alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-48796,
333-63072, 333-63074, 333-103081 and 333-103082) of Versicor Inc. of our report dated February 21, 2003, except for the fourth paragraph
of Note 1 and Note 13 as to which the date is February 28, 2003, relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.

/s/
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
San Jose, California
February 28, 2003

---

QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

MORTGAGE ASSETS MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Respondent

v.

LEROY WELLS IN HIS CAPACITY AS HEIR OF JESSIE WELLS, AND UNKNOWN HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS AND ALL PERSONS, FIRMS OR

ASSOCIATIONS CLAIMING RIGHT, TITLE

OR INTEREST FROM OR UNDER JESSIE WELLS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 401 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of July, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
First Amendment to Amended and Restated 1998 New Employee Stock Option Plan



 Exhibit 10.38 
  
 AMENDMENT 
 TO

 CAREMARK RX, INC. 1998 NEW EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 15, 2000 
  
 The Caremark Rx, Inc. 1998 New Employee Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 1. Amendment Regarding Transferability of Options. Section 6.10 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting Section 6.10 in its entirety and
substituting the following new Section 6.10 therefor: 
  
 6.10 TRANSFERABILITY OF OPTIONS. To the extent not prohibited by any statute, rule or regulation applicable to the Plan, the Options or the registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Common Stock to be issued upon
exercise of the Options, the Committee may, in its discretion, authorize all or a portion of Options granted to a Participant to be on terms which permit transfer by such Participant to (i) Immediate Family Members, (ii) a trust or trusts
for the exclusive benefit of such Immediate Family Members, or (iii) a partnership in which such Immediate Family Members are the only partners, provided that (A) the Award Agreement pursuant to which such Options are granted must be
approved by the Committee, and must expressly provide for transferability in a manner consistent with this Section, and (B) subsequent transfers of transferred Options shall be prohibited except those by will or the laws of descent and
distribution. Following transfer, any such Options shall continue to be subject to the same terms and conditions as were applicable immediately prior to transfer, provided that for purposes of this Plan, the term “Participant” shall be
deemed to refer to the transferee. The events of termination of employment shall continue to be applied with respect to the original Participant, following which the Options shall be exercisable by the transferee only to the extent, and for the
periods specified in this Section 6.10. Notwithstanding the foregoing, should the Committee provide that Options granted be transferable, the Company by such actions incurs no obligation to notify o otherwise provide 
  

 1 








 notice to a transferee of early termination of the Option. In the event of a transfer, as set forth
above, the original Participant is and will remain subject to and responsible for any applicable withholding taxes upon the exercise of such Options. 
  
 2. Effective Date. The effective date of this Amendment shall be November 15, 2000. 
  
 3. Miscellaneous. 
  
 (a) Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Plan. 
  
 (b) Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full
force and effect. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused
this Amendment to the Caremark Rx, Inc. 1998 New Employee Stock Option Plan to be executed as of the Effective Date. 
  

	
	 CAREMARK RX, INC.


	 Sara J. Finley, Corporate Secretary



  

 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee,

versus

SAMUEL EDMOND COFFEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-97-121, CA-98-748)

Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Edmond Coffey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Coffey, a federal inmate, appeals from the district

court’s order dismissing without prejudice his motion filed under

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). The court dismissed

Coffey’s motion without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing § 2255 Proceedings. Because a dismissal without prejudice is not generally appealable, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar

Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

Because we find that a transcript is not necessary, we deny Coffey’s motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense.

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
#### Tom McCOLLOM v. STATE.

No. 24538.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 7, 1949.

None on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for theft with a sentence of two years in the penitentiary.

The appellant has filed his motion, duly verified, asking that his appeal be dismissed. The State had theretofore filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground of imperfect record. Upon considering both motions, it is concluded that appellant’s motion to dismiss should be granted and it is so ordered.
People v Xi Hui Wu

2024 NY Slip Op 30601(U)

February 26, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 452904/2022

Judge: Margaret A. Chan

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official

publication.
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

1 of 22 [* 1]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

2 of 22 [* 2]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

3 of 22 [* 3]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

4 of 22 [* 4]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

5 of 22 [* 5]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

6 of 22 [* 6]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

7 of 22 [* 7]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

8 of 22 [* 8]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

9 of 22 [* 9]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

10 of 22 [* 10]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

11 of 22 [* 11]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

12 of 22 [* 12]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

13 of 22 [* 13]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

14 of 22 [* 14]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

15 of 22 [* 15]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

16 of 22 [* 16]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

17 of 22 [* 17]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

18 of 22 [* 18]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

19 of 22 [* 19]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

20 of 22 [* 20]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

21 of 22 [* 21]
INDEX NO. 452904/2022

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/26/2024

22 of 22 [* 22]
#### James H. PORTER, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 26112.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 17, 1952.

On Rehearing Feb. 4, 1953.

Piranio & Piranio, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., John Grant and Charles S. Potts, Assts. Dist. Atty., Dallas, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a penalty of ISO days in jail on a charge of swindling by drawing a check on a ¡bank in which he had no funds.

The check in this case was given to the same payee as the one involved in Porter v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 254 S.W.2d 516. The facts are identical and all of the questions raised on appeal are the same. Our conclusion is the same and reference is made to the opinion in that case, which is here adopted as our opinion in this case.

Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Motion For 'Rehearing

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The legal questions presented in this case are practically the same as those discussed in the opinion on motion for rehearing in the companion case of Porter v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 254 S.W.2d 516. For the reasons therein stated, the motion for rehearing in this case is granted, the order of affirmance is set aside, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
#### SHACKELFORD v. SHACKELFORD et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 23, 1953.

C. A. Noble, Hazard, for appellant.

Craft & Stanfill, Hazard, for appellee.

MOREMEN, Justice.

The only question presented by this appeal concerns whether or not the Workmen’s Compensation Board abused sound discretion when it struck from the record and refused to consider certain proof offered by appellant in support of his claim for compensation against appellee, Shackel-ford Coal Company.

The record discloses this chronicle:

> April 9, 1948, appellant was injured; August 6, 1948, application for adjustment of claim was filed;

> October 15, 1948, parties agreed that case be presented by depositions; March 28, 1949, appellant took depositions, but did not file them with board; March 2, 1950, Board informed appellant by letter:

> “Unless a motion to this board requesting extension of time, is received, by the next meeting of date March 21, 1950, the board of its own motion will enter an order, ordering plaintiff’s case closed in chief”;

> March 21, 1950, Board ordered appellant’s case be closed because no motion had been received;

> April 8, 1950, appellant and appellee stipulated that order of Board entered March 21, 1950, be set aside; that depositions taken March 29, 1949, be considered as evidence on behalf of appellant, and that a written report of Dr. Dana Snyder be considered as being competent evidence;

> April 10, 1950, stipulation, depositions and statement filed with board;

> August 15, 1950, referee struck depositions from record and dismissed appellant’s claim;

> November 1, 1950, board approved action of referee;

> November 27, 1950, Circuit Court dismissed petition for review.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board, like other tribunals that are vested with power to hear evidence and base decisions thereon, has the power to- compel the presentation of evidence within reasonable limits of time. The courts will not interfere with the exercise of this power unless *504it is plain that the tribunal has exercised this right in such an arbitrary or unreasonable manner as to indicate an abuse of sound discretion. Searcy v. Three Point Coal Co., 280 Ky. 683, 134 S.W.2d 228. In Elkhorn Coal Co. v. Bates, 314 Ky. 837, 236 S.W.2d 946, we approved the action of the Board in refusing to extend a forty-five day period for preparation of the employer’s case, where there was no showing casualty or misfortune had intervened. The Act, KRS 342.275, provides that the parties at issue shall be heard and the dispute determined in a summary manner.

We find nothing in the record that indicates the Board acted unreasonably, and certainly the parties had no power to rescind the Board’s order by stipulation.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 210 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64660-64661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27558]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Notice of Proposed Change to Section IV of the Virginia Field 
Office Technical Guide

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department 
of Agriculture.

ACTION:  Notice of Availability of proposed changes in the Virginia 
NRCS Field Office Technical Guide for review and comment.

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

SUMMARY: It has been determined by the NRCS State Conservationist for 
Virginia that changes must be made in the NRCS Field Office Technical 
Guide specifically in practice standards: #7021, Agrichemical Handling 
Facility; #314, Brush Management; #327, Conservation Cover; #328, 
Conservation Crop Rotation; #330, Contour Farming; #329B, Residue 
Management, Mulch Till; and #329C, Residue Management, Ridge Till to 
account for improved technology. These practices will be used to plan 
and install conservation

[[Page 64661]]

practices on cropland, pastureland, woodland, and wildlife land.

DATES: Comments will be received on or before November 29, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquire in writing to M. Denise 
Doetzer, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS), 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 209, Richmond, Virginia 23229-5014; 
Telephone number (804) 287-1665; Fax number (804) 287-1738. Copies of 
the practice standards will be made available upon written request to 
the address shown above or on the Virginia NRCS web site. http://www.va.nrcs.gov/Data Tech Refs/Standards&Specs/EDITStds/
EditStandards.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after 
enactment of the law to NRCS Field Office technical guides used to 
carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall 
be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, 
the NRCS in Virginia will receive comments relative to the proposed 
changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the 
NRCS in Virginia regarding disposition of those comments and a final 
determination of change will be made to the subject standards.

    Dated: October 19, 2000.
M. Denise Doetzer,
State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
Richmond, Virginia.
[FR Doc. 00-27558 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-M
Public Notice 

2014 Proposed Rules 

The West Virginia Division of Air Quality has scheduled a public hearing on July 8, 2013 for its 

2014 proposed legislative rules, which will take place at the Division of Environmental 

Protection’s Charleston headquarters, 601 57th Street S.E., Charleston, WV 25304. Oral and 

written comments will be limited to the proposed revisions and will be made a part of the 

rulemaking record. Copies of the rules are available from the Secretary of State’s office or from 

the DEP at http://www.dep.wv.gov/pio/Pages/Rules.aspx. You may also obtain hard copies of the 

information by calling the phone number listed below. 

Written comments may be submitted to the Public Information Office at the above address. 

Comments may also be e-mailed to dep.comments@wv.gov. The hearing dates, locations and 

comment deadlines are as follows. The public hearing for all air quality rules will take place 

beginning at 6 p.m. on July 8, 2013 in the Dolly Sods Conference Room. The comment period 

will begin on June 7, 2013 and end at the conclusion of the public hearing. 

Division of Air Quality 

45CSR8 – Ambient Air Quality Standards 

45CSR14 – Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources for 

the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

45CSR16 – Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources 

45CSR18 – Control of Air Pollution from Combustion of Solid Waste 

45CSR19 – Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources 

Which Cause or Contribute to Nonattainment Areas 

45CSR25 – Control of Air Pollution from Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal 

Facilities 

45CSR34 – Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Upon authorization and promulgation of revisions to 45CSR8, 45CSR14 and 45CSR19, the 

DAQ will submit the rules to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act. Upon authorization and 

promulgation of revisions to 45CSR18, the DAQ will submit the final rule to the U.S. EPA for 

approval as a part of West Virginia’s Section 111(d)/129 Plan and program delegation of the 

federal New Source Performance Standards. Rules 45CSR16, 45CSR25 and 45CSR34 will be 

submitted to EPA to fulfill other federal obligations under the Clean Air Act, including 

delegations, plans and program approvals. 

For more information on any of the DAQ rules call 304-926-0475.
Document Headings

                    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

###### National Institutes of Health

Notice is hereby given of a meeting scheduled by the Deputy Director for Intramural Research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with the Chairpersons of the Boards of Scientific Counselors. The Boards of Scientific Counselors form an advisory group to the Scientific Directors of the intramural research programs at the NIH. This meeting will take place from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Monday, November 13, 2000, in the Medical Board Room of Building 10 at the NIH, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD. The meeting will include a discussion of policies and procedures that apply to the regular review of NIH intramural scientists and their work, with special emphasis on clinical research.

Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Ms. Colleen Crone at the Office of Intramural Research, NIH, Building 1, Room 114, telephone (301) 496-1921 or fax (301) 402-4273 in advance of the meeting.

Dated: October 13, 2000.

Ruth L. Kirschstein,

Principal Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.

[FR Doc. 00-27349 Filed 10-24-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3338 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3338

  To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide, 
   because of problems relating to the operation of Exchanges, for a 
     hardship exemption from the individual mandate for months of 
                  noncoverage, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 24, 2013

    Mrs. Ellmers (for herself, Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. Kinzinger of 
  Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide, 
   because of problems relating to the operation of Exchanges, for a 
     hardship exemption from the individual mandate for months of 
                  noncoverage, 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 ``Fairness In Failed Federal Exchange 
Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER OF INDIVIDUAL MANDATE THROUGH APPLICATION OF HARDSHIP 
              EXEMPTION.

    Section 1311(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
(42 U.S.C. 18031(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(8) Application of hardship exemption in cases of 
        noncoverage.--An applicable individual (as defined in 
        subsection (d) of section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 
        1986) who is not covered by minimum essential coverage and who 
        is eligible to enroll through an Exchange for coverage under a 
        qualified health plan for a month--
                    ``(A) in 2014 is deemed (for purposes of this Act 
                and the amendments made by this Act) to have had a 
                certification by the Secretary under paragraph (4)(H) 
                with respect to the hardship exemption described in 
                subsection (e)(5)(H) of such section for such month; 
                and
                    ``(B) in a subsequent year is deemed (for such 
                purposes) to have had a certification by the Secretary 
                under such paragraph with respect to such hardship 
                exemption if the individual executes an attestation 
                that the individual has been unable to enroll in such a 
                plan through such Exchange for a month in such year.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8, No.333-85300 pertaining to the American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. 2000 StockIncentive Plan, as Amended, and the Registration Statement on Form S-8, No.333-61602 pertaining to the American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. 1998 StockIncentive Plan, as Amended, and the American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. 2000Stock Incentive Plan, of American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. of our reportdated March 10, 2005, with respect to the financial statements and scheduleof  American Bank Note Holographics, Inc.,included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 

 
|               | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |   |
|--------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|               |                      |
| New York, New York |                      |
| March 28, 2005     |                      |

 

----