alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.3.2
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
We consent to the inclusion in the registration statement of Cabot Industrial
Trust on Form S-11 of our report dated April 25, 1997, on our audits of the
historical basis financial statements of Knickerbocker Properties, Inc. II as
of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for the years ended December 31, 1996 and
1995. We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts."
 
                                       PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 
Atlanta, Georgia
August 14, 1998
ROBERT A.B. REICHERT 

MAYOR 

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 

QliflJ nf ~aenu 

Mr. Scott Faulk 

Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

February 11, 2013 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Faulk: 

700 POPLAR STREET 

P.O. Box 247 

MACON, GEORGIA 31202·0247 

(478) 751·7170 

FAX (478) 751·7931 

i'··,_.' 

._(., ....... 

... -· . , .. 

·:·.·."····. 

We recently reviewed proposals submitted to the Department of 

Transportation in response to their Request for Proposal for Essential Air 

Service at Middle Georgia Regional Airport. After careful analysis, we believe 

Silver Airways is best suited to meet the needs of the Middle Georgia Region. 

Below you will find several factors that distinguished their submittal from 

others. 

Silver Airways offer of non-stop service to Orlando International and 

Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson places the Middle Georgia Regional Airport in the 

center of a busy transportation route. Connecting two large cities should 

provide route stability that is more likely to sustain long-term demand. In 

addition, we believe this may be attractive to local business owners and citizens 

by providing multiple options to enter the national air transportation system. 

Also, Silver Airways has sufficient seating capacity to obtain a historical 

number of enplanements that the Middle Georgia Region is capable of 

supporting, and we understand that all flights will either originate or terminate 

in Macon, resulting in adequate capacity for local passengers. The proposed 

flights could potentially carry more than 20,000 passengers, exceeding 

projections from other bidders. Silver Airways provides Middle Georgia 

Regional Airport the opportunity to rebuild passenger counts to a level that will 

create additional opportunities to participate in the FAA's Capital Improvement 

Program thus strengthening not just commercial air service but the entire 

airport. 
Mr. Scott Faulk 

Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

February 11, 2013 

Silver Airways has a reputation of securing and successfully operating in 

essential air service markets around the country, offers a large number of 

connections with major carriers, and has interline agreements with Delta and 

other airlines. Silver Airway's business model shows potential for expansion 

which would benefit the Middle Georgia Region. 

We are looking forward to working with the Department of 

Transportation's selection, and we are optimistic about the possibilities. We 

thank the Department of Transportation for their consideration and hope they 

find these comments useful in their selection process. 

Robert A. B. Reichert 

RABR/ns
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      27,982,109
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,164,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            36,493,663
<PP&E>                                      41,332,563
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,365,127
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              79,032,003
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,065,490
<BONDS>                                     33,694,238
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       229,134
<OTHER-SE>                                  67,601,678
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                79,032,003
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               420,432
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,220,684
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             490,357
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,290,609)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,290,609)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,290,609)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS



I, Kenneth W. Brimmer, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of STEN Corporation;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|Date  May 10, 2006 | /s/ Kenneth W. Brimmer 
|------------------ | -----------------------
|                   | Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1459 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1459

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the types of wines 
                          taxed as hard cider.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2015

  Mr. Schumer (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. 
Shaheen, and Mr. Manchin) introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the types of wines 
                          taxed as hard cider.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Cider Investment and Development 
through Excise Tax Reduction (CIDER) Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF HARD CIDER.

    (a) In General.--Section 5041 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Hard Cider.--For purposes of subsection (b)(6), the term 
`hard cider' means a wine--
            ``(1) containing not more than 0.64 gram of carbon dioxide 
        per hundred milliliters of wine, except that the Secretary may 
        by regulations prescribe such tolerances to this limitation as 
        may be reasonably necessary in good commercial practice,
            ``(2) which is derived primarily from--
                    ``(A) apples, apple juice concentrate, pears, or 
                pear juice concentrate, and
                    ``(B) water,
            ``(3) which contains no fruit product or fruit flavoring 
        other than apple or pear, and
            ``(4) which contains at least one-half of 1 percent and 
        less than 8.5 percent alcohol by volume.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (6) of section 5041(b) of such 
Code is amended by striking ``which is a still wine'' and all that 
follows through ``alcohol by volume''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to articles removed during calendar years beginning after 
December 31, 2015.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                          21,240
<SECURITIES>                                    25,848
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,243
<ALLOWANCES>                                       189
<INVENTORY>                                      6,352
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,347
<PP&E>                                          10,051
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,978
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,370
<BONDS>                                            810
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           230
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,910
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,820
<SALES>                                         32,680
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,680
<CGS>                                           29,267
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  29
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,855)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,855)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,855)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.38)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the Unaudited Statements of Operations and Accumulated
Deficit for the Six Months Ended June 30, 1999 and the
Unaudited Balance Sheet at June 30, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         139,847
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  487,934
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    144,232
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               774,364
<PP&E>                                         339,765
<DEPRECIATION>                                 321,973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 792,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,698
<BONDS>                                        472,901
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,000
<COMMON>                                       122,824
<OTHER-SE>                                     245,557
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   792,156
<SALES>                                        609,224
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               612,434
<CGS>                                          377,296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  552,553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,749
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,265
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 43,867
<INCOME-TAX>                                    39,367
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,367
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,367
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711


### OCT 3 0 2009

OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS Mr. Surasak Supatanasinkasem Manager

- Air Analysis Section Louisiana Department ofEnvironmental Quality Air Quality Assessment Division P.O. Box 4314 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4314 Dear Mr. Supatanasinkasem: This lettertransmits the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval ofthe PAMS networkplan for the state ofLouisiana dated July 2,2009, required according to the Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations. Per40 CFR 58.11 (c), the PAMS monitoring network design and changes are subjectto the approval ofthe Administrator, which has been delegated to the Director ofthe Air Quality Assessment Division in EPA's Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). To inform the approval process, we worked with your Regional Office on a review of your plan. We found that the plan meets or exceeds the minimum PAMS monitoring requirements contained in Appendix D of40 CFR part 58. After careful consideration, we are pleased to approve your PAMS monitoring plan. I want to thank you and your stafffor all the workyou have put into developing the PAMS monitoring plan. For questions, please contact Kevin Cavender ofmy staffat cavender.kevin@epa.gov, or 919-541-2364.

Richard A. Wayland Director Air Quality Assessment Division

Intemet Address (URL). http://www.epa.gov Recyc)edIRecyclabJe • Printed wnh Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)

### cc: Jianzhong Liu, Louisiana DEQ 

### Maria Martinez, EPNRegion 6 Mark Sather, EPAlRegion 6 Regina Krystyn, EPAlRegion 6 Lewis Weinstock, EPNOAQPS Kevin Cavender, EPNOAQPS
#### Roy, Respondent, vs. City of La Crosse, Appellant.

*January 13*

January *30, 1912.*

*Damages: Personal injury: Award not excessive.*

An award of $1,150 is *held*not excessive for fracture of a wrist caused by a fall on a defective sidewalk, it appearing that the injury was a serious one, involving long treatment and g great deal of pain, and that at the time of the trial, nineteen months after the injury, the wrist was still in bad condition.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for La Crosse county: James Wickham, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

For the appellant there was a brief signed by *John F. Do-*
      *267
      *herty,*attorney, and *A. H.*Schubert, city attorney, and oral argument by *Mr. Doherty.*

*J esse D. Sigbee,*for the respondent.

Kerwin, J.

This action was brought to recover for personal injuries caused by a fall upon one of the sidewalks of the defendant city. The charge of negligence is that the sidewalk was defective in consequence of a fan-shaped ridge of ice formed thereon by water running'from a spout upon an adjoining building; that the formation of ice was several inches in thickness, rough and uneven, and higher on the inside and middle of the walk than on the outside and sloping downward toward the outside; that the ice extended diagonally across the sidewalk and was covered by a light flurry of snow. There is evidence that the outer edge of the sidewalk was lower than the inner edge. The complaint charges the defective condition of the walk and the injury received by plaintiff on the 15th day of February, 1909, and that such defective condition continued for more than three weeks immediately preceding the injury, which defective condition rendered the sidewalk dangerous and unsafe for public travel.

The action was brought against the city and the adjacent property owner, but on the trial a nonsuit was granted as to the property owner. The case was tried before a jury and a verdict for $1,150 returned. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff upon the verdict, from which this appeal was taken.

The errors relied upon raise the questions of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict on the questions of defect, notice to the defendant of such defect, and whether- the damages are excessive. On the questions of defect and notice to the city we regard the evidence ample to support the verdict, and shall spend no time in discussing it. The plaintiff received a fracture of the wrist. The case was tried one year and seven months after the injury and the wrist was *268then in bad condition. Plaintiff had not been able to use her arm up to that time as she did before. The evidence shows the injury to have been serious. Splints were on the wrist for two months, and then it was put in a plaster cast for about six weeks, the doctor attending constantly. After the cast was taken off leather splints were put on. It also appears that the plaintiff suffered a great deal of pain. After an examination of the evidence we cannot say that the damages are excessive.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
sourceTypeIDroadTypeIDroadTypeVMTFraction 11 1 0.000000 11 2 0.070709 11 3 0.313131 11 4 0.242422 11 5 0.373738 21 1 0.000000 21 2 0.070709 21 3 0.313131 21 4 0.242422 21 5 0.373738 31 1 0.000000 31 2 0.070709 31 3 0.313131 31 4 0.242422 31 5 0.373738 32 1 0.000000 32 2 0.070709 32 3 0.313131 324 0.242422 32 5 0.373738 41 1 0.000000 41 2 0.070709 41 3 0.313131 41 4 0.242422 41 5 0.373738 42 1 0.000000 42 2 0.070709 42 3 0.313131 424 0.242422 42 5 0.373738 43 1 0.000000 432 0.070709 43 3 0.313131 434 0.242422 43 5 0.373738 51 1 0.000000 51 2 0.070709 51 3 0.313131 51 4 0.242422 51 5 0.373738 52 1 0.000000 52 2 0.070709 52 3 0.313131 524 0.242422 52 5 0.373738 53 1 0.000000 532 0.070709 53 3 0.313131 534 0.242422 53 5 0.373738 54 1 0.00000054 2 0.070709 54 3 0.313131 544 0.242422 54 5 0.373738 61 1 0.000000 61 2 0.070709 61 3 0.313131 61 4 0.242422 61 5 0.373738 62 1 0.000000 62 2 0.070709 62 3 0.313131 624 0.242422 62 5 0.373738
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 29, 2011 

t1220 

Order 

 

December 29, 2011 

143836 

AARON RICHARD, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143836 

 COA: 297353 

Wayne CC: 10-000273-CZ 

SCHNEIDERMAN & SHERMAN, P.C., 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

GMAC MORTGAGE, and MORTGAGE 

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, 

INC., 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, it appearing that proceedings in this case are stayed by the 

filing of a petition in bankruptcy (ED Michigan, Case No. 11-70575), the case is 

administratively CLOSED without prejudice and without decision on the merits. Once 

the stay is no longer in effect, this case may be reopened on the motion of any party filed 

within 42 days after the date of the order removing the stay.