alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Allied Products Corporation
registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 33-60058) of our report, dated
April 15, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Allied Products Corporation and consolidated
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and for the three years in the
period December 31, 1998, which report is included in the 1998 Annual Report of
Form 10-K/A-2.

                                             PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Chicago, Illinois
February 29, 2000
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7618

MALCOLM E. PFEIFFER-EL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RICK JACKSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-00-939-5-BO)

Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 8, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malcolm E. Pfeiffer-El, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Malcolm E. Pfeiffer-El seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Pfeiffer-El v. Jackson, No. CA-00-

939-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 10, 2001). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1256 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1256

  To remove from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 
                   certain properties in New Jersey.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 2017

Mr. MacArthur introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To remove from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 
                   certain properties in New Jersey.

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

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF PROPERTIES IN NEW JERSEY FROM JOHN H. CHAFEE 
              COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall revise one or 
more maps included in the set of maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier 
Resources System'' referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) and relating to John H. Chafee 
Coastal Barrier Resources System Unit NJ-04B in New Jersey, as 
necessary to remove from such system the properties located at the 
following postal addresses:
            (1) 112 W. Mantoloking Drive, Brick, NJ 08723.
            (2) 110 W. Mantoloking Drive, Brick, NJ, 08723.
            (3) 108 W. Mantoloking Drive, Brick, NJ 08723.
            (4) 106 W. Mantoloking Drive, Brick, NJ 08723.
            (5) 104 W. Mantoloking Drive, Brick, NJ 08723.
            (6) 101 W. Mantoloking Drive, Brick, NJ 08723.
    (b) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep each 
map revised under subsection (a) on file and available for inspection 
in accordance with section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 
(16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).
                                 <all>
```
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 1 of 1

COALEX STATE INQUIRY REPORT - 297

March 1994

IMCC

459 B Carlisle Drive

Herndon, VA 22070

TOPIC: FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

INQUIRY: Please retrieve a copy of the Federal Advisory Committee Act from LEXIS. 

SEARCH RESULTS: A copy of the requested document is attached. 

ATTACHMENTS

A. Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 USCS Appx sec. 1 et seq.
Soap Salts Registration Review Focus Meeting with Neudorff

Meeting Summary

Thursday May 9, 2013; 11 am – 12 pm (Eastern time); S‐9100

EPA Invitees:

Pesticide Re‐evaluation Division:  Monica Wait, Tracy Perry, Patty Parrott

Environmental Fate and Effects Division:  Bill Eckel, Stephen Carey, Mark Corbin

Neudorff Invitees:

Walter Talarek (registration manager)

Anda Beach (Neudorff), phone

Discussion Topics:

 EPA provided an overview of the next steps in the registration review process for soap

salts following the close of the 60‐day public comment period on the preliminary risk

assessments on May 20, 2013.

 EPA provided an overview of the soap salts preliminary ecological risk assessment and

background on how the endangered species assessments will be conducted.  EPA

highlighted places in the existing ecological risk assessment where there are

uncertainties with regard to soap salts products that lead to conservative assumptions.  

The uncertainties may be able to be refined with additional soap salts product

information and/or clearer product labels resulting in lower risk estimates or

conclusions of no risk.

 Neudorff provided an overview of some of their products, focusing on 4 products in

particular that EPA identified as having the potential for very high application rates (EPA

reg # 67702‐12, 67702‐7, 67702‐8, and 67702‐34).  Neudorff provided many specifics on

these products including the chemical composition, container size, whether the product

is sold into the residential or commercial market or both, typical treatment type

(broadcast or spot treatment), and application rate.

 Neudorff provided some other comments on the preliminary ecological risk assessment

such as the inability of the GENEEC model to accurately represent the typical small scale

soap salts application.  Neudorff also stated they could provide information on which

“typical end‐use product” was used as the test substance in submitted exotoxicity data.

 EPA stated that usage data could help to further refine the risk assessment by

characterizing the extent and geographical distribution of soap salts use.
 Neudorff agreed to compile a package of product information, as discussed, and any

other comments on the risk assessment and submit it to the soap salts registration

review docket by way of the Chemical Review Manager.  EPA will consider and

incorporate this information when preparing the final ecological risk assessment for

registration review.
<PAGE>
                                  UNITED STATES

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    Form 10-Q/A

                Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d)

                     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For Quarterly Period Ended:    January 31, 1997

Commission File Number:   0-26508

                               PURETEC CORPORATION

             (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

           DELAWARE                                              22-3376449
(State or other jurisdiction of                                (IRS Employer
incorporation or organization)                               Identification No.)

                65 Railroad Avenue, Ridgefield, New Jersey 07657
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (201)941-6550

         Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days:

                           Yes   X                   No
 
         As of May 2, 1997, there were 29,339,172 shares of common stock 
outstanding.



<PAGE>

Item 2.  CHANGES IN SECURITIES:                               None

Item 3.  DEFAULT UPON SENIOR SECURITIES:                      None

Item 4.  SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF
         SECURITY HOLDERS:                                    None

Item 5.  OTHER INFORMATION:                                   None

Item 6.  EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K       

         (a) Exhibits

             (27) Financial Data Schedule for the six months ending January 31,
                  1997 

         (b) None

                                      17


<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

    Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

               PURETEC CORPORATION

               By:             /s/  Thomas V. Gilboy
                  --------------------------------------------  
               Thomas V. Gilboy
               Chief Financial Officer and Vice President

Dated: May 2, 1997

                                      18
Page 1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30428

Summary Calendar

PLES BELL, ET AL

Plaintiffs

PLES BELL; WOODROW WILEY

Plaintiffs-Appellants

versus

TENSAS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD; ET AL

Defendants

TENSAS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Western District of Lousiana

(USDC No. 3:75-CV-275)

______________________ __________________________________
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Page 2

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*1

Ples Bell and Woodrow Wiley filed this school racial discrimination lawsuit in

1975. In March 2005, a related case originally filed in 1969, United States v. Tensas

Parish, was dismissed with prejudice upon a finding that the school district had reached

unitary status. After this dismissal, Bell and Wiley filed a motion for enforcement of

judgment, injunctive relief, and contempt of court- all of which looked to the jurisdiction

and oversight of the federal court in the 1969 suit. Their motion was denied as moot in

light of the earlier order of dismissal in United States v. Tensas Parish. For the following

reasons, we dismiss this appeal as moot and without jurisdiction.

1. A case may become moot if 1) there is no reasonable expectation that the 

alleged violation will recur, and 2) interim relief or events have completely and 

irrevocably eradicated the effects the alleged violation. County of Los Angeles v. 

Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S. Ct. 1379, 1383 (1979). The district court’s

finding of unitary status in United States v. Tensas Parish also impinges on the

facts at issue in Bell, at al v. Tensas Parish.

2. Davis’ first element is satisfied because the population of Tensas Parish, as well as

the organization of the school district serving it and the conduct of the school 
Page 3

board, are far different from that which existed in the 1970's. For this reason,

there is no reasonable expectation that segregation will be reimposed. Davis’ second 

element is satisfied because, under the finding and judgment of the court, the 36-

year duration of the integration order has spanned several generations of school 

children in the parish, eradicating the effects of past segregation to the extent 

practicable. 

3. Insofar as the appeal seeks by filing this brief to contest or appeal the order of 

March 2005, it comes too late to confer jurisdiction on this court.

DISMISSED.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1077 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of the 

Treasury to regulate tax return preparers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2017 

Mr. COHEN (for himself, Ms. NORTON, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New 

York, and Mr. SCOTT of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to direct the 

Secretary of the Treasury to regulate tax return preparers. 

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 ‘‘Tax Return Preparer 

5 Accountability Act of 2017’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1077 IH

1 SEC. 2. REGULATION OF TAX RETURN PREPARERS WHO 

2 ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVES PRACTICING 

3 BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREAS4 URY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 3 of title 

6 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting after sec7 tion 330 the following new section: 

8 ‘‘§ 330A. Tax return preparers who are not represent9 atives practicing before the Department 

10 of the Treasury 

11 ‘‘(a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall, under regu12 lations prescribed by the Secretary, regulate any tax re13 turn preparers who are not regulated by the Secretary 

14 under section 330. 

15 ‘‘(b)(1) The Secretary may impose a penalty of 

16 $1,000 for each Federal tax return, document, or other 

17 submission prepared by a tax return preparer during a 

18 period in which the tax return preparer— 

19 ‘‘(A) is not in compliance with the regulations 

20 promulgated under this section, or 

21 ‘‘(B) is suspended or disbarred from acting as 

22 a tax return preparer under such regulations. 

23 Any penalty imposed under the preceding sentence shall 

24 be in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1077 IH

1 ‘‘(2) No penalty may be imposed under paragraph (1) 

2 with respect to any failure if it is shown that such failure 

3 is due to reasonable cause. 

4 ‘‘(c) For purposes of this section: 

5 ‘‘(1) The term ‘tax return preparer’ has the 

6 meaning given by section 7701(a)(36) of the Inter7 nal Revenue Code of 1986. 

8 ‘‘(2) The terms ‘Secretary of the Treasury’ and 

9 ‘Secretary’ mean the Secretary of the Treasury or 

10 the delegate of the Secretary.’’. 

11 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

12 for subchapter II of chapter 3 of title 31, United States 

13 Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to 

14 section 330 the following new item: 

‘‘330A. Tax return preparers who are not representatives practicing before the 

Department of the Treasury.’’. 

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply with respect to returns prepared 

17 for taxable years ending after the date of the enactment 

18 of this Act. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6779

GEORGE GOINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; RICK JACKSON; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-1119) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: October 23, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Goins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the magistrate judge’s * order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.1998). We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Goins v. Attorney General of North Carolina , No. CA-97-1119 (M.D.N.C. May 18, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 707 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-385, K2025-383.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-27192 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Will Hulls, Also Known as William Harris, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 538]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error co-ram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this Court dated April 12, 1993 *(People v Hulls,*192 AD2d 622), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 14, 1989, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.
----

**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

| (1)    | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period                ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the                requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange                Act of                1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| (2)    | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company.                                                                                                                                                   |
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Sung Tae Ahn, the Chief Executive Officer of Leadis Technology, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Annual Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and



2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Annual Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Annual Report.



In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this
25th day of March, 2005.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/    SUNG TAE
AHN    
|Sung Tae Ahn           
|Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code has been provided to Leadis Technology, Inc. and will be retained by Leadis
Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of Leadis Technology, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Form 10-K), irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RAFAEL A. MAZARA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2023-1591

July 10, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Stephen Mathew 

Whyte, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, SMITH, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.