alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the inclusion in this Form 10-K of our report dated January 30,
1998, except for Note W as to which the date is February 9, 1998, on the
consolidated balance sheets of CFX Corporation and subsidiaries as of December
31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of income,
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1997.




                                                 /s/ Wolf & Company, P.C.


Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000883476
<NAME> CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,662
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              76
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                89,075
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     11,457
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          13,954
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            15,536
<LOANS>                                         76,814
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,088
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 206,207
<DEPOSITS>                                     122,268
<SHORT-TERM>                                    51,543
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,669
<LONG-TERM>                                      4,050
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,785
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 206,207
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,819
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  522
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    44
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,419
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,319
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,591
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,827
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      235
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                101,163
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     101,163
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    68,241
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.82
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       803
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,460
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   865
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       13
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,088
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,017
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             71


</TABLE>
EX PARTE Xavier Lamon WATSON

1160296 (CR-15-0540)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
EX PARTE William Lawrence CROSBY

1160180 (CR-16-0019)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Cert. denied.
No. 85-6721.

#### Toney-El *v.*Lane, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.28
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS, INC. 
 
2019 MANAGEMENT BONUS PROGRAM 


On January 24, 2019, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) approved the Company’s 2019 corporate objectives, weighted for purposes of determining bonuses, if any, for the Company’s executive officers with respect to performance for fiscal year 2019 (the “2019 Bonus Program”). 
The 2019 Bonus Program is designed to reward, through the payment of annual cash bonuses, the Company’s executive officers for the Company’s performance in meeting key corporate objectives and for individual performance in meeting specified corporate goals for the year. 
The Company’s 2019 corporate goals include (i) achievement of specified milestones and activities relating to the Company’s contemplated filing of a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (50% weighting), (ii) achievement of specified milestones relating to the Company’s clinical development programs (20% weighting), (iii) achievement of certain commercial readiness milestones (20% weighting), and (iv) completion of certain biosimilar development activities (10% weighting), as well as (v) the stretch goal of achieving specified financial milestones (up to 15% weighting).
The cash bonus for L. Daniel Browne will be based on the achievement of the 2019 corporate goals (100% weighting). The cash bonus for the other executive officers will be based on the achievement of the 2019 corporate goals (75% weighting) and his or her individual performance goals (25% weighting). The executive officers’ actual bonuses for fiscal year 2019 may exceed 100% of his or her 2019 target bonus percentage in the event performance exceeds the predetermined goals and/or upon the achievement of other specified goals, including stretch goals. 
Payment of bonuses to the Company’s executive officers under the 2019 Bonus Program and the actual amount of such bonus, if any, are within the discretion of the Compensation Committee. The actual bonus awarded, if any, may be more or less than each executive’s annual target bonus.
Jessica N. CARDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-892

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Janice Edwards KNECHT, Appellant, v. Michael Carrington KNECHT, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2297

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Willie FLOYD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4667

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### David Braun et al., Respondents, v Village of New Square, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[770 NYS2d 743]

In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the defendant Village of New Square appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated January 13, 2003, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellant is granted, the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellant is dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The plaintiffs’ property allegedly was damaged by flooding which was caused by a defective drainage system on the street where the property is located. They subsequently commenced this action against the defendant Village of New Square and another defendant to recover for the damage to their property. The Village moved, among other things, for summary judgment *514dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that it did not have prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition as required by its local law and Village Law § 6-628 as a condition precedent to suit.

The Village demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it did not receive prior written notice of the allegedly defective drainage system. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, actual notice of the condition did not satisfy the prior written notice requirement (see *Berner v Town of Huntington,*304 AD2d 513 [2003]; *Anderson v Town of Smithtown,*292 AD2d 406 [2002]; *Harvey v Monteforte,*292 AD2d 420 [2002]). As the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the Village’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT PHILLIP MOUNT, DOC #H27909, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2467 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed June 6, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Neil A. Roddenbery, Judge. Joseph A. Caimano, Tampa, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kiersten E. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.


### SILBERMAN, KELLY, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Bambi E. BENNETT, Appellant, v. Jorge SANCHEZ, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2651

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 11, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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








In connection with the Annual Report of Salon Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Norman Blashka, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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


June 25, 2010

/s/ Norman BlashkaNorman BlashkaChief Financial Officer
Order entered October 23,2013

In The

Court of gppeate

$ tftfj ©tetrtct of Cexa* at ©allaa

No. 05-13-01196-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.H., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 93-2714-Y

ORDER

We DENY appellant'sSeptember 5, 2013 motion to abateor staythe appeal.

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/

KERRY P. FITZGERALD

JUSTICE
Michael J. DOUGHERTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3482

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 10, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr. the Chief Executive Officer of ReGen
Biologics, Inc. (the “Company”), has executed this certification in connection
with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2008
(the “Report”). The undersigned hereby certifies that:





(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Date: May
8, 2008





/s/ GERALD E. BISBEE, JRName:
            Gerald
      E. Bisbee, Jr.Title:
            President and Chief Executive
      Officer
Jarrod Marqui ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-378

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
particles out of the furnace and transportsthem pneumatically to a cyclone classifier systemto be collected. The air-suspended perlite particles are also cooled as they are transportedto the collectionequipment. The cyclone classifier system collects the expanded perlite, removes the excessive fines, and discharges gases to a baghouse or wet scrubber for air pollution control. The grades of expanded perlite produced can also be adjusted by changingthe heating cycle, altering the cutoffpoints for size collection, and blending various crude ore sizes. All processed products are graded for specific uses and are usually stored before being shipped. Most production rates are less 

### than 

### 2 tons/hr, and expansion furnace temperatures range fkom 

### 1600to 

### 1800 F. Natural gas is typically 

### used for fuel, althoughNo. 

### 2 fuel oil and propane are occasionallyused. 

### 2.0 GRIC Source Profile Four sourcescurrently located and operating on GRIC land comprise the nonmetallic minerals mining and processing source category. Those sources are: United Metro #41 United Metro 

### #48 

### = Rock Solid Thermo-Rock Inc. United Metro # 

### 41 This facility includes 

### a sand and gravel mining operation, two concrete batch plants, and a hot 

### mix asphalt plant. The facility is subjectto NSPS Subpart

### 000 (NonmetallicMineral Processing) and NSPS Subpart

### I (Hot 

### Mix Asphalt). Appendix A ofthis document includes site visit notes providing Met details on this facility as well as a generalizedprocess flow diagram. United Metro #48 This facility is another sand and gravel mining and processing operation with a concrete batch plant. United Metro No. 

### 48 does not operate a hot 

### mix asphalt plant. The facility is subject to NSPS Subpart 

### 000 (NonmetallicMineral Processing). Rock Solid Rock Solid is a concrete batch plant without associated mineral mining and processing stages. Aggregate and otherraw materials are delivered to the site and loaded to hoppers prior to weighing, mixing, and truck loading. Concrete is loaded to trucks in dry form and water 

### is added directlyto the concrete trucks on site prior to departure. Rock Solid plans to move and expand its operations on GRIC land. Thenno-Rock Inc. Thermo-Rock, Inc. is a vermiculate and perliteprocessing facility. Operations include vermiculite and perlite expansion furnaces, potting soil manufacture, and fite retardant

NMMProc TSD 6-14-02 Createdon 6118120029:39:00AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,473
<SECURITIES>                                    16,337
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,491
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,110
<INVENTORY>                                     11,453
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,777
<PP&E>                                           4,741
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,938
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,942
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,892
<SALES>                                         50,438
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,438
<CGS>                                           29,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,771
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   648
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 278
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,975)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,163)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,812)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (187)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,999)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)


</TABLE>
#### Darrell WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROWN, Nurse, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-16661

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Darrell Williams, Pro Se

Michael A, Terhorst, Attorney, Beeson Terhorst, LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

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 **

California state prisoner Darrell Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s sua sponte summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment sua sponte because Williams “had a full and fair opportunity to ventilate the issues involved in the matter” and Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his diabetes. *Norse v. City of Santa Cruz,*629 F.3d 966, 971-72 *&*n.2 (9th Cir. 2010)(en banc); *see also Jett v. Penner,*439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (if the harm is an isolated exception to the prisoner’s overall treatment, it “ ‘ordinarily militates against a finding of deliberate indifference’ ” (citation omitted)); *Toguchi,*391 F.3d at 1057, 1060 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice or negligence does not amount to deliberate indifference).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Catarino LOPEZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40191 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 5, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Catarino Lopez-Sanchez, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Catarino Lopez-Sanchez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lopez-Sanchez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Sherelle JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6380

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Ricky Sherelle Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Evan DePadilla, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Sherelle Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 demon*92strating 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 motion 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 Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a.certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### Larry Maurice WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6642

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 20, 2017

Decided: September 27, 2017

*254Larry Maurice White, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry Maurice White seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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 certifícate 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 White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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*