alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (formerly Puget Sound Power & Light Company) on
Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-26818 and 33-53056) and Form S-8 (Nos. 33-27396 and 
333-23393) of our report dated February 12, 1997, on our audits of the 
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of 
Puget Sound Energy, Inc. as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and
for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994, which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                            Coopers & Lybrand

Seattle, Washington
March 21, 1997
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 20633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08157]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9943-98-OARM; DOCKET NO. FIFRA-HQ-2016-0001]

Flubendiamide; Notice of Intent To Cancel Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of objections filed and hearing requested; Notice of 
public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Section 6 of the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136d, and Section 
164.8 of the associated Rules of Practice Governing Hearings set forth 
at 40 CFR part 164, that objections were filed and a hearing was 
requested in response to the Notice of Intent to Cancel Pesticide 
Registrations, published in the Federal Register on March 04, 2016, 81 
FR 11558.
    This proceeding has been assigned Docket No. FIFRA-HQ-2016-0001, In 
the Matter of Bayer CropScience LP and Nichino America Inc., and the 
undersigned has been designated to preside. A hearing on the objections 
filed will be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Practice set 
forth at 40 CFR part 164.

DATES: The hearing in this matter will be held beginning promptly at 
8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, and continue as necessary through 
Friday, May 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA Administrative Courtroom, EPA East Building, Room 1152, 
1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    An electronic copy of the case file in this proceeding is 
publically available online at http://yosemite.epa.gov/oarm/alj/alj_web_docket.nsf. The official case file is available for public 
inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, in the office of the Hearing Clerk, located in Room M1200 of 
the Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 
DC 20460.

    Dated: April 4, 2016.
Susan L. Biro,
Chief Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 2016-08157 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### Robert L. CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gregory MCLAUGLIN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-13065 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 6, 2018)

Robert L. Clark, Pro Se

Clint Christopher Malcolm, Attorney General’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Robert Clark, a Georgia state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and the denial of what we take as a motion for reconsideration. The district court determined that the section 2254 petition was an unauthorized second or successive petition. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

In 2004, Petitioner was convicted of kidnapping and was sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment. Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Clark v. State, 278 Ga.App. 412, 629 S.E.2d 103, 105 (2006). Petitioner later filed a state habeas petition, which was denied by the state court in October 2010. In 2012, the Georgia Supreme Court then denied Petitioner a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial. In 2016, Petitioner filed the section 2254 petition at issue in this appeal.

The district court committed no error in determining that Petitioner’s 2016 section 2254 petition was second or successive. The record demonstrates that Petitioner filed an earlier section 2254 petition in 2012 that was denied on the merits. Because Petitioner has failed to obtain authorization from this Court to file a second or successive petition, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s 2016 petition. See Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition.”).

Because we conclude that Petitioner’s 2016 petition was dismissed properly as second or successive, the district court abused no discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Moreover—to the extent Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration could be construed as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)—Peti-tioner failed to identify either newly dis*979covered evidence or a manifest error of law or fact that would warrant relief. See Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6304]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notices have been accepted for 
processing, they will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later 
than March 27, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice 
President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Lawrence D. and Debra D. Johnson, both of Carnegie, Oklahoma; to 
acquire an additional .97 percent, for a total of 25.90 percent, of the 
voting shares of The Farmers Bancapital Corporation, Carnegie, 
Oklahoma, and thereby indirectly acquire The Farmers Bank, Carnegie, 
Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 7, 1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-6304 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11394-11395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6074]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[DE027-1004b, DE020-1004b; FRL-5679-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Delaware: Open Burning and Non-CTG RACT Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revisions submitted by the State of Delaware. These revisions consist 
of two control measures to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) 
emissions. In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is 
approving the State's SIP revisions as a direct final rule without 
prior proposal because the Agency views them as noncontroversial

[[Page 11395]]

SIP revisions and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale 
for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse 
comments are received in response to this proposed rule, no further 
activity is contemplated in relation to this rule. If EPA receives 
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all 
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this 
action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by April 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone/CO & 
Mobile Sources Section, Mailcode 3AT21, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
19107. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available 
for public inspection during normal business hours at the EPA office 
listed above; and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources & 
Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware 
19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 566-2182, at the 
EPA Region III address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct 
final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and 
Regulations section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: January 10, 1997.
W.T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 97-6074 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
PSAT Vehicle Simulation Results

(with start/stop)

Vocational Transient 55 mph Cruise 65 mph Cruise

EPA Proposal 75% 9% 16%

PSAT Cycle Results: kg/mile

conventional

class 4 0.310 0.297 0.384

conventional

class 6 0.398 0.347 0.456

50 kW

class 4 0.201 0.297 0.384

class 6 0.282 0.347 0.456

100 kW

class 4 0.201 0.297 0.384

class 6 0.268 0.347 0.456
PSAT Weighed Fuel Consumption

(with start/stop) 

Simulated Chassis Dyno

Test (PSAT)

(kg/mile) 

Fuel 

consumption 

improvement 

(PSAT)

Engine FTP 

w/o Brake 

Limit

EPA 

Proposed 

Brake Limit

Engine FTP w/ 

Proposed 

Brake Limit

Fuel 

consumption 

improvement 

from simulated 

hybrid engine 

FTP Test

Conventional

class 4 0.321 w/ ss

See next slide for the M/G torque curve used in the calculation 

Conventional

class 4 0.321 w/ ss class 6 0.403

50 kW

class 4 0.239 26% 23.2% 27.6% 23.2% 21.3%

class 6 0.316 22% 17.1% 32.3% 17.1% 17.0%

100 kW

class 4 0.239 26% 46.4% 27.6% 27.6% 24.3%

class 6 0.305 24% 34.2% 32.3% 32.3% 27.6%

Assume 70% bidirectional efficiency for braking energy capture and 

5% fuel savings from start/stop operation in the calculation of the 

last column.
M/G Torque Curve

400

500

600

700

T

orque (ft-lb)

M/G Torque Curve

0

100

200

300

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

T

orque (ft

Motor Sped (rpm)

50 kW

100 kW
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eden FLORES, Sr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40295 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 14, 2018

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

Eden Flores, Sr., Pro Se

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eden Flores, Sr., appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3682(c)(2) motion to reduce his concurrent life sentences on his jury trial convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute approximately 201 kilograms of cocaine and for possession with intent to distribute approximately 201 kilograms of cocaine. Flores sought relief under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which modified the drug quantity table set out in U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(e) and effectively lowered most drug-related base offense levels by two levels.

When considering a reduction under § 3682(c)(2), a district court must substitute the retroactive amendment "for the corresponding guideline provisions” while leaving “all other guideline application decisions unaffected.” U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(1), p.s.; *see Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). The district court correctly determined that the revised total offense level for Flores’s drug trafficking convictions was 46. Amendment 782 consequently results in no change in Flores’s drug trafficking sentences because, even factoring in the amendment’s reduction of the base offense level, Flores has a total offense level that corresponds to life imprisonment, i.e„ to the original sentences imposed. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion. *See United States v. Henderson,*636 F.3d 713, 717 (6th Cir. 2011). Flores’s motion to decide the appeal as being unopposed by the Government is DENIED. .

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                             464
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,422
<ALLOWANCES>                                       535
<INVENTORY>                                     21,009
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,015
<PP&E>                                          47,990
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,292
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,044
<BONDS>                                         61,493
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,452
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,313
<SALES>                                         47,213
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,213
<CGS>                                           34,625
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,625
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,595
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,802
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,260
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,717
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,543
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,543
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 12667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6559]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and, Information Services, 
Washington, DC 20549.
    Extension: Rule 17a-8  SEC File No. 270-53  OMB Control No. 3235-
0092.
    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget requests for approval of extension on the following rule: 
Rule 17a-8.
    Rule 17a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') 
requires brokers and dealers to make and keep certain reports and 
records concerning their currency and monetary instrument transactions. 
The requirements allow the Commission to ensure that brokers and 
dealers are in compliance with the Currency and Foreign Transactions 
Reporting Act of 1970 (``Bank Secrecy Act'') and with the Department of 
the Treasury regulations under that Act.
    The reports and records required under this rule initially are 
required under Department of the Treasury regulations, and additional 
burden hours and costs are not imposed by this rule.
    General comments regarding the estimated burden hours should be 
directed to the Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission 
at the address below. Any comments concerning the accuracy of the 
estimated average burden hours for compliance with Commission rules and 
forms should be directed to Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive 
Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549, and Desk 
Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: March 10, 1996.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6559 Filed 3-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
No. 11-10439.

#### Christian *v.*Townsend et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 99.1



       CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C.ss.ss.1350


I, Bruce M. Goldberg, President and Chief Executive Officer of All American
Semiconductor, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge:

         (1)      that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of All American
                  Semiconductor, Inc. for the quarterly period ended on June 30,
                  2002 (the "Report"), which this Certification is attached as
                  Exhibit 99.1, fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
                  of 1934; and

         (2)      that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                  in all material respects, the financial condition and results
                  of operations of All American Semiconductor, Inc.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.ss. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.





Dated: August 9, 2002                        /s/ Bruce M. Goldberg
                                       -----------------------------------
                                             Bruce M. Goldberg
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-10578

SMS FINANCIAL II LLC, and Arizona limited

liability company,

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,

VERSUS

YUKIHIRO NAKAMURA; TAMMY HARRIS NAKAMURA,

 Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CV-954-G)

October 22, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIUM:

Appellants Yukihiro Nakamura and Tammy Harris Nakamura seek

relief from a decision granting SMS Financial II, L.L.C. (“SMS”)

the right to collect on a promissory note. The thrust of their

argument is that SMS should not be entitled to enforcement because

it does not qualify as a holder in due course in two respects: (1)
SMS cannot produce the original note and (2) the note was

improperly endorsed.

The trial court rejected these contentions reasoning that (1)

the summary judgment evidence of SMS satisfactorily establishes its

ownership of the note, notwithstanding loss of the original, and

(2) despite improper endorsement and lack of holder in due course

status, SMS, as owner of the note, can enforce it subject to any

equitable defenses, and the Nakamuras have asserted no such

defenses.

Having considered the briefs of the parties and the relevant

portions of the record, this Court concludes, essentially for the

reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum opinion, that the

judgment below is correct. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is 

AFFIRMED
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT, AT HOUSTON

No. 14-15-00192-CV

In the Interest of E.L., a Child

v.

(No. 2012-05682J IN 315TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING

$0.00

$0.00

03/05/2015

03/05/2015

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals Houston, Texas 

are $0.00

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

I, CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, CLERK OF THE FOURTEENTH 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 

FOURTEENTH 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 Fourteenth District 

of Texas, June 19, 2015.
Exhibit 23.2



                                                                SOBEL & CO., LLC
                                    Certified Public Accountants and Consultants



                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S CONSENT

     As independent accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our review
     report for Third Millennium Telecommunications, Inc. dated November 8,
     2001, enclosed as Exhibit 99.1, and to all references to our Firm included
     in or made part of this Form 10-QSB.


                                                      /s/ Sobel & Co., LLC
                                                      --------------------
                                                           SOBEL & CO., LLC
                                               Certified Public Accountants

     November 13, 2001
     Livingston, New Jersey
#### PARKS SUPERIOR SALES v. BPOA (Bd. of Motor Veh)

914 CD 2016

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/20/2017

Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, 0280-60-15

Reversed