alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
23.2




Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
No. 333-144870 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 14, 2009,
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Lakeland Industries, Inc.
and Subsidiaries as of January 31, 2009, and for each of the two years
ended January 31, 2009 and the related financial statement schedule,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31,
2010.


/s/ Holtz
Rubenstein Reminick LLP





Melville,
New York


April 16,
2010
October 19, 2015

Mr. Andrew Weathers

800 South Pine Street, Suite D

Spartanburg, SC 29302

Dear Mr. Weathers :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request, posted to the public docket on July 21, 2015, and filed in

D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 3063 , but we are unable to process your request any further. Your

petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider

the request any furthe r, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of

the relief you seek.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or a rguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notif ying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
Opinion issued September 21, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-21-00087-CV

———————————

IN RE HYDROCHEM LLC, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, HydroChem LLC, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

challenging the trial court’s order compelling production of documents in response 

to two production requests in the underlying case.1 We deny the petition.

1 The underlying case is Nathen Bang v. HydroChem Industrial Cleaning LLC, et al., 

cause number 2020-18662, pending in the 133rd District Court of Harris County, 

Texas, the Honorable Jaclanel McFarland presiding.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Countiss.
4842-0387-8390, v.1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

CONSENT JUDGMENT 

Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees. (Doc. 87). The parties have reached an 

agreement regarding the amount to be awarded in attorney fees in the amount of $380,000.00 in 

fees and expenses. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the Court orders that Defendants 

shall pay to American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation for the benefit of all attorneys 

identified in the fee motion, the sum of $380,000.00 in full satisfaction of all Plaintiffs’ attorney 

fees and expenses incurred in this case, through August 20, 2021, which American Civil 

Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation will disburse to co-counsel for Plaintiffs. 

The Court shall retain jurisdiction over any issue that should arise from, or is related to, 

the Consent Judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

_____________________ 

Date JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

STACIE RAY, 

et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

STEPHANIE McCLOUD, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-00272 

Judge: Michael Watson 

Magistrate Judge: Chelsey Vascura 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 101 Filed: 08/20/21 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 3334
4842-0387-8390, v.1 

AGREED TO BY: 

/s/ Jason J. Blake

Albert J. Lucas (0007676) 

Jason J. Blake (0087692) 

CALFEE, HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP 

1200 Huntington Center 

41 S. High Street 

Columbus, OH 43215 

Telephone: (614) 621-1500 

Fax: (614) 621-0100 

alucas@calfee.com 

jblake@calfee.com 

Attorneys for Defendants

/s/ Fred Levenson

Freda Levenson (0045916) 

Susan Becker (0010205) 

ACLU of Ohio 

4506 Chester Ave. 

Cleveland, OH 44103 

Phone: (614) 469-3200 

Facsimile: (614) 469-3361 

Email: flevenson@acluohio.org 

Email: sbecker@acluohio.org 

Email: ebonham@acluohio.org 

David Carey (0088787) 

ACLU of Ohio Foundation 

1108 City Park Avenue 

Columbus, OH 43206 

Phone: 614-586-1969 

Fax: 614-586-1974 

dcarey@acluohio.org 

John Knight* (Illinois Bar No. 6201433) 

American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois 

180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Phone: (312) 201-9740 

Facsimile: (312) 288-5225 

Email: jknight@aclu-il.org 

Malita Picasso* 

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 

125 Broad St. 

New York, NY 10004 

Phone: (212) 549-2569 

Facsimile: (212) 549-2650 

Email: mpicasso@aclu.org 

Kara Ingelhart* (Illinois Bar No. 6321949) 

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, 

Inc. 

65 E. Wacker, Suite 2000. 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Phone: (312) 663-4413 

Facsimile: (312) 663-4307 

Email: kingelhart@lambdalegal.org

Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 101 Filed: 08/20/21 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 3335
4842-0387-8390, v.1 

Peter C. Renn* (California Bar No. 247633) 

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, 

Inc. 

4221 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 280 

Los Angeles, CA 90010 

Phone: (213) 382-7600 

Facsimile: (213) 351-6050 

Email: prenn@lambdalegal.org 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 101 Filed: 08/20/21 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 3336
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs.

YANJUN XU, 

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cr-43

Judge Timothy S. Black

ORDER

This case is before the Court on the entries of appearance of Thea D. R. Kendler, 

Esq. (Doc. 9) and Amy E. Larson, Esq. (Doc. 10) as additional trial counsel on behalf of 

the Government. 

The Court finds that Attorneys Kendler and Larson are authorized to appear before 

this Court in the Southern District of Ohio. Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office is hereby 

ORDERED to enter Thea D. R. Kendler and Amy E. Larson as additional trial counsel on 

behalf of the Government in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 10/12/2018 s/ Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 22 Filed: 10/12/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 150
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00239-CR

Daniel Ray Pruitt, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR21604, HONORABLE EDWARD P. MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Daniel Ray Pruitt pleaded guilty to theft of property valued between $1,500

and $20,000. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) (West Supp. 2006). The district court

adjudged him guilty and assessed his punishment at two years’ incarceration in a state jail.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137

(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right

to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
 Appellant requested but was not given credit for the 257 days between his indictment in this 1

cause and his trial. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 15(h)(2) (West 2006). The record

reflects that during this time, appellant was in prison serving the sentence imposed following another

felony conviction. Appellant’s presentence incarceration was not due to indigence. Cf. Ex parte

Bates, 978 S.W.2d 575, 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Ex parte Harris, 946 S.W.2d 79, 80 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1997); Holloway v. State, 115 S.W.3d 797, 798 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.).

2

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s 1

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: November 27, 2007

Do Not Publish
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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/**Michael                  Barth |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Michael                Barth          |   |   |        |
| Chief Financial Officer               |   |   |   |
| September                  6, 2007    |   |   |   |

----
Exhibit


Exhibit 10.4


FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO.
NONQUALIFIED SAVINGS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN (II)


This First Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Abercrombie & Fitch Co. Nonqualified Savings and Supplemental Retirement Plan (II) (the “Plan”) is effective as of the dates specified herein.


WHEREAS, Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (the “Corporation”) sponsors the Plan;


WHEREAS, pursuant to Article IX of the Plan, the Corporation desires to amend the Plan to eliminate the retirement credits from the Plan and to formally reflect the change implemented in 2014 to decrease the percentage of incentive compensation that can be deferred from 100% to 75%;


NOW, THEREFORE:


1.  Section 5.3 of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced with the following effective as of January 1, 2016:
5.3    Retirement Credits.  Effective for Plan Years commencing on or after January 1, 2016, Retirement Credits shall no longer be permitted under the Plan.  


2.  Section 3.3 of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced with the following effective as of January 1, 2014, as previously communicated to participants:


3.3.    Amount Deferred.  A Participant shall designate on the Deferral Election the portion of the participant’s Base Salary, Incentive Compensation or both that is to be deferred to the participant’s Deferral Sub-Account in accordance with this Article III.  Unless otherwise determined by the Committee, a Participant may defer (in 1% increments) up to 75% of the participant’s Base Salary and Incentive Compensation for any Plan Year.    


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized representative on October 14, 2015, to be effective as specified above.


	
				
	 
	 
	ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO.

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	/s/ Stephen Keyes

	 
	 
	By:
	Stephen Keyes

	 
	 
	Its:
	Chair, Benefits Plans Committee
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6915

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES LLOYD LAMBERT, II,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-91-21, CA-94-924-R)

Submitted: September 23, 1997 Decided: October 9, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Lloyd Lambert, II, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald,

Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking relief from the court's judgment

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current

version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Lambert, Nos. CR-91-21; CA-94-924-

R (W.D. Va. June 11, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7549

LARRY LADAIN MYERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VEDA PLAIR; KEITH MOORE, Officer; K. JENKINS,

Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-04-1900-0-13BD)

Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: December 1, 2004

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry LaDain Myers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Larry LaDain Myers appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Myers that failure to file timely

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of

a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this

warning, Myers failed to object to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Myers has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Commonwealth, Appellant, *v.*George E. Paul.

*Constitutional law*— Interstate *commerce*— Original *package*— Oleomar*garine.*

Argued Jan. 18, 1895.

Appeal, No. 105, July T., 1894, by plaintiff, from judgment of Q. S. Phila. Co., Oct. T., 1893, No. 370, on-special verdict.

Before Sterrett, C. J., Green, Williams, McGollum, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.

Reversed.

*297See the two next preceding cases.

*Carroll B. Williams*and *John G.*Johnson, *A. Morton Cooper*and *George S.*Graham, district attorney, with them, for appellant.

*Henry B.*Edmunds, *Bichard C. Bale*with him, for appellee.

October 11, 1895:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Williams,

The questions raised in this case are identical with those just disposed of in Commonwealth v. J. Otis Paul, 170 Pa. 284, in which an opinion is this day filed.

For reasons there stated the judgment is reversed and judgment entered in favor of the commonwealth on the special verdict.

The record is remitted for purposes of sentence and execution.
Exhibit 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
     Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-58396, 33-67218, 33-58797, 33-56721,
     333-45402, and 333-59722) of Stanley Furniture Company, Inc. of our report
     dated February 7, 2005 relating to the financial statements, financial
     statement schedule, management's assessment of the effectiveness of
     internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal
     control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Richmond, Virginia

February 7, 2005
Case: 3:18-cr-00022-TMR Doc #: 23 Filed: 02/27/18 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 165
Case: 3:18-cr-00022-TMR Doc #: 23 Filed: 02/27/18 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 166
Case: 3:18-cr-00022-TMR Doc #: 23 Filed: 02/27/18 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 167
Case: 3:18-cr-00022-TMR Doc #: 23 Filed: 02/27/18 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 168
Case: 3:18-cr-00022-TMR Doc #: 23 Filed: 02/27/18 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 169
Case: 3:18-cr-00022-TMR Doc #: 23 Filed: 02/27/18 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 170
Case: 3:18-cr-00022-TMR Doc #: 23 Filed: 02/27/18 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 171
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of
April 12, 2012 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2012-2 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the
closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by General Motors Financial Company, Inc. (f/k/a AmeriCredit Corp.), AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in
connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that I am the
Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.



|    |  |                                         |  |                      
|--- |  | --------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Connie Coffey                       |  | Dated: March 30, 2015
|    |  | Connie Coffey                           |  |                      
|    |  | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |                      
|    |  | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |
Filed 6/24/13 P. v. Echeverria CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CARLOS E CHEVERRIA,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B245330

(Super. Ct. No. BA401663)

(Los Angeles County)

Carlos Echeverria appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded no

contest to attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664 & 211) and admitted a P enal Code

section 1170, subdivision (h)(3) allegation (providing that any sentence imposed for the

charged crime shall be served in state prison). The trial court suspended the imposition

of sentence, and placed appellant on formal probation for 36 months , with various terms

and conditions.

Antonio Alejo was walking on Melrose Avenue in Los Angeles on August

20, 2012, shortly after 10:00 p.m. Appellant approached Alejo, threatened him with a

stick, and said, "Hey, give me money."

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a

brief raising no issues and requesting our independent review pursuant to People v.

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified appellant that he had 30 days in which to2

advise us of any claims he wished us to consider. We have received no response from

appellant.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s

attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist.

( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , 123

- 124; People v. Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d at p.

441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

YEGAN, J.3 Anne H. Egerton, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

_________ _____________________

Jonathan P. Milberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
REGISTRATION 69361-31
REGISTRATION 

69361-31 

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43 *Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
44

*Confidential Statement of Formula may be entitled to confidential treatment*
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69








78
79
80
81
82
83
84 *Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
85
86
87
*Confidential Statement of Formula may be entitled to confide