alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1



                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-25915; 333-80125; 333-69716; and 333-108745) pertaining to the
First Aviation Services Inc. Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, and in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-25909) pertaining to the First
Aviation Services Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated April
2, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
First Aviation Services Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended January 31, 2004.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Stamford, Connecticut
April 28, 2004
# L_2010247EN.01005301.xml

| 21.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 247/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 247/53

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 831/2010

of 20 September 2010

on the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of September 2010 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,

Whereas:

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of September 2010 for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2010 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2010 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 September 2010.

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

Done at Brussels, 20 September 2010.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 47.

3

---

ANNEX

| Group No | Order No | Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.10.2010-31.12.2010
  (%) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 09.4410 | 0,376287 |
| 3 | 09.4412 | 0,453791 |
| 4 | 09.4420 | 0,653701 |
| 6 | 09.4422 | 0,676375 |

Group No

Order No

Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.10.2010-31.12.2010

(%)

1

09.4410

0,376287

3

09.4412

0,453791

4

09.4420

0,653701

6

09.4422

0,676375

---
#### Com. v. Gesslein

09/23/2015

20 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 116 A.3d 680
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.01

                                  Certification

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                    (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
                   Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Interactive Systems Worldwide Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2005 (the
"Form 10-KSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  December 29, 2005

By:    /s/ Barry Mindes
       ----------------
       Barry Mindes
       Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

    The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code).
No. 12-974.

#### Andrews Arts & Sciences Law, LLC, et al. *v.*SnoWizard, Inc.

Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
July 7, 2011

Comments on Benzo[a]pyrene risk assessment document s from NIEHS/NTP

The toxicological review for benzo[a]pyrene was rea d with attention to clarity, flow, thoroughness, an d scientific soundness. Overall, the document was we ll-written and provided an excellent review of the available literature. The mechanistic section (4.5 ) and dose-response assessment (5) were particularl y strong. The rationale for study selection and unce rtainty factors were clear and well-justified.
The one area that seemed to have a disproportionate emphasis was the metabolism section (3.3). There was minimal discussion of the ultimate carcinogen ( benzo[a]pyrene 7,8 dihydrodiol 9,10 epoxide) and a great deal of emphasis on specific enzymes and thei r roles in contributing to phase I activation or detoxification reactions. This gave the impression that BPDE could be important, but its role in carcinogenicity was not confirmed, which is contrar y to the section on mechanisms (4.5.2). A more robust discussion of the evidence supporting BPDE a s the ultimate carcinogen and mention of the importance of the bay region in PAH carcinogenicity , in general, could be informative in this section.
In reading the oral reference dose section, it was interesting to see that ovarian weight was the crit ical endpoint for calculating the RfD. It would be info rmative to include a minimal amount of information on whether this ovotoxicity is seen with other related compounds or mixtures of PAHs.

Cynthia Rider
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00142

- CV

Joe A. ZUNIGA

, Appellant

v.

THE CITY OF SAN ANTO NIO , Acting By and Through its Agent City Public Service Board

d/b/a CPS Energy,

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- CI

- 14216

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant Joe A. Zuniga.

SIGNED January 8, 2014.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 36479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14914]

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

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

Meetings

AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(Access Board) plans to hold its regular committee and Board meetings 
in Washington, DC, Tuesday and Wednesday, July 10-11, 2012 on the times 
and location listed below.

DATES: The schedule of events is as follows:

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

9:30-Noon Technical Programs Committee
1:30-2:00 p.m. Budget Committee
2:00-2:30 p.m. Planning and Evaluation Committee
2:45-4:30 p.m. Ad Hoc Committee Meetings: Closed to Public

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

1:30-3:00 p.m. Board Meeting

ADDRESSES: Meetings will be held at the Access Board Conference Room, 
1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the 
meetings, please contact David Capozzi, Executive Director, (202) 272-
0010 (voice); (202) 272-0054 (TTY).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board meeting scheduled on the afternoon 
of Wednesday, July 11, 2012 will be webcast live; visit the Access 
Board's main Web site at www.access-board.gov for further details. For 
this meeting session, the Access Board will consider the following 
agenda items:
     Approval of the draft March 14, 2012 meeting minutes 
(vote)
     Technical Programs Committee Report
     Budget Committee Report (vote)
     Planning and Evaluation Committee Report (vote)
     Ad Hoc Committee Reports
    [cir] Ad Hoc Committee on Passenger Vessels (vote)
    [cir] Ad Hoc Committee on Outdoor Developed Areas (vote)
     Executive Director's Report
     Public Comment, Open Topics
    All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An 
assistive listening system, computer assisted real-time transcription 
(CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board 
meeting and committee meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are 
requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances 
for the comfort of other participants (see www.access-board.gov/about/policies/fragrance.htm for more information).

David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2012-14914 Filed 6-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
```
No. 12-8080.

#### Conner *v.*Warren, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STAR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. FORM 10-K/A AMENDMENT NO. 2 FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,458
<SECURITIES>                                    18,579
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,354
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,947
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,114
<PP&E>                                          39,995
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,638
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 113,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,268
<BONDS>                                         14,462
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   113,553
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               376,198
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  365,149
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,633
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,463
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,895
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,568
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1732

To extend arbitration under the provisions of chapter 44 of title 28, United

States Code, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 20 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

Mr. HEFLIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered,

read the third time, and passed

A BILL

To extend arbitration under the provisions of chapter 44

of title 28, United States Code, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ARBITRATION.

4 (a) AMENDMENT OF REPEAL.—Section 906 of the

5 Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act (28

6 U.S.C. 651 note; Public Law 100–702; 102 Stat. 4664)

7 is amended in the first sentence by striking out ‘‘5 years

8 after the date of the enactment of this Act’’ and inserting

9 in lieu thereof ‘‘December 31, 1994’’.
2

•S 1732 IS

1 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

2 905 of the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice

3 Act (28 U.S.C. 651 note; Public Law 100–702; 102 Stat.

4 4664) is amended in the first sentence by striking out ‘‘4’’

5 and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘7’’.

Æ
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                            
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|Price of Everett, MA Natural Gas LNG Imports From France (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Price of Everett, MA Natural Gas LNG Imports From France (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                          

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar  | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | ---- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2018                                                                                                                              |     |     | 8.35 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|- = 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
No. 12-7788.

#### Jules *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### Hill Dickinson LLP, Respondent, v I1 Sole Limited, Defendant, and Michael Hirtenstein, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 888]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered April 5, 2016, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff an extension of time nunc pro tunc to re-serve defendant Michael Hirtenstein with the summons and motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs. Appeal from order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, entered August 29, 2016, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint to recognize and domesticate a British money judgment against Hirtenstein, and awarded plaintiff a total of $584,929.13, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The right of direct appeal from the April 2016 order terminated upon entry of a final judgment, and the order may only be reviewed upon appeal from the final judgment *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). As the notice of appeal from the order and judgment was served more than 30 days after service of the order and judgment, with notice of entry, it was untimely (CPLR 5513 [a]). This is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be waived *(see*id.; *Matter of Haverstraw Park v Runcible Props. Corp.,*33 NY2d 637 [1973]).

Even if the orders were deemed reviewable, Hirtenstein’s appeal of the jurisdictional issue would still be waived, as he is bound by the limitations placed on his notices of appeal *(see D'Mel & Assoc. v Athco, Inc.,*105 AD3d 451, 453 [1st Dept 2013]). Hirtenstein’s challenge to jurisdiction also lacks merit. An extension of time to re-serve was warranted as Hill Dickinson showed diligence by effectuating service at an address later challenged, and duly served Hirtenstein at his place of residence upon the ordering of a traverse hearing and being granted an extension, with no resulting prejudice *(see*CPLR 306-b; *Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer,*97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]). Substitute service on the doorman was proper *(see*CPLR 308 [2]; *F.I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v Chen,*41 NY2d 794, 797 [1977]).

Were we to review Hirtenstein’s challenge to the recognition of the British judgment, we would find it unavailing. It is *472undisputed that the foreign money judgment is “final, conclusive and enforceable” (CPLR 5302) and the grounds for nonrecognition are inapplicable (see CPLR 5304). The English court’s award of costs to compensate Hill Dickinson for having to defend an action by defendants does not constitute a penalty (see *e.g. Harvardsky Prumyslovy Holding, AS.-V Likvidaci v Kozeny,*117 AD3d 77, 81 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
#### Helmsley-Spear, Inc., Appellant, v Alex Kasi et al., Defendants, and Sackman Enterprises, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[767 NYS2d 628]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faula Omansky, J.), entered October 3, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the motion of defendants Sackman Enterprises, Inc., Chris Galluzo and Carter Sackman for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*150The grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against the Sackman defendants and Chris Galluzo was proper. Plaintiff real estate broker’s only overture to those defendants respecting the subject property was by means of a “set-up” allegedly faxed to defendant Galluzo in August 1997, and the record affords no nonspeculative basis to conclude that that “setup” was in any way instrumental in bringing about the property’s eventual sale. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Lerner, JJ.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 9, 2007
    
    /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR.

Anthony F. Earley, Jr.Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ofMichigan Consolidated Gas Company
#### Ramon ARTILLES and America Casado, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D16-1200

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MAY 09, 2017

L.T. NO.: 14-9444

Dismissed.
No. 12-8228.

#### Blackmon *v.*Booker, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-8025.

#### O’Halloran *v.*New York.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1805 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1805

   To amend title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the disparity 
between the periods of delay provided for civilian and military retiree 
cost-of-living adjustments in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
                                 1993.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 27 (legislative day, January 25), 1994

  Mr. Warner (for himself and Mr. Sarbanes) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the disparity 
between the periods of delay provided for civilian and military retiree 
cost-of-living adjustments in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
                                 1993.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF DISPARITY BETWEEN THE PERIODS OF DELAY OF 
              CIVILIAN AND MILITARY RETIREE COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS.

    Section 1401a(b)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
to read as follows:
                    ``(B) Special rule for fiscal years 1994 through 
                1996.--In the case of an increase in retired pay that, 
                pursuant to paragraph (1), becomes effective on 
                December 1 of 1993, 1994, or 1995, the initial month 
                for which such increase is payable as part of such 
                retired pay shall (notwithstanding such December 1 
                effective date) be March of the following year.''.

                                 <all>
```
No. 12-8087.

#### White *v.*Epps, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.