alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23







                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Metris Companies Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.:
333-42529, 333-42961, 333-52627, 333-52629, 333-78345, 333-36924, 333-51390,
333-91917 and 333-60870 on Form S-8, 333-60973, 333-47066 and 333-82007 on Form
S-3, and 333-43771 and 333-86695 on Form S-4 of Metris Companies Inc. of our
report dated January 16, 2002 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Metris Companies Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2001, which report appears in the December 31, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A
of Metris Companies Inc.




Minneapolis, Minnesota
October 22, 2002
CERTIFICATION
 
 I, John Gioffre, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Air T, Inc.;
 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 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 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 and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants independent registered public accountants 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: August 5, 2005
 /s/ John J. Gioffre
 John J. Gioffre
 Chief Financial Officer
# C_2015191EN.01000701.xml

| 9.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

8 June 2015

(2015/C 191/06)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1162 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,84 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4602 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73180 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3678 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0470 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8270 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,431 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 313,95 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1551 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4650 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0865 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4615 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3879 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6536 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5776 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5165 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 252,08 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,0463 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9278 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5530 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 900,68 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2075 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,465 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 62,3147 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,694 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5023 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4998 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,5360 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1162

JPY

Japanese yen

139,84

DKK

Danish krone

7,4602

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73180

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3678

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0470

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8270

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,431

HUF

Hungarian forint

313,95

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1551

RON

Romanian leu

4,4650

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0865

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4615

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3879

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6536

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5776

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5165

KRW

South Korean won

1 252,08

ZAR

South African rand

14,0463

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9278

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5530

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 900,68

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2075

PHP

Philippine peso

50,465

RUB

Russian rouble

62,3147

THB

Thai baht

37,694

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5023

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4998

INR

Indian rupee

71,5360

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

      In connection with the periodic report of Delta Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard Blass, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:

3.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
      as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

4.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: March 29, 2004.

                                      /s/RICHARD BLASS
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Richard Blass
                                      Executive Vice President and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31 (b)

     CERTIFICATION I, William M. McKay, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Emergent Group, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in
     order 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 annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining "disclosure controls and procedures" for the
     registrant and have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report
          is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this annual
          report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
     committee of the registrant's board of directors:

     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

     b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
     annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls
     or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
     subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
     corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
     weaknesses.


Date: March 29, 2005                   /s/ WILLIAM M. MCKAY
                                           ----------------
                                           William M. McKay
                                           Chief Financial Officer
From: Bill Schrock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: "Frey, Nathan J." <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>, Robin 

Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/19/2012 01:29 PM

Subject: Re: Interagency Comments on Pulp and Paper RTR

Cortney - Included here is our response to your comments. Attached is a clean version of the 

preamble and reg text and a red line version which is a comparison to the file we forwarded to 

you Tuesday with the revised version. It contains the new executive summary and the other edits 

requested (we also made a minor edit to some Incorporation by Reference language you'll see). 

Also, we reviewed the cost questions and the chart you sent us which contained a summary of 

the repeat testing costs. We have reviewed our cost estimates and verified that they were not 

under-estimated, which I believe was your concern. Essentially, we think you all counted some 

kraft mills with biotreatment twice in your recalculation. Below is a summary of costs and how 

we think you arrived at your numbers.

Repeat testing costs provided for each mill in Appendix C of the RTI cost memo were used.

However, you all may have overlooked the capital and annualized cost columns entitled “Repeat 

testing” almost all the way to the right of the table. A revision to your recalculation is shown 

below containing the correct math. When the correct number of mills are used, the 1st, 2nd and 

4th rows of your chart change and the bottom line subtotals match the cost estimates provided in 

our Cost memo and the EIA. If this doesn't make sense to you all we can have a call to walk 

through it with you all.

Number of 

mills in 

category 

Capital 

cost per 

mill every 

5 years 

Subtotal of mill 

category capital 

costs every 5 

years, $Millions 

Annualized 

capital cost 

per mill, 

$/yr 

Subtotal of mill 

category 

annualized capital 

costs, $Millions/yr 

66

Kraft (97 - 40 biotreatment = 57 

mills), soda (1), and semichemical 

mills (8, including 

semichemical+secondary fiber mills) 

42000 $2.8 10243 0.68

40 Kraft mills using biotreatment

(including stripping+biotreatment) 28000 $1.1 6829 0.27

5 Sulfite mills 14000 $0.1 3414 0.02

72 Mills bleaching with chlorinated 

compounds (e.g., ClO2) 20000 $1.4 4878 0.35

Total $5.4 $1.3

Bill Schrock

U.S. EPA

RTP, NC 27709

(919) 541-5032

(919) 541-3470 (fax)
EXHIBIT 23.2



June 28, 2001

                    CONSENT OF FLETCHER LEWIS ENGINEERING, INC.




As independent oil and gas consultants, Fletcher Lewis Engineering, Inc.
hereby consents to the use of our reserve report for Pontotoc Production, Inc.
dated as of April 1, 2001, and to all references to our firm included in or
made a part of this Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2001 filed by
Pontotoc Production, Inc.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration Statement of Ascent Energy Inc.
on Form S-4 (File No. 333-57746, effective June 29, 2001).





/s/ Fletcher Lewis

FLETCHER LEWIS
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Alfonso Hernandez a/k/a * From the 35th District Court

Alfonso Darden, of Brown County,

 Trial Court No. CR22623.

Vs. No. 11-14-00322-CR * November 30, 2016

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA - 20 13 - 0751 Directorate ID : 20 12 - SW - 051 - AD Helicopter Model: AgustaWestlane S.p.A. Model AB139 qand AW139 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 93 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to detect a crack in a blade to prevent failure of a blade and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 35,680 to replace a blade Labor per Helicopter ( 1 work-hour x 

### $ 8 5 /work hour for the inspection) $ 85 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 35,680 Total US Fleet Cost $ 36,360 if one blade is replaced Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Sharon Miles
# C_2014409EN.01000101.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

2014/C 409/01

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 388, 3.11.2014

OJ C 380, 27.10.2014

OJ C 372, 20.10.2014

OJ C 361, 13.10.2014

OJ C 351, 6.10.2014

OJ C 339, 29.9.2014

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6903

KENNETH SYNCERE RIVERA, a/k/a Kenneth D. Rivera, a/k/a 

Kenneth Rivera,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director; MR. MCFADDEN, Warden; MS. W. 

SCARBROUGH, Business Office,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (8:15-cv-03650-JMC)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Syncere Rivera, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Syncere Rivera appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rivera 

v. Stirling, No. 8:15-cv-03650-JMC (D.S.C. June 16, 2016). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6747

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LLOYD OBED ADAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00195-TDS-1; 1:15-

cv-00761-TDS-JEP)

Submitted: October 18, 2018 Decided: October 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lloyd Obed Adams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lloyd Obed Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment adopting the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was 

not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal 

must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). 

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” 

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 21, 2018. The 

notice of appeal was filed on June 18, 2018.*

 Because Adams failed to file a timely 

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for 

mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Anthony John Liberto, Appellant

No. 06-16-00063-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 13th District Court of 

Navarro County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

D34945). Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley

and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Anthony John Liberto, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 29, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-13448

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cr-00049-ACC-PRL-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AARON MICHAEL MURRAY,

a.k.a. Tyler Peterson,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(November 30, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-13448 Date Filed: 11/30/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Meghan Ann Collins, appointed counsel for Aaron Murray in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

because she finds the appeal “wholly frivolous.” Id. at 744. Our independent 

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of 

Murray’s appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record 

reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, 

and Murray’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-13448 Date Filed: 11/30/2016 Page: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MEDICAL
GRAPHICS CORPORATION FOR NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             373
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,012
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (235)
<INVENTORY>                                      7,467
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,124
<PP&E>                                           4,553
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,074)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,011
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           128
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,767
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,025
<SALES>                                         16,413
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,413
<CGS>                                            9,913
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,913
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,485
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 113
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,781)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (60)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,721)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,721)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.68)
        

</TABLE>