alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement on Form S-3 (No. 333-124094), theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-26442, 33-6141, 33-26443, 33-34362, 33-62648, 333-117382, 333-42231 and 333-52175), and the Post-EffectiveAmendment No. 4 on Form S-8 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-86061) of PhelpsDodge Corporation of our report dated February 24, 2006 relating to the consolidated financialstatements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, which appears in this Form 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPhoenix, Arizona
*OPINION ISSUED MAY 14, 2009*

#### SAMMY RAY COPLEY VS. REGIONAL JAIL AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY

(CC-08-0443)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Ronald R. Brown, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Answer.

Claimant, an inmate at the Southwestern Regional Jail in Holden, Logan County, seeks $39.16 for items of personal property that were entrusted to respondent. When claimant sent his clothes to the jail’s laundry facility, his clothes were misplaced. Claimant seeks reimbursement for three pairs of underwear ($4.36 each), three *269undershirts ($4.36 each), one thermal top ($6.50), and one thermal bottom ($6.50). In its Answer, respondent admits the validity of the claim and that the amount is fair and reasonable.

This Court has taken the position in prior claims that if a bailment situation has been created, respondent is responsible for property of an inmate which is taken from that inmate, remains in its custody, and is not produced for return to the inmate.

Accordingly, the Court makes an award to the claimant herein in the amount of $39.16.

Award of $39.16.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          15,573
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             439
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                12,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     31,195
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,474
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,451
<LOANS>                                        250,414
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 338,857
<DEPOSITS>                                     280,573
<SHORT-TERM>                                        20
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,006
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,844
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,271
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 338,857
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,884
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  536
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   148
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,568
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,670
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,969
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,599
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       40
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (3)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,653
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,045
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,045
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,228
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.64
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.84
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,137
<LOANS-PAST>                                         5
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   243
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,739
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       15
<RECOVERIES>                                        44
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,808
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,808
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2792 

To require that any revision to, or establishment of, a national primary 

or secondary ambient air quality standard be made by statute, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2015 

Mr. GROTHMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require that any revision to, or establishment of, a national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard 

be made by statute, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Manufacturers First 

5 Act of 2015’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2792 IH

1 SEC. 2. REVISION TO, OR ESTABLISHMENT OF, NATIONAL 

2 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS BY STAT3 UTE ONLY. 

4 Except as provided by a Federal statute enacted after 

5 the date of enactment of this Act— 

6 (1) the national primary and secondary ambient 

7 air quality standard for any air pollutant under sec8 tion 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409), as 

9 in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, shall 

10 remain in effect; and 

11 (2) notwithstanding any provision of the Clean 

12 Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the Administrator 

13 of the Environmental Protection Agency may not 

14 issue, implement, or enforce— 

15 (A) any revision to any such standard; or 

16 (B) any new such standard. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

VENTURA COUNTY APCD RULE EVALUATION FORM - Page 1 

 I. GENERAL INFORMATION  District: Ventura County APCD Rule No.: 74.2 Date / Amended: January 12, 2010

 Rule Title: Architectural Coatings

 Date Submitted to ARB: March 15, 2010 If an Amended Rule, Date Last Amended: November 13, 2

 Is the Rule Intended to be Sent to the U.S. EPA as a SIP Revision? (X) Yes ( ) No If NO, do not complete rem

 District Contact: Stan Cowen Phone No.: 805/645-1408 

 Narrative Summary of New Rule or Rule Changes: ( ) New Rule (X) Amended Rule 74.2 

Amended Rule 74.2 incorporates all the new ROC limits and coating categories from ARB’s 2007 Suggested Co

new ROC limits for many different coating categories. 

Pollutant(s) Regulated by the Rule (Circle): ROG NOx 

 II. EFFECT ON EMISSIONS 

 Complete this section ONLY for rules that, when implemented, will result in quantifiable changes in emission. Attach reference(s) for e

 information. Attach calculation sheet showing how the emissions information provided below was determined. See staff report Append

 Net Effect on Emissions: ( ) Increase (X) Decrease ( ) N/A  Emission Reduction Commitment in SIP (Control Measure R-329) for this source category: To Be Determined 

 Inventory Year Used to Calculate Changes in Emissions: 

 Future Y

Year 

Tons/year Reductions 

 2004 Baseline 

Tons/year 

Subject to Rule 

Control 

Level 

Percent 

Control 

Contr

Leve

2011 82 / 718 = 0.114 * 100 = 11.4 % 1.00 - 0.12012 100 / 718 = 0.139 * 100 = 13.9 % 1.00 - 0.1

The 2004 baseline emissions were based on ARB’s statewide 2004 survey in California. 
AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

VENTURA COUNTY APCD RULE EVALUATION FORM - Page 2 

 III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS  District is: ( ) Attainment (X) Nonattainment ( ) Split  Approximate Total Number of Small (<100 TPY) Sources Controlled by Rule: N/A  Percent in Nonattainment Area: 100 %

 Number of Large (>100 TPY) Sources Controlled: None Percent in Nonattainment Area: Not Applicable 

 IV. EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY  Does the Rule Include Emission Limits that are Continuous? Yes, the coating limits are in the form of grams of 

water and less exempt organic compounds. 

 V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS  The Rule Contains:  Emission Limits in Section(s): Section B Work Practice Standards: Section B

 Container Labeling Requirements: Section C Reporting Requirements in Section(s): Section E

 VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN  (X) No Impact ( ) Impacts RFP ( ) Impacts attainment 

Discussion: Amendments to Rule 74.2 will reduce emissions of reactive organic compounds for Ventu

achieving attainment of the ozone standard. Therefore, RFP will be furthered by amendme
No. 72-944.

#### Marulakis *v.*Williams.

Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.
November 18, 2011 

MEMORANDUM 

From: William H. Maxwell 

EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01) 

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 

Subject: Meeting with National Energy Regulatory Commission (NERC) 

Attendees: 

See attached. 

Discussion: 

A general discussion was held of the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

STEVEN HAMMOCK , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1836

[ October 13, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nine teenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; Dan L. Vaughn

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312014 C F 000328A

.
Steven Hammock, Crawfordville

, p ro se.

No appearance required for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed. See Bradley v. State

, 3 So. 3d 1168, 1168

– 69 (Fla. 2009).

G ROSS , L EVINE and K UNTZ , JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2022049EN.01000601.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10503 – SK CAPITAL PARTNERS / SEQENS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 49/06)

On 9 December 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10503. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10503. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants



To the Board of Directors of
  nStor Technologies, Inc.


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on  Forms  S-3  (333-69495,   333-82223  and  333-94935),  Form  S-4
(333-86093) and Forms S-8 (333-35495 and 333-94305) of our report dated February
21, 2000, except as to the last two paragraphs of Note 14, which are as of April
14,  2000,   relating  to  the  consolidated   financial   statements  of  nStor
Technologies,  Inc. and of our report dated February 21, 2000,  except as to the
last two paragraphs of Note 14, which are as of April 14, 2000,  relating to the
schedule  appearing  in the  Company's  Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1999.



                                                              BDO SEIDMAN, LLP




Cost Mesa, California
April 14, 2000
# C_2022363EN.01001701.xml

| 22.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/17

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10827 –SCINTIA / BEIERSDORF)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 363/11)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Scintia Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH (‘Scintia’, Germany) and its ultimate solely controlling shareholder, a natural person, |
| --- | --- |

—

Scintia Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH (‘Scintia’, Germany) and its ultimate solely controlling shareholder, a natural person,

| — | Beiersdorf AG (‘Beiersdorf’, Germany), ultimately controlled by Scintia and its ultimate solely controlling shareholder as well as Trivium Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH and its ultimate solely controlling shareholder, a natural person. |
| --- | --- |

—

Beiersdorf AG (‘Beiersdorf’, Germany), ultimately controlled by Scintia and its ultimate solely controlling shareholder as well as Trivium Vermögensverwaltungs GmbH and its ultimate solely controlling shareholder, a natural person.

Scintia and its ultimately controlling shareholder will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) control of the whole of Beiersdorf.

The concentration is accomplished by way of contract or any other means.

2.

| — | Scintia is an investment vehicle incorporated under the laws of Germany, |
| --- | --- |

—

Scintia is an investment vehicle incorporated under the laws of Germany,

| — | Beiersdorf is a globally active producer and supplier of skin, body and hair care products as well as self-adhesive products. |
| --- | --- |

—

Beiersdorf is a globally active producer and supplier of skin, body and hair care products as well as self-adhesive products.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10827 – SCINTIA / BEIERSDORF

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
#### TEXAS-CAROLINA OIL CO. v. FIRES, District Judge.

No. 1541-5857.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

April 28, 1932.

Robert E. O’Keefe, of Longview, for relator.

A. T. Cole, of Clarendon, -for respondent.

HARVEY, P. J.

This is an original proceeding for mandamus instituted in the Supreme Court by the relator, Texas-Carolina Oil Company, against tho respondent, Hon. A. J. Fires, judge of the district court of Donley county. The writ is, sought to compel the respondent to set aside a judgment, entered by said court, dismissing for want of prosecution a certain suit in trespass to try title, brought by the relator as plaintiff against T. B. Lovelace and R. A. Lovelace as defendants. Said judgment of dismissal was entered on October 14, 1930, at a regular term of said court which ended November 12, 1930.

A judgment of dismissal, entered by a district court, finally disposes of the particular suit, and the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to inquire as to the regularity of such judgment or to direct that it be set aside. Original jurisdiction to grant relief in respect of such a judgment lies in the district court which rendered the judgment. Osborne v. Younger (Tex. Com. App.) 235 S. W. 558; Green v. Green (Tex. Com. App.) 288 S. W. 406; Nachant v. Montieth, 117 Tex. 214, 299 S. W. 888.

We recommend that the writ of mandamus be denied.

CÜRETON, C. J.

The opinion of the Commission of Appeals is adopted and the mandamus refused.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,869
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,528
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         126,161
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           126,161
<LOANS>                                         82,476
<ALLOWANCE>                                        500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 223,708
<DEPOSITS>                                     149,204
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,155
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,786
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 223,708
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,151
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,093
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,244
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,389
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,794
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,450
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  19
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,538
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,023
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   500
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  500
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             53



</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24 - 0111 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER SANCHEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 16 , 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 10 2024

07/10/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0111
The Honorable Donald E. O&Brien, United States District Judge for the Northern 1

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2340

___________

Allen Langley, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

State of Iowa, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: September 23, 1997

 Filed: October 8, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Allen Langley, an Iowa prisoner, appeals the district court&s grant of summary 1

judgment against him in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action. Langley challenges the district

court&s determination that there exists no cause to excuse his procedural default.

Specifically, Langley claims that he mailed his habeas petition--which he labeled a

“Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 For Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State
-2-

Custody, United States District Court”--to the state court, that the state court mailed

it to the federal district court rather than filing it as a state post-conviction motion, and

that the state court&s conduct should excuse his procedural default.

After de novo review of the record, we agree that Langley&s claims are barred

from habeas review absent a showing of cause and prejudice or a fundamental

miscarriage of justice. See Lamp v. Iowa, No. 96-2946, slip op. at 5-7 (8th Cir. Aug.

13, 1997). Although sufficient interference by the State may constitute cause in some

circumstances, see Joubert v. Hopkins, 75 F.3d 1232, 1242 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 116

S. Ct. 2574 (1996), we conclude this case does not present such a circumstance.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.