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

                                                                    Exhibit 23.5


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

  We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3) and related Prospectus of US Unwired Inc. for
the registration of 546,396 shares of US Unwired Inc.'s common stock and to the
incorporation by reference therein of our report dated May 2, 2000, with respect
to the financial statements of the Sprint Spectrum Albany, Syracuse and
Manchester Markets (wholly owned by Independent Wireless One Corporation since
their acquisition in 2000 from Sprint Spectrum L.P.) included in US Unwired
Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K dated April 1, 2002, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
April 1, 2002
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

A.E., a Child

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No s . 4D 20

- 1338 and 4D20

- 1339

[ April 14, 2021 ]

Consolidated a ppeal s from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael J. Orlando , Judge; L.T. Case

No s

. 17

- 002152 DLA and 19

- 002737 DLA

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for a ppellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez

Orosa, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

A.E. , a juvenile, appeals a finding that she violated her probation by failing to complete communit y service hours and an adjudication of delinquency for the new offense of possession of eutylone, a controlled substance. We affirm the adjudication of delinquency without further

discussion.

However, we reverse the finding of violation of probation for failure to complete community service hours because a finding of violation of probation may not be exclusively based on hearsay evidence. See J.B. v.

State , 84 So. 3d 401, 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) . Per the terms of A.E.’s probation, she was supposed to complete 75 community service hours by October 2018. At the violation of probation hearing, A.E.’s probation officer testified that she began supervising A.E. in January 2020. She

further tes tified that A.E. failed to comply with the conditions of her probation by failing to complete all 75 hours. The probation officer acknowledged, however, that she had no personal knowledge of any events prior to January 28, 2020, and that her testimony was based on her review2 of A.E.’s file. The file was not moved into evidence, and no further evidence was presented concerning the violation. The trial court found that A.E. violated her probation by failing to complete the community service hours,

among th ree other unchallenged grounds.

Because the violation of probation for failing to complete community

service hours was based e ntirely on hearsay evidence, we reverse that finding and remand “for the trial court to reconsider whether it would have imposed the same sentence if faced with only the supported violation[s].”

I

d

.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions

.

C IKLIN
, G ERBER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY UNAUDITED FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
NOVERM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,633
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,624
<ALLOWANCES>                                       153
<INVENTORY>                                      3,138
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,398
<PP&E>                                          21,318
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,907
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,967
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                2
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,689
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,903
<SALES>                                         22,861
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,030
<CGS>                                           10,069
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,242
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  29
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,981
<INCOME-TAX>                                        68
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,913
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,913
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14


</TABLE>
IA

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 132

Commending the veterans of service in the Army who fought in the Battle

of the Bulge during World War II, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 8, 1998

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

JOINT RESOLUTION

Commending the veterans of service in the Army who fought

in the Battle of the Bulge during World War II, and

for other purposes.

Whereas the battle in the European theater of operations

during World War II known as the Battle of the Bulge

took place from December 16, 1944 to January 25,

1945;

Whereas the Battle of the Bulge began on December 16,

1944, with a major German counteroffensive which took

Allied forces by surprise and was intended to split the Allied forces in Europe by breaking through the Allied

lines, crippling the Allied fuel supply lines, and exacerbate tensions within the Allied alliance;

Whereas 600,000 American troops participated in the Battle

of the Bulge, overcoming numerous disadvantages in the
2

•HJ 132 IH

early days of the battle that included fewer numbers,

treacherous terrain, and bitter weather conditions;

Whereas the Battle of the Bulge resulted in 81,000 American

casualties, of whom 19,000 were killed, 33,400 were

wounded, and 2,000 were either captured or listed as

missing in action;

Whereas the worst atrocity involving Americans in the European theater during World War II, known as the

Malme ́dy Massacre, occurred when 86 unarmed American

prisoners were gunned down by the German 1st SS Panzer Division on December 17, 1944;

Whereas American forces overcame great odds throughout

the battle, including most famously the action of the

101st Airborne Division in holding back German forces

at the Belgian town of Bastogne, thereby preventing German forces from achieving their main objective of reaching Antwerp as well as the Meuse River line; and

Whereas the American forces success in defeating the German attack resulted in the defeat of Nazi Germany four

months later in April 1945: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Congress—

4 (1) commends the veterans of service in the

5 Army who fought in the Battle of the Bulge during

6 World War II;

7 (2) honors those who gave their lives during

8 that battle; and
3

•HJ 132 IH

1 (3) authorizes the President to issue a procla2 mation calling upon the people of the United States

3 to honor the veterans of the Battle of the Bulge with

4 appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

Æ
DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY
2800 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-2800

aAar

3oT 97
MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY WORKFORCE
SUBJECT: FY23 Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy Statement

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) is committed to using Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures to encourage the effective resolution of workplace
disputes. DSCA's Talent Management (TM) Directorate manages the Agency's ADR program
in partnership with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and in accordance with DoD
Instruction 5145.05, "Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Conflict Management," dated
May 27, 2016.

ADR is a procedure used as an alternative to litigation to resolve issues in controversy,
such as complaints of discrimination, personal conflicts between employees and/or supervisors,
and organizational issues. The ADR program is designed to efficiently facilitate conflict
resolution at the earliest possible stage of the conflict and at the lowest possible level in a
confidential, respectful manner. Workplace issues should be addressed immediately before
morale and team work are adversely affected. Workplace issues may stem from myriad issues to
include simple miscommunications, performance management, or personality-based
misunderstandings.

Third party neutrals in ADR are experienced in techniques designed to facilitate
discussion and help participants achieve a mutually acceptable resolution. The services offered
by the ADR program include mediation, facilitation, and sensing sessions. Training on conflict
resolution is also available. To learn more about the ADR program, you may visit the Talent
Management (TM) Directorate SharePoint page at:
https://dsca.sp.pentagon.mil/DAM/TM/SitePages/A DR.aspx.

Ca. Pebunrh

James A. Hursch
Director
#### COM. v. Williams MOORE, D.

311 WDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/12/2017

CP-26-CR-0000760-2016 (Fayette)

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 Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Emerald Dairy Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Shu Kaneko, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary 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, 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 Date:  August
14, 2009
 
 By:
                  /s/ Shu
      KanekoName:
                  Shu
      KanekoTitle:
                  Chief
      Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
No. 11-10397.

#### Haymond *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Eddie WILLIAMS, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. YRC WORLDWIDE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-3122

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued February 20, 2018

Decided February 22, 2018

Lloyd P. Mullen, Attorney, Mullen & Associates, Crown Point, IN, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Thomas Frank Hurka, Attorney, Morgan, Lewis *&*Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee

Before Diane P. Wood, Chief Judge, Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge, Amy C. Barrett, Circuit Judge

Order

Eddie Williams, Jr.; Karl Harris; Thomas Jackson; and Derrick Rias are four of the fourteen plaintiffs in a suit (No. 14 C 8758) filed in the Northern District of Illinois. Three plaintiffs have settled with the defendant, and a magistrate judge (serving by agreement under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)) entered summary judgment against the four we have named. *McDade v. YRC Worldwide, Inc.,*2017 WL 4046345, 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 147813 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2017). The claims of the other seven plaintiffs are set for trial later this year.

Although the case remains pending in the district court, the four losing plaintiffs immediately appealed. They should not have done so. A judgment is final and appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 only if it “resolves *all*claims of *all*parties”. *Domanus v. Locke Lord LLP,*847 F.3d 469, 477 (7th Cir. 2017) (emphasis in original). This rule is of very long standing. See, e.g., *Meagher v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co.,*145 U.S. 608, 611, 12 S.Ct. 876, 36 L.Ed. 834 (1892); Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller *&*Mary Kay Kane, 10 *Federal Practice & Procedure*§ 2656 (3d ed. 2014). Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) allows a district court to enter a partial final judgment, none has been entered for these litigants.

There is a complication with a potential jurisdictional significance. The district court has consolidated Case No. 14 C 8758 with Case No. 14 C 1500, another employment-discrimination suit against YRC Worldwide. The summary-judgment order was entered on the docket in Case No. 14 C 1500, which our appellants identified as the decision being appealed. Consolidation potentially defers appealability until all claims by all litigants in all of the cases have been resolved. *Hall v. Hall,*No. 16-1150, now under advisement in the Supreme Court (it was argued on January 16, *5782018), may decide what kinds of consolidations require all consolidated cases to be resolved before the decision in any may be appealed. But we need not await the decision in *Hall.*It is enough to say that, in the absence of a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b), the fact that seven plaintiffs’ claims in Case No. 14 C 8758 remain to be decided by the district court prevents these four plaintiffs from appealing.

Once there is a final judgment, these four plaintiffs (if they again appeal) should notify the court whether they want to use the briefs already on file, which address the merits. Any follow-up appeal will be submitted to this panel for decision.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's ad hoc Committee on Elections hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.

# TIME AND DATE: 

April 8, 2022, from 2-3 p.m. EDT.

# PLACE: 

This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National Science Foundation.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Committee Chair's opening remarks; discussion of progress to build a slate of Nominees for NSB Chair and Vice Chair positions for the 2022-2024 term and next steps.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        Point of contact for this meeting is: Andrea Rambow,                         *arambow@nsf.gov,*                         703-292-7000. You may find meeting updates at                         *https://www.nsf.gov/​nsb/​meetings/​index.jsp#up.*

Chris Blair,

Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.

[FR Doc. 2022-07334 Filed 4-4-22; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Travis YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-15738 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(January 11, 2018)

R. Brian Tanner, Carlton R. Bourne, Jr., James D. Durham, E. Gregory Gilluly, Jr., Jennifer Kirkland, Brian T. Rafferty, Edward J. Tarver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Travis Young, Pro Se

Before JULIE CARNES, BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

George R. Asinc, appointed counsel for Travis Young in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Young’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
SERVED: APRIL 16, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

BELT MAKERS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0049 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

~- :·' f -'"; 

L.liJJ ; b [::_; ~~: L;. 0 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011 WP910400) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Michael L. Dworkin, Respondent's Counsel 

Michael L. Dworkin and Associates 

465 California Street, Suite 210 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

TEL: 415-421-2500 

FAX: 415-421-2560 

Lisa J. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, Western-Pacific Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7110 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0049 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,718
<SECURITIES>                                    20,056
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,053
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,444
<PP&E>                                          74,334
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 435,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,394
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                     214,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   435,507
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,351
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,666
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,610
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,537
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,663
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,271
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,392
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,392
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30


</TABLE>
<PAGE>



                                                    Exhibit 18
                                                    Form 10-Q
                                                    For the Three
                                                    Months Ended
                                                    December 31, 1998



                 Preferability Letter on Accounting Change from
                           PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Lucent Technologies Inc.
600 Mountain Avenue
Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974


We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 1998 pursuant to Item 601 of
Regulation S-K.

We have read management's justification for the change in method for determining
the annual expected return on plan assets of the Company's pension and
postretirement plans contained in the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 1998. Based on our reading of the data and discussions
with Company officials of business judgment and business planning factors
relating to the change, we believe management's justification to be reasonable.
Accordingly, we concur that the newly adopted accounting principle described
above is preferable in the Company's circumstances to the method previously
applied.

We have not audited any financial statements of Lucent Technologies Inc. as of
any date or for any period subsequent to September 30, 1998 nor have we audited
the application of the change in accounting principle disclosed in Form 10-Q of
Lucent Technologies Inc. for the quarterly period ended December 31, 1998;
accordingly, our comments are subject to revision on completion of an audit of
the consolidated financial statements that include the accounting change.


                                PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP