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



CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statement No. 33-55179 of CRT Properties, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-116056 of CRT Properties, Inc. on Form S-3,
Registration Statement No. 33-54621 of CRT Properties, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-54765 of CRT Properties, Inc. on Form S-3,
Registration Statement No. 33-54617 of CRT Properties, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-20975 of CRT Properties, Inc. on Form S-3,
Registration Statement No. 333-23429 of CRT Properties, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-37919 of CRT Properties, Inc. on Form S-3,
Registration Statement No. 333-33388 of CRT Properties, Inc. on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-38712 of CRT Properties, Inc. on Form S-8
of our reports dated March 15, 2005, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules of CRT Properties, Inc., and
managements report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CRT
Properties, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004.




DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLPWest Palm Beach, Florida March 15, 2005


79

---
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4810 

To amend the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 relating 

to Academic Competitiveness Grants to preserve State authority over 

secondary school curricula. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2006 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 

1965 relating to Academic Competitiveness Grants to 

preserve State authority over secondary school curricula. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO RECOGNIZE RIGOROUS SEC4 ONDARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS OF STUDY. 

5 Section 401A(c)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 

6 1965, as added by section 8003 of the Higher Education 

7 Reconciliation Act of 2005, is amended by striking ‘‘estab8 lished by a State or local educational agency and recog9 nized as such by the Secretary’’ each place it appears in 
2 

•HR 4810 IH 

1 subparagraphs (A)(i) and (B)(i) and inserting ‘‘recognized 

2 as such by the chief State school officer of the State within 

3 which such secondary school is located’’. 

Æ
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND15d-****14(a) , AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Michael Rubino, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed this QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of A123 Systems, Inc.;

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: November 10,  2009 |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   |
| /s/  Michael Rubino      |   |
| Michael Rubino                |   |
| Chief Financial Officer       |   |

 

----
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 6293

DENIS RIVERA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HAROLD CLARKE; DAVID ROBINSON; G. K. WASHINGTON; RANDALL MATHENA; GREGORY HOLLOWAY; SCOTT RICHESON; MALCOLM TAYLOR; KEITH DAWKINS; DR. BRANE; JIM PARKS; HENRY PONTON; EARL BARKSDALE; GEORGE HINKLE; ELIZABETH THORNTON; J. WALRATH; I. HAMILTON; T. PURYEAR; J. ARTRIP; A. GALLIHAR; G. BAKER; MICHAEL YOUNCE; WALTER SWINEY; TORI RAIFORD; DWAYNE TURNER; STACY DAY; CHRISTOPHER GILBERT; JOE FANNIN; TONY ADAMS; G. A. ADAMS; K. A. SYKES; R. KEGLEY; B. E. STALLARD; JACKSON; J. KING, former counselor at Red Onion State Prison; A. B. DUNCAN, Unit Manager

,

Defendants

- Appellees

,

and

EXTERNAL REV IEW TEAM; DUAL TREATMENT TEAM; UNIT MANAGER TEAM

,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 7:15

- cv

- 00156

- JPJ

- RSB )

Submitted : January 31, 2018 Decided: March 1, 20182 Before DUNCAN and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Denis Rivera , Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General

, Richard Carson Vorhi s, Senior Assistant Attorney General

, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Denis Rivera appeals the district court’s order s denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny Rivera’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. Rivera v. Va. Dep’t. of Corr. , No. 7:15

- cv

- 00156

- JPJ

- RSB (W.D. Va.

Dec. 8, 2016 & Feb. 3, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 09-9424.

#### Henry J. DuLaurence, III, Petitioner v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al.

559 U.S. 1078, 130 S. Ct. 2119,

176 L. Ed. 2d 741,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3411,

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts denied.

Same case below, 74 Mass. App. 1125, 909 N.E.2d 558.
No. 09-8078.

#### John E. Felgar, Petitioner v. Jeffrey D. Burkett, et al.

559 U.S. 949, 130 S. Ct. 1531,

176 L. Ed. 2d 130,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1255.

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 328 Fed. Appx. 107.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    [Reserved]c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Bahman AtefiName: Bahman Atefi
Title: Chief Executive Officer
 49
No. 09-8395.

#### Ivander James, Jr., Petitioner v. Patricia R. Stansberry, Warden.

559 U.S. 955, 130 S. Ct. 1549,

176 L. Ed. 2d 140,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1160.

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 342 Fed. Appx. 865.
Exhibit 10.24


First Amendment


Employment Agreement


 


 


THIS AMENDMENT, made and entered
into as of the 17th day of January, 2012, by and between Polonia Bancorp, a federally-chartered corporation (the “Company”)
and Kenneth J. Maliszewski, an employee of the Company (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company
entered into an amended and restated employment agreement, dated as of December 16, 2008 (the “Agreement”);
and


 


WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company
desire to amend the Agreement to make certain changes to the Company’s potential severance obligations under the Agreement;
and


 


WHEREAS, Section 21 of the Agreement
provides that the parties may amend the Agreement from time to time.


 


ACCORDINGLY, the Agreement is hereby
amended, effective as of January 17, 2012, as follows:


 


 


Section 11(f)(ii) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety
and replaced with the following new Section 11(f)(ii):


 


“Subject to Section 12 of this Agreement,
in the event of termination under this Section 11(f), Executive will receive an amount equal to his base salary and the value of
employer contributions to benefit plans in which Executive participated upon termination that would have been paid or provided
to Executive for a period of one year from the date of his termination of employment, paid in one lump sum within ten (10) calendar
days of his termination. Executive will also continue to participate in any benefit plans of the Company that provide medical,
dental and life insurance coverage for a period of one year from the date of his termination of employment, under terms and conditions
no less favorable than the most favorable terms and conditions provided to senior executives of the Company during the same period.
If the Company cannot provide such coverage because Executive is no longer an employee, the Company will provide Executive with
comparable coverage on an individual policy basis or the cash equivalent.”


 




[signature page follows]


 


 






    	 



    	 	



    
 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto each acknowledge
that each has carefully read this amendment to the Agreement and executed the original on the date indicated.


 





	 	 	POLONIA BANCORP
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Elaine L. Milione	 	/s/ Paul D. Rutkowski
	Witness	 	For the Company
	 	 	 
	January 17, 2012	 	 
	Date	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Lynn Lucia	 	/s/ Kenneth J. Maliszewski
	Witness	 	Kenneth J. Maliszewski
	 	 	 
	January 17, 2012	 	 
	Date
No. 09-8418.

#### Sparkey Darnez Watson, Petitioner v. Mississippi.

559 U.S. 981, 130 S. Ct. 1708,

176 L. Ed. 2d 195,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2141.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi denied.

Same case below, 19 So. 3d 747.
No. 09-9578.

#### Tommy Smith, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1081, 130 S. Ct. 2122,

176 L. Ed. 2d 745,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3251.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 354 Fed. Appx. 910.
No. 09-8908.

#### Kenneth Edward Barbour, Petitioner v. Western Regional Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al.

559 U.S. 1041, 130 S. Ct. 2070,

176 L. Ed. 2d 421,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2862.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
No. 09-8524.

#### Edward Myers, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 959, 130 S. Ct. 1559,

176 L. Ed. 2d 146,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1430.

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 584 F.3d 1349.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER I, Bahman Atefi, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alion Science and Technology
Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    [Reserved]c)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. Date: June 13, 2005 By:
    
    /s/ Bahman AtefiName: Bahman AtefiTitle: Chief Executive Officer
No. 09-8671.

#### Daniel Bedford, Petitioner v. Terry Collins, Warden.

559 U.S. 1058, 130 S. Ct. 2344,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2952.

176 L. Ed. 2d 577,

April 5, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for remand denied. Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 567 F.3d 225.
No. 08-9156.

#### Holly Wood, Petitioner v. Richard F. Allen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.

559 U.S. 1032, 130 S. Ct. 1942,

176 L. Ed. 2d 405,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2372.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

*406Former decision, 558 U.S. 290, 130 S. Ct. 841, 175 L. Ed. 2d 738, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 763.
No. 09-8745.

#### Shirley Levingston Thomas, Petitioner v. Harmon Family Trust.

559 U.S. 1003, 130 S. Ct. 1935,

176 L. Ed. 2d 360,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2727.

March 22, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until April 12, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
(1) Adjusting Price $19.18 CWT

(2) Base Price $18.69 CWT

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $0.49

(4) Price change per gallon $0.04

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.02

Price change per quart $0.01 

Price change per pint $0.01

Price change per 14-oz pg. $0.00

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.00

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.00

Price change per half pint $0.00

(6) Price adjustment per gallon $0.04

Price adjustment per half gallon $0.02

Price adjustment per quart $0.01

Price adjustment per pint $0.01

Price change per 14-oz pg. $0.00

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.00

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.00

Price adjustment per half pint $0.00

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positive or increases.

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032 Alt. 

Based on California Marketing Area Federal Milk Order #51

 Effective Date: Oct. 3rd, 2021
No. 09-7819.

#### Nicholas Lugo, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1050, 130 S. Ct. 2341,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2982.

176 L. Ed. 2d 564,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA JADA KU,

DA 21-0111 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GREAT FALLS PUBLIC LIBRARY, Defendant and Appellee. FILED ny2 g9n7i ORDER On May 19, 2021, this Court granted self-represented Appellant Jada Ku's Motion for Extension
of Time and ordered that she prepare, file, and serveher opening brief onor before June 14, 2021. In the prior Order, wealso denied Ku's Motion for Appointrnent

of Counsel because she wasnot entitled
to counsel
in her civil case alleging discrimination. This Court also noted opposing counsel's objection

to any delay in this appeal aswell as that Ku has prosecuted casesin the District Court and had an appeal previously with this Court. Ku's requests stem from this Court rejecting her original opening brief. On May 21, 2021, Ku filed another Motion for Extension
of Tirne aswell asa"Motion for Interpreter/Advocator/Attorney."
It appearsthat Ku did not receive this Court's prior Order in the mail until after she inade these second requests. We point out that Ku represented herself
in her underlying District Court casesaswell aswith the motions she has filed in this Court and has not demonstrated anyneed for an interpreter. Ku communicates well in English. This Court reiterates that it has no statutory authority

to appoint counsel for Ku orto appoint an advocate

in her pending appeal. Having addressed her motions earlier, therefore, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Ku's Motion for Extension
of Time is DENIED,

asmoot; and 2. Ku's "Motion for Interpreter/Advocator/Attorney"

is DENIED.05/26/2021Case Number: DA 21-0111The Clerk
is directed
to provide

acopyofthis Order tocounsel of record and to Jada Ku personally.

ev DATEDthis h(0Pi day of May,2021. Forthe Court, Chief Justice 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

In the Matter of 

LEAH MCGARRY MORRIS 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT 

FROM INACTIVE STATUS 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 63 DB 2015 (No. 37 RST 2015) 

Attorney Registration No. 21757 

(Philadelphia) 

O R D E R 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 23rd day of June, 2015, the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated June 12, 2015, is approved and it is ORDERED that 

Leah McGarry Morris, who has been on Inactive Status, has never been suspended or 

disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, competency and 

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, 

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The 

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall 

be paid by the Petitioner.
11 March 2011 ***************************

NSN: 8940-01-583-4837 (VGC) * MONOGRAPH NO: 1C4A

 ***************************

Item: Vegetarian Chili

Document: PCR-V-009; Vegetarian Chili, Packaged in a Polymeric Tray, Shelf Stable

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 120 Component Classification: Primary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance:

General: uniform mixture of black beans and kidney beans in a chili sauce.

Black beans: cooked bean color.

Kidney beans: light red class kidney beans, cooked bean color.

Sauce: opaque, tomato-based chili sauce, red to reddish-brown color with pieces of 

tomato and flecks of spices.

Odor: Cooked beans, tomato-based chili sauce.

Flavor: Cooked beans, tomato-based chili sauce, mild to medium heat.

Texture:

Beans: slightly soft to slightly firm.

Sauce: moderately thick.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: Darkening of sauce and beans.

Odor: Loss of spiciness, oxidized.

Flavor: Loss of spiciness, bitterness, oxidized.

Texture: Beans: mushy or hard. 

Sauce: overly thin or overly thick.

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

NA

Special Notes

NA
No. 09-8444.

#### Rodrick Clayton, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 981, 130 S. Ct. 1710,

176 L. Ed. 2d 196,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2075.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 348 Fed. Appx. 459.