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

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 33-75308, 33-45811,
333-105087, 333-81154, 333-34077, 333-115271, 333-149637 and 333-122064 on Form S-8 of our report dated
August 20, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Bally Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified
opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph for the adoption of a new accounting standard relating to accounting for income taxes), and the effectiveness of Bally Technologies, Inc. and
subsidiaries internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bally Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended
June 30, 2009.



/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP



Las
Vegas, Nevada
August 20, 2009

---



QuickLinks
#### Young J. Harrington, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Robert Gabby *et al.,*defendants in error.

Where complaint for land in the statutory form is brought, the plaintiff must, by the abstract attached to his declaration and by his evidence, show title in himself.

Ejectment. Pleadings. Before J. B. Estes, Esq., Judge *pro hac vice.*White Superior Court. October Adjourned Term, 1873.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

Wier Boyd, for plaintiff in-error.

C. H. Sutton, for defendants.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the possession of a lot of land from the defendant under the statutory form. On the trial of the case the plaintiff offered in evidence the plat and grant from the state to Elizabeth Pearcy, and a deed from Boyd, administrator *de bonis non*of Wit-tick, to Irby, and a deed from Irby to Harrington, the plaintiff. There was no deed from Elizabeth Pekrcy, the drawer, conveying the title to the lot from her. Upon this evidence the court, on motion of the defendant, non-suited the plaintiff, to which ruling of the court the plaintiff excepted. The argument for the plaintiff is that under the statutory form of action, as provided by the Code, the plaintiff is entitled to recover when he exhibits an abstract of his title and shows that the land has been granted by the state, in the same manner as if he had alleged a demise from the grantee in the common law action of ejectment. The reply is that when he seeks to recover the possession of land under the statutory form, the plaintiff must show a title to the land which he seeks to recover by an abstract thereof annexed to his declaration. The statute does'not contemplate, when it dispenses with the com*538mon law form of the action of ejectment, that the plaintiff shall not establish his legal right to recover the land. In this case the plaintiff did not show any title to the land sued for, in himself, or in those under whom he claims, but, on the contrary, his own evidence shows that the legal title to the lot of land is in Elizabeth Pearcy, the drawer, inasmuch as no title was shown to have been conveyed by her to any person. In our judgment, the non-suit was properly awarded by the court on the evidence before it.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
#### Gallego v. Quesnall’s Administrator.

Saturday, March 28, 1806.

Injunction — Dismission — Statute — Application.‡—The Act passed the 20th of Jan. 1804, concerning the *101dismission of bills of ini unction in certain cases, does not apply to bills tiled before that act took effect.

‡

The principal case was cited in Burnes v. Hays, 44 W. Va. 505, 30 S. E. Rep. 102, for the proposition laid down in the syllabus.

See generally, monographic *noteon*“Injunctions” appended to Claytor v. Anthony, 15 Gratt. 518.

In this case, the injunction had been •granted in 1794, and the question made by •George K. Taylor, counsel for the defendant, was, whether, as the injunction was dissolved, at the last term of this Court, the bill may not in this term, be dismissed, under the act ■of Assembly passed 20th January, 1804. (See Rev. Code, vol. 2, c. 29, sect. 3.)

PER CURIAM.

Although the words of the act are, “that in all cases where hereafter any injunction shall be wholly dissolved, the bill of the complainant shall stand dismissed of course, with costs, unless, at the next term, sufficient cause shall be shewn against it,” yet the construction of this law should be confined to injunctions, awarded since the act; and should not be applied to those cases which were on the docket before; and such the Court understands to have been the uniform course of the Court since the passage of the law. Such too, was the construction given, by the Court of Appeals, to the act of 1795, which authorised the assignee of a bond with a collateral condition to sue in his own name. See Craig v. Craig, (1 Call, 483,) and several cases since, in the same Court, supporting the same principle. The bill must stand, and take its regular course upon the docket. _
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 21, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 689 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-357, K2025-355.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-27160 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 21, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 14, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 462 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-402, K2025-400.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-27198 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 89661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26271]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts

National Council on the Arts Meeting

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Arts.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the National 
Council on the Arts will be convened by videoconference to discuss 
nominations for the 2024 National Medal of Arts. This meeting will be 
closed to the public for reasons stated below.

DATES: This meeting will take place on December 19, 2024, from 
approximately 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. eastern time.

ADDRESSES: National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 
7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz Auclair, Office of Public Affairs, 
National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, at 202/682-5744.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Council on the Arts will 
deliberate in closed session on nominations for the 2024 National Medal 
of Arts. This meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to 
subsection (c)(4) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, 
and in accordance with the March 11, 2022 determination of the Chair. 
Discussions concerning purely personal information about individuals, 
such as personal biographical and salary data or medical information, 
may be conducted by the Council in closed session in accordance with 
subsection (c)(6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: November 7, 2024.
David Travis,
Specialist, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2024-26271 Filed 11-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,375
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169,622
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               174,997
<PP&E>                                       5,881,534
<DEPRECIATION>                              (2,004,194)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,623,008
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,299
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,623,008
<SALES>                                        490,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               492,411
<CGS>                                          405,596
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  405,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                71,522
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,293
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,293
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,293
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 24





                               POWER OF ATTORNEY



<PAGE>   2
                                                               EXHIBIT 24

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints RICHARD G. SMITH, MICHAEL C. DENIKEN AND DAWN M.
GRAY, and each of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with
full power of substitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any
and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Business
Products, Inc., for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996, and any and all
amendments to such Annual report on Form 10-K and to file the same, with all
exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Stock Exchange, granting
unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite or necessary
to be done, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and
agents or any of them, or their or his substitute or substitutes, lawfully may
do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.

              This 14th day of March, 1997.



        /s/ F. Duane Ackerman             /s/ W. Stell Huie
        ----------------------------      ---------------------------------
        F. Duane Ackerman                 W. Stell Huie


        /s/ W. Joseph Biggers             /s/ Thomas F. Keller
        ----------------------------      ---------------------------------
        W. Joseph Biggers                 Thomas F. Keller


        /s/ Thomas R. Carmody             /s/ Rex A. McClelland
        ----------------------------      ---------------------------------
        Thomas R. Carmody                 Rex A. McClelland


        /s/ Henry Curtis VII              /s/ Daniel W. McGlaughlin
        ----------------------------      ---------------------------------
        Henry Curtis VII                  Daniel W. McGlaughlin


        /s/ Robert W. Gundeck             /s/ C. Douglas Miller
        ----------------------------      ---------------------------------
        Robert W. Gundeck                 C. Douglas Miller


        /s/ Hollis L. Harris              /s/ G. Harold Northrop
        ----------------------------      ---------------------------------
        Hollis L. Harris                  G. Harold Northrop
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1521

JOSEPH SALMOIRAGHI,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

VERITISS, LLC,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01405-MSN-TCB)

Submitted: October 20, 2022 Decided: August 17, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Monique Antonia Miles, Danielle G. Pimentel, OLD TOWNE 

ASSOCIATES, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Courtney R. Abbott, GORDON 

REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP. Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1521 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/17/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Joseph Salmoiraghi — a former employee of defendant Veritiss, LLC 

(“Veritiss”), a business entity that provides intelligence analysis and related services to the 

United States government — initiated this civil action in the Eastern District of Virginia in 

November 2019, pursuing, inter alia, a discrimination claim and a retaliation claim, each 

alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”).* On appeal, 

Salmoiraghi challenges the district court’s award of summary judgment to Veritiss. See 

Salmoiraghi v. Veritiss, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-01405 (E.D. Va. Apr. 6, 2022), ECF No. 85.

We review an award of summary judgment de novo. See T.H.E. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 

54 F.4th 805, 818 (4th Cir. 2022). Having carefully assessed the record — including the 

appellate submissions of the parties and the applicable legal principles governing 

Salmoiraghi’s ADA claims — we are satisfied that the district court did not err in awarding 

summary judgment to Veritiss. And we are further satisfied to affirm on the thorough and 

well-reasoned opinion of the district court, as filed on April 6, 2022. 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

* By his complaint, Salmoiraghi also claimed that Veritiss created and maintained a 

hostile work environment, in contravention of the ADA. The district court dismissed that 

claim in November 2020, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

Salmoiraghi does not challenge that ruling, and we need not address it here.

2

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1521 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/17/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 24.5

 

 

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS

              WHEREAS,ALCAN INC., a Canadian corporation (the "Company"), proposes shortlyto file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the provisions ofthe Securities Act of 1934 as amended (the "Act"), the Annual Reporton Form 10-K pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Act.

              WHEREAS,the undersigned is an Officer and/or a Director of the Company as indicatedbelow;

              NOW,THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints R. Millington, D.McAusland and P. Chenard and each of them, as attorneys for the undersigned andin the undersigned's name, place and stead, and in each of the undersigned'soffices and capacities as an Officer and/or a Director of the Company, toexecute and file such Annual Report on Form 10-K, hereby giving and granting tosaid attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and every act andthing whatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premisesas fully, to all intents and purposes, as the undersigned might or could do ifpersonally present at the doing thereof, hereby ratifying and confirming allthat said attorneys may or shall lawfully do, or cause to be done, by virtuehereof.

              INWITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of March 2003.

                                                                          Signed:        /s/ J. E. Newall                                                                          Name:         J.E.Newall                                                                          Title:            Director
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 67 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 67

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to 
     savings arrangements established by qualified State political 
              subdivisions for non-governmental employees.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the

              

 Department of Labor relating to ``Savings Arrangements Established by 
Qualified State Political Subdivisions for Non-Governmental Employees'' 
(published at 81 Fed. Reg. 92639 (December 20, 2016)), and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 15, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 67

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to 
     savings arrangements established by qualified State political 
              subdivisions for non-governmental employees.
```
National Advisory Council for

Environmental Policy and Technology

Teleconference Agenda

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time

866-299-3188, Code: 2022330061

1201 Constitution Ave, NW

EPA East Building, Room 1132

Washington, DC 20004

Purpose: To discuss and approve draft NACEPT Report: Outlook for EPA (recommendations 

on issues and challenges that EPA will face over the next 10 years, and approaches the Agency

might take to address these issues). 

2:00 p.m. Welcome, Introductions, and Overview of Agenda

 Erik Meyers, Interim NACEPT Chair

2:05 p.m. Ground Rules for Teleconference

 Sonia Altieri, NACEPT Designated Federal Officer 

2:10 p.m. Overview of NACEPT Draft Report: Outlook for EPA

 Bob Olson, NACEPT Prospective Workgroup Chair 

2:25 p.m. Public Comments on NACEPT Draft Recommendations 

2:55 p.m. Discussion and Approval of NACEPT Draft Report: Outlook for EPA

 Erik Meyers, Interim NACEPT Chair

3:30 p.m. ADJOURN