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Telephone: (919) 484 - 0222  Fax: (919) 484 - 0122 MEMORANDUM TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0734 FROM: Jill Mozier, EC/R Inc. DATE: December 9 , 2013 SUBJECT: Presentation submittals to OMB as part of the American Lung Association’s , the

American Thoracic Society ’s, and Trust for America’s Health’s presentation on November 1, 2013 regarding the proposed NSPS for Wood Heaters . The American Lung Association and several other health organization s presented their perspectives to OMB regarding wood heater particulate pollution and the proposed NSPS. The following representatives from each organization spoke:

 Paul Billings

– American Lung Association, Vice President, National Policy & Advocacy  Gary Ewart - American Thoracic Society , Director of Government Relations  Jack Ray

burn

– Trust for America’s Health, Government Relations Manager All three presenters expressed their support for a revised, robust, and stringent NSPS due to the serious, negative health effects of wood smoke. Attached to this primary

document in the docket are 3 h andouts submitted to OMB as part of the presentation b y the above group: (1) Photos of smoking new Phase II Outdoor Wood Fired Boiler s (hydronic heater s ); (2) A November 12, 2 012 letter from the American Lung Association to EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy (urging the EPA to adopt rigorous health - protective standards for all classes of residential wood heaters that require best emission reduction sy stems, including a s ummary of the pollutants emitted and their known health effects); (3) People at Risk in 25 Counties Most Polluted by Short - term Particle Pollution (24 - hour PM 2.5 )
Sept. 28, 2001

23070

#### Allen v. State

Affirmed
19741

#### State v. Worsham

Affirmed