alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
     We have issued our report dated July 31, 2003, accompanying theconsolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report ofLifecore Biomedical, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K/A-1 for the year ended June30, 2003. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reportin the Registration Statements of Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. and subsidiaries onForms S-8 (File No. 33-19288, effective December 23, 1987; File No. 33-26065,effective February 18, 1988; File No. 33-32984, effective January 12, 1990;File No. 33-38914, effective February 8, 1991; File No. 33-38914, effectiveSeptember 26, 1994 and File No. 333-18515, effective December 20, 1996) andForms S-3 (File No. 333-60987, effective August 21, 1998, File No. 333-32144,effective March 10, 2000, File No. 333-58506, effective April 23, 2001, FileNo. 333-65580, effective August 3, 2001 and File No. 333-73796, effectiveNovember 20, 2001). /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
# NAVSUP CMDP students visit DLA Distribution

/ Published Oct. 30, 2015
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
Members of Naval Supply Systems Command’s Corporate Management Development Program visited DLA Distribution on Oct. 23 to see first-hand how items flow through the distribution network to the warfighter.
The group began at DLA Distribution headquarters with a command overview, highlighting DLA Distribution’s worldwide network, special functions the command provides - such as kitting and hazardous material handling - and transportation coordination that the organization provides for all of DLA.  The group discussion focused on how DLA Distribution utilizes technology to process customers’ orders, as well as how items are tracked throughout the shipping process.

Following the overview, the group had the opportunity to see the Eastern Distribution Center, the Department of Defense’s largest warehouse.  The CMDP students saw the organization’s key locations, including receiving operations, the Consolidation and Containerization Point, the high-rise storage and retrieval system, and the air line of communication pallet build area.

The NAVSUP CMDP visit was part of DLA Distribution’s ongoing efforts to partner with warfighting customers to provide efficient, effective, and best value support.
# C_2015245EN.01004701.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/47

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — CX v Commission

(Case F-27/13) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Disciplinary procedure - Respective roles and powers of the Disciplinary Board and the Appointing Authority - Disciplinary penalty - Reduction in grade followed by a decision on promotion - Proportionality of the penalty))

(2015/C 245/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CX (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions to reduce the applicant to grade AD 8 under Article 9(1)(f) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and a claim for damages for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CX to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CX to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 56.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,893,787
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,104,811
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,612,044
<INVENTORY>                                  1,575,487
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,594,544
<PP&E>                                       5,785,520
<DEPRECIATION>                                 653,224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,098,041
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,179,198
<BONDS>                                     24,318,909
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       387,679
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,787,745)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,098,041
<SALES>                                     44,218,962
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,218,962
<CGS>                                       42,188,070
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,943,661
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             679,427
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,592,196)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,596,196)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.47)


</TABLE>
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 22

- 00125

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 442nd District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21

- 5296

- 442

Before Walker, J .; Sudderth, C.J.; and Kerr, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### S.T., A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered appellant ’ s “Motion in Request to Voluntary Dismiss

Appeal.” We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1),

43 .2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered : September 22, 2022
#### In the Matter of Christine Buffolino, Appellant, v New York City Department of Education, Respondent.

[65 NYS3d 710]

*548Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered April 6, 2017, denying the petition to annul respondent New York City Department of Education’s (DOE) determination, which terminated petitioner’s teaching position effective December 14, 2015, and dismissing this hybrid proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 and 42 USC § 1983, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the dismissal of the 42 USC § 1983 claim and converting the proceeding into a plenary action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

This action arises out of DOE’s acceptance of a resignation letter, dated December 2, 2015, that petitioner is alleged to have submitted, resigning her position as a teacher, effective December 14, 2015. Petitioner denies having sent the letter to the Superintendent of the school and on December 17 and 18, 2015, sought to withdraw and/or rescind the letter.

The article 78 petition was properly dismissed as premature, since it was brought prior to the conclusion of the grievance procedure set forth in the collective bargaining agreement entered into between petitioner’s union and her employer (see *Matter of Gil v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y.,*146 AD3d 688 [1st Dept 2017]; *Matter of Sapadin v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*246 AD2d 359, 360 [1st Dept 1998]).

However, no extraordinary circumstances support the court’s sua sponte dismissal of the entire proceeding (see *Grant v Rattoballi,*57 AD3d 272, 273 [1st Dept 2008]; *Myung Chun v North Am. Mtge. Co.,*285 AD2d 42, 46 [1st Dept 2001]). In the absence of a motion to dismiss the 42 USC § 1983 claim, conversion of this proceeding to a plenary action is warranted (see CPLR 103 [c]; *Thornton v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ.,*125 AD3d 444, 445 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Richter, Maz-zarelli, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark P. McNamara, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 434]

— Appeal from a judgment of Niagara County Court (Sperrazza, J.), entered November 5, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, sexual abuse in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
#### Com. v. Watson

12/16/2015

533 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1130
No. 10-6416.

#### Tyrone Lavon Keys, Petitioner v. Michigan.

562 U.S. 1047, 131 S. Ct. 604,

178 L. Ed. 2d 440,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8845.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Michigan, Eaton County, denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350),
the undersigned, David C. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of Network-1 Security
Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify to
his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 of
the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                                               /s/ David C. Kahn
                                               -----------------------------
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               November 15, 2004
EXHIBIT 13.2




Section 906 Certification by Principal Financial Officer




In connection with the Annual Report of Elbit Imaging Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Doron Moshe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; 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:  April 30, 2014




/s/ Doron MosheDoron MosheChief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

April 27, 2021

b0419 

# Order

Clerk April 27, 2021

161814 (29)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161814

COA: 352296

Wayne CC: 07

- 012810

- FC

RAYMOND PNIEWSKI, JR.

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 2, 2021

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are no t persuaded that reconsideration

of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Johnson, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 899]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated July 1, 2002 *(People v Johnson,*296 AD2d 422 [2002]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered May 21, 1997.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see *Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]).

Dillon, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.
2017-0563.

#### State ex rel. St. Clair Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Barnes.

In Mandamus. Case returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01. Respondents shall file a response to the amended complaint within 21 days.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 31881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15681]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 31881]]


                Presidential Determination No. 98-25 of May 30, 1998

                
Sanctions Against Pakistan for Detonation of a 
                Nuclear
                Explosive Device

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                In accordance with section 102(b)(1) of the Arms Export 
                Control Act, I hereby determine that Pakistan, a non-
                nuclear-weapon state, detonated a nuclear explosive 
                device on May 28, 1998. The relevant agencies and 
                instrumentalities of the United States Government are 
                hereby directed to take the necessary actions to impose 
                the sanctions described in section 102(b)(2) of that 
                Act.

                You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this 
                determination to the appropriate committees of the 
                Congress and to arrange for its publication in the 
                Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, May 30, 1998.

[FR Doc. 98-15681
Filed 6-9-98; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-M
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 17, 2016

NO. 03

- 16

- 00091

- CV

Veronica L. Davis and James A. Davis, Appellant s

v.

State Farm Lloyds Texas and Gerald Krouse, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COU RT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on November 16, 2015. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. A ppell ant s shall pay all

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Partners of TEPPCO Partners,L.P.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registrationstatements Nos. 333-108416, 333-103515 and 333-085486 on Form S-3 of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC of our report dated February 28, 2006, except for the effects of discontinued operations, as discussed in Note 5, which is as of June 1,2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, partners’ capital and comprehensive income, and cash flowsfor each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, which report appears herein. 

 

Our report dated February 28, 2006, except for the effects of discontinued operations, as discussed in Note 5, which is as of June 1, 2006, with respectto the consolidated balance sheets of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 and the related consolidated statements of income, partners’ capital and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of theyears in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, contains a separate paragraph that states that as discussed in Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements, the Partnership has restated its consolidated balance sheet as ofDecember 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, partners’ capital and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Houston, Texas 

March 15, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                          41,232
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  119,465
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               202,428
<PP&E>                                       3,742,138
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,505,966
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,540,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          466,107
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       271,237
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,650,775
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,540,918
<SALES>                                        645,177
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               649,651
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  663,134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,594
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,077)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,934)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,143)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,143)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-5015.

#### Cory Colvin, Petitioner v. Michael Sheets, Warden.

562 U.S. 899, 131 S. Ct. 228,

178 L. Ed. 2d 152,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6052.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 598 F.3d 242.
#### People v Fessel

2d Dept: 149 AD3d 1113

denied*

*

 Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.
No. 10-185.

No. 10-189.

#### Core Communications, Inc., Petitioner v. Federal Communications Commission, et al. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Petitioner v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.

562 U.S. 1044, 131 S. Ct. 597,

178 L. Ed. 2d 434,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8885.

November 15, 2010.

Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

*435Same cases below, 389 U.S. App. D.C. 86, 592 F.3d 139.
No. 10-5010.

#### Roberto Espinoza, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 898, 131 S. Ct. 227,

178 L. Ed. 2d 151,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6504.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 536.
No. 09-1508.

#### David Critzer, et ux., Petitioners v. City of Cupertino, California, et al.

562 U.S. 837, 131 S. Ct. 165,

178 L. Ed. 2d 41,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5866.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, denied.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

TRAVIS RAY STUCKY

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 18

- 580

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 24, 2018

3.853 Appeal from the Circuit

Court for Brevard County

, Robin C. Lemonidis , Judge.

Travis R ay Stucky, Bushnell, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

.

The trial court denied Appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 motion

for DNA testing because it was facially insufficient. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(c)( 2). We

agree and affirm without prejudice. Appellant may refile a facially sufficient motion if he

can do so in good faith. See Rosa v. State , 147 So. 3d 583, 58 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ;

Luckner v. State , 979 So. 2d 1121, 1121

– 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J.

, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00506-CR

ANTONIO SERDA

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

198th Judicial District Court of Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR17-186

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 25, 2021