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

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-121804) pertaining to the 2003 Stock Option Plan, the 2003 Israeli Share Option Plan, the 2001 Stock option Plan, the 1999 Israel Share Option Plan of Ness Technologies, Inc. and the APAR Holding Corp. Employee Equity Plan and related Prospectus of our reports dated March 14, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Ness Technologies, Inc., Ness Technologies, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Ness Technologies, Inc. included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.

 

 
| Tel-Aviv, Israel    | Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer     |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------|
| March 14, 2006 | A member of Ernst & Young Global |

 

----
NUMBER 13-13-00539-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. STEPHEN B. TYLER 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relator, the State of Texas ex rel. Stephen B. Tyler, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus seeking to compel the respondent, the Honorable Daniel Gilliam, Presiding 

Judge of County Court at Law No. Two of Victoria County, Texas, to issue written 

findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning his order granting an instructed 

verdict and the resulting entry of a judgment of acquittal in trial court cause number 2-

100157, the State of Texas v. Michael Chavez.

 

1

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is 

not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show: (1) that he has no 

adequate remedy at law, and (2) that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act. In re 

State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If 

the relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of 

mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of App. at 

Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of 

mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden 

to obtain mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, 

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

 

PER CURIAM

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

Delivered and filed the 9th

day of October, 2013.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - products_data(2)
              - products_publications(59)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_before_after(1)
              - multimedia_image(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(4)
              - multimedia_slideshow(1)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(5)
              - arizona(1)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(28)
              - (-)colorado(1)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(1)
              - hawaii(4)
              - idaho(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - mississippi(1)
              - montana(1)
              - north carolina(1)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - south dakota(2)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(1)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(5)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        March 21, 2017        Monitoring Land-Atmosphere Exchange of Moisture to Understand Drought
Travis DAVIS-ROWLAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4982

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
G.J., Father of L.J., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1244

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit








EXHIBIT (10-15)




The Gillette Company Financial Planning 
Reimbursement Program














THE GILLETTE COMPANY FINANCIAL PLANNING
REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM
REVISED OCTOBER 2004
(with amendments adopted through August 21, 2006)


	
		
	Eligibility
	Each executive of the Company who (i) is generally treated as a United States employee for employment and benefit purposes, (ii) is not eligible for the Company's Senior Executive Financial Planning Program, and (iii) is either a grade level 25 or above, or holds any of the following By-Law officer positions in The Gillette Company: Vice President, Internal Auditor, Patent and Trademark Counsel, or Secretary.

	 
	 

	Program Benefit
	Reimbursement by Company of financial counseling, estate planning, tax preparation, retirement and other related financial planning services for the participant and his/her spouse, domestic partner or dependent children.

	 
	 

	Available Providers
	Any qualified tax, financial, legal or similar firm selected by participant.

	 
	 

	Excluded Services
	Brokerage or other investment transaction fees; asset management fees; insurance premiums; services for individuals other than participant, his/her spouse or domestic partner and dependent children.

	 
	 

	Maximum Benefits
	During employment: $5,000 of reimbursements received in any calendar year.

	 
	Following retirement under a Company-sponsored retirement plan: $3,000 of reimbursements received in any calendar year, over the participant's life.

	 
	Employees who terminate under the terms of a Company Change of Control Severance plan will receive a lump sum payment of these amounts on or about January 1 annually.  An employee who is considered “bridgeable” under the terms of The Gillette Company’s Retirement Plan will be eligible to receive the active amount until his or her earliest retirement date.

	 
	 

	Tax Effects
	Program benefits received by participant will be includable in compensation.  The participant is responsible for applicable Federal and State income taxes and FICA taxes.

	 
	 

	Termination of Participation
	Last day of calendar year in which participant ceases to be an eligible executive, unless participant qualifies for retirement benefits under this program.

	 
	 

	Program Amendment and Termination
	At discretion of the Company, by action of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, without requirement of advance notice.

	 
	 

	Effective Date
	January 1, 1999 (for eligible executives on or after such date).

	 
	 

	 
	By:  /s/ Edward E. Guillet

	 
	Senior Vice President - Human Resources

	 
	 

	[reflects amendments adopted through August 21, 2006]
Mitchell STUKEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-600

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[July 11, 2018]

Mitchell Stukel, South Bay, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The circuit court treated appellant's rule 3.800(a) motion as a rule 3.850 motion and then dismissed it as untimely filed. The court erred in doing so because rule 3.800(a) is available to address an oral versus written sentencing disparity. *See* *194*Williams v. State* , 957 So.2d 600 (Fla. 2007).

Affirmance without prejudice is nonetheless appropriate because appellant's motion failed to attach the sentencing hearing transcript, the portion of the record necessary to address the claim in his rule 3.800(a) motion. *See* *Zill v. State* , 162 So.3d 83, 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (affirming denial of rule 3.800(a) motion claiming sentencing discrepancy without prejudice to appellant's right to refile motion with supporting documentation of transcript and written sentences); *see also* *Ayala-Laies v. State* , 16 So.3d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

We reject the state's argument that there was no sentencing disparity here because there is no difference in this case between a statutory "life" sentence and a "natural life" sentence. *See* *Holt v. State* , 82 So.3d 898, 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (recognizing that a sentence to natural life did not conform to the statutory sentence of life in prison with a 25-year mandatory minimum).

On remand, if appellant refiles the rule 3.800(a) motion, he is also entitled to be heard on his claim of failure to consider a scoresheet. *See* *Paul v. State* , 735 So.2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

Affirmed without prejudice to appellant's filing of an amended rule 3.800(a) motion.

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Forst, JJ., concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Tropical insular fish assemblages are resilient to flood disturbance      

      January 1, 2015    

Periods of stable environmental conditions, favoring development of ecological communities regulated by density-dependent processes, are interrupted by random periods of disturbance that may restructure communities. Disturbance may affect populations via habitat alteration, mortality, or displacement. We quantified fish habitat conditions, density, and movement before and after a major flood disturbance in a Caribbean island tropical river using habitat surveys, fish sampling and population estimates, radio telemetry, and passively monitored PIT tags. Native stream fish populations showed evidence of acute mortality and downstream displacement of surviving fish. All fish species were reduced in number at most life stages after the disturbance, but populations responded with recruitment and migration into vacated upstream habitats. Changes in density were uneven among size classes for most species, indicating altered size structures. Rapid recovery processes at the population level appeared to dampen effects at the assemblage level, as fish assemblage parameters (species richness and diversity) were unchanged by the flooding. The native fish assemblage appeared resilient to flood disturbance, rapidly compensating for mortality and displacement with increased recruitment and recolonization of upstream habitats.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

## Related Content

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Cooperative Research Units Program          

12201 Sunrise Valley DrReston, VA20192United States

(703) 648 - 4260

(703) 648 - 4269

### Explore Search

                  - Puerto Rico

View All **
Lorenzo CUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4096

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Freemel BEST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-757

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Felix I. GASPARD, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2692

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Robert JENNINGS and Barbara Jennings v. ACE WATERPROOFING, INC., et al.

1150772

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Arizona

Filters

              - science_education(1)
              - science_science(91)
              - products_data(378)
              - products_maps(425)
              - products_publications(3675)
              - products_web_tools(6)
              - multimedia_audio(20)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(19)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(406)
              - multimedia_image-141769(9)
              - multimedia_image-141770(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(354)
              - multimedia_image-141774(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(17)
              - multimedia_image-204460(10)
              - multimedia_image-207195(1)
              - multimedia_slideshow(4)
              - multimedia_video(123)
              - multimedia_video-149194(48)
              - multimedia_video-149195(51)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(10)
              - multimedia_video-149198(2)
              - (-)documents_file(12)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - documents_file-149224(3)
              - news_news-149245(10)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149248(12)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_other_news(23)
              - connect_locations(4)
              - connect_social_media(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(85)
              - other_basic-37(2)
              - other_basic-42(20)
              - other_basic-43(1)

## By Location

## By Year

NMIC Mineral Report        June 14, 2019        The Mineral Industry of Arizona, 2014 (PDF)

NMIC Mineral Report        June 14, 2019        The Mineral Industry of Arizona, 2014 (XLSX)

NMIC Mineral Report        February 16, 2021        The Mineral Industry of Arizona, 2015 (XLSX) Tables-Only Release

file        December 19, 2017        Sentinel Island Meteorological Data Water Years 2005-13

file        December 19, 2017        Boulder Basin Meteorological Data Water Years 2013-17

file        December 19, 2017        Sentinel Island Water-Quality Data Water Years 2010-13

file        December 19, 2017        Boulder Basin Water-Quality Data Water Years 2011-16

file        December 19, 2017        Lake Mohave Water-Quality Data Water Years 2013-16

Supporting material        March 12, 2020        US/Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program (TAPP) Presentation

file        December 19, 2017        Virgin Basin Meteorological Data Water Years 2005-10

file        December 19, 2017        Las Vegas Bay, Site 4, Water-Quality Data Water Year 2010

file        December 19, 2017        Las Vegas Bay, Site 4, Meteorological Data Water Year 2010
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

48802

Vol. 70, No. 160

Friday, August 19, 2005

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–51742; File No. SR–NASD–

2005–030] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

National Association of Securities 

Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of 

Proposed Rule Change and 

Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to 

Proposed Uniform Branch Office 

Registration Form (‘‘Form BR’’) and 

Amendments to the Uniform 

Application for Securities Industry 

Registration or Transfer (‘‘Form U4 ’’) 

and the Uniform Termination Notice for 

Securities Industry Registration 

(‘‘Form U5’’)

Correction 

In notice document E5–2810 

beginning on page 32386 in the issue of 

Thursday, June 2, 2005 make the 

following correction: 

On page 32387, in the first column, in 

the footnotes, the first paragraph of 

footnote 3 should read: ‘‘3Currently, 

broker-dealers register or report branch 

offices or other business locations on 

Schedule E of the Form BD. NYSE 

member firms are required to submit the 

NYSE Branch Office Application to 

register a branch office with the NYSE. 

In addition, Connecticut, Florida, 

Nevada and Vermont have separate 

branch office forms that request similar 

information for firms seeking to register 

a branch office in those states; 

moreover, more than 20 states require 

broker-dealers to submit a ‘‘notice 

filing’’ when a firm opens or closes a 

branch office.’’.

[FR Doc. Z5–2810 Filed 8–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1919

WARREN K. GLADDEN,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; GARY LOCKE, 

Secretary,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:10-cv-01756-PJM)

Submitted: March 16, 2012 Decided: April 9, 2012

Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren K. Gladden, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Ronald Baldwin, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Warren K. Gladden appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment to Defendants on Gladden’s claims of 

employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Gladden v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, No. 

8:10-cv-01756-PJM (D. Md. June 30, 2011). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served through ECF on the debtor’s attorney or by U.S. First Class 

pre-paid Mail on the pro se debtor on the same day filed with the Court.

Submitted by:

NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQ, STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 279806, MIRAMAR, FL 33027, (954) 443-4402

RE: CARLOS PRADA CASE NUMBER: 21-14911-LMI 

 ANAYS MESTRE

TRUSTEE'S NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY FOR CONFIRMATION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Trustee reviewed this case and found the following deficiencies remain unresolved from the Trustee’s letter 

requesting documents and prior deficiencies and thus objects as follows (If this case is dismissed, this 

deficiency is an objection to reinstatement until all documents are received or all issues are addressed): 

WRITTEN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED AND/OR DOCUMENTS REQUESTED MUST BE 

RECEIVED BY 5PM AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS (NOT INCLUDING HOLIDAYS) PRIOR TO THE 

CONFIRMATION HEARING TO AVOID DISMISSAL. Please note documents that were not timely 

filed/received by the trustee may not be considered as there is not sufficient time for an additional review of this 

case. Call the Trustee's case administration department prior to “re-sending” documents. The Trustee 

reserves the right to raise additional objections UNTIL all documents are timely provided to the Trustee and 

reviewed for possible issues raised and additional documents needed. 

The debtor or debtor’s attorney must appear at the confirmation hearing even if they pre-hear with the 

Trustee. The debtor may be dismissed for failure to fund the plan if they are delinquent in payments. 

The Court may dismiss this case if no one appears to represent the debtor at the confirmation hearing.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: IF THE DEBTOR(S) OBJECTS TO THE TRUSTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, THE 

DEBTOR'S ATTORNEY MUST CONTACT THE TRUSTEE'S OFFICE AND SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY 

BEFORE 2PM THE LAST BUSINESS DAY PRIOR TO THE CONFIRMATION HEARING TO SEEK A 

RESOLUTION OR THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE DEEMED UNCONTESTED BY THE DEBTOR. 

===============================================================================

Recommendation for October 12, 2021 hearing. All amendments and documents for the October 12, 2021

hearing were due as of September 23, 2021. (Call the Trustee's case administration department prior to 

"re-sending" documents)

If Counsel for the Debtor(s) appears at confirmation, confirms service, and agrees on the record:

Continue to 11/2:

Due on or before 5pm on 10/15: Amend order [ECF No. 48] as it references the wrong creditor. IRS objection 

[ECF No. 37] still pending. 

Case 21-14911-LMI Doc 57 Filed 10/06/21 Page 1 of 1
Form ATYHRG

United States Bankruptcy Court

 Southern District of Florida

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

Case Number: 21−20131−LMI

Chapter: 13

In re:

Robert Brown

19121 NW 37 Court

Miami Gardens FL 33055

SSN: XXX−XX−8171

NOTICE OF HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing will be held before the Honorable Laurel M Isicoff to consider the

following:

[38] Objection to Claim of State of Florida Department Child Support Enforcement [# 01], State of

Florida Department Child Support Enforcement [# 02], Filed by Debtor Robert Brown (Masri, Samir)

1. This matter has been set on the Court's motion calendar for a non−evidentiary hearing. The allotted time for this matter is ten

minutes. The hearing will be held:

Date: February 01, 2022

Time: 09:00AM

Location: Video Conference by Zoom for Government

2. The hearing scheduled by this notice will take place only by video conference. DO NOT GO TO THE COURTHOUSE. Attorneys

must advise their clients not to appear at the courthouse. Although conducted by video conference, the hearing is a court

proceeding. The formalities of the courtroom must be observed. All participants must dress appropriately, exercise civility, and

otherwise conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the dignity of the Court.

3. To participate in the hearing, you must register in advance no later than 3:00 p.m., one business day before the date of the hearing.

To register, click on or enter the following registration link in a browser:

https://www.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJItduiqqz4iGPWRbYC6YTes9xqj5mxBNU4

4. The movant, or movant's counsel if represented by an attorney, must:

(a) serve a copy of this notice of hearing and, unless previously served, the above−described document(s) on all required parties

within the time frame required by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the local rules of this Court, and orders of the

Court, and

(b) file a certificate of service as required under Local Rules 2002−1(F) and 9073−1(B).

Any party who fails to properly serve any pleading or other paper may be denied the opportunity to be heard thereon.

5. PLEASE NOTE: No person may record the proceedings from any location by any means. The audio recording maintained by the

Court will be the sole basis for creation of a transcript that constitutes the official record of the hearing.

Dated: 1/14/2022 By: Samir Masri

Case 21-20131-LMI Doc 39 Filed 01/14/22 Page 1 of 1