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

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(No. 333-44117, No. 333-62936, No. 333-126583, No. 333-151378, and No. 333-159425) of
Mac-Gray Corporation of our report dated March 11, 2011 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedules and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston,
Massachusetts
March 14, 2011

---



QuickLinks
Case 3:05-cv-00951-M Document 7 Filed 06/22/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 53
Case 3:05-cv-00073-P Document 4-2 Filed 01/20/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 65
Case 3:05-cv-00073-P Document 4-2 Filed 01/20/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 66
# C_2018373EN.01002101.xml

| 15.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/21

---

Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-445/16

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 364 of 3 October 2016
  )

(2018/C 373/23)

The notice in the Official Journal in Case T-445/16 —Schniga v CPVO (Gala Schnico), should read as follows:

‘Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Schniga v CPVO (Gala Schnico)

(Case T-445/16)

(2016/C 364/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Community plant variety right at issue: Gala Schnico — Community plant variety right application No 2009/1807

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 22 April 2016 in Case A005/2014.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order CPVO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order CPVO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 76, 8, 57(3) and 75 of Regulation No 2100/94.’ |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 76, 8, 57(3) and 75 of Regulation No 2100/94.’

---
Case 3:05-cv-00845-M Document 7 Filed 07/29/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 23
~) 

John Randall Futch, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Glenn Fine, 

Defendant. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

MAR - 5 2009 

NANCY MAYER WHmINGTON. CLERK 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

09 0420 

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff s pro se complaint and his application to 

proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis 

and dismiss the complaint. 

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner currently confined to a segregated housing unit for his own 

protection, has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injunctive relief, alleging that his 

due process rights have been violated because the defendant, the Inspector General for the United 

States Department of Justice, has not conducted an investigation that plaintiff requested. There 

is, however, no such thing as a due process right to an investigation by the Department of 

Justice's Inspector General, and plaintiff has not identified any other way in which his due 

process rights might have been violated. Therefore, plaintiff has not stated a claim under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 upon which relief may be granted. Federal law obligates this Court to dismiss this 

complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (requiring a court to dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted). A final order accompanies this memorandum opinion. 

Date: United States District Judge
III 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 15 

Electing Gary B. Myrick, of Virginia, as Secretary for the Minority of the 

Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. SCHUMER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Electing Gary B. Myrick, of Virginia, as Secretary for the 

Minority of the Senate. 

1 Resolved, That Gary B. Myrick of Virginia be, and 

2 he is hereby, elected Secretary for the Minority of the Sen3 ate. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# C_2017239EN.01002801.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/28

---

Appeal brought on 8 May 2017 by Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-163/14: Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council

(Case C-237/17 P)

(2017/C 239/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. (represented by: J. Bourgeois, avocat, S. De Knop, advocaat, M. Meulenbelt, advocaat, A. Willems, avocat)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | quash the judgment of the General Court in case T-163/14; |
| --- | --- |

—

quash the judgment of the General Court in case T-163/14;

| — | uphold the application at first instance and annul the contested regulation in so far as it concerns appellants; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the application at first instance and annul the contested regulation in so far as it concerns appellants;

| — | order the respondent to pay the appellants’ costs, and its own costs, both at first instance and on appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the appellants’ costs, and its own costs, both at first instance and on appeal;

| — | order any other parties to the appeal to pay their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order any other parties to the appeal to pay their own costs;

In the alternative

| — | quash the judgment of the General Court in case T-163/14; |
| --- | --- |

—

quash the judgment of the General Court in case T-163/14;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

| — | reserve the costs at first instance and on appeal for final judgment by the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs at first instance and on appeal for final judgment by the General Court;

| — | order any other parties to the appeal to pay their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order any other parties to the appeal to pay their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by requiring appellants to show an interest in raising the first and second pleas; in any event, the General Court erred in its legal characterization of the facts as the appellants have such an interest.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

HONORABLE ELAINE L. CHAO §

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT §

OF LABOR §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-338-Y

VS. §

 §

ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION §

FINAL JUDGMENT

It appearing to the Court that, pursuant to a consent decree

and order of the Court on June 13, 2007, the following has occurred:

(1) Defendant, Allied Pilots Association (“APA”), under the

supervision of Plaintiff, Elaine L. Chao, Secretary, United States

Department of Labor (“Chao”), held a national officer election and

a run-off election that concluded on June 20, 2007.

(2) Chao has filed a “Certification of Election” certifying

the names of the candidates who were duly elected to their respective

offices. Therein, Chao certifies that APA’s national officer election

was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Title IV of the

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (29, U.S.C.

§ 481 et seq.) (“LMRDA”), and, insofar as lawful and practicable,

in conformity with the constitution and bylaws of the APA;

(3) Chao has also filed the declaration of Cynthia M. Downing,

Chief of the Division of Enforcement, Office of Labor-Management

Standards, United States Department of Labor. Downing states that

an investigation into protests received during APA’s national officer

election found no violations of the LMRDA, and where there had been

Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 76 Filed 09/12/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1318
2

potential violations, those violations had been remedied.

The Court, having considered Chao’s motion for entry of judgment,

is of the opinion that said motion should be GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the persons

named in the Certification of Election filed by Chao in support of

her motion for an entry of judgment are duly elected to their

respective offices, and shall serve until the next regularly scheduled

election of officers of APA;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this case be,

and hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party bearing its

own costs in this matter, including attorney’s fees. 

 SIGNED September 12, 2007.

Case 4:05-cv-00338-Y Document 76 Filed 09/12/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1319
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ORLANDO LAY

- GONZALEZ

,

Petitioner

,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent

. No. 14

- 70727

Agency No. A037

- 175

- 011

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 12, 2018 **

San Francisco

, California

Before: TASHIMA and M. SMITH , Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, *** District Judge.

Petitioner Orlando Lay

- Gonzalez petitions for review of a decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determining that Lay

- Gonzalez’s conviction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUN 14 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

for coercion under Nevada Revised Statute § 207.190(2)(a) was categorically a

crim e of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b).

The Supreme Court , however, has recently held that § 16(b) is

unconstitutionally vague. See Sessions v. Dimaya , 138 S. Ct. 1204 , 1223 (2018)

. In

addition, we recently held that coercion under Nevada Revised Statute § 207.190 is

not a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Edling

,

No. 16

- 10457, slip op. at 11 (9th Cir. Jun. 8, 2018). In light of Dimaya and the

BIA’s reliance on § 16(b), and Edling

, Lay

- Gonzalez’s petition is GRANTED and

we REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings.
Opinion issued July 9, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00540-CV

———————————

IN RE CHRISTOPHER DUPUY, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Relator, Christopher Dupuy, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and 

request for emergency relief, complaining that Respondent, the Honorable Ben 

Hardin, presiding judge of the 306th District Court of Galveston County, abused 

 1 The underling proceeding is In the Interest of B.T.D. and C.M.D., No. 12FD1807, 

in the 306th District Court of Galveston County, the Honorable Ben Hardin

presiding. 
2

his discretion when he issued temporary orders in Relator’s ex-wife Adrienne 

Viterna’s suit to modify the parent-child relationship. According to Relator: (1) 

Respondent abused his discretion in rendering a temporary order that had the effect 

of changing the designation of the person with the exclusive right to designate the 

primary residence of the children, (2) Respondent abused his discretion in 

rendering the temporary order because there is no evidence, or alternatively, the 

evidence is insufficient to prove that the present circumstances of the children 

would significantly impair their physical health or emotional development, and (3) 

Respondent abused his discretion in admitting testimony and exhibits that pre-date 

the date of the prior orders.

Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. Although Relator provided us with an appendix, the appendix does not 

include Viterna’s most recent petition to modify or her application for temporary 

orders, and it only includes brief excerpts from the 8-day hearing on the 

application for temporary orders. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (requiring that 

appendix include certified or sworn copy of any document showing matter 

complained of); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7 (requiring relator to file mandamus record 

containing all documents material to claim for relief); see generally In re Bill 

Heard Chevrolet, Ltd., 209 S.W.3d 311 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, 

orig. proceeding) (discussing sufficiency of mandamus records). Based on the 
3

record provided, we cannot determine the basis for Viterna’s application for 

temporary orders or what evidence the trial court actually considered before it 

granted the temporary orders.

Relator also failed to certify that he has reviewed the petition and concluded 

that “every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence 

included in the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Relator’s request 

for emergency relief is dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Massengale.
Retention Bonus Agmt- NYCB, Roslyn Bancorp, Roslyn Savings Bank & Mary McKinley



 EXHIBIT 10.26 
  
 New York Community Bancorp, Inc. 
 615
Merrick Avenue 
 Westbury, New York 11590 
  

June 27, 2003 
  
 Mary Ellen McKinley 
 The Roslyn Savings Bank 
 One Jericho Plaza 
 Jericho, New York 11753-8905 
  
 Dear Mary Ellen: 
  
 I am pleased to have this opportunity to set forth in writing certain additional information relating to your employment at New York Community Bank (the
“Bank”) following the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) entered between New York Community Bancorp, Inc. (the “Holding Company”) and Roslyn
Bancorp, Inc. on this date. This letter is intended to supplement your new employment agreement with the Holding Company. 
  
 At such time as you become an employee of the Bank under your new employment agreement as a result of the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement, you
will receive a retention bonus of $500,000. However, if you voluntarily terminate employment prior to the completion of 365 days of employment after the Effective Time other than by reason of an “Event of Termination” (as defined in your
new employment agreement), or if you are terminated for “Just Cause” (as defined in your new employment agreement) within such 365-day period, you will immediately return to the Holding Company a portion of the retention bonus equal to the
product of (x) the retention bonus and (y) a fraction the numerator of which is the total number of days remaining in such 365-day period and the denominator of which is 365. 







 Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Merger Agreement is terminated pursuant to Article VI of the Merger
Agreement, this letter agreement will be null and void. 
  
 Please
acknowledge the foregoing in the space indicated below. 
  

	 	 	 	 	 Sincerely,

				
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 /s/ Joseph R. Ficalora


	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Joseph R. Ficalora

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 President and Chief Executive Officer

			
	 Acknowledged and Agreed:
	 	 	 	 
			
	 /s/ Mary Ellen McKinley

	 	 	 	 
	 Mary Ellen McKinley
	 	 	 	 

  

 2
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10690

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

THOMAS EDGAR BELL,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:92-CV-108

- - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas Edgar Bell appeals the denial of his motion for

relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Bell contends that counsel

was ineffective for failing to object to the form of

methamphetamine considered at sentencing. We affirm for

essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court in its

order adopting the magistrate judge's supplemental report. Bell

v. United States, No. 2:90-CR-0017-01 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 1995). 

Bell does not argue other issues raised in the district court;
No. 95-10690

-2-

those issues are abandoned. Hobbs v. Blackburn, 752 F.2d 1079,

1083 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 838 (1985).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2019263EN.01000701.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos — Greece) — Ellinika Nafpigeia AE v Panagiotis Anagnostopoulos and Others

(Case C-664/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Scope - Transfer of part of an undertaking - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Concept of ‘transfer’ - Concept of ‘economic entity’ - Transfer of part of the economic activity of a parent company to a newly created subsidiary - Identity - Autonomy - Pursuit of an economic activity - Criterion requiring stability of the pursuit of an economic activity - Recourse to factors of production of third parties - Intention to liquidate the entity transferred)

(2019/C 263/08)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Areios Pagos

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ellinika Nafpigeia AE

Respondents: Panagiotis Anagnostopoulos and Others

Interveners: Syllogos Ergazomenon Nafpigeion Skaramagka, I TRIAINA, Panellinia Omospondia Ergatoÿpallilon Metallou (POEM), Geniki Synomospondia Ergaton Ellados (GSEE)

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, in particular Article 1(1)(a) and (b) thereof, must be interpreted as applying to the transfer of a production unit where, first, the transferor, the transferee, or both those persons jointly, act with a view to the transferee pursuing the economic activity engaged in by the transferor, but also with a view to the transferee itself subsequently ceasing to exist, in the context of a liquidation, and second, the unit at issue, lacking the ability to attain its economic object without having recourse to factors of production from third parties, is not totally autonomous, provided that — matters which are for the referring court to establish — first, the general principle of EU law requiring the transferor and transferee not to seek to obtain fraudulently or wrongfully the advantages that they might derive from Directive 2001/23 is observed and, second, the production unit concerned has sufficient safeguards ensuring it access to the factors of production of a third party so as not to be dependent upon the economic choices unilaterally made by the latter.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 2 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 2

 Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is 
                               assembled.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Thune submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is 
                               assembled.

    Resolved, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives 
that a quorum of the Senate is assembled and that the Senate is ready 
to proceed to business.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Language Line Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the
quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis G. Dracup, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Language Line Holdings, Inc.
|---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 9, 2007



/s/ Dennis G. DracupDennis G. DracupChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of this Report.
R.P.B. v. R.B. and T.B.

2160624

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.