alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in (1) the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33- 84700) pertaining to the registration of 300,000 shares (prior
to giving effect to the two-for-one  stock split) of Class A Common Stock in the
Insignia Financial Group, Inc. 401-K Plan, (2) the Registration  Statement (Form
S-8 No.  33-82414)  pertaining to the  registration  of an additional  1,000,000
shares (prior to giving effect to the two-for-one stock split) of Class A Common
Stock under Insignia's 1992 Stock Incentive Plan, (3) the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33- 79490) pertaining to the registration of 575,000 shares (prior
to giving effect to the  two-for-one  stock split) of Class A Common Stock,  (4)
the  Registration   Statement  (Form  S-8  No.   33-55278)   pertaining  to  the
registration  of an  additional  333,333  shares  (prior to giving effect to the
two-for- one stock split) of Class A Common  Stock under  Insignia's  1992 Stock
Incentive  Plan,  (5)  the  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8  No.  333-07155)
pertaining to the registration of options to purchase  1,482,879 shares of Class
A Common Stock and the shares  underlying  such options  pursuant to  Insignia's
Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreements,  (6) the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No.  333-09449)  pertaining  to the  registration  of 400,000  shares of Class A
Common Stock under Insignia's 1995 Non-Employee  Director Stock Option Plan, (7)
the  Registration   Statement  (Form  S-8  No.  333-10685)   pertaining  to  the
registration  of an  additional  2,000,000  shares of Class A Common Stock under
Insignia's 1992 Stock Incentive Plan, (8) the  Registration  Statement (Form S-8
No.  333-17791)  pertaining  to the  registration  of 728,000  shares of Class A
Common Stock and (9) the  Registration  Statement  (Form S-3 Nos.  333-17595 and
333-17595-  01) and related  prospectus of Insignia  Financial  Group,  Inc. and
Insignia  Financing I for the  registration of 2,990,000  Convertible  Preferred
Securities  of  Insignia  Financing  I,  7,941,338  of Class A  Common  Stock of
Insignia Financial Group, Inc. and certain other securities (including shares of
Class A Common Stock) of our report dated February 14,  1997 with respect to the
consolidated  financial statements of Insignia Financial Group, Inc. included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.



                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Greenville, South Carolina
March 24, 1997
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1506

To amend title 28, United States Code, to modify the residency requirement

for United States attorneys and assistant United States attorneys.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 29, 1993

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, to modify the residency requirement for United States attorneys and assistant United States attorneys.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 545(a) of title 28, United States Code, is

4 amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘(a) Each United States attorney shall reside in the

6 district for which he or she is appointed, except that the

7 United States attorney of the District of Columbia, the

8 Southern District of New York, or the Eastern District

9 of New York may reside within 50 miles of the district

10 for which he or she is appointed. Each assistant United
2

•HR 1506 IH

1 States attorney shall reside in the district for which he

2 or she is appointed or within 50 miles of the district. The

3 provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any United

4 States attorney or assistant United States attorney ap5 pointed for the Northern Mariana Islands who at the same

6 time is serving in the same capacity in another district.’’.

Æ
#### JACKSON v. WOLFF & MARX CO.

No. 10303.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

April 27, 1938.

G. Woodson Morris, of Ban Antonio, for appellant.

R. H. Mercer and Hayden C. Covington, both of San Antonio, for appellee.

SMITH, Chief Justice,

This action was brought in behalf of James Jackson, Jr., alleged to be a minor, against Wolff & Marx Company, a corporation, for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by Jackson in a collision between his bicycle, which he was riding, and a delivery truck owned by the corporation and operated by one of its employees. A jury trial resulted in a judgment denying any recovery to Jackson, who has appealed.

The jury acquitted appellee, and convicted appellant, of acts of negligence proximately causing appellant’s injuries, and the court could have rendered no other judgment than that entered and appealed from.

In his first and second propositions appellant complains of the failure of the trial judge to .so frame his, definition of “negligence” as tp impose upon appellant that degree of care exacted by law only of a child of tender years. The propositions present no showing of error; for, while appellant alleged that he was “a minor,” and the witnesses in the case referred to him as a “boy,” there was no evidence showing, or *468tending to show, appellant was so wanting in age, experience, or ordinary mental faculties as to affect his discretion. Such a showing was necessary to entitle appellant to a charge limiting the degree of care required of him to the disabilities of a child. There was no showing that appellant was under that character of disability. On the other hand, his own testimony negatives, rather than raises, such a theory. Manlove v. Lavelle, Tex.Civ.App., 235 S.W. 324, and authorities.

In his third proposition appellant complains that in his definition of the “measure of damages” the trial judge omitted the element of loss of time. Whatever may be said of the proposition, it does not present reversible error, since the jury exonerated appellee of all elements of liability, whereby the question of the measure of damages was moot. For that reason we overrule appellant’s third proposition, as well as his fourth, for a like reason.

In his fifth proposition appellant raises the question of jury misconduct. It is contended that Juror Helmer acted as foreman when not actually elected thereto, and that he wrote down the answers returned to special issues without the concurrence of some of the jurors in such answers. We overrule the proposition. It is true that two of the jurors testified to facts tending to stultify themselves and impeach their own verdict; but their testimony was so improbable as to neutralize its intended effect, and, besides, was conclusively refuted by other testimony. The trial court, therefore, properly found that there was no jury misconduct.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Michael Panna, Petitioner, v Frederick Netzel, as Superintendent of Erie County Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner’s argument that respondent’s determination to revoke his parole is not supported by substantial evidence was not asserted in his "petition” or in his attorney’s affidavit in support of that "petition”. The issue is raised for the first time in petitioner’s brief and therefore is not before us *(see, Matter of Williams v Kelly,*132 AD2d 948; *Matter of Belgrave v Ward,*72 AD2d 898). We find, nonetheless, that respondent’s determination is supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see,*Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [viii]; *People ex rel. Saafir v Mantello,*163 AD2d 824). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30933]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated June 14, 2000, and published in the Federal 
Register on June 26, 2000, (65 FR 39430), Celgene Corporation, 7 Powder 
Horn Drive, Warren, New Jersey 07059, made application by renewal to 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of methylphenidate (1724), a basic class of controlled 
substance listed in Schedule II.
    The firm plans to manufacture methylphenidate for product research 
and development.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in Title 21, United States Code, section 823(a) and 
determined that the registration of Celgene Corporation to manufacture 
methylphenidate is consistent with the public interest at this time. 
DEA has investigated the Celgene Corporation on a regular basis to 
ensure that the company's continued registration is consistent with the 
public interest. These investigations have included inspection and 
testing of the company's physical security systems, audits of the 
company's records, verification of the company's compliance with state 
and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. 
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the 
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby 
orders that the application submitted by the above firm for 
registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled 
substance listed above is granted.

    Dated: October 10, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-30933 Filed 12-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
#### Raymond BALLEW, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 19980.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 25, 1939.

Rehearing Denied March 8, 1939.

Jas.- C. Mahan, of Childress, and Robert Harrison, Marvin B. Simpson, and Harris Brewster, all of Fort Worth, for appellant.

John Deaver, Dist. Atty., of Memphis, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

■The offense is an assault with intent to murder. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

This is a companion case to that of Raymond Ballew v. State, 125 S.W.2d 295, this day decided by us. The facts proved in this case are in all essential respects similar to those proved upon the trial of that case and the same legal questions are involved.

For the reasons there stated, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing to Modify or Enlarge Opinion.

HAWKINS, Judge.

We think appellant’s request for postponement of his motion should be denied.

It occurs to us that our observations as tQ certain evidence in our opinion in the companion case, Raymond Bellew v. State, 125 S.W.2d 295, is sufficient guide for the trial court on another trial without further elaboration on the subject in the present case.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
  In
connection with the Annual Report of Applied NeuroSolutions, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David
Ellison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 the requirements of section 13(a) 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.
 
 
 /s/ David
Ellison
 David
Ellison, Chief Financial Officer
 March 26,
2009
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### WHATLEY et ux. v. DAVIS et al.

No. 5302.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

April 14, 1938.

Cornelius & Heaton, of Jefferson, for appellants.

Darden, Burleson & Wilson, of Waco, for appellees.

WILLIAMS, Justice.

This appeal of appellants, E. L. Whatley and wife, plaintiffs below, from a judgment which denied them a recovery, is predicated upon alleged misconduct of the jury, in that they obtained and consulted a Webster’s Revised Dictionary and used same in determining the meaning and definition of the words “preponderance” and “proximate cause” while deliberating upon and in answering the special issues which contained these terms. The jury answered that certain negligent acts of defendant. W. G. Davis and of defendant Plorace Collins each were a proximate cause of the injuries, and likewise that certain acts of Horace Whatley, son of plaintiffs, proximately caused or contributed to his injury. The motion for new trial and the affidavits in support thereof are silent as to the definitions contained in the dictionary, and in what respect, if any, they were contrary to the instructions in the court’s charge.

This record is before us without a statement of facts or a bill of exception. The transcript discloses this motion was filed December 10th, two days prior to ad*467journment of court, and was never acted upon by the trial court, and does not disclose by bill of exception the cause of the failure of the trial court to act upon same. City of Henderson v. Fields, Tex.Civ.App., 194 S.W. 1003. The explanation should have been presented by bill of exception which could have been filed and approved after adjournment of court. The purpose of such a bill is to show what transpired in the trial court, and to make that a part of the record which otherwise would not be a part thereof. Article 2237, R.C:S. of 1925; 3 Tex.Jur. pp. 565 and 661; 4 Cor.Jur.Sec., Appeal and Error, p. 1161, § 680; Holmes v. Coalson, Tex.Civ.App., 178 S.W. 628. Allegations in motions for new trial as to alleged jury misconduct or in affidavits supporting same cannot take the place of a bil so as to authorize a review of such matters 3 Tex.Jur. p. 581, § 407; 4 Cor.Jur.Sec. Appeal and Error, p. 1237, § 762. ,

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001011451
<NAME> MECHANICAL DYNAMICS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          17,813
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,433
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (364)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,085
<PP&E>                                           7,302
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,425)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,317
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,637
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,754
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,214
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,739
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (85)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    382
<INCOME-TAX>                                       114
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                241
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       241
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

ARTHUR BURTON SCHIRMER, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 231 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7
 
                       AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 
THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("AMENDMENT") is dated this 1st day of
January, 1997 and amends the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT dated May 1, 1996, as amended
September 25, 1996 between Sizzler International, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Sizzler") and Kevin W. Perkins ("Perkins").
 
1.   The last sentence of Paragraph 3.2, as amended is deleted and the following
is inserted therein: The salary to be paid by SFD to Employee for the period
January 1, 1997 through June 30, 1997 shall be US $150,000.00.
 
2.   All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain in full
force and effect.



/s/ KEVIN W. PERKINS                              By:  /s/ CHRISTOPHER R. THOMAS
----------------------------                          --------------------------
KEVIN W. PERKINS
                                                  ITS:    CFO
                                                      --------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>    5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION RESTATED TO REFLECT
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION, IN 1998, OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEC STAFF 
ACCOUNTING BULLETIN NO. 98 FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE NUMBER OF SHARES
USED IN COMPUTING NET LOSS PER SHARE FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED 
DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000

<S>                                      <C>          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS       <F1>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            413
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                      559
<INVENTORY>                                     2,454
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                5,571
<PP&E>                                          1,431
<DEPRECIATION>                                    716
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  7,092
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           5,029
<BONDS>                                           198
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           2,726
<PREFERRED>                                        63
<COMMON>                                           18
<OTHER-SE>                                      (942)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    7,092
<SALES>                                        10,205
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               14,873
<CGS>                                           8,441
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   8,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,554 <F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (3,577)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      107
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (3,684)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (3,684)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (2.13) <F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2.13)

        

<FN> 
<F1>  The Company changed its fiscal year end. The 40-week period from April
      1, 1996 to January 4, 1997 is referred to herein as the nine months
      ended December 31, 1996 and the reporting year ended January 4, 1997
      as ending on December 31, 1996.
<F2>  Item consists of research and development.
<F3>  Item consists of basic earnings per share.
</FN>


</TABLE>
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Thursday, March 19, 2015

No. 04-14-00643-CR

Lonnie PRICE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR9144

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. Time is 

extended to March 27, 2015.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND THE STATEMENTS OF REVENUE AND EXPENSES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000870255
<NAME> DATRONIC FINANCE INCOME FUND I, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,879,490
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,515,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,432,020
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,515,510
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               380,764
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,124
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (100,548)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (380,611)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>