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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Procom Technology, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-23905, 333-82229 and 333-82231) on Form S-8 of Procom Technology, Inc., of
our report dated September 22, 2000, except as to note 14, which is as of
October 10, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Procom
Technology, Inc. and its subsidiaries as of July 31, 1999 and 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash
flows for the years then ended, and the related schedule, which report appears
in the July 31, 2000, annual report on Form 10-K/A of Procom Technology, Inc.


                                                    KPMG LLP


Orange County, California
March 26, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                          1,151,546
<SECURITIES>                    23,792,089
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                25,136,857
<PP&E>                          79,410
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  29,652,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           10,503,698
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        4,870,298
<OTHER-SE>                      14,278,342
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    29,652,338
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                7,496,176
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                2,651,398
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 3,214,457
<INCOME-TAX>                    1,278,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             1,936,457
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    1,936,457
<EPS-BASIC>                   .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .17



</TABLE>
No. 12-659.

#### Rader *v.*ING Bank et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 19, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 19, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21D0196. SAMANTHA KASTNER f/k/a SAMANTHA KASTNER-GANDY v. KEVIN GANDY. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2010248058
No. 12-6857.

#### Burton *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.
l 

I 

I 

I 

i 

i 

l 

l 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

r·.· 

Subject: 

Kevin, 

lj 

) 

. ' 

t'·•· •... ! 

Steven Deaton <deaton.steven@gmail.com> 

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 1:16 PM 

Adams, Kevin (OST) 

joy@alaskaaircarriers.org; Jeff.Munro@AiaskaAir.com; Joe.Sprague@Aiaskaair.com; 

msinick@ssd.com; Torque.Zubeck@alaskaair.com; Linda.bustamante@alaska.gov; 

rebecca.cronkhite@alaska.gov; rich.sewell@alaska.gov; steve.hatter@alaska.gov; 

James_Feldman@Begich.senate.gov; Schawna_ Thoma@begich.senate.gov; 

Jeremy_Price@murkowski.senate.gov; Karen_McCarthy@murkowski.senate.gov; 

Warren_Wright@murkowski.senate.gov; Hank@MTCWorld.com; ken.acton@gmail.com; 

Avtech@Aiaska.net; RSilverberg@sgbdc.com; WDallis@flyera.com; 

kwi ng @evertsai r.com; REverts@evertsair.com; TPaylor@ EvertsAir.com; 

bob@FrontierFiying.com; wragan@dhs.gov; amiller@lac.lynden.com; 

JStout@lac.lynden.com; Judy@lac.lynden.com; lcatoe@lac.lynden.com; 

mwilli@lac.lynden.com; Michaei.Duffy@dhs.gov; dsquier@nac.aero; dkarp@nac.aero; 

eric@saltchuk.com; kschlosstein@nac.aero; PPage@NAC.aero; POkeson@nac.aero; 

DannyS@PenAir.com; patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com; ScottB@penair.com; 

rragar@evertsair.com; Devany, Dennis (OST); Thibodeau, Jennifer (OST); Schlemmer, 

Kevin (OST); Leonard, Richard (RITA); gregorio.m.garcia@usps.gov; 

Joseph.Anzalone@usps.gov; Joy.C.Doby@usps.gov; Kevin.K.Hartner@usps.gov; 

Leonard.w.kilburn@usps.gov; robert.e.lochmann@usps.gov; Mary.T.Taylor@usps.gov 

Bush Rate Updates 

As I am sure you are aware, the current bush rate has been in place for more than a year now. The past 

practices of DOT in establishing an annual rate update were altered on the last bush rate update due to the 

prolonged time frame that was allowed for comments/responses to the docketed order. When the last rate 

update was finally ordered in place, October 22, 2011, it was the DOT's decision to extend the time frame 

period for the new rate to be effective for one year, at which time the DOT would review the data and adjust the 

next bush rate accordingly. As with their prior orders, we would expect the DOT to continue in the same vein 

when it's next update comes out. Will it be your intention to continue the one year effective period on the next 

rate? 

While it is irrelevant whether the rate goes up or down, as it is a reflection of the submitted costs of the 

considered carriers, it seems to us that it is important to keep the "annual" element of the established rate in 

place as it has been carried out in the past. It also should be noted that the RSIA also dictates "annual update" 

under section (k). 

Do you have some idea of when you intend to publish the next bush rate update show cause? 

Thanks 

Steven Deaton 

907-227-6784 

1
# L_2010114EN.01000701.xml

| 7.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 114/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 114/7

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 390/2010

of 6 May 2010

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Hopfen aus der Hallertau (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Hopfen aus der Hallertau’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Hopfen aus der Hallertau’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 May 2010.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 223, 16.9.2009, p. 20.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.8   Other products of Annex I of the Treaty (spices etc.)

GERMANY

Hopfen aus der Hallertau (PGI)

---
Exhibit 32.1

    Certifications Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

                   CERTIFICATE OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

         This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal
Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person
for any other purpose.

         The undersigned, who are the Co-Chief Executive Officers of Cox
Technologies, Inc. ("Company") hereby certifies as follows:

         The Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q of the Company ("Report"), which
accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:  12-22-03   /s/ Brian D. Fletcher               /s/ Kurt C. Reid
       --------   -----------------------------       --------------------------
                  Brian D. Fletcher                   Kurt C. Reid
                  Co-Chief Executive Officer          Co-Chief Executive Officer




                                       22
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13076]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Meeting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Spring 1998 meeting of the Great 
Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species of the Aquatic Nuisance Species 
Task Force. Topics to be addressed during the meeting are identified.

DATES: The Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species will meet from 
1:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 9, 1998, to 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 10, 
1998.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn--North Campus, 
3600 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Doss, Great Lakes Commission at 
734-665-9135, or Bob Peoples, Executive Secretary, Aquatic Nuisance 
Species Task Force, at 703-358-2025.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces a 
meeting of the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species of the 
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. The Task Force was established by 
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990.
    Topics to be covered during the meeting include: reports of ANS 
Task Force activities nationally and Federal legislation; reports on 
several ANS issues and initiatives such as the Great Lakes Ballast 
demonstration project, model guidelines for ANS prevention and control, 
proposed national voluntary ballast water guidelines, and the Chicago 
Waterways, Dispersal Barrier Project; a review of panel funding for 
fiscal year 1999; breakout sessions of the Panel's Information/
Education, Research Coordination, and Policy and Legislation Committees 
to develop 1999 work plans; model State ANS legislation; and reports 
from Panel members.
    Minutes of the meeting will be maintained by the Executive 
Secretary, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, Suite 840, 4401 North 
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1622, and the Great Lakes 
Commission, 400 Fourth Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48103-4816, and 
will be available for public inspection during regular hours, Monday 
through Friday, within 30 days following the meeting.

    Dated: May 12, 1998.
Gary Edwards,
Co-Chair, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Assistant Director-
Fisheries.
[FR Doc. 98-13076 Filed 5-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
#### Kinsey v City of New York

1st Dept: 141 AD3d 420

denied
SPORTMiON 

P i: u s 

OFFICE OF MAYOR VIRG BERNERO 

124 W. MICfflGAN AVENUE - NINTH FLOOR 

LANSING, MI 48933 

February 17, 2012 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Sun Country Slot Exemption - Docket Number FAA-2012-0089 

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: 

On behalf of the City of Lansing, I write this letter to express my strong support to retain Sun Country Airline's daily non-stop 

737-800 ser/ice between Lansing's Capital Regional International Airport (LAN) and Washington's Reagan National Airport 

(DCA). A recent United States Court of Appeals ruling vacating a DOT order would result in Sun Country losing its existing 

service between DCA and LAN. 

In order to continue this vital transportation service, I ask that Sun Country's request for exemption from the slot limit for DCA 

set forth in §93.123 (a), which permits the FAA to create air carrier slots during certain limited hours for Sun Country's use, be 

granted. ITie proposed air carrier slots would replace two slot exemptions under DOT Order 2010-12-16 awarded to Sun 

Country. Specifically, Sim Country desires one daily slot during each of the 1000 and 1100 hours. The proposed exemption 

would permit Sun Country to continue operating its existing ser/iccs and avoid an inequitable result of the Court's order. 

As I am sure you are aware, Lansing is Michigan's state capital and home to Michigan State University, as well as dozens of 

other major employers and hundieds of state associations, most of which require regular travel to Washington D.C- The volume 

of travel to our nation's capital by these organizations and our business community makes the time-saving nature and 

convenience of 4irect air service between Lansing and Washington D.C. a crucial need for our community. 

The Sun Coimtry DCA service is essential to the economic growth of the greater Lansing region. Outside of Detroit, Michigan, 

Lansing is the orJy other city with large aircraft (737-800) tl^at proyiJies daily service to DCA. Prior to Sun Country, the 

regional community had requested the introduction of this service fr6m numerous other airline operators without success. 

Therefore, it is critical that fhe FAA'^® ^ ^ necessary steps to ensile the continuation of the Sun Country slots at the 

established flight times in support of Greater Lansing's business and economic growth. 

I strongly urge the U.S. Departipent of Transportation's immediate approval of this exemption so that Sun Country can begin to 

enter flight schedules for sale for the balance of 2012. 

Sincerely, 

Virg'Bemero 

Mayor of Lansing
No. 12-71.

#### Arizona et al. *v.*Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, *ante,*p. 962.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae*and for divided argument granted.
Opinion filed July 18, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-23-00288-CR

__________

MIGUEL CERVANTES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Erath County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 22CRCC-00158

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Miguel Cervantes, entered an open plea of nolo contendere to the 

offense of deadly conduct by recklessly engaging in conduct that places another in 

imminent danger of serious bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor. See TEX. PENAL

CODE ANN. § 22.05(a), (e) (West 2019). The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea 

and the parties presented punishment evidence. The trial court heard testimony from 
2

six witnesses, including the victim of the offense, Appellant, and Appellant’s family 

members. The State also introduced judgments of Appellant’s prior convictions—

two felonies and four misdemeanors. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the trial 

court found Appellant guilty of the charged offense and assessed his punishment at 

confinement for one year in the Erath County Jail.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this 

court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and 

conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are 

no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of 

the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both 

the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his

right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief, and of his right to 

file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, courtappointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following 

the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed 

the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.1

1

Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure.
3

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the 

judgment of the trial court.

W. STACY TROTTER

JUSTICE

July 18, 2024

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
# EUR-Lex - 32010M6002 - EN

*|*

# 32010M6002

**Commission Decision of 22/10/2010 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.6002 - INTEL / GE / JV) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

(.PICT.) |EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

Brussels , 22/10/2010

SG-Greffe(2010) DL/2010/16641/2

C (2010) 7461

PUBLIC VERSION

MERGER PROCEDURE ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

To the notifying parties

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject: Case No COMP/M. 6002 - INTEL/ GE/ JV Notification of 24/09/2010 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 268, 02/10/2010, p.3

1. On 24/09/2010, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which the undertakings Intel Corporation (Intel, United States) and General Electric Company (GE, United States) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Colville Ventures LLC (Colville, United States) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5(a) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [2] .

3. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

For the European Commission,

(Signed)

Alexander ITALIANER Director General

[1]OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ("the Merger Regulation"). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of "Community" by "Union" and "common market" by "internal market". The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.

[2] OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                                
|                                                                                             
|Price of Cameron, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Spain (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             
|                                                                                             
|Price of Cameron, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Spain (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | --    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | --     | 7.58   | --     | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 6.12   | 8.22   | 9.28   | 5.77   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### State of New York, Matter of, v Clyde J.

2d Dept: 141 AD3d 723

denied
#### People v Reuter

2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1143

denied