alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                 Exhibit 23. Consent of KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
<PAGE>
 
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                        -------------------------------
                                        
The Board of Directors
MAF Bancorp, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.'s
33-40932, 33-45790, 33-45794 and 333-06593) on Form S-8 and the registration
statement (No. 33-96754) on Form S-3 of MAF Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated
January 29, 1998, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition
of MAF Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the
related statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for
the year ended December 31, 1997, the six months ended December 31, 1996 and for
each of the years in the two-year period ended June 30, 1996, which report
appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of MAF Bancorp, Inc.

/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Chicago, Illinois
March 24, 1998
# C_2019035EN.01001201.xml

| 28.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 15 November 2018 — Procureur General, other party: X

(Case C-717/18)

(2019/C 35/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Procureur-General

Other party: X

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 2(2) EAWFD, (1) as transposed into Belgian law by the Wet EAB, permit, for the purposes of the executing Member State’s assessment of the minimum maximum three year threshold imposed therein, recourse to be had to the criminal legislation that was applicable in the issuing Member State at the point in time at which the European arrest warrant was issued? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 2(2) EAWFD, (1) as transposed into Belgian law by the Wet EAB, permit, for the purposes of the executing Member State’s assessment of the minimum maximum three year threshold imposed therein, recourse to be had to the criminal legislation that was applicable in the issuing Member State at the point in time at which the European arrest warrant was issued?

| 2. | Does Article 2(2) EAWFD, as transposed into Belgian law by the Wet EAB, permit, for the purposes of the executing Member State’s assessment of the minimum maximum three year threshold imposed therein, recourse to be had to criminal legislation, applicable at the point in time of the issue of the European arrest warrant, allowing for a more severe penalty, as compared to the criminal legislation that was applicable in the issuing Member State at the point in time the offences were committed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 2(2) EAWFD, as transposed into Belgian law by the Wet EAB, permit, for the purposes of the executing Member State’s assessment of the minimum maximum three year threshold imposed therein, recourse to be had to criminal legislation, applicable at the point in time of the issue of the European arrest warrant, allowing for a more severe penalty, as compared to the criminal legislation that was applicable in the issuing Member State at the point in time the offences were committed?

---

(1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

REBEKAH WERTH,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, CIRCUIT 19 

MARTIN, UNIT 88510,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-0183

[February 22, 2018]

Appeal from the State of Florida Department of Children and Families, 

Office of Appeal Hearings; Pamela B. Vance, Hearing Officer; L.T. Case Nos. 

16F-06674, 16F-06675 and 1410846717.

Rebekah Werth, Stuart, pro se.

Laurel Hopper, Assistant Regional General Counsel, Fort Pierce, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
March 21, 2007

27913

#### D.T., In re

Affirmed
25510

#### State v. Sua

Affirmed
#### LaSpina *v.*LaSpina, Appellant.

Argued November 18, 1942.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ.

*Joseph L. Fox,*for appellant.

*William Ginsburg,*for appellee.

January 28, 1943:

Per Curiam,

On December 28, 1937, Rosario LaSpina filed his *176libel in divorce, charging that on April 5, 1936 'his wife wilfully, maliciously and without reasonable cause deserted him. On June 9, 194=1, by an amended libel, the date of the alleged desertion was changed to April 26, 1936.

The desertion was admitted. Eespondent attempted to justify it by a countercharge of cruel and barbarous treatment and indignities to the person. The case was tried on the latter issues with respondent having the burden of proof. *Lyons v. Lyons,*116 Pa. Superior Ct. 385, 176 A. 792; *Doemling v. Doemling,*118 Pa. Superior Ct. 426, 179 A. 813.

The master carefully reviewed the testimony which comprised nearly nine-hundred pages, and recommended that the divorce be granted. The court of common pleas adopted the recommendation and entered a final decree A. Y. M. Eespondent appeals.

Since our independent examination of the evidence convinces us, as it did the court below, that the master correctly and fairly analyzed the evidence it will serve no useful purpose, as far as the parties are concerned, to repeat it in detail here; in our opinion, it would serve no useful purpose to anyone. It is sufficient to say the weight of the credible evidence was with libellant.

And we agree with the lower court that respondent’s offer of reconciliation was not made in good faith. It was made two days before the expiration of the two-year period, which was some time after the libel had been filed and after respondent had libellant arrested for adultery. And respondent had previously spurned several offers made by libellant, some of which were made through third persons, but one of which was made by libellant himself.

The decree is affirmed, costs to be paid by appellant.
# C_2019432EN.01004201.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — Intas Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Laboratorios Indas (INTAS)

(Case T-380/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark INTAS - Earlier EU and national figurative trade marks including the word element ‘indas’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs and of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 47 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 432/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Ahmedabad, India) (represented by: F. Traub, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Laboratorios Indas, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 April 2018 (Case R 815/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Indas and Intas Pharmaceuticals.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---
#### State v. Pooler

17890, 17891

2/28/95

Reversed and Remanded (as to No. 17891) Affirmed (as to No. . 17890)
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55813-55814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22318]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Transition of DOE-ID Public Reading Room

AGENCY: Idaho Operations Office, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 
and in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
Section 1004.3(a)-(c), notice is hereby given that the Department of 
Energy Idaho Operations Office Public Reading Room has been relocated 
to the INL Research Library at 1776 Science Center Drive, Idaho Falls, 
ID 83401, beginning September 1, 2012. Access to documents will also be 
electronically accessible through the World Wide Web.
    For direction in accessing documents electronically through the 
World Wide Web, please refer to the Idaho Operations FOIA Web site: 
http://www.id.doe.gov/foia/FrequentlyReqDoc.htm. Many current and 
legacy documents are also commercially available through the U.S. 
Department of Commerce National

[[Page 55814]]

Technical Information Service www.ntis.gov.

DATES: Effective September 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: INL Research Library, 1776 Science Center Drive, Idaho 
Falls, ID 83401.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clayton Ogilvie at (208) 526-5190.

Clayton Ogilvie,
Freedom of Information Act Officer, Idaho Operations Office.
[FR Doc. 2012-22318 Filed 9-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          82,414
<SECURITIES>                                    82,780
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,507
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,000
<INVENTORY>                                     17,993
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               252,995
<PP&E>                                         101,166
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,202
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 398,136
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,032
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       303,489
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,885
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   398,136
<SALES>                                         60,179
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,179
<CGS>                                           22,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,043
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,605
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,438
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,438
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021053EN.01006701.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/67

---

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2020 — Mellifera v Commission

(Case T-393/18) (1)

(2021/C 53/84)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                          0000854858
<NAME>                         Ajay Sports, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         6
<SECURITIES>                                 396
<RECEIVABLES>                              1,889
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                5,680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           8,456
<PP&E>                                     3,068
<DEPRECIATION>                             1,360
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            13,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      2,804
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      2,702
<PREFERRED>                                1,250
<COMMON>                                      40
<OTHER-SE>                                 2,741
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              13,083
<SALES>                                   22,925
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          22,925
<CGS>                                     19,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              3,868
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              84
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        (1,139)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (1,475)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (1,475)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1,475)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.47)
        


</TABLE>
AAM-10-372-E 

August 23, 2010 

 Exemption No. 10118 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0833 

Mr. Travis Warthen 

Vice President 

Leading Edge Aviation, Inc. 

63048 Powell Butte Highway 

Bend, OR 97701 

Dear Mr. Warthen: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated July 22, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Leading Edge Aviation, Inc. (Leading Edge Aviation), for an exemption from iIpart 

120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would 

allow Leading Edge Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to 

cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Leading Edge Aviation. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant 

of exemption; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Leading Edge Aviation, Inc., an exemption from part 120 

to the extent necessary to allow Leading Edge Aviation, which is operating under separate 

parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, 

subject to the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Leading Edge Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol 

regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Leading Edge Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on August 31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Dr. Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. 

Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
Exhibit 32.2

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 In connection with  the Annual Report  of American  HealthChoice, Inc.  (the
 "Company")  on  Form 10-KSB/A  for  the period ending September 30, 2005  as
 filed with the Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the
 "Report"), I  John C. Stuecheli,  Chief  Financial Officer  of the  Company,
 certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as  adopted pursuant to S 906 of  the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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


 /s/ John C. Stuecheli

 John C. Stuecheli
 Chief Financial Officer
 July 14, 2006
# C_2021252EN.01003802.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/38

---

Order of the General Court of 5 May 2021 — Nessim Daoud and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-208/18) (1)

(2021/C 252/60)

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8096]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7837]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Nicolai Fechin''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Nicolai Fechin,'' imported from abroad for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of Russian Art, 
Minneapolis, Minnesota, from on or about August 18, 2012, until on or 
about January 13, 2013, the Frye Art Museum, Seattle, Washington, from 
on or about February 2, 2013, until on or about April 7, 2013, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

     Dated: March 28, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-8096 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
18964

#### Yee v. Hyatt Corp.

December 16, 1996

Order No. 96-39

Affirmed
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 16

- 00694

- CR

Rene DE LA CERDA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR5361

Honorable Kevin M. O ’ Connell, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is permanently ABATED.

Our order dated January 27, 2017 is WITHDRAWN.

SIGNED July 19, 2017.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice
#### Swenson v. Tanaka

16444

10/27/94

Affirmed
Proposed Rule: Confidentiality Determinations for Non-Inputs under the GHG Reporting Rule 

Meeting Documentation: Non-Profit Environmental Organizations 4/19/11 

Date EPA Staff Contact 

Information (Name, email, 

phone #) 

Name of Organization (Attach 

list of all attendees names and 

emails if possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, 

reporting requirements, etc.)

Written 

Comments 

Provided? 

Did they also 

submit to Docket? 

Date sent to

EPA-CCD 

4/19/11 Bill Irving, 

irving.bill@epa.gov

Joe Goffman, 

goffman.joseph@epa.gov

Beth Craig, 

craig.beth@epa.gov

Jessica Gordon, 

gordon.jessica@epa.gov

Jennifer Bohman, 

bohman.jennifer@epa.gov

Patricia Embrey, 

embrey.patricia@epa.gov

Gina McCarthy, 

mccarthy.gina@epa.gov

Reid Harvey, 

harvey.reid@epa.gov

NRDC: 

Meleah Geerstma 

Vickie Patton, 

vpatton@edf.org

Sierra Club: 

Craig Segall, 

Craig.Segall@sierraclub.org

Environmental Defense 

Fund: 

Mandy C. Warner 

Peter Zalzal, 

pzalzal@edf.org

Mark MacLeod, 

mmacleod@edf.org

Timing of signature and publication of 

final rule 

Comments 

previously 

provided and 

submitted to 

Docket 

8/31/10, 9/9/10, 

11/30/10