alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT (23)


               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Russell Corporation of our report dated February 4, 2000, included in the
1999 Annual Report to Shareholders of Russell Corporation.

Our audit also included the financial statement schedule of Russell Corporation
listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of Russell Corporation listed below of our report dated February 4,
2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein
by reference, and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect
to the financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Russell Corporation.

                  Form S-8 Registration Statement No.  33-24898
                  Form S-3 Registration Statement No.  33-47906
                  Form S-3 Registration Statement No.  33-54361
                  Form S-8 Registration Statement No.  33-69679
                  Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-89765
                  Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-30236
                  Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-30238



                                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Birmingham, Alabama
March 29, 2000



                                     IV-16
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 16799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8896]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. TQ97-5-23-000 and TM97-11-23-000]


Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

April 2, 1997.
    Take notice that on March 31, 1997, Eastern Shore Natural Gas 
Company (ESNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, certain revised tariff sheets in the above 
captioned docket, with a proposed effective date of May 1, 1997.
    ESNG states the revised tariff sheets are being filed pursuant to 
Section 21 and Section 23 of the General Terms and Conditions of ESNG's 
Gas Tariff to reflect changes in ESNG's jurisdictional sales rates. The 
sales rates set forth on the revised tariff sheets reflect a decrease 
of $0.1047 per dt in the Demand Charge and a decrease of $0.5282 per dt 
in the Commodity Charge, as measured against ESNG's corresponding sales 
rates in Docket No. RP97-32-000 as filed on October 15, 1996 and 
suspended until April 14, 1997 by the Commission's order dated November 
14, 1996.
    ESNG states that copies of the filing have been served upon its 
jurisdictional customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rule 211 and Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR Section 385.211 and Section 385.214). 
All such motions or protests must be filed as provided in Section 
154.210 of the 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. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-8896 Filed 4-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8556

JUAN M. GORDON, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00768-CMH-TRJ)

Submitted: May 15, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan M. Gordon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Juan M. Gordon seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gordon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Gordon’s motion for transcript at government expense. 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 18108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9497]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP95-407-009]


Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Refund Report

April 8, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 13, 1996, pursuant to the 
Commission's July 1, 1996, Order on Settlement and Rehearing in Docket 
No. RP95-407, 18 CFR 154.502 of the Commission's regulations and in 
accordance with paragraph III B(1) of its March 8, 1996, settlement in 
this proceeding, Questar Pipeline Company (Questar) submitted a refund 
report stating that on July 31, 1996, it refunded $7,084,897, and on 
August 17, 1996, it refunded $7,526, inclusive of interest to its 
customers.
    Questar states that refunds and interest were calculated in 
accordance with 18 CFR 154.501 of the Commission's regulations. Refunds 
are for the period February 1, 1996, through June 30, 1996. Service 
rendered after June 30, 1996, was billed at the rates set out in the 
March 8, 1996, settlement.
    Questar states that in accordance with paragraph III B(5) of the 
March 8, 1996 settlement, during July 1996, Questar adjusted the 
transportation gas balancing accounts of its Rate Schedule T-1 and T-2 
shippers to reflect the reduction of its fuel reimbursement rate from 
1.5 percent to 1.4 percent from February 1, 1996 through June 30, 1996. 
The 1.4 percent fuel reimbursement has been applied to transportation 
after June 30, 1996.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before April 15, 1997. 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. 97-9497 Filed 4-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Midwest Trust Co. v. Brinton

110,670

07/22/2015

Denied.

Unpublished
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                     1,149,000 
<SECURITIES>                               2,199,200
<RECEIVABLES>                                 80,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           3,428,700        
<PP&E>                                    13,079,100
<DEPRECIATION>                             3,902,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            13,226,300       
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        778,100     
<BONDS>                                            0   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                12,448,200        
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              13,226,300          
<SALES>                                            0           
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           1,961,300           
<CGS>                                              0           
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                594,200           
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             108,800        
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0       
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0        
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              886,500        
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          886,500       
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0       
<CHANGES>                                          0   
<NET-INCOME>                                 886,500  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   1.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   1.22
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of Royal Appliance Mfg. Co. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-44802) of our report dated
February 13, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Royal Appliance Mfg. Co. and Subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and
1995, which reports is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
                                            Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
 
Cleveland, Ohio
March 16, 1998
7



## TEIEATI-ORWYGENERAL

OF TEXAS aBHA.LlIc.NANN AUSTIN 

## 11. 'I%XAS

Honorable Paul T. Halt county Attorney Austin, Texa8 Dear sir: oplnlon 

## No. O-1037 Rel Whether per8onal property owned and used by Austin School of Business and Uxon-Clay CommeraI81College is exempted from taxation. Ueare in receipt **of** your letter of June 23, 1939, wherein you request our opinion as to whether or not typewriters, school furniture and other personal preperty belongIng to andused by the Austin School of Business andthe Nixon-Clay Commercial College are exempted from taxation. Youadvise that these schools are operated for profit.

Article 

## 8,Section 2of the Constitution of Texas, as adopted In

## 1928,

provides thatt

“The Legislature msy, by general laws, exempt from taxation

.......a11 buildings used exaluelvely and ownedby persons or associations of **persons** for school purposes, andthe neceseuy furniture of all schools and property used exclusively andreasonably necessary In conducting any association engaged In promoting the rellgious, educational andphysical development of boys, ”girls, young men, or young women, operating under a State or National organization of like character; also the endowmentfUnds of such institutions of Learniffg and religion not used with a view to profltj

. . .

It will be noted that lt is not mademandatory by the above Article 8, Section 2, for the Legislature to extend the exemption6 therein mentioned, but it Is provided only th8t the Legislature may, by general laws, extend certain exemptions. WCfind no statute enacted since the adoption 

### ofthe &boveconstitutional provision which purports to exempt fromtaxation the character of property which you mentionInthe hands of buslnesa colleges. Furthermore, It will be noted that such constitutional provlelon does not authorize the exemption of personal property belonging to persons or associations of persons for school **purposes,** but permits the exemption only of “the necessary fWnlture of 811 schools andproperty used exclusively andreasonably necessary in conducting any association engaged In **promoting** the relIglous, educational andphysical development or beys , @iIs, young:men, or young women, operating under 8State orHan. Paul T. Rolt, Page 2 

### O-1037 r Rational orgaklxatlon **of** like character; ” It thus becomes apparent that the constitution does not authorize ihi Lglslature to exempt from Itaxation the property with which weare here concerned, and that the Legislature has not by any statute attempted to so exempt such property. Our answer to your question, therefore, is in the negative. Yours very truly ATTCRRRYWNRRALOFTRXAS ByB/Olenn R. Lewis Glenn R. Lewis fMSiSt4Ult GRLa11 WC

Approved Opinion Committee By **B/R.U.F.** Chalrman
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Hector Christopher Trevino

, * From the 238th District

Court of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR37742

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00167

- CR * March 14, 2014

T he State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal

is dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk June 25, 2012

h0618 

# Order

June 25, 2012

144742

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144742

COA: 300371

Wayne CC: 08

- 019415

- FC

ANDRE LAMONT FRANKLIN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals i s considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### State v. Jones

104,516

05/20/13

Granted; summarily reversed; remanded to Ct. of App. . .

Unpublished
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   4-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          60,770
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,930
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    199,760
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               312,324
<PP&E>                                         194,364
<DEPRECIATION>                                (57,379)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 624,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          244,586
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          292,786
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,886,317
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,807,982)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   624,142
<SALES>                                         25,928
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,928
<CGS>                                           12,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  689,255
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (670,007)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.040)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1475
In Re: WILLIAM ERNEST HOLLAND, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:94-cr-00027-RLV-1) Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: June 30, 2008 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Ernest Holland, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: William Ernest Holland petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for reduction of sentence. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted bec ause the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. 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.
PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.1



Statement of Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of San Diego Gas & Electric (the "Company") certifies that:



(i)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Annual Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







February 26, 2008



/S/  Debra L. ReedDebra L. ReedChief Executive Officer
SERVED JULY 18, 2011 

U.S. DEPAKTMENT OF TRANSPORT A'llON 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON. DC 

;"}EPARTMENTOF N 

ViiANSPGRTATIOM ^ 

• 'OCKET OPERATIONS 

?0i! JUL 18 P 2- 3 0 

IN THE MATTER OF 

M&R HELICOPTERS, LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. CiMOSOOOl 1 

(Civil Penally Action) 

FDMSNO. FAA-2010- 1211 

ORDER DENYING PRE-TRIAL REVIEW 

This matter is before the undersigned and will he set for hearing. 

WI-IEREFORE, Respondent's Motion for Pre-Trial Review by the Honorable J. 

Randolph Babbit be and is hereby DENIED. 

Altachment - Service List 

Richard Q/Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 
FAA Docket No. CPIOSOOO: 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

REVISED SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 2059! 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, ACJC-43 0 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2Wi000' 

ONE COPY 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, 

Respondent's Represenkifive 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA 18104 

TEL: 610-360-3953 

FAX: 

Charles Raley, Complaitiant 's Counsel 

Attorney, Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-3357 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, 

Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Scr\'ice was by U.S. Mail. For sen^icc in person or by expedited courier, use (he following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wriglil Building—Suite 2W1000. Washington 

DC 20591; Altcmion: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC^30. 

- 2 -
#### State v. Garner

102,790

05/22/13

Denied.

Unpublished
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<CAPTION>
           

                                                            EXHIBIT 27.


SCAN-OPTICS, INC.
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
       
<S>                               <C>          <C>           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS       12-MOS        12-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998  DEC-31-1997   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1998  DEC-31-1997   DEC-31-1996

<CASH>                                 216,000    4,386,000     1,279,000
<SECURITIES>                                 0            0             0
<RECEIVABLES>                       22,682,000   15,695,000     9,262,000
<ALLOWANCES>                           206,000      104,000       673,000
<INVENTORY>                         11,478,000   12,547,000    14,920,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    36,893,000   34,635,000    26,735,000
<PP&E>                              19,723,000   19,215,000    19,322,000
<DEPRECIATION>                      16,367,000   15,355,000    15,147,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      52,992,000   38,707,000    31,121,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               21,786,000    9,992,000     9,417,000
<BONDS>                                      0            0             0
<PREFERRED>                                  0            0             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0            0             0
<COMMON>                               147,000      144,000       139,000
<OTHER-SE>                          30,099,000   27,589,000    21,068,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        52,992,000   38,707,000    31,121,000
<SALES>                             32,413,000   41,361,000    30,275,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    53,971,000   56,608,000    46,034,000
<CGS>                               19,335,000   25,066,000    19,622,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       50,899,000   51,066,000    42,851,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       162,000      149,000        82,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0            0             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0            0             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      3,234,000    5,691,000     3,265,000
<INCOME-TAX>                         1,105,000     (99,000)       (9,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  2,129,000    5,790,000     3,274,000
<DISCONTINUED>                               0            0             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0            0             0
<CHANGES>                                    0            0             0
<NET-INCOME>                         2,129,000    5,790,000     3,274,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              .31          .87           .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .30          .82           .49
        



</TABLE>