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


               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Burlington Industries,  Inc. of our report dated October 26, 2000, except for
Note F, as to which the date is  December  5, 2000,  included in the 2000 Annual
Report to Shareholders of Burlington Industries, Inc.

Our  audits  also  included  the  financial  statement  schedule  of  Burlington
Industries,  Inc. listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the  responsibility of
the Company's  management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on
our audits. In our opinion,  the financial statement schedule referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial  statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-3 No.  33-95350)  of  Burlington  Industries,  Inc.  and in the  related
Prospectus of our report dated October 26, 2000,  except for Note F, as to which
the date is  December  5,  2000,  with  respect  to the  consolidated  financial
statements incorporated herein by reference and our report included in the above
paragraph  with respect to the  financial  statement  schedule  included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Burlington Industries, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No.  33-49894)  pertaining  to the  Burlington  Industries,  Inc. 1992
Equity  Incentive  Plan, the  Registration  Statement  (Form S-8 No.  333-09501)
pertaining to the Burlington  Industries,  Inc. 1995 Equity  Incentive Plan, the
Registration  Statement  (Form S-8 No.  333-85629)  pertaining to the Burlington
Industries,  Inc. 1998 Equity  Incentive  Plan, and the  Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No.  333-38660)  pertaining to the Burlington  Industries,  Inc. Award
Agreement  dated June 1, 2000 of our report dated  October 26, 2000,  except for
Note  F,  as to  which  the  date is  December  5,  2000,  with  respect  to the
consolidated  financial  statements  incorporated  herein by  reference  and our
report included in the above  paragraph with respect to the financial  statement
schedule  included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of  Burlington  Industries,
Inc.


                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Greensboro, North Carolina
December 21, 2000
#### In the Matter of John Sorrentino, Respondent, v Neil Sorrentino, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the appeal is from an amended order of the Family Court, Kings County (Tejada, J.), dated November 30, 1988, which directed Neil Sorrentino not to exclude his adult son, the petitioner John Sorrentino, from his home.

Ordered that the amended order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The Family Court does not possess subject matter jurisdiction to direct an adult son’s continued occupation of his father’s residence. It is well established that a parent is not required to support an emancipated child over the age of 21 years and the Family Court lacks the authority to issue any such direction. Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal C 28A/23 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 28A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6223 January 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 28A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6223 January 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Europol |
| 2019/C 28 A/01 | Vacancy notice Europol/2018/TA/AD14/350 — Deputy Executive Director of Europol | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Europol

2019/C 28 A/01

Vacancy notice Europol/2018/TA/AD14/350 — Deputy Executive Director of Europol

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00090-Z-BR

§

DAVID THOMAS OVERMAN (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

DAVID THOMAS OVERMAN (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 

1997), has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R.CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment.

After cautioning and examining DAVID THOMAS OVERMAN (1) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned 

in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by 

an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea 

of guilty be accepted, and that DAVID THOMAS OVERMAN (1) be adjudged guilty of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 

924(a)(2) - CONVICTED FELON IN POSSESSION OF FIREARMS and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being

found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: November 22, 2022

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00090-Z-BR Document 29 Filed 11/22/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 61
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7357

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICO LAMONT SPURLOCK, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (CR-95-29, CA-99-22) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: February 1, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rico Lamont Spurlock, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Rico Lamont Spurlock seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Spurlock , Nos. CR-95-29;CA-99-22 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 30, 1999). 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
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 233 (Monday, December 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30735]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-51-001]


Crossroads Pipeline Company Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

November 28, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 22, 2000, Crossroads Pipeline Company 
(Crossroads) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, Original Tariff Sheet No. 76A, to be effective 
November 1, 2000.
    Crossroads states that the purpose of the filing is to comply with 
the requirements of the order issued on November 9, 2000, in Docket No. 
RP01-51-000 and Order No. 587-L with respect to the netting and trading 
of imbalances by shippers.
    Crossroads states that copies of this filing have been sent to 
Crossroads' shippers and interested state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30735 Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# Multi-Domain Battle, 1781: the Lessons of Yorktown

/ Published Feb. 12, 2019
"Multi-Domain Battle, 1781: the Lessons of Yorktown"
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GoldenMinerals Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Jeffrey G. Clevenger              |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Jeffrey G. Clevenger                  |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| November 3, 2010                 |   |

 

 
| /s/ Robert P. Vogels                              |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert P. Vogels                                  |   |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| November 3, 2010                             |   |

 

----
Exhibit 10.23




WAIVER




The
undersigned is a party to an Employment Agreement with Dime Community
Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") made and entered into as of January 1, 2003
(the "Company Agreement") and an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with
The Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh (the "Bank") made and entered into as of
June 26, 1995 (the "Bank Agreement").




The
Company proposes to adopt Amendment No. 09 to the Dime Community Bancshares,
Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"), the effect of which would be to
exclude from compensation used to calculate benefits under the ESOP, the Dime
Savings Bank of Williamsburgh 401(k) Savings Plan ("401(k)") and Dime Community
Bancshares, Inc. Benefit Maintenance Plan (the "BMP") income attributable to the
grant or vesting of restricted stock awards, the exercise of stock options and
the disqualifying disposition of stock acquired through the exercise of
incentive stock options. The adoption of such Amendment No. 9 could be viewed as
a material reduction in the compensation and benefits committed to be provided
to the undersigned in breach of the Company Agreement and/or the bank
Agreement.




For good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the undersigned hereby permanently and irrevocably waives, for
himself or his heirs, successors and assigns, any and all rights, remedies,
actions and causes of any name or nature whatsoever, that he does, can, may or
shall otherwise have under the Bank Agreement and/or the Company Agreement, as a
result of, in connection with or arising directly or indirectly out of the
adoption and implementation of Amendment No. 9 to the ESOP, including but not
limited to any right to resign for "good reason" thereunder and claim
termination benefits.




This
instrument is intended to operate as a binding waiver enforceable against me as
contemplated by section 19 of the Bank Agreement and section 20 of the Company
Agreement.




In
Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 18th day of
February 2004.







/s/
MICHAEL P. DEVINE

____________________________
#### In the Matter of Eva Hegarty, Appellant, v Cesar A. Perales, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to compel compliance with the respondent State Commissioner’s "Decision After Fair Hearing” dated January 22, 1988, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated November 14, 1988, which dismissed her petition as against the respondent Perales, denied the petition as against the respondent Grinker, except to the extent of directing his compliance with the "Decision After Fair Hearing”, and denied her application for an award of attorney’s fees.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner’s allegations do not establish a specific conflict between a State plan or practice on the one hand and a Federal mandate on the other. A local agency’s failure to comply with State regulations does not, without more, implicate an interest secured by the laws of the United States *(see, Matter of Misuraca v Perales,*120 AD2d 592, 593-594).

Inasmuch as the real controversy in the underlying case concerns the administrative application of State statutes and regulations, there is no bona fide civil rights claim pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 to warrant an award of attorney’s fees *(see, Matter of Kross v Perales,*156 AD2d 451; *Matter of Rozier v Perales,*149 AD2d 710; *Matter of Gelin v Perales,*149 AD2d 593). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,081
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,510
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,105
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     30,967
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             565
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               575
<LOANS>                                        156,153
<ALLOWANCE>                                        995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 197,396
<DEPOSITS>                                     153,405
<SHORT-TERM>                                    15,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,635
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 197,396
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  9,661
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,448
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,109
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,601
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,968
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,141
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  11
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,752
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,752
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,417
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.54
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.64
<LOANS-NON>                                        458
<LOANS-PAST>                                        75
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    538
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,002
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        8
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  995
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               995
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            193


</TABLE>
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 State

          - [Public Notice 3481]

# AGENCY:

Department of State. 

# ACTION:

Notice.

Pursuant to Section 654(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, notice is hereby given that the Department of State has made a determination pursuant to Section 73 of the Arms Export Control Act. The Department has concluded that publication of the determination would be harmful to the national security of the United States. 

Dated: November 21, 2000.

Robert J. Einhorn,

Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 00-30552 Filed 11-29-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-25-U
Exhibit 99.2

                Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
                         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, I, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer of SBM Certificate Company (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2001 (the "Amended
Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Amended Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


/s/ Eric M. Westbury
--------------------
     Eric M. Westbury
     President

Date: October 29, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1540 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1540

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the $2 charge for 
outpatient prescription drugs required to be charged by the Department 
                 of Veterans Affairs in certain cases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 30, 1993

  Mr. Rogers introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the $2 charge for 
outpatient prescription drugs required to be charged by the Department 
                 of Veterans Affairs in certain cases.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 1722A 
of title 38, United States Code, is repealed.
    (b) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 17 of such 
title is amended by striking out the item relating to section 1722A.

                                 <all>
```