alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 333-11894) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan (F) and the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan, Qualified Stock Option PlanUS Employees (F), the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 333-13268) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan (F), as amended, and the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan, Qualified Stock Option PlanUS Employees (F), on Form S-8 (File Number 333-105473) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan (F) and the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key Employee Option Plan, Qualified Stock Option PlanUS Employees (F)and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 333-13378) pertaining to the AudioCodes Ltd. 2001 Employee Stock Purchase PlanGlobal Non-U.S. and the AudioCodes Ltd. 2001 U.S. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of our report dated January 25, 2004 with respect to the Consolidated Financial Statements of AudioCodes Ltd., included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2003 filed with Securities and Exchange Commission.









Tel - Aviv, Israel

June 29 2004



KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER

A Member of Ernst & Young Global
#### Hawkins *vs.*Embry.

May 26.

Érrorío the Madison Circuit; Geo. Shannon, Judge.

*Evidence. Answer. Suppletory and Coroboraiive Proofs.*

Chancerx Case 80.

Bill for injunction to a judgment at' law.

Where the ■ answer flatly denies the allegations of the bill, the complainant must support his case liy two witnesses, or one with corroborating circumstances. See Ante.

Judge Owseev

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This writ of error is prosecuted *to*reverse a decree, pronounced by,the court below, giving to Embry, who was complainant, relief against a judgment recovesmd against him at law by Hawkins.

It is unnecessary to inquire what should Stave been the decree, of the court, if the facts alleged in the bill of Embry bad been made out by sufficient evidence to authorize the interposition of a court of equity, in as much as the allegations of the bill are flatly denied by the answer of Hawkins, and there is but one witness whose evidence conduces to prove any thing inconsistent with the answer, though there are others whose testimony corroborates the statements of the answer.

Under such a state of evidence, it would be incompatible with the established principles by which courts of equity are governed, to decree relief. No *226rule of chancery practice is better settled, and none more frequently acted upon than that which forbids a decree in favor of the complainant upon a bill supported by a single witness only, and flatly denied bv the answer of the defendant.

Query — May complainant’,' answer *to*interrogatories put to iiim by defendant, in his answer in the nature of a cross bill, bo taken for ihe snpplotory or corroborating evidence with plaintiff’s single witness.

*Turner*for plaintiff j *Caperton*for defendant.

Aware of this’rule the counsel of Embry endeavoured, in argument, to evade its force by drawing in aid of the witness, statements made by Embry in his response to an answer filed in this case by Hawkins, and which, in the nature of across bill, Embry was required to answer. But were the statements of Embry, so far as they are responsive to the allegations which he was called upon by Hawkins to answer, admitted to be true, still we should entertain the opinion that relief ought not to be decreed. The material facts, upon which alone the court could be authorized to intex’pose its aid, would still rest upon the evidence of a single witness, and not even sufficiently corroborated, by the responsivo statements of Embry himself, to do away the force of Hawkins’ denial in his answer under the rule in chancery to which we have adverted.

The decree must, therefore, be reversed with cost, the cause remanded to the court below, and a decree there entered dismissing Embry’s bill with cost &c.
Exhibit 99.2


          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 quarterly report of Capital Preferred Yield Fund-IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2005, as filed with the Security and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Mary M. Ebele, Principal Financial Officer of CAI Equipment
Leasing V Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, 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; and

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


By:      /s/ Mary M. Ebele                             Dated:  November 14, 2005
         -----------------
         Mary M. Ebele
Title:   Principal Financial Officer


                                       19
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAIDITED CONSOLIDATED BALCANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30,1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 OF
CARIBINER INTERNATIONAL, INC. AS SET FORTH IN THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERNCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          20,447
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  134,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,263
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               210,867
<PP&E>                                         170,351
<DEPRECIATION>                                  77,017
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 735,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,187
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           236
<OTHER-SE>                                     186,950
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   735,693
<SALES>                                        512,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               512,725
<CGS>                                          351,666
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               113,432
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,963
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,229
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,501
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,229
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    605
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,123
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39
        


</TABLE>
#### Campbell v. Manderscheid.

1. Intoxicating Liquors : nuisance : attorney’s eees : statute retroactive. Although .this case for the abatement of a liquor nuisance was begun prior to the enactment of the law authorizing attorney’s fees to be taxed against defendants in such cases, yet, as it was tried after the enactment and taking effect of that law, attorney’s fees were properly taxed, under the doctrine of *Drake v.*Jordan, 73 Iowa, 707.

2. -:-:-: amount : review. In this case, an attorney’s fee of twenty-five dollars was taxed against defendant, and plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the amount, appeals. *Held*that, to justify interference by this court in such matter, a very clear showing of error would be necessary, which is not made in this case.

*Appeal from, Plymouth District Court.*— Hon. Scott M. Ladd, Judge.

Filed, September *5,*1888.

This and five other causes were, by agreement of counsel, submitted together. They all involve the same question, which is the amount of attorney’s fees proper to be taxed in certain actions for the abatement of liquor nuisances. The court fixed the fees at twenty-five dollars in each case: Plaintiffs, being dissatisfied with the allowance made, appeal to this court.

*709*Btruble, Rishel & Hart,*for appellants. •

*Argo & McDuffie,*for appellees.

Eotiirock, J.

1. intoxicating aJice: attor-s" statute reiroactive. That the plaintiffs are entitled to have attorney’s fees taxed in some amount must be conceded, under the rule of *Drake v. Jordan,*73 Iowa, 707, In this case, as in that, the suits were commenced before the statute authorizing attorney’s fees to be taxed in such cases was passed.

‘ —• amount: revi ‘ The question to be determined is whether the court erred in fixing the amount of the fees. It is claimed that, as these are equitable actions, this appeal is triable anew. But the appeals are not taken from the decrees. • They are mere appeals from orders taxing costs. Such orders, it is true, are based upon evidence as to the value of the legal services rendered; and the court, in fixing the amount, is allowed to use its judgment in the matter, in connection with the record made in the cases, and it would .require a very strong case to authorize this court to interfere with the amount fixed by the trial court. We see no reason for disturbing the findings of the district court.

Aeetemed.
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Lundin Mining Corporation (the "registrant") is filing its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report") with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

I, Philip J, Wright, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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 results of operations of the registrant.

Dated: March 31, 2009

/s/
Philip J. WrightPhilip J. Wright   
Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Lundin Mining Corporation and will be retained by Lundin Mining Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Lundin Mining Corporation (the "registrant") is filing its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report") with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

I, Ted C. Mayers, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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 results of operations of the registrant.

Dated: March 31, 2009

/s/
Ted C. Mayers
Ted C. Mayers 
Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Lundin Mining Corporation and will be retained by Lundin Mining Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

               Written Statement of President and Chief Executive Officer
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
                                     1350)

         The undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Office of the
Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the "Authority"), hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge, on the date hereof:

          (a)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Authority for the
               Quarter Ended June 30, 2001 filed on the date hereof with the
               Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies
               with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
               Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                           /s/ William J. Velardo
                                           ---------------------------------
                                           William J. Velardo
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           November 12, 2002

                                       44
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6918 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from restricting 

funding for pregnancy centers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2024 

Mrs. FISCHBACH (for herself, Ms. TENNEY, and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

from restricting funding for pregnancy centers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting Pregnant 

5 and Parenting Women and Families Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PREG7 NANCY CENTERS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

9 Human Services may not finalize, implement, or enforce, 

10 with respect to expenditures for any pregnancy center, the 

2 

•HR 6918 IH

1 modification to section 263.11 of title 45, Code of Federal 

2 Regulations, as described in the proposed regulation set 

3 forth at page 67697 of volume 88 of the Federal Register, 

4 or any substantially similar regulatory action. 

5 (b) DEFINITION OF PREGNANCY CENTER.—In sub6 section (a), the term ‘‘pregnancy center’’ means any orga7 nization, such as a pregnancy resource center, pregnancy 

8 help center or organization, or pregnancy medical center, 

9 that— 

10 (1) supports protecting the life of the mother 

11 and the unborn child; and 

12 (2) offers resources and services to mothers, fa13 thers, and families, including but not limited to rela14 tionship counseling, prenatal and pregnancy edu15 cation, pregnancy testing, diapers, baby clothes, or 

16 material supports. 

Æ
IB 

Union Calendar No. 684 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6547 

[Report No. 118–839] 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from implementing the Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Colorado River Valley Field Office and Grand Junction 

Field Office Resource Management Plans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2023 

Ms. BOEBERT (for herself, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. OGLES, and Mr. NEHLS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 

Resources 

DECEMBER 10, 2024 

Additional sponsor: Mr. NEWHOUSE

DECEMBER 10, 2024 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on December 1, 2023] 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6547 RH

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from implementing 

the Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Colorado River Valley Field Office and Grand Junction Field 

Office Resource Management Plans. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6547 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Colorado Energy Pros5 perity Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED 

7 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL 

8 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

9 STATEMENT. 

10 The Secretary of the Interior shall not implement, ad11 minister, or enforce the Proposed Resource Management 

12 Plan and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

13 Statement referred to in the notice of availability titled 

14 ‘‘Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Manage15 ment Plan and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

16 Statement for the Colorado River Valley Field Office and 

17 Grand Junction Field Office Resource Management Plans, 

18 Colorado’’ published by the Bureau of Land Management 

19 on June 21, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 52082). 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Union Calendar No. 684 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6547 

[Report No. 118–839] 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from imsource Management Plans. Field Office and Grand Junction Field Office Re- pact Statement for the Colorado River Valley Plan and Draft Supplemental Environmental Im- plementing the Draft Resource Management 

DECEMBER 10, 2024 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Summary of Executive Compensation



 Exhibit 10.22 
 Summary of Executive Officer Compensation 
 The following executive
officers of ABIOMED, Inc. are at will employees of ABIOMED, Inc. and have not entered into a formal employment agreement with ABIOMED, Inc. The current understanding between each employee and ABIOMED, Inc. with respect to the employee’s
compensation is as follows: 
  

									
	 Name
	  	Base Salary	 	  	Target
Fiscal
2013
Bonus
(Percentage
of Salary)	 
	 William J. Bolt
	  	$	277,655	  	  	 	55	%
	 Andrew J. Greenfield
	  	$	244,149	  	  	 	50	%
	 Michael G. Howley
	  	$	278,409	  	  	 	60	%

 These officers are also eligible to receive grants of stock options and other awards at the discretion of
ABIOMED’s Compensation Committee. 
 We have an employment agreement with our Chief Executive Officer, Michael R. Minogue,
which sets forth the terms of his employment. Mr. Minogue’s current salary is $506,927 and his target bonus for fiscal 2013 is 120% of salary. We have an offer letter with our Chief Financial Officer, Robert L. Bowen, which sets forth the
terms of his employment. Mr. Bowen’s current salary is $310,767 and his target bonus for fiscal 2013 is 50% of salary. We also have an offer letter with our Chief Operating Officer, David M. Weber, which sets forth the terms of his
employment. Mr. Weber’s current salary is $333,506 and his target bonus for fiscal 2013 is 65% of salary.
#### Tracey Terrell GRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lisa R. HALL, ALJ Judge, Disability Hearing Law Judge Office of the Disability Adjudication and Review, Raleigh, NC; Michael Sharpe, Dr., Pitt *829Memorial Hospital Staff; Julie Sawyer Little, Vocational Expert; Prisoner Legal Services, Attorney Sarah J. Farber and Staff, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7061

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Tracey Terrell Grady, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tracey Terrell Grady appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Grady v. Hall, No. 5:16-ct-03026-FL (E.D.N.C. July 28, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0001005407
<NAME> CHIREX INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,468
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,016
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     23,085
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,619
<PP&E>                                          69,801
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,086
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,216
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,608
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           110
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,636
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,216
<SALES>                                         26,284
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,506
<CGS>                                           20,591
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,363
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,009
<INCOME-TAX>                                       811
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,198
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,198
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        

</TABLE>