alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 11, 2008

Decided December 11, 2008

Before

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

    JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

    MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐2446

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

TROY MILLER,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Indiana,

Evansville Division.

No. 3:06CR00038‐014

Richard L. Young,

Judge.

O R D E R

In 2008 Troy Miller entered into an agreement to plead guilty to one count of

conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1).

The parties agreed on page three of Miller’s plea agreement to a specific sentence of 120

months’ imprisonment—the mandatory minimum given the amount of cocaine and Miller’s

prior conviction for a felony drug offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B); FED. R. CRIM. P.

11(c)(1)(C).  The district court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Miller, as agreed,

to 120 months’ imprisonment.  See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(3)(A).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐2446 Page 2

Miller filed a notice of appeal, but the government has moved to dismiss on the

ground that Miller waived his right to appeal in the plea agreement.  See United States v.

Mason, 343 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2003).  Miller’s lawyer concedes the point and agrees that the

appeal should be dismissed.  Miller himself opposes the government’s motion.  See CIR. R.

51(b).  

The appeal waiver aside, a defendant who agrees to a specific sentence cannot

appeal the sentence imposed except in three narrow circumstances: if his guilty plea was

involuntary, if the sentence he received is greater than the sentence he bargained for, or if

his sentence was imposed in violation of law.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1), (c)(1); United States

v. Gibson, 490 F.3d 604, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 363‐64

(7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Barnes, 83 F.3d 934, 941 (7th Cir. 1996).  Miller does not want

his plea set aside, eliminating the first possibility.  The second possibility is not tenable

because Miller’s prison sentence tracks the agreement.  As for the third possibility, Miller’s

sentence is the lowest permitted by law.  See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).  

Even if Miller’s appeal was not precluded by § 3742(a)(1) and (c)(1), his plea

agreement includes a clear and unambiguous appellate waiver, which is enforceable

because the record shows that he knowingly and voluntarily entered into the agreement.

See United States v. Linder, 530 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Blinn, 490

F.3d 586, 588 (7th Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, we GRANT government’s motion to DISMISS the appeal.
CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements
for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 (c)
    
    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
 (d)
    
    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
  (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.
  /s/ Gary C. Parks

Gary C. ParksChief Financial Officer
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M A RI O O RLA N D O G O CH ESMONT AN O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 73136 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 438- 059 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary21, 2012 ** B e f o r e : F E RN A N D E Z , M c K E O W N , an dB Y B E E , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . M ar i o O rl ando G oches- M on t ano, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f E l S al vado r, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o rec on si der i t s und er l yi ng deci si on di sm i ss i ng as un t i m el y hi s app ea l 

# FI LED MA R 01 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 73136 2 fr om an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s ( “ IJ ”) re m ov alorder. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) . W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the B I A ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on to r e c o n s id e r . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 4 0 0 F .3 d7 8 5 , 7 9 1 - 9 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e g r a n t th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . T he B I A di s m i s s e d G oc he s - M ont ano’ s appe a l a s unt i m e l yw i thoutthe be ne f i tof ourde c i s i on i n Ir i

goye n-B ri on es v. H

older , 64 4 F . 3d 94 3, 94 8 (9th C i r. 2011) , w hi c h he l d tha tthe 30- dayde a dl i ne f orf i l i ng anot i c e of

appe a l w i th the B IA i s notj uri sdi ct i on al . W e there fore re m and for the B IA t o rec on si der w hether, u n d e rth e c ir c u m s tan c e s p r e s e n te d , it w ill h e arth e ap p e a l f r o m th e I J ’s d e c is io n in th is c a s e . See IN

S v. V en tu ra , 5 3 7 U .S . 1 2 , 1 6 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                        4250000
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 8831000
<ALLOWANCES>                  (1000000)
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              12757000
<PP&E>                        293402000
<DEPRECIATION>                (168237000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                146400000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         45873000
<BONDS>                       100000000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      243000
<OTHER-SE>                    (1479000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  146400000
<SALES>                       19772000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              19772000
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 24264000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            5382000
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (9874000)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (9874000)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (9874000)
<EPS-BASIC>                 (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (.41)



</TABLE>
hstm-ex1010_15.htm



EXHIBIT 10.10

HealthStream, Inc. (the Company)

Summary of Director and Executive Officer Compensation

I. Director Compensation. Directors who are employees of the Company do not receive additional compensation for serving as directors of the Company. For fiscal year 2019, each director will receive an annual retainer of $5,000, except for the Audit Committee Chair and Nominating and Corporate Governance Chair, who will receive an additional annual retainer of $7,500, and the Compensation Committee Chair, who will receive an additional annual retainer of $2,000. Non-employee directors will also receive a $20,000 flat-fee, except for members of the Audit Committee who will receive $22,500, for board and committee meeting attendance and participation in lieu of per meeting fees.

In addition to the cash compensation set forth above, each non-employee director is eligible to receive a nondiscretionary annual grant of restricted share units. The restricted share units are granted annually and vest ratably over a three year period.

II. Executive Officer Compensation. The following table sets forth the current base salaries and fiscal 2018 performance bonuses provided to our executive officers, including the individuals who the Company expects to be its Named Executive Officers for 2019.

 


							
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Executive Officer
	
  
	
Current Base Salary
	
  
	
Fiscal 2018 Bonus Amount
	
  
	
 

	
Robert A. Frist, Jr.
	
  
	
$335,000
	
  
	
$134,000
	
  
	
 

	
J. Edward Pearson
	
  
	
$330,000
	
  
	
$132,000
	
  
	
 

	
Michael Sousa
	
  
	
$330,000
	
  
	
$77,000
	
  
	
 

	
Gerard M. Hayden, Jr.1
	
  
	
$288,000
	
  
	
$86,000
	
  
	
 

	
Jeffrey D. Cunningham
	
  
	
$284,000
	
  
	
$85,000
	
  
	
 

	
Michael M. Collier
	
  
	
$265,000
	
  
	
$80,000
	
  
	
 

	
Trisha L. Coady
	
 
	
$250,000
	
 
	
$40,000
	
 
	
 

	
M. Scott McQuigg
	
 
	
$250,000
	
 
	
$ -
	
 
	
 




Base salary adjustments for 2019, bonus targets for 2019 cash bonuses, and 2019 equity grants for executive officers have not yet been determined by the Compensation Committee.

III. Additional Information. The foregoing information is summary in nature. Additional information regarding Director and Named Executive Officer compensation will be contained in the Company’s 2019 Proxy Statement.

 

	
	 





	
1 
	
 As previously disclosed on the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by us on October 22, 2018, Mr. Hayden intends to resign as an officer of the Company following the filing of our 2018 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
CHARGE QUESTIONS: AEATF-II Brush and Roller Painting Protocol

1. Is this research is likely to generate scient ifically reliable data, useful for assessing the exposure of those who apply latex paint contai ning an antimicrobial pesticide using a brush

or roller?

2. Is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and

L?
### 2 Attachments

Mike et al,

Attached please find our Technical Supplement to the Regional Haze plan. This plan is FINAL, NOT draft.

We will submit the paper version to the Regional Administrator with Kyra’s letter later this week. I will notify

you when it is put in the mail. We will also have a full version scanned at that time.

Please let me know if you need any additional information from us. 

### Final Technical Supplement for Regional Haze Plan

Drake, Tiffany

to:

Michael Jay, Chris Wolfersberge r, Amy Bhesania, Andy Hawkins

01/30/2012 12:41 PM

Cc:

"Vit, Wendy", "Leath, Mark", "Alsha rafi, Adel", "Bechtel, Cheri"

Hide Details

From: "Drake, Tiffany" <tiffany.drake@dnr.mo.gov>

To: Michael Jay/R7/USEPA/U S@EPA, Chris Wolfersberge r/R7/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy

Bhesania/R7/USEPA/US@EPA, Andy Hawkins/R7/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Vit, Wendy" <wendy.vit@dnr.mo.gov>, "Leath, Mark" <mark.leath@dnr.mo.gov>,

"Alsharafi, Adel" <adel.alsharafi@dnr.mo.gov>, "Bechtel, Cheri"

<cheri.bechtel@dnr.mo.gov>

History: This message has been replied to.

FINAL Regional Haze Supplement Jan 30 2012.docx Appendix A BART Applicability Update Jan 30 2012.xlsx 

### Page 1 of 2

2/16/2012 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\m j a y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web4428.htmThanks,

Tiffany Drake, PE

SIP Unit Chief

A ir Pollution Control Program

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

(573) 751-4817

tiffany.drake@dnr.mo.gov 

### Page 2 of 2

2/16/2012 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\m j a y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web4428.htm
null

492.6059
**Exhibit 15 **

** **

**CONSENT OF WAYNE VALLIANT**

 

I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-Fof New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connectionwith, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Mesquite Mine, ImperialCounty, California, U.S.A.”, dated February 28, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financialyear ended December 31, 2014, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statementon Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.

  

Dated this 27th day of March, 2015

 

 

*/s/ Wayne Valliant	*

Wayne Valliant, P.Geo.
# Euroopa Liidu C 160A/27.

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 160A |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 57. köide27. mai 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 160A

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

57. köide27. mai 2014

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Teated |
| | HALDUSMENETLUSED |
| | Euroopa Ravimiamet |
| 2014/C 160A/01 | Tühistamisteade | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

V   Teated

HALDUSMENETLUSED

Euroopa Ravimiamet

2014/C 160A/01

Tühistamisteade

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 160A/02 | Ülevaade ELT C-seeria A-osas avaldatud konkursiteadetest | 2 |

2014/C 160A/02

Ülevaade ELT C-seeria A-osas avaldatud konkursiteadetest

2

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

V Teated

HALDUSMENETLUSED

Euroopa Ravimiamet

| 27.5.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CA 160/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CA 160/1

---

Tühistamisteade

2014/C 160 A/01

Euroopa Ravimiamet on otsustanud tühistada järgmise valikumenetluse:

| — | EMA/AD/359: IT-toimingute talituse juhataja, infotehnoloogiaosakond (AD 10). |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/AD/359: IT-toimingute talituse juhataja, infotehnoloogiaosakond (AD 10).

---

27.5.2014

| 27.5.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CA 160/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CA 160/2

---

ÜLEVAADE ELT C-SEERIA A-OSAS AVALDATUD KONKURSITEADETEST

2014/C 160 A/02

Allpool on esitatud loetelu käesoleva aasta C-seeria A-osas avaldatust.

Kui ei ole märgitud teisiti, on ELTd trükitud kõigis keeltes.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11306

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ALONZO ALVARADO,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:05-CR-32-ALL

--------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Alonzo

Alvarado raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
#### Ferguson *v.*Lesser Cotton Company.

4-2760

Opinion delivered December 5, 1932.

*661*Rowell*& *Rowell,*for appellant.

*Reinberger*■& *Reinberger*and *Hooker S Hooker,*for appellee.

Butler, J.

The question in dispute in this ease is the ownership of nine bales of cotton which the appellees had purchased in open market and which they claim by reason of that purchase. The claim of the appellants was based on a mortgage given by Case, appellees’ vendor, which included “all crops of cotton, corn, cotton seed, hay, and all other crops grown by the party of the first part (J. H. Case), or grown by his tenants and share-croppers for him; or caused to be grown by the party of the first part on any of the above places owned or rented by him in Cleveland and Lincoln counties, or other places during the year 1928. Also, all amounts due to the parties of the first part on account of rents and accounts for supplies furnished to tenants and share-croppers during the year 1928 or theretofore. ’ ’

Case, the mortgagor, at or about the close of the cotton season 1928-1929, being heavily involved, left the country, and, on the application of the mortgagees (appellants), a receiver was appointed to take charge of the crops of Case included in the mortgage. The receiver, in the discharge of his duties, took charge of the nine bales of cotton then in the custody of the compress in Pine Bluff which he claimed was cotton upon which the appellants had a mortgage. The appellees intervened, and it was, and is, the contention of the appellants that the burden was upon the appellees to establish their claim to the cotton. In this they are doubtless correct, but the burden was discharged by the undisputed testimony which established the fact that the appellees had bought the cotton in open market from Case and paid full value for it. The burden then shifted to the appellants to show that the cotton was included in the mortgage given by Case to them.' It is also true that the sale of property mortgaged will not divest the mortgagee of its title, although the property is sold in another county than the county in which the mortgage is executed and recorded *662and to a purchaser who had no knowledge of such mortgage.

These principles of law seem to have been applied by the court, and the question before it for determination was whether or not the mortgage covered this particular cotton. There was little conflict in the testimony, all of which was more or less vague as to how Case came into possession of the cotton that was sold by him to the appellees. Case was a public ginner and had a small store. He would sometimes buy cotton for resale and also had tenants on his farm who grew cotton and some customers whom he furnished, but it is uncertain who grew the cotton in question or from whom it was procured. We are inclined to the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence justified the conclusion reached by the chancellor that the cotton was not included in the mortgage. This being our view, we deem it unnecessary to review the testimony in detail.

Decree affirmed.
#### David Michael MONTGOMERY, Petitioner-Appellant, and Office of the Attorney General, Party-in-Interest, v. State of MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6912

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: October 20, 2017

*222David Michael Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas E. Dernoga, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF- MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Ap-pellee.

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Michael Montgomery, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Montgomery has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of. appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, deny Montgomery’s motion to appoint counsel, and 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*
FOIA Requested Record #J-13-0039 

Released by National Guard Bureau 

Page 1 of 1

Record Posted to NGB Reading Room 

13 June 14

Record Posted to NGB Reading Room 

13 June 14
Lacy SLATE v. STATE

CR-15-0507

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017 Reh. denied February 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-01569, 333-13943, 333-20005,
333-24615, 333-64203, 333-65211, 333-67511, 333-87905, 333-105733 and 333-111480) and Form S-8
(File Nos. 333-02329, 333-13481, 333-65193, 333-65221, 333-65223, 333-85549, 333-85574 and
333-105734) of New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. of our report dated February 25, 2004, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules, which appears
in this Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New
York, New York
March 4, 2004

---

QuickLinks
BUY BUY BABY, INC./Corvel Corporation, Appellants, v. Bibi ALI, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3636

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.