alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-08517) of Drilex International Inc. of our report dated
February 11, 1997, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Drilex
International Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996.
 
Deloitte & Touche LLP
 
Houston, Texas
March 28, 1997
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5596]


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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 Consortium for Plasma Science, LLC

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 5, 1997, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Consortium for Plasma 
Science, LLC has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objective of the 
venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the 
Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) 
of the Act, the identities of the parties are Alpha Therapeutic 
Corporation, Los Angeles, CA; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, 
IL; Bayer Corporation, West Haven CN; Centeon L.L.C., King of Prussia, 
PA; and NABI, Boca Raton, CA. The general area of planned activity is 
to develop, promote and conduct research and development to address 
improvements in safety in blood plasma and blood plasma products.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 97-5596 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
# C_2021148EN.01002201.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/22

---

Action brought on 16 February 2021 — Synesis v Council

(Case T-97/21)

(2021/C 148/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Synesis OOO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/2130 of 17 December 2020 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2020 L 426 I, p. 14) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2129 of 17 December 2020 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2020 L 426 I, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/2130 of 17 December 2020 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2020 L 426 I, p. 14) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2129 of 17 December 2020 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2020 L 426 I, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant;

| — | pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the argument that the contested measures are unlawful in so far as they concern the applicant, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and in particular infringed its examination obligations. In the applicant’s view, the Council failed to provide any concrete evidence to justify the validity of the applicant’s inclusion on the list in the contested measures.

---
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 11, 2009
p0831 

# Order

September 11, 2009

138309

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138309 COA: 286037 Genesee CC: 03-011682-FC DANIEL HNATIUK, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 30, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration statement
of Southwest Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports, which
include an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company's change as of January 1,
1994 in accounting for securities, dated January 31, 1997, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Southwest
Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995,
and for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995, and 1994, which reports are
included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 1996.



                                        COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.



Houston, Texas
May 27, 1997
No. 11-10242.

#### Watkins *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 9th Dist. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10261-10262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5486]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-178-001]


Kern River Gas Transmission Co.; Notice of Compliance Filing

February 28, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 25, 1997, Kern River Gas Transmission 
(Kern River) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective 
April 6, 1997:

First Revised Sheet Nos. 71-2
Original Sheet No. 72-A
First Revised Sheet No. 502
First Revised Sheet No. 602
First Revised Sheet No. 703
First Revised Sheet Nos. 804-805

    Kern River states that the purpose of this filing is to propose an 
early

[[Page 10262]]

implementation date for standard 1.3.1 of the standards that were 
promoted by the Gas Industry Standard Board (GISB) and adopted by the 
Commission in Order No. 587 on July 17, 1996 in Docket No. RM96-1-000.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5486 Filed 3-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH DISTRICT, AT EL PASO

No. 08-20-00181-CV

In the Interest of J. A. V., a Child

v.

(No. 2019DCM5797 IN 65TH DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY)

Type of Fee Charges Paid By

SUPPLEMENTAL 

REPORTER'S 

RECORD

CLERK'S RECORD

REPORTER'S 

RECORD

FILING

FILING

$93.75

$222.00

$948.75

$205.00

$205.00

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

EL PASO COUNTY

EL PASO COUNTY

N/A

N/A

Balance of costs owing to the Eighth Court of Appeals, El Paso, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, ELIZABETH G. FLORES, CLERK OF THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS OF 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and 

correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH 

DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and 

styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand 

and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Eighth District of Texas, this April 23, 2021.

Elizabeth G. Flores, Clerk

FILE COPY
Abatement Order filed, December 13, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00769-CR

____________

CURTIS JAMES PRITCHARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1804094

ABATEMENT ORDER

This is an appeal from a conviction for assault on a family member after a 

jury trial. On July 17, 2012, appellant was sentenced to one year in the Harris 

County Jail. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and the trial court appointed 

counsel to represent appellant on appeal. The reporter’s record in this case was due 

September 17, 2012, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The record was not filed, 
2

and no request for an extension of time to file the record was filed. On September 

20, 2012, this court ordered the official court reporter, Sondra Humphrey, to file 

the record within 30 days. When the court reporter failed to file the record as 

ordered, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 30 days, and 

instructed the court reporter that if the record was not filed, the court would order 

the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for failure to file the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court, and Sondra Humphrey has not 

filed a response to this court’s orders. The trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.3(c). Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely as ordered, we 

issue the following order.

We direct the judge of the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8 to 

conduct a hearing at which the court reporter, appellant’s counsel, and counsel for 

the State shall participate (a) to determine the reason for failure to file the record; 

(b) to establish a date certain when the reporter’s record will be filed, and (c) to 

make findings as to whether the court reporter should be held in contempt of court 

for failing to file the reporter’s record timely as ordered. We order the court to 

prepare a record, in the form of a reporter’s record, of the hearing. The judge shall 

make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall order the trial clerk to 

forward to this court a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings and 

conclusions. The hearing record and supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with 

the clerk of this court on or before January 14, 2013. 

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will 
3

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or 

the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. If the court reporter files the 

record prior to the date set for the hearing, the appeal will be reinstated and the trial 

court need not hold a hearing.

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8340 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8340

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 4110 Bluebonnet Drive in Stafford, Texas, as the ``Leonard Scarcella 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 2020

Mr. Green of Texas (for himself, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Taylor, 
   Mr. Gooden, Mr. Wright, Mrs. Fletcher, Mr. Brady, Mr. McCaul, Mr. 
Conaway, Ms. Granger, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Gonzalez 
of Texas, Ms. Escobar, Mr. Flores, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Arrington, Mr. 
    Castro of Texas, Mr. Roy, Mr. Hurd of Texas, Mr. Marchant, Mr. 
Williams, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Cloud, Mr. Cuellar, Ms. Garcia of Texas, Ms. 
  Johnson of Texas, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. Allred, Mr. Veasey, Mr. 
 Vela, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Babin, and Mr. Olson) introduced the following 
   bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 4110 Bluebonnet Drive in Stafford, Texas, as the ``Leonard Scarcella 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LEONARD SCARCELLA POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4110 Bluebonnet Drive in Stafford, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Leonard Scarcella Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Leonard 
Scarcella Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021148EN.01002001.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/20

---

Action brought on 5 February 2021 — Van Walle v ECDC

(Case T-83/21)

(2021/C 148/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ivo Van Walle (Järfälla, Sweden) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the 30 March 2020 decision not to renew his contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the 30 March 2020 decision not to renew his contract;

| — | annul, if need be, the decision dated 26 October 2020 rejecting his complaint of 24 June 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, if need be, the decision dated 26 October 2020 rejecting his complaint of 24 June 2020;

| — | order the payment of his net salary retroactively between 31 October 2020 and the date of his reinstatement; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of his net salary retroactively between 31 October 2020 and the date of his reinstatement;

| — | order compensation of his material prejudice of EUR 30 000 and the compensation of his non-material prejudice which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 20 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order compensation of his material prejudice of EUR 30 000 and the compensation of his non-material prejudice which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 20 000;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging misuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging misuse of power.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard.

---
Argued and submitted April 28, 2016,

reversed and remanded March 29, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*TYSON PETERSON, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Harney County Circuit Court

130280CR; A157561

391 P3d 922

Brett Allin, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.

David B. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

*619PER CURIAM

This case is a companion case to *State v. Tapp,*284 Or App 583, 393 P3d 262 (2017), decided today. Defendant was a codefendant with the defendant in *Tapp*and joined in the motion to suppress filed by the defendant in *Tapp.*The trial court denied the motion and, in a bench trial, convicted defendant (as well as the defendant in *Tapp)*of one count of unlawful delivery of marijuana for consideration, ORS 475.860, and one count of unlawful possession of marijuana, ORS 475.864. On appeal, defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress, which, as noted, was the same motion filed by the defendant in *Tapp.*
      *1*
      **In *Tapp,*we reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred by denying the motion to suppress, and that the error was not harmless. 284 Or App at 591. The same result necessarily obtains here.

Reversed and remanded.

Apart from a preservation challenge, which we reject without discussion, the state does not dispute defendant’s ability to raise the same issues as the defendant in *Tapp.*
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/03/2010 01:10 PM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Bromberg, Kevin L." <kevin.bromberg@sba.gov>                                                                                               
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA                                                                             
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Michael Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA                                                                                                            
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |08/03/2010 12:59 PM                                                                                                                         
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Description of MACT Floor for Proposal - See language on 4SRB and 4SLB                                                                      
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|




(See attached file: 0006_Memo to EPA_less than 500 hp Subcats and
Floor.pdf)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7885

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER LEE ALKIRE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Irene M. Keeley, District

Judge. (CR-92-219, CA-95-75-2)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Lee Alkire, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1 Because this claim alleges infirmity in the manner of the

execution of sentencing it would have been brought more properly

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1988). The lack of substantive merit makes

consideration of the claim under § 2255 harmless error.

2 The district court's mistake in commenting that the acts

underlying the current convictions were accomplished entirely while

Alkire was in prison is of no moment with regard to the substance

of the decision.

2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher L. Alkire appeals from a district court order

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We affirm.

Alkire's complaint that he is being moved to a federal prison

outside West Virginia, where he has lived his entire life, is

without merit.1 18 U.S.C.A. § 3621(b) (West 1985 & Supp. 1995); cf.

Meachumn v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976). Alkire's complaint

that the portion of the sentence restricting his use of a telephone

while in prison is without merit; there is no constitutional or

federal statutory right to use of a telephone while in prison.2

Finally, even though the district court erred in not applying the

federal sentencing guidelines with regard to whether service of the

federal sentence should be concurrent with a now-expired state

sentence, Alkire failed to raise this nonconstitutional claim on

direct appeal and has failed to show cause and prejudice for the

failure. Thus, Alkire waived the claim. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S.

465, 477 n.10 (1976). We affirm this portion of the district court

order on this alternative basis.
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED