alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
     Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-122699dated February 10, 2005, Form S-3 No. 333-52820 dated December 27, 2000, and Form S-8 No. 333-40674dated June 30, 2000, Form S-8 No. 333-92607 dated December 10, 1999) of Online Resources Corporation and in the related Prospectuses of ourreports dated March 8, 2005 with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedules of Online Resources Corporation,Online Resources Corporation’s management’s assessment ofthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, andthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofOnline Resources Corporation includedin this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
McLean, Virginia
# C_2005082EN.01004001.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/40

---

Action brought on 14 January 2005 by Carmela Lo Giudice against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-27/05)

(2005/C 82/71)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 January 2005 by Carmela Lo Giudice, residing in Strombeek-Bever (Belgium), represented by F. Frabetti and G. Bounéou, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the appraisal exercise for the year 2003 (the period from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2003); |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the appraisal exercise for the year 2003 (the period from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2003);

| 2. | if not, annul the decision of 4 May 2004 which closed the applicant's career development report (CDR) for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003; |
| --- | --- |

2.

if not, annul the decision of 4 May 2004 which closed the applicant's career development report (CDR) for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003;

| 3. | decide on the costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay them. |
| --- | --- |

3.

decide on the costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay them.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official, was on sick leave from 1 December 2003 to 10 May 2004. During that period the Commission established her career development report without her participation in it.

In support of her action, the applicant first of all claims that the creation, as part of the new system of establishing career development reports, of computer files directly completed on the screen and stored in the computer staff management system, is equivalent to the creation of parallel files in breach of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations.

The applicant also claims that the lack of any participation by her in the establishment of the report infringes Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, the General Provisions for implementing that article, as well as the principles of sound administration, non-discrimination and prohibition of arbitrary procedures. In the same context, the applicant pleads abuse of power, failure to state reasons, infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the rule ‘Patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ (obey the rules which you yourself have made), as well as breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           7,541
<SECURITIES>                                    34,092
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                       223
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,694
<PP&E>                                           3,222
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,144
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,983
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,385
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            76
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,983
<SALES>                                         16,551
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,962
<CGS>                                            2,807
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,810
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  44
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    164
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                144
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       144
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of TVI  Corporation  (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),I,  Richard V.  Priddy,
Chief Executive  Officer,  of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/ Richard V. Priddy
    Chief Executive Officer
    August 11, 2003
REF ID:A44637 

~-.. .. 

e ·9 

I ·~:· • , ' Serial: • ., } : ·J 

eoNflDENllA& 

SUBJECT: LT Stanford R. WILD!, USN, 555235/1400 

TO: Head, Naval SecYrity Gro•p 

3801 Nebra1ka Ave., N.W. W11~1ngton 25, D.C. 

l. Head, Nawal Security GroYp latter Op-94G/G-14/jmk, 

Ser l3464P94 of 26 NoYember 1960, forwarded a tbe1t1 by 

LT WILDE tor intor•atloa and rewiew and 1t1ted tb1t repre1eatatioa would be ••de to the Chief of Naval Per1oanel 

!or bis a11ignment to the Natloa1l Security Ageae1 CHSA), 

if desired. 

2. Tbi1 Agenc1 recently established a Speech Research 

Division with tbe ai11ion of !•proving NSA'• capability tor 

dealing with comauaicatlon 1y1taa1 in wblcb Knderlylav 

latalligence i1 in tbe form of speech. 

3. A1 evidenced by his tha1i1 "A Speech A•1ly1i1 and S7at~asi1 Scheme for laadwldt~ Compra11lon," LT WILDE 11 

walquel1 qualified to parlor• re1earcb ia tbi1 area. 

Talents 1ucb •• LT WILDE'• are in 1hort 1Kpply and la 

great demand. T~• a11igaaent ot LT WILDE to tbi1 aawl7 

e1tabll1bed dlvi1io• would twl!lll a vital •••d of NSA 

ta the field of Speech le1earcb and It i1 coa11dered of 

para•ount iaportanee t~at thia be 1ceompli1hed at the 

earliest practicable date. AccordiRQlJ, it 11 requested 

tbat appropriate action be taken to obtalR the 111iga•e•t 

of LT WILDE to tbi1 Agency. 

Iacl: 

L. H. FROST 

Vice Admiral, USN 

Director 

Tbe1i1 on "A Speeeh Aaal71i1 and 

Synthesis Scheae for Bandwidth 

Compr•sston" by LT Stanford R . ., ILDE I USN 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 10-25-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 
REF ID:A44637 

comFIOfiNTIAL:. 

cc: DIR: 4!: - AG 

READING FILE 

PERS-2 

Serial: N 

M/R: The Head, NavaJ. Security Group forwarded a thesis prepared by 

4873 

LT WILDE w1 th the comment that the Agency would perhaps be interested 

in the assignment of this officer to NSA. Discussions between :personnel 

in the office of the Hd, NAVSEOORU and MILPERS (O'rCM EBNER and LTJG 

HARLEY) indicated that if the assignment of LT WILDE was desired, a 

letter from NSA, setting forth reasons in detail, would be helpful 

since Hd, NAVSE<:nRU would probably endorse NSA's letter to the Chief 

of Naval Personnel. 

R&D, in a D/F dated 5 December 196o, furnished the basis 

for the proposed letter. 

Since LT WILDE is designated Engineer Duty 6nly (Electronics) it ms:y 

become necessary to compensatorily change an existing NSA Navy Officers 

billet to EDO (Electronics). However, Ha., NAVSE<:nRU personnel do 

not recommend that this action be taken at the present time. 

J. K. HARLEY, LTJG, USN/P'ERS-22/3923/6 Dec 60/mju 

CONFIDENTIAL 

2
24 

USCIB: 10. /15 

16 July 1954 

'I:OP Si~ U',S, ~ QNU 

MEMORANDtM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: 

References: 

Release of Information to DSB Australia. 

(a) USCIB 10./13 dated 7 July 1954. 

(b) USCIB 10/31 dated 11 July 1952. 

(c) USCIB Directive #2. 

1. Vote sheet responses to the proposals set forth in the enclosures with reference (a) indicate approval on the part of all members of 

USCIBEC. 

, 2. Reference (b), which was approved by USCIB at its 78th meeting 

on 18 July 1952, included the following recommendation (paragraph 15 

under Conclusions): 

.····//······ 

* Underlining added. EO 3.3(h)(2) 

Pl 86-36/50 USC 3605 

In approving the above the Board noted that the action was being taken 

in par~ .to assist the British! I 

3. Attention is invited to paragraph 2 of reference (c). It is 

considered that the action of the Executive Committee in approving the 

reference is in accordance with the policy of the Board and has the 

effect of authorizing the Director, National Security Agency to release 

to DSB the information requested by SUKLO, Washington. 

4. Upon receipt of information that the Director, NSA entertains 

no misgivings on this decision, this office will notify SUKLO to get in 

touch with the National Security Agency to arrange for implementation 

of his request. 

5. THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS COMMUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION 

AND SHALL BE HANDLED ONLY IN CHANNELS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR COMINT. 

USCIB: 10./15 

UFUS~~ ..... ~ ptain, U. • Navy 

Executive Secretary-, USCIB 

'FOP SECR-ET 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 02-11-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B ______ ·_::.;-_ .. _
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND FOR THE THREE AND
NINE MONTH PERIODS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,259,924
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,241,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                   994,289
<INVENTORY>                                 11,158,237
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,445,359
<PP&E>                                      15,932,699
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,219,373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,386,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,051,432
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,770
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,994,862
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,386,369
<SALES>                                     34,365,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            36,011,663
<CGS>                                       14,253,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,286,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               482,387
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,799,091
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,809,979)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    93,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,903,879)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (2,618,428)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,522,307)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.52)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7751

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES LAMONT JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-98-137; CA-05-496) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 29, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Lamont Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: James Lamont Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
<PAGE>

                                                             Exhibit 12(b)

                              XEROX CORPORATION
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                (In Millions)

                            Nine Months Ended
                              September 30,        Year Ended December 31,

                             1997   1996   1996   1995   1994   1993*   1992
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense          $ 450  $ 446  $ 592  $ 603  $ 520  $ 540   $ 627
  Rental expense               92    110    140    142    170    180     187
  Preferred stock divi-
   dend of subsidiary          37      -      -      -      -      -       -
    Total fixed charges
       before capitalized
       interest               579    556    732    745    690    720     814
  Capitalized interest          -      -      -      -      2      5      17
    Total fixed charges     $ 579  $ 556  $ 732  $ 745  $ 692  $ 725   $ 831

Earnings available for
 fixed charges:
  Earnings **              $1,480 $1,318 $2,067 $1,980 $1,602  $(193) $1,183
  Less undistributed
      income in minority
      owned companies        (101)   (91)   (84)   (90)   (54)   (51)    (52)
  Add fixed charges before
      capitalized interest
      and preferred stock
      dividend of
      subsidiary              542    556    732    745    690    720     814
  Total earnings available
      for fixed charges    $1,921 $1,783 $2,715 $2,635 $2,238  $ 476  $1,945

Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges (1)(2)       3.32   3.21   3.71   3.54   3.23    .66    2.34


(1)  The ratio of earnings to fixed charges has been computed based on
     Xerox' continuing operations by dividing total earnings available for
     fixed charges, excluding capitalized interest, by total fixed charges.
     Fixed charges consist of interest, including capitalized interest, and
     one-third of rent expense as representative of the interest portion of
     rentals, and preferred stock dividend requirements of subsidiaries. Debt
     has been assigned to discontinued operations based on historical levels
     assigned to the businesses when they were continuing operations,
     adjusted for subsequent paydowns.  Discontinued operations consist of
     Xerox' Insurance and Other Financial Services businesses and its real
     estate development and third-party financing businesses.

(2)  Xerox' ratio of earnings to fixed charges includes the effect of
     Xerox' finance subsidiaries, which primarily finance Xerox equipment.
     Financing businesses are more highly leveraged and, therefore, tend to
     operate at lower earnings to fixed charges ratio levels than do non-
     financial businesses.

*    1993 earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges.  The coverage 
     deficiency was $249 million.

**   Sum of "Income before Income Taxes, Equity Income and Minorities'
     Interests" and "Equity in Net Income of Unconsolidated Affiliates."

(13)
#### Dawson, Respondent, vs. Mead and others, Appellants.

*February 29*

*March 27, 1888.*

*Foreclosure of mortgage: Filing notice of*lis pendens.

The filing of the notice of the pendency of an action to foreclose a mortgage is inoperative until the complaint is filed; and judgment cannot be rendered, therefore, until twenty days after the filing of the complaint. R. S. sec. 3187.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Waupaca*County.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Eor the appellants the cause was submitted on the brief of *F. C. Weed.*

[No appearance for the respondent.]

By the Cotjet.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage on real estate. It was commenced by the service of a summons June 23, 1885. Notice of the pendency of the action was filed in the proper office July 15, 1885. The complaint was filed with the clerk of the court in which the action was brought, October 14, 1885, and upon the same day judgment-of foreclosure and for the sale of the *296mortgaged premises was entered. The defendants *Mead*and *Butler*appeal from the judgment.

The judgment is premature. Seo. 3187, R. S., provides that such notice must be filed twenty days before judgment. Although this notice was in fact filed more than twenty daj'-s before the rendition of the judgment, yet, under the same statute, the filing was inoperative until the complaint was filed. It was so ruled in *Flood v. Isaac,*34 Wis. 423, and again in *Olson v.*Paul, 56 Wis. 30.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2004 

To amend section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, to modify the 

authority of the President of the United States to declare national 

monuments, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 6, 2015 

Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. HATCH, and Mr. BARRASSO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, 

to modify the authority of the President of the United 

States to declare national monuments, 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. AMENDMENT TO AUTHORITY TO DECLARE NA4 TIONAL MONUMENTS. 

5 Section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2004 IS

1 ‘‘(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—A proclamation or reserva2 tion under subsection (a) or (b) shall expire 3 years after 

3 proclaimed or reserved unless specifically approved by— 

4 ‘‘(1) a Federal law enacted after the date of the 

5 proclamation or reservation; and 

6 ‘‘(2) a State law, for each State where the land 

7 covered by the proclamation or reservation is lo8 cated, enacted after the date of the proclamation or 

9 reservation.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 23(a)

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (no.33-85558; No. 333-57379) of CITATION Computer
Systems, Inc. of our report dated May 11, 1998, except for Note 20 which is as
of June 24, 1998, which appears on page 27 of the Financial Information Insert
to the 1998 Annual Report to Shareholders of CITATION Computer Systems, Inc.,
which is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended March 31, 1998. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report on the Financial Statement Schedule, which appears in Exhibit 23(b)
to this Form 10-KSB.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
July 10, 1998