alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10(a)


 


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference
in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 651 to Registration Statement No. 33-26305 on Form N-1A of our report dated October 26,
2016, relating to the financial statements and financial highlights of BlackRock Multi-Manager Alternative Strategies Fund,
a series of BlackRock Funds, appearing in the Annual Report on Form N-CSR of the BlackRock Funds for the year ended August 31,
2016, and to the references to us under the headings “Financial Highlights” and “Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm” in the Prospectus and “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” and “Financial Statements”
in the Statement of Additional Information, which are part of such Registration Statement.


 


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


December 27, 2016
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 CERTIFICATIONS
  I, Mark J. Ahn, certify that:
  1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Hana Biosciences, Inc. (the Registrant);2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4

The Registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and5.

The Registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: November 12, 2004
By:
/s/ Mark J. AhnMark J. AhnPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 .
#### LEWIS W. VANDERBACH, EXECUTOR, ET AL., COMPLAINANTS-RESPONDENTS, v. AGNES VOLLINGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Argued February 14, 1949

Decided February 21, 1949.

*490
      *Mr. Maurice C. Brigadier*argued the cause for the defendants-appellants.

*Mr. Louis Gluck*argued the cause for the complainants-respondents.

Per Curiam.

The decree will be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Vice Chancellor Fielder in the former Court of Chancery.

*For affirmance:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt1 and Justices Case, Heher, Wacheneeld, Burling and Ackerson—6.

*For reversal:*None.
#### Yvonne Tuitt, Respondent, v Otis Elevator Company, Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Philip Modesto, J.), entered June 29, 1990, which *inter alia,*after jury trial reduced the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff for future lost earnings to $275,000, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and the matter remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages relating to past and future pain and suffering only, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements unless, within twenty days after the entry of this order plaintiff shall stipulate to the entry of an amended judgment reducing plaintiff’s award for past pain and suffering from $125,000 to $50,000, and reducing her award for future pain and suffering from $250,000 to $150,000, in which event the judgment as amended, is affirmed without costs.

In this personal injury action, plaintiff alleges that she injured her back while attempting to wheel a patient’s hospital bed into an elevator which had misleveled at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital’s Harkness Pavilion. At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was 33 years old and had been employed by Columbia Presbyterian Hospital as a nurse’s aid for 9 years. She was trained to transport patients in cardiac distress to the intensive care unit, and was instructed in the proper technique for lifting heavy objects. It was established at trial that the plaintiff had injured her back in 1975, and again in 1976, and had received medical treatment on both occasions. The plaintiff was also involved in an automobile accident in 1979, which resulted in lower back pain.

The trial court properly calculated the amount of the award for future lost earnings, based on the jury’s determination that the plaintiff’s future work life expectancy was 25 years, and the parties’ stipulation that her expected earnings would be $11,000 per year. However, we find that given the plaintiff’s injuries as established at trial and her prior medical history, the awards for past and future pain and suffering were excessive, as indicated. *(DeSisto v New York City Tr. Auth.,*151 AD2d 639.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
# C_2008247EN.01001901.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/19

---

Action brought on 23 July 2008 — CPS Color Group v OHIM — Fema Farben und Putze (TEMACOLOR)

(Case T-295/08)

(2008/C 247/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CPS Color Group Oy (Vantaa, Finland) (represented by: P. Hagman, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fema Farben und Putze GmbH (Ettlingen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 808/2007-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 808/2007-1; and

| — | Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TEMACOLOR’ for goods in class 2

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 2 104 061 of the word mark ‘FEMA-Color’ for goods in class 2; international trade mark registration No 691 406 of the word mark ‘FEMA-Color’ for goods in class 2

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in law in determining that the conflicting trade marks are confusingly similar, in breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94.

Pleas in law:

---
ORDER OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)

9 December 2009

Case C-528/08 P

**Luigi Marcuccio**

**v**

**European Commission**

(Appeal – Officials – Social security – Implied refusal of a request for 100% reimbursement of certain medical costs incurred by an official – Order of declining jurisdiction from the Civil Service Tribunal – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

**Appeal:**brought against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-144/08 *Marcuccio* v *Commission* [2008] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible an action for annulment of
the decision to refuse the appellant’s request for 100% reimbursement of certain medical expenses, and seeking an order that
the Commission pay the appellant the amount of EUR 89.56 as a supplementary reimbursement of his medical expenses or as compensation
for loss.

**Held:**The appeal is dismissed. Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

**Summary**

*Appeal – Pleas in law – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment
of the facts put before the General Court – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted*

*(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)*
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4349 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4349

     To require reporting by the Secretary of Education on missed 
                 opportunities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 9, 2017

Mr. Lewis of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
            to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require reporting by the Secretary of Education on missed 
                 opportunities, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Missed Opportunities in Student Debt 
and Possibilities Act of 2017''.
     (a) In General.--Not later than December 31 of each year, the 
Secretary of Education shall submit to Congress a report on missed 
opportunities for each competitive or discretionary grant program 
administered by the Department of Education in the preceding fiscal 
year that aims to make higher education more accessible or affordable 
in the United States or ease borrowers' student debt burdens.
    (b) Contents.--For each grant program described in subsection (a), 
the report shall detail the 10 individual applications, proposals, or 
requests for funding that--
            (1) were not funded or awarded, completely or partially; 
        but
            (2) showed the greatest potential, according to the 
        selection criteria and established goals of that grant program, 
        to--
                    (A) make higher education more accessible or 
                affordable; or
                    (B) ease borrowers' student debt burdens.
    (c) Reporting Date Flexibility.--If a law requires an annual report 
to Congress with respect to a grant program described in subsection 
(a), the report on missed opportunities required under this section for 
that program may--
            (1) be included in that annual report; and
            (2) be submitted on or before the date that annual report 
        is due.
    (d) Public Transparency.--Upon submission of a report on missed 
opportunities to Congress under this section, the Secretary shall make 
the report available to the public on an internet website of the 
Department of Education in a manner that is user friendly and able to 
be searched and downloaded by users of the website.
    (e) Trade Secrets and Confidential Information.--Nothing in this 
section authorizes the Secretary to disclose any information that is a 
trade secret or confidential information subject to section 552(b)(4) 
of title 5 or section 1905 of title 18.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1490]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    IN HONOR OF JACK H. SCHRON, JR.

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 12, 2012

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Jack H. Schron, 
Jr., a member of the Cuyahoga County Council serving the Sixth 
District.
  Councilman Schron graduated in 1970 from Florida Southern College 
with a Bachelor of Science degree and received his Juris Doctorate in 
1975 from Ohio Northern University. Following his licensure to practice 
law in both Ohio and Florida, Councilman Schron served in the United 
States Army legal corps, from which he retired as a Lieutenant Colonel 
after 28 years of service.
  In addition to his military service, the Councilman has also acted as 
President and Chief Executive Officer of Jergens, Inc. for over 25 
years while also co-founding Tooling University--an internet education 
business. In addition to his professional career, Schron served a 
twelve year tenure on the Chagrin Falls Board of Education and was a 
member of the Clean Ohio Council, the Manufacturing Advocacy and Growth 
Network, and Wire-net--an economic development organization that works 
to serve manufacturing businesses in the Cleveland, Ohio area.
  Elected to the Cuyahoga County Council in 2010, Councilman Schron is 
Chair of the Economic Development and Planning Committee.
  Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Jack Schron, a 
dedicated member of the Cuyahoga County Council.

                          ____________________
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Reid, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered September 25, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Talmadge MAXWELL, Defendant in Error.

No. 37711.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 10, 1958.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 16, 1958.

Monnet, Hayes & Bullís, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Norman & Wheeler, Edwin Langley, Muskogee, Amos T. Hall, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, Justice.

This action, except brought by a different plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries, is identical, to cause numbered 37,710 styled United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Walker, Okl., 329 P.2d 852.

Therefore, the syllabus and opinion in said case no. 37,710 is hereby adopted as the syllabus and opinion herein.

*858Judgment is reversed and garnishee is discharged.

WELCH, C. J., and DAVISON, HALLEY, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, JACKSON and CARLILE, JJ., concur.

CORN, V. C. J., and BLACKBIRD, J., dissent.
# C_2008171EN.01005201.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/52

---

Action brought on 30 April 2008 — Buschak v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

(Case F-47/08)

(2008/C 171/104)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Willy Buschak (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: L. Lévi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions

Defendant:

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision amending the applicant's job description and an order that the defendant pay him a sum by way of compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision delivered by the director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions to the applicant on 4 July 2007, amending his job description; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision delivered by the director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions to the applicant on 4 July 2007, amending his job description;

| — | so far as necessary, annul the decision of 29 or 30 January 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as necessary, annul the decision of 29 or 30 January 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

| — | order the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions to pay EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions to pay EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the harm suffered;

| — | order the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions to pay the costs.

---
#### In the Matter of Catholic Charities of Diocese of Ogdensburg, Respondent, v Zoning Board of Appeals of City of Watertown, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner applied to respondent Zoning Board of Appeals (Board) for a use variance that would eliminate from the zoning ordinance the "owner-occupied” status as it applied to the subject property. Petitioner was entitled to a use variance because it had demonstrated unnecessary hardship in that the property would not yield a reasonable rate of return unless the restriction were eliminated, the restriction had placed the owner in a unique plight, and elimination of the restriction would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood *(see, Matter of Village Bd. v Jarrold,*53 NY2d 254, 257; *Matter of Otto v Steinhilber,*282 NY 71, 76; *see also, Bellanca v Gates,*97 AD2d 971, *affd*61 NY2d 878). In those circumstances, we *618conclude that the determination of the Board was arbitrary and capricious and that the judgment of Supreme Court, annulling that determination and granting the variance, was appropriate *(see, Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*110 AD2d 135, *affd*67 NY2d 702; *Matter of Commco, Inc. v Amelkin,*109 AD2d 794, *lv denied*65 NY2d 606). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.— Article 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Lowery, JJ.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Mario Ortega v. Sandra Centeno Blanco

Appellate case number: 01

- 20

- 00728

- CV

Trial court case number: 2019

- 49198

Trial court: 311th District Court of Harris Coun ty

Appellant, Mario Or tega, has filed a second motion for a sixty

- day extension of time in

which to file his brief , which is currently due February 3, 2021. Appellant ’ s motion is granted

in part. Appellant ’ s brief is due March 5, 2021.

It is so ORDERE D

.

Judge’s signature:

__________ /s/ Julie Countiss_____

___________ Acting individually

Date: January 28, 2 021
#### W. B. HOGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 75-2341

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 1976.

Ann Lents, Houston, Tex. (court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.

Jack B. Boone, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and GEW-IN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5th Cir., *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et*al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

We have considered Hogan’s contentions, including his assertion of ineffectiveness of trial and appellate counsel, and his argument as well as his assertion that his consti-' tutional rights were abridged by the appointment of a psychologist, requested by the defense, rather than a psychiatrist to examine him for mental competency. We find all these contentions without merit and affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion, 417 F.Supp. 9 (N.D.Tex.1976).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANICAL OFFICER
                                   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 Quarterly Report of Voyager Petroleum, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cathy
A. Persin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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.



Date: May 20, 2008                           By: /s/ Cathy A. Persin
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Cathy A. Persin
                                                 Principal Financial Officer