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



EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP,
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
the following Registration Statements and amendments thereto



| |                                                                                          
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Form S-3 No. 333-52708 Registration for
    Face-amount Certificate Companies            
| | Form S-3 No. 333-109663 Registration
    adding Securities to Prior Form S-3 Registration
| | Form S-8 No. 33-21505 Employee Stock
    Purchase Plan                                   
| | Form S-8 No. 333-41671 Non-Employee
    Director Deferred Compensation Plan              
| | Form S-8 No. 333-41669 1997 Long-Term
    Incentive Plan                                 
| | Form S-8 No. 333-66026 1997 Long-Term
    Incentive Plan                                 
| | Form S-8 No. 333-41673 Executive
    Deferred Compensation Plan                          
| | Form S-8 No. 333-42131 Non-Employee
    Directors Stock Option Plan                     
| | Form S-8 No. 333-66018 Non-Employee
    Directors Stock Option Plan                     
| | Form S-8 No. 333-54734 Stock Grant Plan                                                  
| | Form S-8 No. 333-101318 Executive
    Deferred Compensation Plan                         
| | Form S-8 No. 333-87290 Non-Employee
    Director Deferred Compensation Plan              

of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. of our report dated
February 25, 2004, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Beverly Enterprises, Inc.
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2003.



| |                  
| | -----------------
| | ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Little Rock, Arkansas

February 26, 2004
Wesly ARISTIL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5053

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 22, 2019.

Keith W. Upson of The Upson Law Group, P.L., Naples, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Sylvester ANDREWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-497

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PRIDE, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pride, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Schumacher,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




/s/ Michael Schumacher
----------------------------------------------
Michael Schumacher
President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer,
 Chief Financial Officer and Director

November 21, 2005
T.G. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160935

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JOSEPH S. GILBERT, ESQ., Petitioner, vs. STATE BAR OF NEVADA, Respondent.

. No. 84113 

# FILED

MAY 1 3 2022 ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK Q SUPREME COURT BY f DEPUTY C
. LER - IC ORDER DENYING PETITION AND LIFTING STAY This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeks, amongst other relief, a writ directing the dismissal of disciplinary proceedings and an investigation into the State Bar. Having considered the briefing and documentation filed by both parties, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Petitioner Joseph S. Gilbert argues that respondent the State Bar of Nevada released a proposed letter of reprimand issued by a screening panel in the underlying disciplinary proceedings to the press in violation of confidentiality rules. But the documentation before this court contains no evidence tending to show that the State Bar released the proposed letter or violated confidentiality rules, such that Gilbert has failed to meet his burden of showing that writ relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev..222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is

0102

### warranted). The State Bar also has not violated Gilbert's due process rights

such that writ relief would be warranted because the proposed reprimand did not become final due to Gilbert's timely objection to the same and the State Bar has not otherwise recommended any discipline for Gilbert at this time. See 

### SCR 105(1)(b), (c) (providing that an attorney may object to a screening panel's decision to issue a letter of reprimand, after which the State Bar must commence formal proceedings; and that "a panel shall not make a finding of misconduct until the attorney has been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against the attorney"). As Gilbert has failed to show he is entitled to any of the relief he seeks, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Hardesty

Stiglich
, J. Herndon

cc: Clark Hill PLC Lipson Neilson P.C. Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 'Because we deny writ relief, we deny Gilbert's request for attorney fees and costs related to these writ proceedings and lift the stay of the disciplinary proceedings previously imposed by this court on March 23, 2022.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A 4044 

### 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 19 (Thursday, January 30, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01916]

[[Page 8543]]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 30, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 22, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
600 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1150, K2025-1150.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-01916 Filed 1-29-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
# C_2018094EN.01000202.xml

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/2

---

Appeal brought on 25 September 2017 by Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-432/16, Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO

(Case C-570/17 P)

(2018/C 094/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 16 January 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
HAWKINS ACCOUNTING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT                   341 MAIN STREET SALINAS, CA. 93901
                                              (831) 759-2480  FAX (831) 759-2482


                       CONSENT OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
                       ----------------------------------


As the  independent  auditor for Home  Web Incorporated, I hereby consent to the
Incorporation  by reference in this Form 10K Statement of my report, relating to
the  financial  statements  and  financial  statement  schedule  of  Home  Web
Incorporated for the period ending September 30, 2000 and December 31, 1999. The
Report is dated December 15, 2000.


/s/  R. Richard Hawkins II
R. Richard Hawkins II
Hawkins Accounting


<PAGE>
D.E. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160929

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Tracy WALKER

No. 2018-KH-1653

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TANGIPAHOA**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Applicant has now fully litigated his second application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of *1206a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
A.I. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2161050

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

Affirmed.
1st Amend. to the ON Semiconductor Corp. Executive Deferred Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 4.2 
  

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
 ON
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
  
 Effective December 13, 1999, ON Semiconductor (the “Company”) adopted the ON Semiconductor Executive Deferred Compensation Plan. The Plan was subsequently amended and restated as the ON Semiconductor Amended
and Restated Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (“Plan”) on March 8, 2000. By this instrument, the company desires to amend the Plan to transition into the Plan those executives who formerly participated in the Cherry Semiconductor
Corporation Deferred Compensation Program. 
  
 1. This Amendment
shall amend only those provisions specified herein and those provisions not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 2. Effective September 19, 2000, Section 3.1 of the Plan is amended by adding the following language after the third sentence: 
  
 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective as of September 19, 2000, any
employee of the Company or an Affiliate who was a participant in the Cherry Semiconductor Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan (“Cherry Plan”) shall be eligible to participate in the Plan.” 
  
 3. Effective September 19, 2000, Section 6.2 of the Plan is hereby amended by
adding the following language at the end of Section 6.2: 
  
 “Each Participant who was a participant in the Cherry Plan shall have an Account balance as of September 19, 2000, equal to the Participant’s account balance under the Cherry Plan as of September 19, 2000.”
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

AMY R. SMITH, EXECUTRIX OF THE

ESTATE OF PAUL A. ROWLAND,

DECEASED,

 Petitioner

 v.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC,

INDIVIDUALLY AND OWNER OF

AND/OR PARENT OF AND/OR

SUCCESSOR TO AND/OR F/K/A MINI,

BORG-WARNER CORPORATION,

INDIVIDUALLY AND SUBSIDIARY OF

AND/OR PARENT OF AND/OR A/K/A

AND/OR F/K/A BORG & BECK, FORD

MOTOR COMPANY, GENUINE PARTS

COMPANY, HONEYWELL

INTERNATIONAL INC., AS

SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF ALLIED

SIGNAL, INC., SUCCESSOR TO

BENDIX CORPORATION AND BENDIX

MINTEX PTY, LTD., JAGUAR LAND

ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC

INDIVIDUALLY AND ITS

PREDECESSORS, SUCCESSORS,

PRESENT AND/OR FORMER

PARENTS, SUBSIDIARIES AND/OR

DIVISIONS, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,

INC., THE PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE &

JACK, PNEUMO ABEX, LLC,

SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO ABEX

CORPORATION AND QUAKER CITY

MOTOR PARTS COMPANY,

 Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 488 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER
[488 EAL 2014] - 2

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED. The Application for Leave to File Post-Submission Communication is also

DENIED.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 MARCH 7, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. No. 07-15350

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket Nos. 07-00049-CV-DHB-1 & 05-14034 BKC-SD

In Re: QUEBBIE BRINSON,

Debtor.

_________________________________________________________________

QUEBBIE BRINSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE, 

Barnee C. Baxter, Chapter 13 Trustee,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

_________________________

 (March 7, 2008)

Before CARNES, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons set forth in its

ORDER dated October 11, 2007.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

FRANKLIN IGHEKPE §

§

Petitioner, §

§

VS. § 

§ NO. 3-05-CV-2098-K

JOHN T. SOURKARIS, Director, §

Post Order Detention Unit, U.S. §

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, §

ET AL. §

§

Respondents. §

ORDER

After conducting a review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the Findings

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), I am of the opinion that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are

correct and they are hereby accepted as the Findings of the Court. 

SO ORDERED this 6th day of March , 2006.

 s/Ed Kinkeade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02098-K Document 15 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 137
STATE of Louisiana v. Julius HANKTON

No. 2018-K-1457

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2019

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted in part. The decision of the court of appeal is reversed to the limited extent that it amended and affirmed the sentences as amended. Instead, defendant's sentences are vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing. Pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.4, the court of appeal erred in unilaterally resentencing the defendant. On remand, the trial court is ordered to resentence defendant to a punishment that is not unconstitutionally excessive and to articulate its reasons for the sentences imposed, including as to whether some or all *570of the sentences should be served consecutively.
1

Case No.: 11-CV-06584-LHK; 11-CV-06589

ORDER DIRECTING COUNSEL TO FILE INTERESTED PARTY RESPONSE OR NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

On January 26, 2012, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL 

Panel”) held a hearing, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to consider whether to transfer cases 

potentially related to the above-captioned matters. In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc. Pelvic Repair Sys. 

Prods. Liab. Litig., Case MDL No. 2325 (filed Nov. 23, 2011). By February 8, 2012, Counsel in 

each of the above-captioned matters is hereby ordered to file with the MDL Panel either an 

interested party response or a notice of related case in Case MDL No. 2325. The filing must 

include a copy of the respective complaint and the docket sheet. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2012 ________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

HOLLY JONES, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 11-CV-06584-LHK

WANDA ALEXANDER, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 11-CV-06589-LHK

ORDER DIRECTING COUNSEL TO 

FILE INTERESTED PARTY RESPONSE

OR NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

WITH JUDICIAL PANEL ON 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 15 Filed 02/06/12 Page 1 of 1
Order filed July 28, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00952

- CV

____________ GIOVANNY LAGUAN , Appellant

V.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MOR TGAGE ASSOCIATION A/ K/A FANNIE MAE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 1

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15

- CCV

- 055845



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due July 15, 2016

. No brief or motion for extension of
time has been filed.
Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before August 12, 2016
, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
Richard GAUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3240

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, MORRIS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32

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 the Annual Report of Syntel, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Keshav Murugesh, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company and Arvind Godbole, Chief Financial Officer &
Chief Information Security Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Keshav
Murugesh                            
|Keshav Murugesh                                   
|Syntel, Inc. Chief Executive Officer and President
|                                                  
|March 12, 2009                                    



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|                                    
|/s/    Arvind
Godbole               
|Arvind Godbole                      
|Syntel, Inc. Chief Financial Officer
|& Chief Information Security Officer
|                                    
|March 12, 2009                      

A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE of Louisiana v. Curtis CHELEY

18-806

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

May 1, 2019

Paula C. Marx, Louisiana Appellate Project, P.O. Box 82389, Lafayette, LA 70598-2389, (337) 991-9757, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Curtis Cheley

Asa Allen Skinner, District Attorney, Thirtieth Judicial District Court, Terry W. Lambright, Lea Hall, Assistant District Attorneys, P.O. Box 1188, Leesville, LA 71496-1188, (337) 239-2008, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana

Curtis Cheley, David Wade Correctional Center, 670 Bell Hill Road, Homer, LA 71040-2150, PRO SE

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and Van H. Kyzar, Judges.

SAUNDERS, Judge.

For the reasons discussed in the consolidated case of *State v. Cheley* , 18-805 and 18-806 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/1/19), 270 So.3d 870, the third felony offender conviction is affirmed, the sentences are vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

**CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED, AND REMANDED.**
WC BAKER COMPANY, LLC v. Philden STOCKTON

2017-CT-01710-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: April 17, 2019 Closed: June 27, 2019

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.