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

Consent of Independent Public Accountants


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of our reports included in this
Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration
Statements: (1) Registration Statement File No. 33-40472 on
Form S-8 of the 1986 Stock Option Plan, the 1985 Stock Incentive
Plan, the 1985 Key Employee Incentive Stock Option Plan and the
Individual Written Compensation Plan dated May 10, 1991, (2)
Registration Statement File No. 33-44864 on Form S-8 of the 1986
Restated and Amended Stock Option Plan and Directors' Stock
Option Plan dated January 8, 1992, (3) Registration Statement on
Form S-8 of the 1992 Employee Stock Purchase Plan dated June 16,
1992, (4) Registration Statement File No. 33-86548 on Form S-3
dated November 21, 1994, (5) Registration Statement File
No. 33-65463 on Form S-3 dated December 28, 1995, as amended on
February 9, 1996, (6) Registration Statement File No. 333-28565
on Form S-8 of the 1997 Non-Officer Employee Stock Option Plan
dated June 5, 1997, as amended on October 29, 1997, and
(7) Registration Statement File No. 333-62523 on Form S-8 of the
1997 Equity Participation Plan dated August 31, 1998.


                                   ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Portland, Oregon
June 28, 2000
<TABLE>




<CAPTION>
                        Litchfield Financial Corporation
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share
<S>                              <C>        <C>          <C>        <C>

                                   Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended
                                      September 30,          September 30,
                                   ------------------     -----------------
                                     1999      1998         1999       1998
                                     ----      ----         ----       ----
Basic:
   Weighted average number of
common shares outstanding........ 6,984,158  6,835,775   6,926,644   6,083,183
                                  =========  =========   ==========  =========

   Net income....................  $510,000 $2,690,000  $5,995,000  $6,549,000
                                   ======== ==========  ===========  =========

   Net income per common share...  $  .07   $   .39     $   .87     $   1.08
                                   ======== ==========  ===========  =========
Diluted:
   Weighted average number of
common shares outstanding........ 6,984,158  6,835,775   6,926,644   6,083,183
   Weighted average number of
common stock equivalents
outstanding:
Stock options...............        317,850    323,106     300,643     349,238
                                    -------   --------    --------    --------

   Weighted average common and
     common equivalent shares
     outstanding.................  7,302,008  7,158,882  7,227,286   6,432,422
                                   =========  ========== ==========  ==========

   Net income....................   $510,000 $2,690,000 $5,995,000  $6,549,000
                                    ========  ========= ==========   ==========

   Net income per common share...  $    .07  $      .38 $      .83  $     1.02
                                   =========  ========== ========== ===========

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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          56,852
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      7,635,276
<ALLOWANCE>                                    156,339
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,875,848
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            629,224
<LONG-TERM>                                  6,350,043
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           284
<OTHER-SE>                                     896,297
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               7,875,848
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                640,462
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     0
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             298,158
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          295,154
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   38,800
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                129,992
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                136,615
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    85,005
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     5.9
<LOANS-NON>                                    172,766
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                38,755
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               140,333
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                 (31,007)
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,062
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              156,339
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         119,809
<SECURITIES>                                    16,147
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,502
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,703
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               218,325
<PP&E>                                          39,408
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,074
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,132,897
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,515
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,789
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,016,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,132,897
<SALES>                                        176,785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               176,785
<CGS>                                          121,465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  121,465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               435,465
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (380,145)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,901)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (377,870)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (377,870)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (377,870)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.61)


</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0303-10

GERARDO LUJAN, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS

EL PASO COUNTY

JOHNSON, J., filed a concurring opinion.

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

El Paso County deputy sheriffs set up a checkpoint, ostensibly to target uninsured and

unlicensed drivers. That claim is undermined by the presence of a drug dog at a checkpoint near the

Mexican border and I-10, a known route for drug transport. Drug dogs are trained to detect the

presence of illegal drugs; they are less useful for sniffing out expired driver’s licenses. Mere

membership in the assigned unit does not adequately explain the dog’s presence. The assigned unit

was not a traffic unit; as the majority notes, it had multiple duties, including racing prevention, DWI,

traffic enforcement, and, notably, narcotics. The deputies’ regular responsibilities and specialized
2

training were not relevant to a checkpoint for only licenses and insurance, and if the checkpoint were

truly for only licenses and insurance, the dog would be a valuable resource wasted and better used

at a location where its specialized skills were in demand. I agree with the court of appeals that the

checkpoint was a subterfuge for general criminal enforcement.

That said, appellant did not have a driver’s license and was therefore subject to arrest. His

passenger had no identification, but did have outstanding warrants, and he was arrested. The

checkpoint was in an area known for drug transport. Appellant and his passenger had different

stories about where they had been. Appellant was extremely nervous. The deputy patted appellant

down, an appropriate action when an arrest is possible and even more appropriate when

circumstances and training would reasonably alert an officer that things were not as they might

appear to be. The pat-down revealed a large amount of cash. The circumstances, as a whole, gave

rise to reasonable suspicion that criminal activity, specifically drug transport, was afoot. 

And appellant gave permission to search his car. Even without the alert from the drug dog,

the drugs were very likely to be found. Law officers know that door panels are a popular location

for contraband and could have manually investigated the possibility pursuant to the consent to

search. Further, appellant was subject to arrest for lack of a driver’s license, and his passenger was

under arrest. Whether the deputy arrested appellant for lack of a license or possession of controlled

substances after a manual search of the car, no one would have been available to take possession of

the car, and the car would have been impounded, leading to an inventory search or a dog sniff at the

impound lot.

Because I think that the drugs would have been discovered without the dog’s alert, I concur

in the judgment of the Court.
3

Filed: January 12, 2011

Publish
ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC., f/k/a Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. RS & H, INC., f/k/a Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc., Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 1D17-123

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### CELLTRACE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, Wayne Michaels, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ACACIA RESEARCH CORPORATION, Acacia Research Group, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.*

16-2006, 16-2326

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 25, 2017

*7FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: Reagan W. Simpson (Collin J. Cox, Christian J. Ward, April L. Farris, on the brief), Yetter Coleman LLP, Houston, TX.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Marc J. Schneider (Travis P. Brennan, Justin Klaeb, on the brief), Stradling Yoc-ca Carlson *&*Rauth, P.C., Newport Beach, CA.

PRESENT: Amalya L. Kearse, Guido Calabresi, José A. Cabranes, Circuit Judges.

*

The Clerk is directed to alter the caption of this case to read as indicated above.

SUMMARY ORDER

We expect appeals such as this one to grow increasingly rare and soon become extinct. The District Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismissed, rather than stayed, the case. On appeal, both parties agree that the District Court erred in dismissing, rather than staying, the action. “[W]hen all claims are referred to arbitration and a stay requested,” as happened here, “the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1*et seq.*(“FAA”), *requires*a stay of proceedings.” *Katz v. Cellco P’ship,*794 F.3d 341, 343 (2d Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 596, 193 L.Ed.2d 471 (2015) (emphasis added). Had the District Court entered a stay, moreover, this appeal would not exist. *See id.*at 346 (“[T]he FAA explicitly denies the right to an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order that compels arbitration or stays proceedings.”) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(l)-(2)). While we are not thereby deprived of jurisdiction over the merits of this appeal, those merits require little discussion. Substantially for the reasons given by the District Court in its memorandum decision, we conclude that the parties agreed that, prior to litigating in court, they had “to try in good faith to settle [any] dispute” through a particular mechanism — “formal arbitration under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce” — and that this condition has not been met. Thus we need not disturb the District Court’s ruling other than to vacate its order of dismissal and remand for entry of a stay.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, insofar as it dismissed this action, and the cause is REMANDED for the entry of an order STAYING the proceedings.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02703]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project 3409-000]


Boyne USA, Inc.; Notice of Authorization for Continued Project 
Operation

    On January 31, 2020, Boyne USA, Inc, licensee for the Boyne River 
Hydroelectric Project No. 3409, filed an Application for a Subsequent 
Minor License for Boyne River Hydroelectric Project pursuant to the 
Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder. 
The Boyne River Hydroelectric Project is located on the Boyne River in 
Boyne Valley Township, Charlevoix County, Michigan.
    The license for Project No. 3409 was issued for a period ending 
January 31, 2022. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), 
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue 
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the 
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is 
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior 
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based 
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), 
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project 
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may 
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license 
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee 
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent 
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to 
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a 
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 3409 is issued to 
Boyne USA, Inc, for a period effective February 1, 2022 through January 
30, 2023 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or 
other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of 
a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before 
January 30, 2023, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 
16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is 
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the 
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that Boyne USA, Inc, is authorized to continue operation 
of the Boyne River Hydroelectric Project, until such time as the 
Commission acts on its application for a subsequent minor license.

    Dated: February 3, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02703 Filed 2-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Presidential Documents

6759 

Federal Register 

Vol. 87, No. 25 

Monday, February 7, 2022 

Title 3— 

The President 

Presidential Determination No. 2022–09 of February 1, 2022 

Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U.S.C. 2601(c)(1)) (MRAA), 

I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the MRAA, that it is 

important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the MRAA 

in an amount not to exceed $1.2 billion from the United States Emergency 

Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected urgent refugee and migration needs to support Operation Allies Welcome and related efforts by the Department of State, including additional 

relocations of individuals at risk as a result of the situation in Afghanistan 

and related expenses. Such assistance may be provided on a bilateral or 

multilateral basis as appropriate, including through contributions to international organizations and through funding to other nongovernmental organizations, governments, and United States Government agencies. 

You are authorized and directed to submit this determination to the Congress, 

along with the accompanying Justification, and to publish this determination 

in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, February 1, 2022 

[FR Doc. 2022–02626 

Filed 2–4–22; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PREZ DOCBIDEN.EPS</GPH>
#### Teresa ROY, aka Teresa Renee Roy Ford-Roy, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The State of CALIFORNIA, as an individual; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56113

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 24, 2017

Teresa Roy, Pro Se

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Teresa Roy, a.k.a. Teresa Renee Roy Ford-Roy, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims against the State of California, the County of Los Angeles, and the U.S. Social Security Administration, among other defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 *561U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim. *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We vacate and remand.

Although the district court properly dismissed Roy’s complaint because it failed to state a claim for relief, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because it is not clear that amendment would be futile. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review); *Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr.,*66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect ... a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”). For example, although Roy failed to allege facts sufficient to state claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and wrongful conviction, Roy may be able to state one or more of those claims by alleging that her criminal conviction was dismissed and expunged.

On remand, the district court shall permit Roy to include in her amended complaint allegations and supporting documents pertaining to the alleged dismissal and expungement of her criminal conviction.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY, Appellant, v. Tim PARKER, Property Appraiser of Putnam County and Linda Myers, Tax Collector of Putnam County, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-93

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 26, 2017 Rehearing Denied January 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Current as of November 2020

Learn more at www.nationalguard.mil

Point of Contact: NGB Public Affairs at (703) 601-6767

Direct descendant of the militias of the 13 English colonies; oldest component of 

the U.S. military, with units dating back to 1636 

Fought in every American war since its ancestor's founding in 1636 to present combat 

in the Middle East 

Mobilized more than 660,000 soldiers for federal missions since Sept. 11, 2001 

In its state role, a key player in homeland defense and disaster relief; within two weeks 

of Hurricane Katrina’s landfall, more than 42,000 Army National Guard troops from 

across the country were deployed to the Gulf Coast for relief operations. Responses to 

the COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters and civil unrest in 2020 saw record 

numbers of Army Guard personnel serve their communities in unprecedented ways.

According to the U.S. Constitution and later 

laws, the National Guard operates as both a 

state and federal force, under control of the 

governor unless called to active service by the 

President

Provided 18 combat divisions to the American 

Expeditionary Forces in World War I and 19 

infantry divisions that served in either the 

European or Asia-Pacific Theatre in World War 

II

At one point in 2005, Army National Guard 

brigades made up more than 50% of U.S. Army 

combat brigades in Iraq, the Army Guard’s 

largest combat role since World War II 

Always Ready, Always There

Salem 1636

New York 1776

South Carolina 1863

France 1918

Pentagon 2001

Iraq 2005

Katrina 2005

Army National Guard History
Charles HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-280

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 19, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*