alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 23**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-117341,333-100398, 333-70440, 333-45856, 333-45852, 333-66239, 333-15961, 333-15957, 33-92966, 33-80588,33-78586, 33-50198, and 33-46221) of our report (which expresses an unqualified opinion andcontains explanatory paragraphs relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial AccountingStandards No. 142, *Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets*and the restatement of consolidatedfinancial statements described in Note 4) dated April 14, 2005 relating to the financial statementsand financial statement schedule of Retail Ventures, Inc. appearing in and incorporated byreference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Retail Ventures, Inc. for the year ended January 29,2005.
Columbus, Ohio
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of operations found on pages 3, 4 and 5 of the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          45,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,265
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    143,420
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               235,902
<PP&E>                                         372,226
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 875,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          509,893
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,093
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     125,868
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   875,786
<SALES>                                         61,771
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,771
<CGS>                                           22,004
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,004
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               236,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (10,875)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (207,965)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (207,965)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.019)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
Lily ICOS LLC:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-63790) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-48401, 333-80680, 333-64762, 333-08485,
333-78315 and 333-72564) on Form S-8 of ICOS Corporation of our report dated
January 23, 2002 relating to the balance sheets of Lilly ICOS LLC (a development
stage company) as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related statements of
operations, comprehensive operations, members' equity (deficit) and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001 and the
period from October 2, 1998 (inception) to December 31, 2001, which report
appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of ICOS Corporation.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 28, 2002
**EXHIBIT 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-131604 and333-129004 on Form S-3 and 333-117341, 333-100398, 333-70440, 333-45856, 333-45852, 333-66239,333-15957, 33-92966, 33-80588, 333-78586, 33-50198, and 33-46221 on Form S-8) of our report datedApril 4, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedulesof Retail Ventures, Inc. and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Retail Ventures, Inc. for theyear ended February 3, 2007./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPColumbus, OhioApril 4, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

WECAN TRANSPORT, INC.,

Petitioner

v.

YORK COUNTY TAX CLAIM BUREAU AND

KONSTANTINOS G. SGAGIAS,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 64 MM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7 th day of September , 2023, the Petition for Leave to File Petition

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 31.1

           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 Trimol Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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 as of and for the periods
covered in the Report.

                                                     /s/ Yuri Benenson
                                                     -----------------
                                                     Yuri Benenson
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     TRIMOL GROUP, INC.

May 13, 2004


                                       18
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11

                            STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF
                             PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)
                             THE TESSERACT GROUP, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                               Year ended June 30,
                                           ----------------------------------------------------------
                                                1998                  1997                  1996
                                           --------------        --------------        --------------
<S>                                        <C>                   <C>                   <C>
Weighted average number of    
 common shares outstanding                     8,574,000            7,489,000             7,477,000

Effect of dilutive stock options
 based on the treasury stock method                    -               12,000                     -
                                           --------------        --------------        --------------
Weighted average common shares
 outstanding used to compute net
 earnings (loss) per share                     8,574,000            7,501,000             7,477,000
                                           --------------        --------------        --------------
                                           --------------        --------------        --------------
Net earnings (loss)                        $  (3,437,000)         $   566,000           $(9,507,000)
                                           --------------        --------------        --------------
                                           --------------        --------------        --------------
Net earnings (loss) per share, basic       $        (.40)         $       .08           $     (1.27)
 and diluted                               --------------        --------------        --------------
                                           --------------        --------------        --------------

</TABLE>

Stock options and warrants have been excluded from loss per share 
computations as their effects are antidilutive.
SERVED: DECEMBER 30, 2013 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS -.

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF MESA AIRLINES, INC. FAADOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0846

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT AND DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011SW070030) was received bythe Office ofHearings onDecember 20, 2013, and has been assigned tothe undersigned. On December 20, 2013, Complainant's Counsel served a Withdrawal ofComplaint, statingthatthe parties had reached a settlement and withdrawing its complaint. Accordingly, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.215, this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. The FAA shall sendthe Judge andthe FAA Hearing Docket a copy ofany compromise order or fmal order assessing civil penalty. SO ORDERED.

Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL

Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 ORIGINAL & ONE COPY

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY Annjenet Chennault, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Southwest Region, ASW -7E4, AC Federal AviationAdministration I
. 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort Worth, TX 76137 TEL: 817-222-5071 FAX: 817-222-5092/5946 Brian S. Gillman, Respondent's Counsel Exec. VP & General Counsel, MesaAir Group 410 N. 44th Street, Suite 700 Phoenix, AZ 85008 TEL: 602-685-4000 FAC{: 602-685-4350 The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2142 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0846 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
#### Palumbo, Appellee, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellants. 

(No. 28665

Decided June 18, 1941.)

*Mr. Maurice K. Topson,*for appellee.

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorney general, *Mr. E. G. Schuessler*and *Mr. David M. Spriggs,*for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*.*Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.
October 2, 2015

Mr. Pedro Dorta

Aireko Construction Co.

P.O. Box 2128

San Juan, PR 00922

Dear Mr. Dorta :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your exemption request, posted to the public docket on July 16, 2015, on behalf

of Aireko Construction Co., filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2949 , but we are unable to

process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of

the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemptio n.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
11-5138-cr

U.S. v. Betts

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO

A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS

GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S

LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH

THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING

A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY

COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

 19th day of June, two thousand thirteen.

Present:

ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JR.,

Circuit Judges,

WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II,

District Judge.

*

________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee, 

v. No. 11-5138-cr

WALIEK BETTS, aka Leek, aka Sealed Defendant #6,

Defendant-Appellant,

CORY EDWARDS, aka Wiggles, aka Sealed 

Defendant #1 et al.

Defendants.

_______________________________________________

*

 The Honorable William F. Kuntz, II, of the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of New York, sitting by designation.
For Appellee: PAUL D. SILVER (John M. Katko, on the brief),

Assistant United States Attorneys, for Richard S.

Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern

District of New York, Albany, NY

For Defendants-Appellant: JAMES P. EGAN (Lisa A. Peebles, on the brief), Federal

Public Defender’s Office, Syracuse, NY

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northen District of New York

(Mordue, J.). 

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and

DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED. 

Defendant-Appellant Waliek Betts appeals from an order of the United States District

Court for the Northen District of New York (Mordue, J.) dated November 16, 2011. In that

order, the district court refused to reduce Betts’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to a term

of imprisonment that fell below his amended guideline range. We affirm for the reasons set forth

in United States v. Clifton Stith, 11-4933-cr (2d Cir. May 30, 2013).

We have considered the Defendant-Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be

without merit. For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

2
from the probation revocation appeal on June 5, 2012, Harris v. State, 

Docket No. 58509 (Order of Affirmance, May 9, 2012). Under these 

circumstances, appellant failed to demonstrate that the probation 

revocation proceedings or the appeal taken from those proceedings 

excused the entire delay as his claims challenging the revocation were 

reasonably• available to be raised at an earlier time. See Hathaway v. 

State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). Moreover, the order 

revoking probation did not provide good cause to raise claims challenging 

the validity of the judgment of conviction. See generally Sullivan v. State, 

120 Nev. 537, 540, 96 P.3d 761, 764 (2004). Therefore, the district court 

did not err in denying the petition as procedurally barred. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 

J. 

Hardesty 

Douglas 

&Let I 4r51 J. 

Cherry 

akzArvi , J. 

3We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in 

proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude 

that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent 

that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those 

submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings 

below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A astgo 
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge 

Brandon Kale Harris 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A me
**Exhibit 24****POWER OF ATTORNEY**Each director and/or officer of Retail Ventures, Inc. (the “Corporation”) whose signature appearsbelow hereby appoints Heywood Wilansky, James A. McGrady and Julia A. Davis as the undersigned’sattorney or any of them individually as the undersigned’s attorney, to sign, in the undersigned’sname and behalf and in any and all capacities stated below, and to cause to be filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K(the “Form 10-K”) for the fiscal year ended February 3, 2007, and likewise to sign and file withthe Commission any and all amendments to the Form 10-K, and the Corporation hereby appoints suchpersons as its attorneys-in-fact and each of them as its attorney-in-fact with like authority tosign and file the Form 10-K and any amendments thereto granting to each attorney-in-fact full powerof substitution and revocation, and hereby ratifying all that any such attorney-in-fact or theundersigned’s substitute may do by virtue hereof.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands effective as of the fifth day of April, 2007.      /s/ Jay L. Schottenstein Jay L. Schottenstein Chairman of the Board of Directors    /s/ Heywood Wilansky Heywood Wilansky President and Chief Executive Officer andDirector (Principal Executive Officer)   /s/ James A. McGrady James A. McGrady Executive Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer, Treasurer and Secretary (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)   /s/ Henry L. Aaron Henry L. Aaron Director    /s/ Ari Deshe Ari Deshe Director    /s/ Jon P. Diamond Jon P. Diamond Director    /s/ Elizabeth M. Eveillard Elizabeth M. Eveillard Director    /s/ Lawrence J. Ring Lawrence J. Ring Director    /s/ Harvey L. Sonnenberg Harvey L. Sonnenberg Director    /s/ James L. Weisman James L. Weisman Director
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.2

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

   We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-52696 and 333-66047) and Form S-8 (No.
33-71346, 33-71350, 33-80213, 33-80215, 333-16349, 333-28971, 333-86117,
333-86119, 333-39084, 333-55222, 333-55224 and 333-72154) of Medarex Inc. of
our report dated February 13, 2002 relating to the financial statements of
Genmab A/S, which appears in this Form 10-K.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

Copenhagen, Denmark
March 27, 2002

                                      1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6286
DAVID L. CARTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KATHLEEN SAWYER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-635-5-HC-H) Submitted: October 9, 2003 Decided: October 17, 2003 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David L. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: David Carter appeals the district court orders and judgment summarily dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) action and denying his motion for reconsideration. After reviewing the record, we find Carter failed to state a claim for relief. Accordingly, we affirm. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Halliday, Appellant, *v.*Squire, Supt. of Banks, Appellee.

(No. 28593

Decided May 21, 1941.)

*Mr. James Bravo, Mr. Wm. T. Arnos*and *Mr. R. W. Halliday,*for appellant.

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorney general, *Mr. E. 8. Lindemanm*and *Mr. Frank Wilke,*for appellee.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question -is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.
#### REDWINE et al. v. AMERICAN NAT. INS. CO.

No. 2012.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

July 7, 1938.

Jas. D. O’Connor, of Dallas, for appellants.

W. B. Handley, of Dallas, for appellee.

GEORGE, Justice.

This is a suit on a life insurance policy by Glena Moody Redwine, beneficiary,, joined by her husband, A. C. Redwine, appellants, against American National Insurance Company, appellee. Defendant answered first by way of plea in abatement to* the effect that in garnishment proceedings before a police magistrate in East S't. Louis, Illinois, wherein plaintiff, Glena Moody Redwine, was defendant and American National Insurance Company was garnishee, judgment was had as against American-National Insurance Company for the amount of the policy.; that it had paid said’ judgment and was thereby released from further obligations on the policy. This plea, after hearing thereon, was sustained" by the trial court and hence' this appeal by plaintiffs.

 The controlling assignment of error is whether the plea in abatement, not having been considered and passed on at the term to which it was addressed, was waived by the appellee. It appears from-the judgment that the cause was returnable to the trial court on December 8, 1936, which was appearance day, and that the term extended until February 1, 1937; that the plea -in abatement was duly presented and came on for hearing on January 18j 1937; that at this hearing evidence was had and decision reserved pending submission of authorities by attorneys; that on January 20, 1937, counsel submitted such, authorities and thereafter and before adjournment of the term, the court made known his intention to sustain the plea in abatement; that thereupon plaintiffs’ counsel requested further time of the. court for the submission' of additional authorities, which request the court granted; that such additional authorities were not presented by plaintiffs’ counsel before adjournment of the term,- but that plaintiffs’ counsel after adjournment filed motion, to dismiss the plea in abatement; that thereafter, at the February term, the court again considered the plea in abatement and. sus*603tained same, dismissed the cause of action as against the defendant with costs as against plaintiffs. The record before us clearly discloses that the delay in acting thereon was brought about by appellants, and for such reason, there was no waiver of appellee’s plea in abatement. Appellants are now estopped to assert error, if any, induced by their conduct. Aldridge v. Webb, 92 Tex. 122, 46 S.W. 224; Texas Packing Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Tex.Com.App., 227 S.W. 1095; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Eyer, 96 Tex. 72, 70 S.W. 529; Reynolds v. McMan Oil & Gas Company, Tex.Com.App., 11 S.W.2d 778; 3 Tex.Jur. 1031.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.