alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23**

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Numbers 333-41323, as amended, and 333-57557) of Diamond HillInvestment Group, Inc. of our report relating to the financial statements of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. dated January 20, 2005, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. for the year ended December31, 2004. 

 

/s/    BKRLONGANBACH GIUSTI, LLC 

Columbus, Ohio 

March 11, 2005
<Page>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.11
                         Board of Directors Compensation
                              Mac-Gray Corporation
                                 March 31, 2005

                   MAC-GRAY CORPORATION DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS:

Directors who are also employees of the Company do not receive compensation for
their services on the Board of Directors or any committee thereof.

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS:

1.  Annual Retainer*, payable quarterly - $16,000
2.  Annual Audit Committee Chair Retainer - $2,000
3.  Annual Committee Chair Retainer (Non-Audit) - $1,500
4.  Meeting Attendance Fees:
     a.  Board Meetings - $1,000 / $500 (telephonic) per meeting
     b.  Audit Committee Meetings - $750 per meeting
     c.  Committee Meetings (Non-Audit) - $500 / $250 (telephonic) per meeting
5.  Annual Equity Compensation Award** - option to purchase 5,000 shares of the
    Company's Common Stock
--------------------
*    50% of the Annual Retainer is paid in shares of the Company's Common Stock
     and the balance is paid, at the discretion of the Director, in cash, shares
     of the Company's Common Stock or any combination thereof;
**   Under the Company's 1997 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, each newly
     elected non-employee Director receives an option to purchase 5,000 shares
     of the Company's Common Stock on the fifth business day after his or her
     election to the Board of Directors, and each non-employee Director who is
     serving as a Director automatically receives an option to purchase 5,000
     shares of the Company's Common Stock on the fifth business day after each
     annual meeting of stockholders. All of such options granted are fully
     exercisable upon grant at an exercise price equal to the fair market value
     of the Company's Common Stock on the date of the grant and terminate upon
     the tenth anniversary of the date of grant.
--------------------

All Directors are reimbursed for significant travel expenses, if any, incurred
in attending meetings of the Board of Directors and its committees.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5203]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             H O U S E  O F  R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S

Vol. 158

WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2012

No. 112
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4753 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4753

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 2018

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Federal Reserve Act to require the Vice Chairman for 
Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to 
           provide a written report, 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 ``Federal Reserve Supervision 
Testimony Clarification Act''.

SEC. 2. VICE CHAIRMAN FOR SUPERVISION REPORT REQUIREMENT.

    Paragraph (12) of section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 
247b) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating such paragraph as paragraph (11); and
            (2) in such paragraph--
                    (A) by striking ``shall appear'' and inserting 
                ``shall provide written testimony and appear''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following: ``If, at 
                the time of any appearance described in this paragraph, 
                the position of Vice Chairman for Supervision is 
                vacant, the Chairman or their designee shall appear 
                instead and provide the required written testimony.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 26, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF EXPERT



I consent to the reference to me under
the headings “Item 3.A Selected Financial Data–Risks Relating To Our Business–Our Reserve Estimates Could
Be Subject To Significant Changes,” “Item 4.D Property, Plant and Equipment–Caliche: Facilities and Reserves”
and “Item 19. Exhibits” in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A. (“SQM”)
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016:



|April
    26, 2017 | /s/
    Sergio Alarcón       
|------------------ | -----------------------------
|                   | Sergio
    Alarcón           
|                   | Geology
    Supervisor of SQM
# Clarion - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Northwest Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commission Executive Director Jill Foys Email &#160;&#x6a;&#105;&#x6c;&#x6c;&#102;&#x40;&#x6e;&#111;&#x72;&#x74;&#104;&#x77;&#x65;s&#x74;&#x70;a&#x2e;&#111;r&#x67;The post Northwest Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
**MEMORANDUM**

**TO:** Docket EPA
- HQ- OAR- 2006
- 0790 **FROM:** Mary Johnson, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD **DATE:** November 2012 **SUBJECT:** Record of Contact with National Renderers Association

Area Source Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers On November 28, 2012, Mr. Doug Irvin contacted Dr. Robert Wayland of the EPA, on behalf of the National Renderers Association (NRA) , to inquire whether EPA received the NRA’s February 21, 2012 docket submission of their comments regarding the December 23, 2011 proposed reconsiderat ion of the final Area Source Boiler Rule. Specifically, Mr. Irvin referenced the NRA’s request for consideration of a processed fats fuel subcategory that would be exempt from the Area Source Boiler Rule. On November 28, 2012, Dr. Wayland replied , on behal f of EPA , that we received the submission and are in the process of evaluating the comments and requests of the NRA’s submission along with submissions from others in the course of EPA’s reconsideration proceeding, and that EPA plan s on addressing the issues raised when we take final action on our reconsideration .
# C_2009019EN.01001102.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 3 October 2008 — Österreichische Salinen AG v Finanzamt Linz

(Case C-437/08)

(2009/C 19/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Österreichische Salinen AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Linz

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Community law preclude a national authority — in order to avoid discriminating against foreign equity holdings which, unlike domestic (Austrian) equity holdings, are not tax exempt under legislation until the size of the equity holding reaches 25 % (under present legislation 10 %) — from applying the credit method because the Austrian Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) has ruled that this outcome is closest to the (hypothetical) intention of the legislature but not simultaneously permitting a deduction to be carried forward to subsequent years or a tax credit to be given for a loss year with regard, firstly, to the corporation tax to be credited and, secondly, to the withholding tax to be credited? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Community law preclude a national authority — in order to avoid discriminating against foreign equity holdings which, unlike domestic (Austrian) equity holdings, are not tax exempt under legislation until the size of the equity holding reaches 25 % (under present legislation 10 %) — from applying the credit method because the Austrian Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) has ruled that this outcome is closest to the (hypothetical) intention of the legislature but not simultaneously permitting a deduction to be carried forward to subsequent years or a tax credit to be given for a loss year with regard, firstly, to the corporation tax to be credited and, secondly, to the withholding tax to be credited?

| 1.1 | If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative: Does Community law preclude a refusal to allow a deduction to be carried forward or a tax credit to be given in the case of non-member country dividends? |
| --- | --- |

1.1

If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative: Does Community law preclude a refusal to allow a deduction to be carried forward or a tax credit to be given in the case of non-member country dividends?

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    TIME LIMITATION OF REFERRED BILL

  Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XII, the following action was taken by 
the Speaker:

       H.R. 2356. Referral to the Committees on Energy and 
     Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Foreign Affairs, 
     Intelligence (Permanent Select), and Science, Space, and 
     Technology for a period ending not later than November 30, 
     2012.

                          ____________________
```
#### 215 Avenue B Holding Corp., Appellant, *v.*Anna Michaelson, Doing Business as M. & W. Delicatessen, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

May 28, 1959.

Gottlieb, *Konove & Zech (Robert Konove*of counsel), for appellant.

*Roy Guthman*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The intermediate tenants, Bernstein and Poner, who allegedly took the premises from the original tenant, executed a completely new lease for a term and rental completely different from those contained in the 1948 lease of Coburns Delicacies, Inc., Bernstein and Poner’s assignor, The instant tenant admittedly was not in any way connected with the 1948 lease.

It is clear that the emergency rent laws provide protection for tenants in occupancy of business space. Here the tenant, came into possession after March 31, 1950 as a result of an assignment of a lease executed after that date. Consequently, there was no warrant for the final order in favor of the tenant.

*920The final order should be reversed, with $30 costs, and final order directed for landlord as prayed for in the petition, with costs.

Concur — Hoestadter, J. P., Hecht and Aurelio, JJ.

Final order reversed, etc.
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 27 March 2009 – Alves dos Santos v Commission**

**(Case T-184/08)**

European Social Fund – Training programmes – Reduction in the financial assistance initially granted – Application – Formal requirements – Manifest inadmissibility

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – General reference to other documents not annexed to the application – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))
(see paras 18-27)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 March 2004, notified to Mr Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos on 3 March 2008, reducing the amount of financial assistance granted by the European Social Fund (ESF) in respect of a vocational training programme submitted by the Portuguese authorities in file No 89 0488 P1. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The application is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Mr Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos is ordered to pay the costs. |
# C_2008197EN.01002602.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/26

---

Appeal brought on 21 May 2008 by Carina Skareby against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 6 March 2008 in Case F-46/06, Skareby v Commission

(Case T-193/08 P)

(2008/C 197/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Carina Skareby (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | set aside the judgment delivered on 6 March 2008 by the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-46/06; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment delivered on 6 March 2008 by the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-46/06;

| — | uphold the claims seeking annulment and damages put forward by the appellant before the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the claims seeking annulment and damages put forward by the appellant before the Civil Service Tribunal;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of both cases. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of both cases.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this appeal, the appellant requests the Court to set aside the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 6 March 2008 in Case F-46/06 Skareby v Commission, which dismissed her action for, first, annulment of her career development report for 2004 and, second, damages.

Skareby

Commission

In support of her appeal, the appellant puts forward two pleas, alleging manifest errors of assessment (paragraphs 66, 98 and 113 of the contested judgment) and distortion of the clear sense of evidence (paragraph 68).

---
County Economic Status in Appalachia, Fiscal Year 2019

(Effective October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019)

The Appalachian Regional Commission uses an index-based county 

economic classification system to identify and monitor the economic 

status of Appalachian counties. See the reverse side for a description of 

each economic level.

Map Created: August 2018

Data Sources:

Unemployment data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, LAUS, 2014–2016

Income data: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2016

Poverty data: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2012–2016

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

Distressed (81)

At-Risk (119)

Transitional (205)

Competitive (14)

County Economic Levels

Attainment (1)
County Economic Status Classification System, FY 2019

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) uses an index-based county economic classification system to 

identify and monitor the economic status of Appalachian counties. The system involves the creation of a 

national index of county economic status through a comparison of each county’s averages for three economic 

indicators—three-year average unemployment rate, per capita market income, and poverty rate—with national 

averages. The resulting values are summed and averaged to create a composite index value for each county. 

Each county in the nation is then ranked, based on its composite index value, with higher values indicating 

higher levels of distress.

County Economic Levels

Each Appalachian county is classified into one of five economic status designations, based on its position in the 

national ranking. 

Distressed

Distressed counties are the most economically depressed counties. They rank in the worst 10 percent of the 

nation’s counties.

At-Risk

At-Risk counties are those at risk of becoming economically distressed. They rank between the worst 10 percent 

and 25 percent of the nation’s counties.

Transitional

Transitional counties are those transitioning between strong and weak economies. They make up the largest 

economic status designation. Transitional counties rank between the worst 25 percent and the best 25 percent of 

the nation’s counties.

Competitive

Competitive counties are those that are able to compete in the national economy but are not in the highest 10 

percent of the nation’s counties. Counties ranking between the best 10 percent and 25 percent of the nation’s 

counties are classified competitive.

Attainment

Attainment counties are the economically strongest counties. Counties ranking in the best 10 percent of the 

nation’s counties are classified attainment.

Attainment 

Counties

Best 10% of 

U.S. Counties

Competitive 

Counties

Best 10+ to 25% of 

U.S. Counties

At-Risk 

Counties

Worst 10+ to 25% 

of U.S. Counties

Distressed 

Counties

Worst 10%

 of U.S. 

Counties

ARC County Economic Status Designation by National Index Value Rank

Ranked Index Values 

of U.S. Counties

Transitional Counties

Higher Index Values Lower Index Values
#### Josephine Vera et al., Appellants, v Beth Israel Medical Center et al., Respondents.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on or about January 29, 1990, which granted defendants’ motion to preclude plaintiffs from producing a non-party witness at trial or using said witness’s incomplete deposition transcript at trial without first producing her for completed deposition within fifteen days prior to trial, unanimously modified on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion to deny that portion of the motion seeking to preclude the use at trial of the deposition transcript, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs assert that the non-party witness, who is the sister of plaintiff Josephine Vera, is not in their control within the meaning of CPLR 3126. Fairness dictates that, having taken such position, plaintiffs not be allowed to maintain the option of simply producing the witness at trial to testify in their behalf if at a future time they should obtain control over her, without first allowing the defendants to complete her pre-trial deposition, which was terminated after one day.

On the other hand, there is no similar presumptive unfair*717ness in permitting them to introduce at trial portions of the deposition already taken, provided that an appropriate foundation is laid for its admission into evidence. (CPLR 3117.) The fact that defendants may have contemplated further deposing the witness does not, on its own, preclude use of the deposition that they themselves had already taken. Thus, a decision precluding admissibility of the deposition is premature at this time, and should await trial subject to the Trial Judge’s discretion as to whether prejudice would ensue in the use of any particular portions of the examination sought to be introduced by reason of the examination’s incompleteness. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.
#### Pamela C. Ilott, Respondent, *v.*George Deibert, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

May 28, 1959.

*Bennett I. Schlessel*for appellant.

*Lloyd I. Isler*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The courts have consistently held that statutes changing a Statute of Limitations [State Residential Rent Law, § 11, subd. 5; L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd. by L. 1957, ch. 755] will not be given retroactive effect unless such legislative intent is clearly shown *(People*v. *Cohen,*245 N. Y. 419; cf. *Robinson*v. *Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co.,*238 N. Y. 271).

The judgment and order so far as appealed from should be modified to the extent of limiting the recovery to the period commencing July 1, 1957, and as modified affirmed, with costs to respondent.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Hecht and Aurelio, JJ.

Judgment modified, etc.
#### Al Sampson, Respondent, *v.*State-Wide Insurance Co., Appellant.

Supreme C'ourt, Appellate Term, First Department,

May 28, 1959.

*551
      *Held, Telchin & Held (Horace M. Cohen*of counsel), for appellant.

*Al Sampson,*respondent in person.

*Per Curiam.*

Plaintiff was not entitled to a recovery because of bis failure to serve a copy of his judgment against defendant’s assured with notice of entry upon this defendant at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the within action. Moreover, the failure of defendant’s assured to give notification of the accident or of the suit which plaintiff commenced is a breach of one of the conditions of his insurance policy, and plaintiff’s agreement with the assured not to notify the insurance company of the accident are additional reasons why plaintiff may not recover. The judgment may not therefore be permitted to stand.

The judgment should be reversed, without costs, and judgment directed for defendant, without costs.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Hecht and Aurelio, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IMRAN KHAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-70679

Agency No. A078-650-715

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 9, 2012** 

Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Imran Khan, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of

FILED

OCT 15 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-70679

a motion to reopen and review de novo claims of due process violations. 

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition

for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Khan’s motion to reopen

based on ineffective assistance by his three former attorneys. Khan did not

establish actual deficient performance by his first attorney, where the attorney

withdrew his applications for relief and accepted voluntary departure to allow

petitioner to immigrate to Canada to join his Canadian citizen wife. See TorresChavez v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1096, 1100-02 (9th Cir. 2009). As to the subsequent

attorneys, Khan did not establish prejudice from their failure to file a motion to

reopen, where his declaration states that he met with the attorneys after the

applicable filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must

be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order); Mohammed, 400 F.3d at

793-94 (prejudice results when counsel’s actions may have affected the outcome of

proceedings).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.