alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

HOWARD CARTER, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

EVEREST RECEIVABLE SERVICES, INC. 

 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 No. 2:13-cv-237 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, HOWARD CARTER (“Plaintiff”), by and through the 

undersigned counsel, and hereby informs the Court that a settlement of the present matter has 

been reached and all parties to the present matter are currently in the process of executing the 

aforementioned settlement agreement, which Plaintiff anticipates will be completed within the 

next 60 days. 

 Plaintiff therefore requests that this Honorable Court vacate all dates currently set on 

calendar for the present matter. 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 1

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00237-JVB-PRC document 5 filed 09/04/13 page 1 of 3
DATED: September 4, 2013 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

KROHN & MOSS, LTD. 

By: /s/ Ryan Lee 

 Ryan Lee, Esq. 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 Krohn & Moss, Ltd. 

 10474 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 405 

 Los Angeles, CA 90025 

Tel: (323) 988-2400 x 241 

Fax: (866) 385-1408 

Email: rlee@consumerlawcenter.com

 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 2

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00237-JVB-PRC document 5 filed 09/04/13 page 2 of 3
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 4, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing Notice of 

Settlement with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF System. A copy of said Notice was 

electronically submitted to all parties by the Court’s CM/ECF system. 

 By: /s/ Ryan Lee .

 Ryan Lee 

 Krohn & Moss, Ltd. 

 10474 Santa Monica Blvd., 

 Suite 405 

 Los Angeles, CA 90025 

 Ph: (323) 988-2400 ext 241 

 rlee@consumerlawcenter.com 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

 HOWARD CARTER 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00237-JVB-PRC document 5 filed 09/04/13 page 3 of 3
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

THOMAS LEGG, Jr., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No: 3:12-cv-00844-JTM-CAN

-vs- )

)

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING )

PHARMACY, INC., ET al. )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record:

I, the undersigned, state that I have read the Standards of Professional Conduct within the 

Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit and the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of Indiana pursuant to N.D.Ind.L.R. 83.5 (g) and Appendix B of this court and will 

faithfully adhere to them. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and 

correct.

Please enter my appearance as counsel for plaintiff Thomas Legg, Jr.

Dated this 15th day of January, 2013.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Douglas A. Mulvaney

Douglas A. Mulvaney, # 10263-20

Stutsman & Mulvaney

1300 Cassopolis Street

P.O. Box 1337

Elkhart, IN 46515

(574) 266-8500

dmulvaney@smspilawyers.com

case 3:12-cv-00844-JTM-CAN document 14 filed 01/15/13 page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 15, 2013, a true and complete copy of the above and 

foregoing was served on: 

Dina M. Cox

Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo

Robert M. Baker, IV

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP

501 Indiana Avenue, Ste. 200

Indianapolis, IN 46202

/s/ Douglas A. Mulvaney

Douglas A. Mulvaney

case 3:12-cv-00844-JTM-CAN document 14 filed 01/15/13 page 2 of 2
#### MOSS V. MAYOR, ETC., OF BIRMINGHAM.

*Violating Oity Ordinance.*

(Decided March 2. 1907.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. M. M. Baldwin.

E. M. Hamil, and Kerr & Haley, for appellant.

J. Q. Smith, for appellee.

McClellan, J.

Affirmed on tbe authority” of *Mayor & Aldermen of Birmingham v.*O’Hearn, 149 Ala. 307, 42 South. 836.

. Tyson, C. J., Dowdell and Anderson, JJ., concur.
BROADCOM CORPORATION, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF the EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, et al.

No. 12-1475.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of *Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.,* 571 U.S. ---- (2013).
---



##### 



STATE
BANK OF VIETNAMNo. 11422 /NHNN-QLNH
    
    SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM
Independence  Freedom  Happiness Ha Noi, 31 December, 2008
 To: PHUOC SON GOLD COMPANY LIMITEDRe: Doré gold export
  1.
    
    We approve Phuoc Son Gold Company Limited to export 1,600 kg (one thousand
six hundred kilograms) of gold produced by the Company in year 2009 to be refined
and traded overseas.
 2.
    
    Phuoc Son Gold Company Limited is only permitted to export the type of gold
specified in Article 1 of this letter and is requested to conform to regulations on
gold export and import as well as relevant stipulations.3.
    
    This approval shall take effect until the end of 31 December 2009.
  
    
    As above
    
    Nguyen Van Binh, the Deputy Director (to report)
    
    File
 Nguyen Quang Huy
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             617
<SECURITIES>                                     1,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,499
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,256
<PP&E>                                           2,457
<DEPRECIATION>                                     610
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,423
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,875
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,582
<SALES>                                         15,129
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                            6,279
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,391
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,157
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,234
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 171

To restore the standards used for determining whether technical workers 

are not employees as in effect before the Tax Reform Act of 1986. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To restore the standards used for determining whether technical workers are not employees as in effect before the 

Tax Reform Act of 1986.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Technical Workers 

5 Fairness Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING 

7 WHETHER TECHNICAL WORKERS ARE NOT 

8 EMPLOYEES. 

9 (a) REPEAL OF SECTION 530(d) OF THE REVENUE

10 ACT OF 1978.—Section 530(d) of the Revenue Act of 
2

•HR 171 IH 

1 1978 (as added by section 1706 of the Tax Reform Act 

2 of 1986) is repealed. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) shall apply to periods ending after the date 

5 of enactment of this Act.

Æ
EX-34.6
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
1601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:


We have examined management's assessment for those customers that management has
informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included in the
accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those issuers
of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios
that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform)
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Regulus Group LLC has determined
that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the
activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with
those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assessment about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform,
testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining
whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those
selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP

February 12, 2008


KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
* Senior U.S. Circuit Judge James C. Hill may participate in further proceedings in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c). United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

No. 95-8120. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. Harry Leon SMITH, III, Defendant-Appellant. April 24, 1997. Appeal from the United States District Cour t for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:94-CR-149); Richard C. Freeman, Judge. (Opinion December 5, 1996, 11th Cir., 1996, 106 F.3d 350). Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, and TJOF LAT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges. * BY THE COURT: A member of this court in active service ha ving requested a poll on whether this case should be reheard by the Court sitting en banc, and a major ity of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel's opinion is hereby VACATED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6941

MICHAEL CURTIS REYNOLDS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JENNIFER SAAD, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00124-IMK)

Submitted: September 14, 2018 Decided: September 20, 2018

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Curtis Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Curtis Reynolds, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 (2012) petition. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the 

Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Reynolds’ informal brief does not 

challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Reynolds has forfeited appellate 

review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) 

(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is 

limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. We deny Reynolds’ motions to compel, to show cause, for summary judgment, 

and for a hearing. We deny as moot Reynolds’ motion for release pending appeal. 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

MELANIE BRUCE, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No.: 2:15-CV-246-JTM-PRC

)

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a )

SALLIE MAE, )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Consent Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration

[DE 8], filed by Defendant on August 18, 2015. Defendant represents that Plaintiff and Defendant

are parties to an arbitration agreement that mandates arbitration of all claims arising from or relating

in any way to the student loan promissory note signed by Plaintiff on August 20, 2010, including

Plaintiff’s claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant represents that Plaintiff

agrees to this Motion and asks that the Court stay this case pending the conclusion of arbitration. 

The Court, noting the agreement of the parties, finds the matter well taken, GRANTS the

Consent Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration [DE 8] and ORDERS that this matter is

STAYED pending the resolution of that arbitration. The Court ORDERS the parties to file a joint

status report by February 19, 2016. The parties are ORDERED to notify the Court of the entry of

a final arbitration award. 

SO ORDERED this 19th day of August, 2015.

 s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00246-JTM-PRC document 9 filed 08/19/15 page 1 of 1
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1307]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Josephine F. Waine 1992 Trust; Change in Bank Control Notice

Acquisition of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificant listed below has applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on notices are set forth in 
paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notice is available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notice has been accepted for 
processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices of 
the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in 
writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for the notice or to the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than 
January 31, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Robert M. Brady, Vice President) 
600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02106:
    1. Josephine F. Waine 1992 Trust, Marco Island, Florida; to acquire 
an additional 6.2 percent (for a total of 11.5 percent) of the voting 
shares of Pacific National Corporation, Nantucket, Massachusetts, and 
thereby indirectly acquire Pacific National Bank of Nantucket, 
Nantucket, Massachusetts.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 12, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-1307 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION 

DEBBIE LEE, )

)

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 2:15-cv-00090-JD-PRC

)

v. ) Hon. Judge Jon E. DeGuilio

)

WELTMAN, WEINBERG AND REIS CO. )

L.P.A., )

)

Defendant. )

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Plaintiff, Debbie Lee, and Defendant, Weltman, Weinberg and Reis Co. L.P.A., by and 

through their respective attorneys, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of the within complaint with 

prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), all matters in controversy having been 

resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ 

fees.

By: /s/ David B. Levin By: /s/ Carl A. Greci

David B. Levin Carl A. Greci

Illinois Attorney No. 6212141 Attorney for Defendant

Admitted to Practice in Northern District of Indiana Faegre, Baker, Daniels LLP

Attorney for Plaintiff 202 S Michigan St Suite 1400

Allen Chern Law LLC South Bend, IN 46601

79 W. Monroe Street Phone: (574) 234-4149

5th Floor Fax: (574) 239-1900

Chicago, IL 60603 carl.greci@faegrebd.com

Phone: (312) 940-8163

Fax: (866) 359-7478

dlevin@uprightlaw.com

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00090-JD-PRC document 13 filed 09/08/15 page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 8, 2015, a copy of the foregoing Stipulation of Dismissal 

With Prejudice, was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the 

Court’s electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt.

/s/ David B. Levin

Attorney for Plaintiff 

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00090-JD-PRC document 13 filed 09/08/15 page 2 of 2
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1759 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the use of educational 

assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill to pay Federal student loans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2005 

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed 

Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

use of educational assistance under the Montgomery GI 

Bill to pay Federal student loans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘GI Bill Flexibility 

5 Act’’. 
2 

•HR 1759 IH 

1 SEC. 2. USE OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE 

2 MONTGOMERY GI BILL TO PAY FEDERAL STU3 DENT LOANS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 30 of 

5 title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 

6 section 3020 the following new section: 

7 ‘‘§ 3020A. Use of educational assistance benefits for 

8 the repayment of Federal student loans 

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other pro10 vision of this chapter, upon completion of an approved 

11 course of education, an individual entitled to educational 

12 assistance under this subchapter may apply amounts of 

13 educational assistance otherwise available to the individual 

14 under section 3015 of this title to repay some or all of 

15 any Federal student loan balance owed by the individual. 

16 ‘‘(b) PAYMENT METHODOLOGY.—The Secretary shall 

17 make payments in such form (whether lump-sum or 

18 monthly payments) and in such amounts as the individual 

19 may elect for the repayment of a Federal student loan of 

20 such an individual. 

21 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS.—In no event shall 

22 payment of educational assistance under this section ex23 ceed the amount of the individual’s available entitlement 

24 under this chapter. 

25 ‘‘(d) ARRANGEMENTS TO MAKE PAYMENTS.—The 

26 Secretary shall enter into such arrangements, and shall 
3 

•HR 1759 IH 

1 prescribe such regulations, as may be necessary to carry 

2 out this section. 

3 ‘‘(e) FEDERAL STUDENT LOAN DEFINED.—In this 

4 section, the term ‘Federal student loan’ means any loan 

5 made under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

6 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.). ’’. 

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

8 of subchapter II of chapter 30 of such title is amended 

9 by inserting after the item relating to section 3020 the 

10 following new item: 

‘‘3020A. Use of educational assistance benefits for the repayment of Federal 

student loans.’’. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to educational assistance paid for 

13 months beginning on or after the date of the enactment 

14 of this Act. 

Æ
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**844 KA 14-01240**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL J. VALTIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

NORMAN P. EFFMAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, WARSAW (GREGORY A. KILBURN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DONALD G. O’GEEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (VINCENT A. HEMMING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Michael M. Mohun, J.), rendered May 15, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree and disseminating indecent material to minors in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [4]) and disseminating indecent material to minors in the second degree (§ 235.21 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal ( see generally People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence ( see id. at 255; see generally People v Lococo , 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo , 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: July 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>
                               [DIXON ODOM LOGO]
                                DIXON ODOM PLLC
                  CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS AND CONSULTANTS

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

To the Board of Directors
Main Street BankShares, Inc.
Statesville, North Carolina

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form 10-KSB of Main Street BankShares, Inc. of our report dated February 26,
2002, relating to the financial condition of Piedmont Bank as of December 31,
2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive
income, changes in shareholders equity, and cash flows for the year ended
December 31, 2001, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Main Street
BankShares, Inc.



/s/ Dixon Odom PLLC
-------------------------------

Charlotte, North Carolina
March 26, 2002