alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.2


                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the imcorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8,  No.333-15217)  pertaining  to the  Open  Plan  Systems,  Inc.  1996  Stock
Incentive  Plan  of our  report  dated  March  17,  1998,  with  respect  to the
consolidated  financial  statements of Open Plan Systems,  Inc.  included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                                                               /s/ ERNST & YOUNG
Richmond, Virginia
March 25, 1998
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 13, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 13, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0179. DUNCAN MUKABI GIATHI v. FIDELIS W. NJUGUNA. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 171733240
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5025 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5025

     To amend the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention 
   Implementation Act to limit the imposition of penalties against a 
person fishing on a United States flag fishing vessel in certain areas 
of the Pacific Ocean based on a report by an observer on such a vessel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2018

Mrs. Radewagen introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention 
   Implementation Act to limit the imposition of penalties against a 
person fishing on a United States flag fishing vessel in certain areas 
of the Pacific Ocean based on a report by an observer on such a vessel.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON ENFORCEMENT BASED ON OBSERVER REPORTS.

    Section 507 of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention 
Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6906) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(c) Limitation on Enforcement Based on Observer Reports.--No 
person fishing on a United States flag fishing vessel in the Convention 
Area shall be subject to any penalty under this Act or any other law or 
regulation applicable to such vessels based on a report by an observer 
on such a vessel, unless--
            ``(1) the observer report is provided to the captain and 
        the owner of the vessel within 60 days after the end of the 
        fishing trip; and
            ``(2) any enforcement action based on such report is 
        brought within one year after the end of the fishing trip.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### John Arthur YIAADEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7535.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 27, 2003.

Decided Feb. 10, 2003.

John Arthur Yiaadey, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

John Arthur Yiaadey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court *673that Yiaadey has not satisfied either standard. *See Yiaadey v. Angelone,*CA-01-96-7 (W.D.Va. filed Aug. 8, 2002; entered Aug. 9, 2002). We deny the motion for appointment of appellant counsel. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 quarterly report of microHelix, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
E. Horswill, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 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:
March 24, 2009





/s/ James E.
  Horswill


James E.
Horswill


President
and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1613 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1613

 To amend the National School Lunch Act to provide greater flexibility 
   to schools to meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans under the 
  school lunch and school breakfast programs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 14 (legislative day, March 13), 1996

  Mr. Cochran introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National School Lunch Act to provide greater flexibility 
   to schools to meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans under the 
  school lunch and school breakfast programs, 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. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR SCHOOLS TO MEET THE DIETARY 
              GUIDELINES FOR AMERICANS UNDER THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH 
              ACT.

    Section 9(f)(2) of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 
1758(f)(2)) is amended by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the 
following:
    ``(D) Use of any reasonable approach.--
            ``(i) In general.--A school may use any reasonable approach 
        to meet the requirements of this paragraph, including--
                    ``(I) using the school nutrition meal pattern in 
                effect for the 1994-1995 school year; and
                    ``(II) using any of the approaches described in 
                subparagraph (C).
            ``(ii) Nutrient analysis.--The Secretary may not require a 
        school to conduct or use a nutrient analysis to meet the 
        requirements of this paragraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2023-N-2562; FDA-2023-N-2707; FDA-2023-N-1005; FDA-2023-N-2459; FDA-2023-N-1029; and FDA-2023-N-3007]
 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867, 
                        *PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov.*


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at 
                    *https://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain.*
                     An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Table 1—List of Information Collections Approved by OMB
Title of collection
OMB control No.
Date approval expiresTemporary Marketing Permit Applications
0910-0133
1/31/2027State Petitions for Exemption from Preemption
0910-0277
1/31/2027FDA Focus Groups and Interviews
0910-0497
1/31/2027Product Jurisdiction and Combination Products
0910-0523
1/31/2027Cosmetic Labeling and Cosmetic Registration
0910-0599
1/31/2027Registration of Human Drug Compounding Outsourcing Facilities under Section 503B of the FFDCA and Associated Fees under Section 744K
0910-0776
1/31/2027
 Dated: January 17, 2024. Lauren K. Roth, Associate Commissioner for Policy.


[FR Doc. 2024-01153 Filed 1-22-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
----

            COUNCIL DECISION 2006/670/CFSP

of 5 October 2006         

appointing a new European Union Special Representative for Central Asia

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 18(5) in conjunction with Article 23(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr. Pierre MOREL is hereby appointed as the new European Union Special Representative for Central Asia. He shall exercise his functions in accordance with the mandate set out in Joint Action 2005/588/CFSP and the detailed arrangements therein.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

It shall apply until 28 February 2007.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 5 October 2006.

For the Council

The President

K. RAJAMÄKI            

----

(1)OJ L 199, 29.7.2005, p. 100. Joint Action as amended by Joint Action 2006/118/CFSP, 20.2.2006 (OJ L 49, 21.2.2006, p. 7).

----
#### LAKELAND STORAGE ASSOCIATES; Storage Concepts I, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PUBLIC STORAGE MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-1260.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 10, 1992.

Decided Jan. 27, 1993.

Daniel P. Taber, Minneapolis, MN, argued, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Alan I. Silver, Minneapolis, MN, argued (Alan I. Silver and James C. Ohly, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN,* Senior Circuit Judge, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

*

The HONORABLE DANIEL M. FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs Lakeland Storage Associates and Storage Concepts I appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, dismissing breach of contract allegations against Defendant Public Storage Management, Inc. (“PSMI”), a subsidiary of Public Storage, Inc. (“Public Storage”).

A review of the evidence reveals that Public Storage, Inc. was a California corporation that owned and operated mini-storage facilities throughout the United States. Lakeland was a partnership that owned a 400-unit mini-storage facility in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. Storage Concepts I was a limited partnership that developed and owned a 546-unit mini-storage facility in West St. Paul, Minnesota. One managing partner supervised both facilities.

PSMI managed properties that Public Storage, Inc. developed or purchased and it also entered into management agreements with third-party owners to operate the owners’ facilities in the name of Public Storage. The appellants entered into such a management agreement, hereinafter “Agreement,” with PSMI. Pursuant to this Agreement, PSMI was given the responsibility to manage the appellants’ property. The agreements gave PSMI broad and exclusive authority to manage both facilities.

On appeal, the appellants’ major arguments are that the evidence was sufficient to prove that PSMI negligently performed its management services, breached an oral agreement to undertake a specific marketing program, and failed to act in good faith regarding the terms and conditions of occupancy.

*269PSMI advances a number of arguments in support of its position that summary judgment was properly granted, but we think that one of those is plainly dispositive of the entire case. Section 7 of the Agreement provides that “no indemnified person,” which included PSMI, “shall be liable for anything it may do or refrain from doing hereafter, except in the cases of willful misconduct or gross negligence.” It is clear to us that this clause exculpates PSMI with respect to any act that cannot be fairly characterized as willful misconduct or gross negligence. We have carefully examined the complaint and find in it nothing that could reasonably be said to rise to the required threshold of tortious activity. As we held in *LeSueur Creamery, Inc. v. Haskon, Inc.,*660 F.2d 342 (8th Cir.1981), *cert. denied,*455 U.S. 1019, 102 S.Ct. 1716, 72 L.Ed.2d 138 (1982), the appellants chose to limit their liability under the contract and are bound by that undertaking.

Accordingly, we affirm.
1 Ngo, Dan (FAA)

From: Ngo, Dan (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 5:18 PM

To: 'bjarka@songernet.com' Subject: Request for Information - FAA-2015-3365

Dear Mr. Jarka:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-3365). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, S ection 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operat ion please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracki ng number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by 12/16/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

Dan Ngo Office of Rulemaking, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division
Federal Aviation Administration
202.267.4264
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
   
     We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in
Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-01185) and
related Prospectus of Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc. and to the use and
incorporation by reference of our report dated February 22, 1996, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc.
included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1995,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
    
 
                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
San Diego, California
   
March 15, 1996
#### Matter of the Application of Robert LISTER for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No. A-12205.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 20, 1955.

Robert Lister, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., James P. Garrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

JONES, Presiding Judge.

■ This is an original action in habeas corpus instituted by Robert Lister for the purpose of securing his release from confinement in the penitentiary.

The jpetition alleges that Lister was convicted on September 16, 1953, in Case No. 1625, in the District Court of Custer County for the crime of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the state penitentiary. The petition is a repetition of the “Mother Hubbard” petitions for habeas corpus which we have been receiving from the penitentiary in recent weeks. It is unverified and contains all of the miscellaneous allegations which the person who prepared the petition thought would constitute a ground for discharge of the prisoner. It. is readily apparent that although the petition is signed by petitioner, it was not prepared by him.

We called upon thfe Attorney General to. make an investigation of this case and he-has filed a detailed response to the petition. In addition private counsel employed by-petitioner after the petition was filed made an investigation and reported to this court-that the only questions involved were matters which should have been presented by-appeal.

*1047The petitioner was convicted in the District Court of Custer County for murder. He was represented by counsel. No appeal was taken from the judgment of conviction. The information against the accused was filed on July 18, 1953, and he was not tried until September 11, 1953. The killing was admitted by the accused, but he claimed he acted in self-defense. This raised an issue of fact for the determination of the jury. If it had been felt that reversible error had been committed in the trial of the case, an appeal from the judgment should have been taken within the time fixed by law. The six months period for taking an appeal having long since expired, the petitioner may not now attempt to raise matters in habeas corpus which should have been presented by an appeal as habeas corpus may not be substituted for an appeal. Ex parte Monroe, 89 Okl.Cr. 358, 207 P.2d 944.

We are firmly convinced that there is absolutely no merit to the petition filed herein and the writ of habeas corpus is denied.

BRETT and POWELL, JJ., concur.
#### Mary E. BEMUS, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

No. 02-3319.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 4, 2003.

Before MICHEL, RADER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Mary E. Bemus petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”), which dismissed her appeal from a decision of the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) on the basis that the MSPB lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of her appeal. *Bemus v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,*Docket No. CH-0870-02-0241-1-1 (May 6, 2002). The OPM denied Bemus’s application for life insurance benefits accrued by her former spouse, Vernon Bemus, who died on September 7, 2001. The MSPB held that it lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner’s appeal because the relevant life insurance benefits, the ones accrued under the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act, are governed by Chapter 87 of Title 5, which does not come under the MSPB’s jurisdiction statute, 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d). *Bemus v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,*Docket No. CH-0870-02-0241-1-1, slip op. at 2-3 (Feb. 28, 2002). The MSPB also found that OPM’s error in informing the petitioner of a right to appeal to the MSPB did not confer jurisdiction on the MSPB. *Id.*at 3. Because the MSPB’s deci*937sion is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, *see*5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)(1), we must *affirm.*

The MSPB has jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d)(1) to review final decisions of OPM concerning rights and interests under the retirement statutes in Chapter 83 of Title 5. Life insurance benefits paid under the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act, as codified, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8701*et seq.,*however, are governed by 5 U.S.C. § 8714. Jurisdiction over claims based on Chapter 87 is expressly placed in the United States district courts and the Court of Federal Claims by 5 U.S.C. § 8715. *See Lewis v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd.,*301 F.3d 1352, 1353-54 (Fed.Cir.2002) (holding that to the extent the petitioner alleged a breach by OPM of a duty to permit him to purchase additional life insurance, his appeal right lay in the Court of Federal Claims or the district courts, not with the MSPB). 5 U.S.C. § 8715 provides:

> The district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, of a civil action or claim against the United States founded on this chapter.

The jurisdiction over Bemus’s Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act claim clearly does not he with the MSPB.

In addition, any misstatement by OPM cannot confer jurisdiction on the MSPB where, by law, there is none. The MSPB’s jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a) is limited to agency actions that are made appealable to the MSPB by law, rule or regulation. *Cf. Anderson v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd.,*12 F.3d 1069, 1071 (Fed. Cir.1993) (holding that because “estoppel requires a forum” so “it cannot be used to build a forum,” the MSPB’s jurisdiction may not be broadened on the basis of government error or misconduct).

We therefore affirm the MSPB’s dismissal of Bemus’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: DESIGNATION OF CHAIR

AND VICE-CHAIR OF THE

PENNSYLVANIA INTEREST ON

LAWYERS TRUST ACCOUNT BOARD

 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 136

DISCIPLINARY RULES DOCKET

 O R D E R

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 11th day of August, 2015, Irwin W. Aronson, Esquire, is

hereby designated as Chair and the Honorable Jacqueline L. Russell as Vice-Chair of 

the Pennsylvania Interest on Lawyers Trust Account Board commencing September 1, 

2015.