alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    (Exhibit 23)


                        Accountants' Consent and Report
                        -------------------------------
                       on Financial Statement Schedules
                       --------------------------------


The Board of Directors
Americold Corporation:


The audits referred to in our report dated May 26, 1995, except for Notes 15 and
16 which are as of June 30, 1995, included the related financial statement 
schedule as of the last day of February 1995, and for each of the years in the 
three-year period ended the last day of February 1995, included in the 
Registration Statement.  This financial statement schedule is the responsibility
of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on 
this financial statement schedule based on our audits.  In our opinion, such 
financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic 
consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all 
material respects the information set forth therein.

We consent to the use of our reports included herein and to the reference to our
firm under the headings "Experts" and "Selected Consolidated Financial and Other
Information" in the Prospectus.  Our report refers to changes in accounting for 
income taxes and postretirement benefits other than pensions.

                                       /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Portland, Oregon
    
March 8, 1996
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                   
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


   As Independent Public Accountants we hereby consent to the use of our reports
(and to the reference to our Firm) included or incorporated by reference in this
amendment to the registration statement.


                                       ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


New Orleans, Louisiana
September 2, 1997
fi : ~u..t~m----1-,J,~, ~1*&5!l, m~r~. ~~nu-

~. a~. 

IMU:iiBIBHIJf.l 

~JID.ra~, iiJJ.~U©:=f'l'b~~MU~ml©MU. 

fi: b~m!©MUIM I~~.~~~­

U1tU!il©MUIM, Hll~~, ill~. 

ii~Hl'bftMarnll~Jl'b--.C I rA~~i'i]ff~~n~IMU~lEmifF. 

WWW.DJ I.COM 
5800 EVO Usage Notes 

Remount Propellers 

Please use screws M3.0x8(2pcs) and washers 

(4pcs)to remount propellers. fix the screws with 

4Kg.cm(0.4N.m) torque, the thread locker is 

necessary. 

v v 

Tip, You can refer to the original tensions of 

other screws if you are not familiar with torque 

measurement. 

~ 

; ~ 

==~~~~ 

Note: Loose screws are not easy for thread 

locker to dry and solidify. 

Propellers Shoot Precautions 

Tips: It is recommended to make tokens on the screws and propeller covers, which will help you to check 

whether the propellers are loose. Check the tokens before every flight. 

Propeller Holder Usage 

l. Attach the Blade Holder to the Frame. 2. Fix the blade to the Blade Holder 

IMU Mount Usage 

Fix the IM U module on IM U Mount. aiming et achieving smoother flight experience.Tips, 

1. Choose the IMU Mount if required, which will decline the aircraft maneuverability during flying. 

2. It is necessary to reduce the value of basic gain appropriately when the lt-iU t-iount is used. 

3. Make sure the batteries are firm mounted, otherwise, it will impede the normal work of IMU. 

Mount and Check Vibration Dampers 

Mount vibration dampers strictly as follow pictures to achieve wel I damping effect and easy assembly. Check 

them as much es possible. 

e2013 DJI lnnov1tion1. All Rights Resarvad. WWW.DJ I.COM
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William A. WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6741

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 9, 2018

Decided: January 22, 2018

William A, White, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Day Rottenborn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William A. White appeals the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error, Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. White,*No. 7:13-cr-00013-GEC-1, 2016 WL 3570661 (W.D. Va. Jun. 27,2016 & Apr. 28, 2017). We also deny White’s motion to correct a clerical error. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in *192the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,421
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           830
<OTHER-SE>                                    (55,251)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,421
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
Voter Registration

Total Polling Locations:

Election Day:7 320 

Early Voting:8 81 

Mail Ballots Transmitted10 Mail Ballots Returned11

1,699,070 1,505,791 (88.6% of 

transmitted) 

Mail Ballots Counted12 Mail Ballots Rejected13

1,502,852 (99.8% of 

returned)

2,939 (0.2% of 

returned) 

Mail Voting Policies 

No excuse is required for mail voting14

Does not conduct all-mail elections15

No permanent absentee voting list16

EAVS Jurisdictions

24 

Total Registered Voters as of 

Nov. 3, 20201

4,298,942 

 

Registration Forms Received2*

3,511,883 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3*

238,027 

2020 EAVS Data Brief: Maryland



2.2%

2.6%

2.8%

35.8%

56.5%

In-Person

Other

Mail, Email, Fax

Online

Motor Vehicle Dept.

Source of Registration Applications4

 Voter Turnout  Election Technology

In-Person 

Election 

Day Voters 

439,094

14.4%

Mail Voters 

1,502,852

49.1%

In-Person 

Early Voters 

987,373

32.3%

Other Mode 

130,284

4.3%

Voters Participating By Mode5

24 24 24

0 0 0

Ballot

Marking

Device

Scanner Electronic

Poll

Books

DRE w/o

VVPAT

DRE with

VVPAT

Hand

Count

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9

 Mail Balloting

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov. 

The data shown are certified as final by state election authoritie

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available, ” and “Valid

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

s. 

* Close of registration for 2018 

general election to close of 

registration for 2020 general 

election. 

1 A1a of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a. InPerson is A4b. Online is A4c. 

Motor Vehicle Dept. is A4d. 

Other is the sum of A4e–A4l. 

Denominator is A3a. 

5 In-Person Election Day Voters 

is F1b. Mail Voters is F1d+F1g. 

In-Person Early Voters is F1f. 

Other Mode is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Denominator is sum of F1b–

F1h. 

6 F1a of EAVS. Denominator 

is citizen voting age 

population (CVAP). 

7 D3a of EAVS. 

8 D4a of EAVS. 

9 F3a–d, F5a, F6a, F7a, F8a, 

and F11a of EAVS. 

10 C1a of EAVS. 

11 C1b of EAVS. 

12 C3a of EAVS. 

13 C4a of EAVS. 

14Q17 of Policy Survey. 

15 Q18 and Q18a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

Turnout 

70.9%

6
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATE SCHEDULE CONTAINES SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE YORK GROUP, INC. 1997 THIRD QUARTER REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          24,958
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,069
<INVENTORY>                                     32,375
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,757
<PP&E>                                          56,598
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,951
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 128,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,715
<BONDS>                                         25,935
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            90
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,526
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   128,907
<SALES>                                        131,575
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               131,575
<CGS>                                           96,050
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,810
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    43
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,326
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,372
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,954
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,954
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01
        

</TABLE>
### Page 1 of 2 May 9, 2012 

### Follow-up Information on CF4 Abatement DRE Testing 5-9-2012

1. SIA to provide a list of CF4 DRE trials that ope rated outside of manufacturer’s recommendations to inform the proposal technical su pport. The table below lists the tests performed at one fa cility in 2011, of which 15 of the 20 tests did not meet the manufacturer’s expected DRE. The compl ete table of data was provided to EPA in the file “Etch DRE with flow data.xls”. Discussions with the abatement system manufacturer have indicated that where the inlet flow volume exceeds 250 lpm (8 or the 15 tests in the ta ble below) or the outlet flow volume exceeds 1100 lpm (4 of the 15 tests in the table below) the system was operating outside the manufacturer’s recommendations. Considering both p arameters, this is the case for 10 of the 15 systems. For the other 5 systems, other factors caused the l ow DREs. The SIA submittal to EPA “120329SIA EPA Abatement Answers final.doc” stated: “ After a full assessment of the results of the abatement testing, it was determined that modif ications were required in the maintenance procedures to validate that the fuel, O2, and combu stion air flows and/or pressure settings were in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommended r equirements. Maintenance checklists and the training for technicians servicing the units ha ve been improved to more clearly define set-up requirements that apply at the completion of initia l system installation and to the regular maintenance checks.” It is believed the other five units had low DREs be cause one or more of the referenced flow and pressure settings were oper ating outside of the manufacturer’s recommended ranges.
Abatement Unit CF4 DRE Measurements Below Manufactu rer’s Expected DRE Value

System ID Comments Abatement System Install Date Test Date

(2012) Volume In

(lpm) Volume Out

(lpm) Dilution

Factor Measured

DRE (%) L 12-May-10 19-Sep 242.100 741.900 3.06 76.1 D 6-Oct-04 2-Aug 97.100 882.200 9.08 68.0 M Retest 3-Jul-07 8-Sep 178.000 1124.000 6.32 67.3 A 14-Mar-07 13-Apr 272.010 944.280 3.47 49.0 A Retest 14-Mar-07 15-Sep 182.900 658.500 3.60 47.3 O 13-Sep-04 7-Sep 218.400 853.800 3.91 42.5 M 3-Jul-07 28-Apr 182.619 1156.575 6.33 39.7

F Area Abatement Main and Backup Scrubber for F, E, and R 4-Nov-02 15-Sep 321.300 875.100 2.72 38.2

E Area Abatement Main and Backup Scrubber for F, E, and R 4-Nov-02 15-Sep 306.700 845.100 2.76 31.0

I Area Abatement Main and

Backup Scrubber for I, J and S 18-Mar-03 18-Aug 339.200 802.800 2.37 28.7

### Page 2 of 2 May 9, 2012

J Area Abatement Main and

Backup Scrubber for I, J and S 18-Mar-03 18-Aug 305.900 896.100 2.94 15.0

Q 15-Jan-08 22-Sep 206.300 919.100 4.45 4.1 B 28-Mar-07 21-Apr 375.018 1012.183 2.70 0.0

G Area Abatement Main and

Backup Scrubber for G, H and T 17-Jul-03 25-Aug 298.900 1171.600 3.92 0.0

H Area Abatement Main and

Backup Scrubber for G, H and T 17-Jul-03 25-Aug 298.600 1216.700 4.07 0.0



### Highlighted values indicate inlet and outlet flows to the abatement units that do not meet the manufacturer’s recommended flow levels and which ha d DREs below the manufacturer’s expected DRE value.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9753-9754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5245]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

February 25, 1997
    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has 
submitted the following public information collection requests (ICRs) 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in 
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of these individual ICRs, with applicable 
supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation 
for National and Community Service Deputy Director, AmeriCorps Leaders 
Program, Julie Catlett, (202) 606-5000, Extension 164.
    Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and 
Community Service, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 
Washington, D.C. 20503. (202) 395-7316, within 30 days from the date of 
this publication in the Federal Register.
    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
    * Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary

[[Page 9754]]

for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    * Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    * Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and
    * Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who 
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submissions of responses.
    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.
    Title: AmeriCorps Leaders Program Site Application.
    OMB Number: 3045-0007
    Affected Public: Not-for-Profit Institutions
    Number of Respondents: 150.
    Estimated Time Per Respondent: 3 Hours.
    Total Burden Hours: 450.
    Total Annualized capital/startup costs: $6,800.
    Total Annual Cost (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing 
services): $150.
    Description: The Corporation for National and Community Service 
proposes to revise the AmeriCorps Leaders Program Leader Application 
and Reference Forms and its AmeriCorps Leaders Program Site Application 
in order to reduce duplication of information gathering.

    Dated: February 25, 1997.
Meri C. Ames,
Director, AmeriCorps Leaders Program.
[FR Doc. 97-5245 Filed 3-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
<PAGE>

                                                                         Page 41


                                  EXHIBIT 21

                                 SUBSIDIARIES

                              CROWELL & CO., INC.


   Budget Storage Warehouse, Inc., a Georgia Corporation

   Ivey Homes, Inc., a Georgia Corporation

   Keystone Homes, Inc., a Georgia Corporation
#### STATE v. HUNT

20170824

Supreme Court of Utah.

12-06-2017

20160963

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied.
No. 11-1489.

#### O’Brien *v.*Kirley et al.

Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.
|    |                                                                                                                                                 |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. for the fiscal year end December 31, 2018; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                |
|----------------|
|                |  |
| April 30, 2019 | /s/ Kenneth M. Young |
|           | Kenneth M. Young |
|           | President and Chief Executive Officer |
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

1225 New York Ave. NW – Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005

EAC Statement Regarding Partisan Political 

Activities by Voting Machine Manufacturers and Testing Labs 

and their Employees 

For Immediate Release Contact: Jeannie Layson 

January 11, 2007 Bryan Whitener 

 (202) 566-3100 

Federally accredited test laboratories and certified voting machine systems play an 

important role in our nation’s elections and public confidence in those elections. In the 

interests of maintaining public trust in the integrity and fairness of the election process, 

the U.S. Election Assistance Commission strongly encourages testing laboratories and 

voting equipment manufacturers to adopt policies that prohibit the organization and its 

employees from engaging in activities that may create the appearance of a conflict of 

interest or partisan bias. 

The EAC strongly urges participants in our Voting System Testing and Certification 

Program to create strict ethics policies to prohibit activities that would create even the 

appearance of impropriety. We have a mutual responsibility to strengthen our nation’s 

election process and Americans’ trust in it. 

Under EAC’s new Voting System Testing and Certification Program, which became 

effective January 1, 2007, voting system manufacturers and testing laboratories must 

undergo a rigorous application process and meet specific criteria to earn federal 

certification or accreditation. Under the new program, approval or accreditation, if 

granted, carries a significant responsibility as the public places its trust in these 

organizations and their employees. 

# # #
# Official Journal C 185A/30 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 185A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6130 May 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 185A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6130 May 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Council |
| 2018/C 185 A/01 | Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/141/18 | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Council

2018/C 185 A/01

Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/141/18

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 16

- 00386

- CV

C.H., Appellant

V

.

S.L., Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 360th District Court

of Tarrant County (360

- 578634

- 15)

October 11 , 2018

Opinion by Justice Pittman

JUDGM ENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mark T. Pittman

______ ___________ Justice Mark T. Pittman
#### COM. v. WALKER, J.

1425 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/18/2017

CP-25-CR-0000691-2015 (Erie)

Affirmed
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20751

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DEXTER BERNARD GREEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-H-95-273-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 02, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dexter Bernard Green appeals from his conviction of being a

convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Green contends that

the district court erred by allowing Kenneth Satterwhite to

testify that Green and his confederates were planning a robbery. 

He argues that Satterwhite’s testimony related to an extrinsic

offense that was inadmissible under FED. R. EVID. 404(b); that the

prejudicial effect of the testimony outweighed the probative

nature of the testimony; and that the limiting instruction did 
No. 96-20751

-2-

not cure the prejudice caused by the admission of the testimony.

Satterwhite’s testimony was intrinsic to Green’s possession

of a firearm. United States v. Coleman, 78 F.3d 154, 156 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 230 (1996). The prejudicial

effect of Satterwhite’s testimony did not substantially outweigh

the probative nature of the testimony. FED. R. EVID. 403.

AFFIRMED.