alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 23.01****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-49494, 333-56654, 333-77052, 333-89220, 333-104100, 333-118048, 333-124660 and333-131402) of Transmeta Corporation of our reports (which includes an explanatory paragraphrelating to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern as described in Note 1 to theconsolidated financial statements) dated March 28, 2007, relating to the consolidated financialstatements as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and for each of the two years in the period endedDecember 31, 2006, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2006, and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2006, which appear in this Form 10-K.      /s/ Burr, Pilger, & Mayer LLP  San Jose, California
# Official Journal C 270/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.270.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 270 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 557 September 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.270.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 270

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 557 September 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 270/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2012/C 270/02 | Special Report No 11/2012 ‘Suckler cow and ewe and goat direct aids under partial implementation of SPS arrangements’ | 2 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2012/C 270/03 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 270/01

Euro exchange rates

1

Court of Auditors

2012/C 270/02

Special Report No 11/2012 ‘Suckler cow and ewe and goat direct aids under partial implementation of SPS arrangements’

2

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2012/C 270/03

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 270/04 | Notice concerning a request under Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC — Request from a contracting entity | 4 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2012/C 270/04

Notice concerning a request under Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC — Request from a contracting entity

4

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### In the Matter of Gregory Felder, Appellant, v E. W. Jones, as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Kane, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Cerrito, J.), entered March 1, 1984 in Washington County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of a Superintendent’s proceeding finding petitioner guilty of violating certain disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possession of a weapon and contraband. In said report, Correction Officer Michael West stated that during a search of petitioner’s cell, he discovered a “homemade weapon approx. 13 inches long * * * [and] one 6V2 inch canopener [sic] and one pair of grey gym shorts”. Attached to the report was a photocopy of the weapon.

At the ensuing Superintendent’s proceeding, petitioner admitted possession of the shorts and can opener, but denied possession of the weapon. After reviewing the evidence, the hearing officer found petitioner guilty upon all charges. Specifically, in making his determination, the hearing officer relied on the misbehavior report prepared by West and the photocopy of the weapon. This CPLR article 78 proceeding was then commenced. Special Term confirmed the determination and this appeal ensued.

Petitioner first contends that he was denied adequate assistance of his employee assistant because such assistant was a subordinate of the hearing officer. This argument must be rejected since there is no requirement that the reasons for the appointment of a particular hearing officer be placed on the record *(see,*7 NYCRR subpart 251-4, 253.4, 254.1; *Matter of Gonzales v LeFevre,*105 AD2d 909), petitioner voiced no objection to his assistant or the hearing officer at his hearing *(see, Matter of Collazo v Wilmot,*75 ,AD2d 655, 656), and he did not raise this issue before Special Term. Moreover, we find that the assistant fully complied with his duties *(see,*7 NYCRR 251-4.2).

Next, petitioner contends that there is no substantial evidence to sustain the charges against him. Here, the decision of the hearing officer was made based upon a misbehavior report, which was authored by a correction officer who had direct knowledge of the information contained therein. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, this report, together with the photocopy of the weapon in issue, provided substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner had possessed a weapon in his cell *473(see, *Matter of Burgos v Coughlin,*108 AD2d 194). The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur; Levine, J., concurs in a separate memorandum.

Levine, J.

(concurring). Since the Court of Appeals in *Matter of Garcia v LeFevre*(64 NY2d 1001) did not reach the dispositive issue in the instant case, the position of the majority in our *Garcia*decision (102 AD2d 1004) still controls. Therefore, I am constrained to concur.
---

---

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, D.C. 20549

---

Form 10-Q/A

|(Mark One)                          |                                                                                         
|----------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|ý                                   | QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
|For the quarter ended July 31, 2002
|OR                                 
|o                                   | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from  to

Commission file number 000-22009

---

NEOMAGIC CORPORATION(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

DELAWARE(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation or organization)

77-0344424(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)3250 Jay Street
Santa Clara, California(Address of principal executive offices)

95054(Zip Code)


(408) 988-7020(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

---

Indicate
by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes ý    No o

The
number of shares of the Registrant's Common Stock, $.001 par value, outstanding at July 31, 2002 was 28,275,375

---

---

---

Item 6.Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K



10.22*

Full and Final Release from the Wafer Supply Agreement and the Product Sourcing Agreement99.1*

Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 200299.2

Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


---



2

---





SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned
thereunto duly authorized.

| |  | NEOMAGIC CORPORATION
(Registrant)                                                                                         
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |                                                                                                                           
| |  | /s/STEPHEN T. LANZASTEPHEN T. LANZAChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
September 13, 2002

3

---

QuickLinks
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 357 

Commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Mill Springs and 

the significance of the battle to the Civil War. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2012 

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself and Mr. PAUL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Mill 

Springs and the significance of the battle to the Civil War. 

Whereas the Battle of Mill Springs, which took place on January 19, 1862, in Pulaski and Wayne Counties in Kentucky, was the first significant victory for the Union 

Army in the Civil War, according to the National Park 

Service; 

Whereas Confederate General Felix Zollicoffer, who died at 

the Battle of Mill Springs, was one of the first generals 

to die in the Civil War; 

Whereas the Battle of Mill Springs was the second largest 

battle to take place in Kentucky during the Civil War, 

engaging over 10,000 soldiers; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 357 ATS 

Whereas the outcome of the Battle of Mill Springs opened 

the path for the Union Army to move through Kentucky 

and into Tennessee, affecting the outcome of the Civil 

War; 

Whereas Mill Springs Battlefield has been designated as a 

National Historic Landmark by the Department of the 

Interior; 

Whereas the Mill Springs Battlefield Association, along with 

volunteers in the surrounding community, has made significant strides in preserving the historic site of the battle 

and educating the public about the historic event that 

took place at that site; 

Whereas the Mill Springs Battlefield Association Visitor Center provides visitors with battlefield tours, access to Civil 

War artifacts, and a Civil War library; and 

Whereas more than 50,000 visitors have traveled to the 

uniquely preserved battlefield, which spans nearly 500 

acres: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the 150th anniversary of the 

3 Battle of Mill Springs; 

4 (2) recognizes— 

5 (A) the work of the Mill Springs Battle6 field Association in acquiring, preserving, and 

7 maintaining Mill Springs Battlefield for pos8 terity; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 357 ATS 

1 (B) the continuing effort of the Mill 

2 Springs Battlefield Association to educate the 

3 public about this significant historic event; 

4 (3) encourages the people of the United States 

5 to visit Mill Springs Battlefield on the occasion of 

6 the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Mill Springs; 

7 and 

8 (4) recognizes— 

9 (A) the contributions of the soldiers who 

10 fought in the Battle of Mill Springs; and 

11 (B) the outcome of the Battle of Mill 

12 Springs, which helped to preserve the union of 

13 the United States. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 305 

To authorize legal representation in Edward Paul Celestine, Jr. v. Social 

Security Administration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21 (legislative day, OCTOBER 20), 2011 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize legal representation in Edward Paul Celestine, 

Jr. v. Social Security Administration. 

Whereas, in the case of Edward Paul Celestine, Jr. v. Social 

Security Administration, No. 4:11–CV–3376, pending in 

the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the plaintiff has sent subpoenas for testimony and documents to Senator John Cornyn and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison; and, 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent Members, officers, and employees of the Senate 

with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony or documents relating to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

SRES 305 ATS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is author2 ized to represent Senator John Cornyn and Senator Kay 

3 Bailey Hutchison in this matter as well as any employee 

4 in Senator Cornyn’s or Senator Hutchison’s offices who 

5 may be subpoenaed in this case. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Dr. Chandan S. VORA, Appellant v. Dr. Tejas PATEL, Psychiatric Ward Director; A. Oandasan, Psychiatric Ward Director; Conemaugh Valley Memorial Hospital, with their staff.

No. 11-2710.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 Aug. 4, 2011.

Opinion filed Aug. 25, 2011.

Chandan S. Vora, Johnstown, PA, pro se.

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Dr. Chandan S. Vora appeals pro se from the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a civil rights complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

In the complaint, Dr. Vora alleged that she received improper medical treatment, including the forced administration of anti-psychotic medication, while confined in the *643psychiatric ward at Conemaugh Valley Memorial Hospital. She named as defendants the Hospital and two of the doctors who treated her. The District Court granted Dr. Vora’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, but concluded that her “allegations ... seek to attack matters over which this court lacks jurisdiction and otherwise fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the complaint pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Dr. Vora appealed.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Upon de novo review of the record and careful consideration of Dr. Vora’s notice of appeal and other submissions, we conclude that there is no substantial question presented on appeal and that summary action is warranted. *See*LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. Even if the defendants were state actors, none of their alleged conduct shocks the conscience. *See Benn v. Universal Health System, Inc.,*371 F.3d 165, 175 (3d Cir.2004) (holding that administration of anti-psychotic drugs was not shocking to the conscience where plaintiff did not allege that he objected to the medication). In addition, we conclude that granting Dr. Vora leave to amend the complaint in the instant case would have been futile. *See Grayson v. Mayview State Hasp.,*293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.2002).

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that no substantial question is presented by this appeal. *See*I.O.P. 10.6. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Don Taylor, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered *837October 13,1983, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of from *2Vz*to 5 years.

Judgment affirmed.

As defendant correctly concedes, he has failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the plea allocution *(see, People v Claudio,*64 NY2d 858). To preserve such a claim for appellate review on a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction, a defendant must move to set aside his plea prior to imposition of sentence, pursuant to CPL 220.60 (3).

In the absence of unusual circumstances not here present, we see no reason to exercise our power to review in the interest of justice an unpreserved claim with respect to the plea allocution. Nor does there exist any reason to set aside the sentence imposed, which was agreed to in the course of plea negotiations *(see, People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:01-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/25/01 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/25/01 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
Case: 1:01-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/25/01 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
Case: 1:01-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/25/01 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
Case: 1:01-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/25/01 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
Case: 1:01-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/25/01 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
Case: 1:01-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/25/01 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
Case: 1:01-cv-02961 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/25/01 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8
# C_2019213EN.01007901.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/79

---

Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Divaro v EUIPO — Grendene (IPANEMA)

(Case T-288/19)

(2019/C 213/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Divaro, SA (Oviedo, Spain) (represented by: M. Santos Quintana and M. A. Fernández Munárriz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grendene, SA (Sobral, Brazil)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark IPANEMA — Application for registration No 14 180 038

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2019 in Case R 1785/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 22 February 2019 in Case R 1785/2018-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 22 February 2019 in Case R 1785/2018-2;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 10 July 2018 (opposition B 2 598 285; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 10 July 2018 (opposition B 2 598 285;

| — | order that the opposing mark EUTM No 14 180 038 is to be registered for all the goods referred to in the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the opposing mark EUTM No 14 180 038 is to be registered for all the goods referred to in the application;

| — | order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      12,847,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,454,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,226,000
<PP&E>                                       1,074,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 182,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,155,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,942,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        9,943,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,157,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,155,000
<SALES>                                      1,909,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,909,000
<CGS>                                        1,454,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,317,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,568,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,568,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  63,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,505,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.62)



</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 25, 2013

s0617 

# Order

Clerk June 25, 2013

146820

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146820

COA: 306673

Wayne CC: 11

- 000462

- FC

DARRELL JAVOR WILSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.