alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1



                                  Exhibit 23.2

     Independent Auditors' Consent

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting a part of Registration Statement No. 33-88424 on Form S-8 of our
report dated February 11, 2000 relating to our audit of the financial statements
of TBM Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2000
appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended December 30, 2000.

Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP

New York, New York
March 30, 2001
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2186 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2186

To terminate all United States assistance to the National Endowment for 
                   Democracy, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 17, 1998

Mr. Dorgan (for himself and Mr. Bumpers) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To terminate all United States assistance to the National Endowment for 
                   Democracy, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF ASSISTANCE TO THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR 
              DEMOCRACY.

    (a) Repeal of NED Act.--Except as provided in subsection (d), the 
National Endowment for Democracy Act (22 U.S.C. 4411 et seq.) is hereby 
repealed.
    (b) Prohibition on Assistance to NED.--Funds may not be expended by 
any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States for 
grants or any other assistance for the National Endowment for 
Democracy.
    (c) Final Audit by GAO.--The Comptroller General of the United 
States shall conduct an audit with respect to any funds, not previously 
audited by the Comptroller General, granted by the United States 
Government to the National Endowment for Democracy and shall submit a 
report of that audit to the Congress. The audit shall be conducted in 
accordance with, and under the conditions set forth in, section 504 of 
the National Endowment for Democracy Act (22 U.S.C. 4413), as in effect 
on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.
    (d) Freedom of Information.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), 
section 506 of the National Endowment for Democracy Act (22 U.S.C. 
4415) shall continue to apply with respect to any funds received by the 
National Endowment for Democracy from the United States Government on 
or before the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
March 4, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CHARLES KENNEBREW, SR. AND ELITE PROTECTIVE SERVICES, LLC, 

Appellants/Cross-Appellees

NO. 14-12-01015-CV

NO. 14-12-01044-CV V.

MICHAEL R. HARRIS, Appellee/Cross-Appellant

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed August 9, 2012 in favor of 

appellee Michael R. Harris, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have 

inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore REFORM the 

judgment of the court below to

a. increase the actual damages awarded to Harris from $29,295.29 to 

$64,144.19; and

b. delete the portions of the judgment holding Charles Kennebrew Sr. jointly 

and severally liable with Elite Protective Services, LLC.

Thus, in the judgment as modified, Elite is solely liable to Harris for $64,144.19 in 

actual damages and $50,023.00 in attorney’s fees, together with costs and postjudgment interest.

We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED except as modified 

in this judgment.

We order appellant/cross-appellee Elite Protective Services, LLC to pay all 

costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# C_2006016EN.01002201.xml

| 21.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/22

---

Summary information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products

(2006/C 16/04)

Aid No: XA 57/05

Member State: Finland

Region: Continental Finland, area falling outside the Objective 1 programme

Title of aid scheme: Aid for a training project

Legal basis: Valtioneuvoston asetus maaseudun kehittämisestä (609/2000, myöhemmin tehtyine muutoksineen), 52 pykälän 2 momentin 4 kohta

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme: It is estimated that EUR 1,9 million will be granted to the training project in 2006

Maximum aid intensity: Aid for the training project can be granted for up to 90 % of the eligible costs, but a beneficiary can receive no more than EUR 100 000 in any three year period, however. When calculating the aid the beneficiary is deemed to be the person in actual receipt of the technical assistance.

The aid will be awarded in the form of a grant

Date of implementation: From 1 January 2006

Duration of scheme or individual aid award: Aid for the training scheme will be granted in 2006

Objective of aid: The aim of the training aid is to improve the working practices and skills of farmers and agricultural workers by supporting training. The aid is granted under Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004; section 14 of the Community guidelines on State aid to agriculture will be applied when granting the aid

Economic sector(s) concerned: Agriculture

Name and address of the granting authority: Each local Employment and Economic Development Center (or ‘TE-keskus’, of which there are 10) will grant the aid for the training project within its own administrative area

‘TE-keskus

Etelä-Pohjanmaan TE-keskus

Huhtalantie 2

FIN-60220 Seinäjoki

Hämeen TE-keskus

Rauhankatu 10

FIN-15110 Lahti

Kaakkois-Suomen TE-keskus

Salpausselänkatu 22, PL 1041

FIN-45101 Kouvola

Keski-Suomen TE-keskus

Cygnaeuksenkatu 1, PL 44

FIN-40101 Jyväskylä

Pirkanmaan TE-keskus

Kauppakatu 4, PL 467

FIN-33101 Tampere

Pohjanmaan TE-keskus

Hovioikeudenpuistikko 19 A, PL 131

FIN-65101 Vaasa

Pohjois-Pohjanmaan TE-keskus

Viestikatu 1, PL 86

FIN-90101 Oulu

Satakunnan TE-keskus

Pohjoisranta 11 E, PL 266

FIN-28100 Pori

Uudenmaan TE-keskus

Maistraatinportti 2, PL 15

FIN-00241 Helsinki

Varsinais-Suomen TE-keskus

Ratapihankatu 36, PL 592

FIN-20101 Turku

Internet address: www.mmm.fi/tuet/valtiontuet/ryhmapoikkeusasetus

---
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 66 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 33-26032) and Amendment No. 70 to the 1940 Act Registration
      Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-04882), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2020, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 23, 2020, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity
      Account E for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    May 15, 2020
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF HIGHPOINT DEVELOPMENT CORP., *ET AL.*

See same ease below: 65 *N. J. Super.*530.

*Messrs. Strylcer, Tams & Horner*for the petitioner.

*Messrs.*Kessler, *Kessler & Harrington*for the respondents.

May 1, 1961.

Denied.
# L_2010055EN.01008301.xml

| 5.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 55/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 55/83

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2009/937/EU of 1 December 2009 adopting the Council’s Rules of Procedure

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 325 of 11 December 2009
  )

On pages 46 and 48, in the Annex, ‘Rules of Procedure of the Council’, footnote 1:

for:

‘... and OJ L 5, 1.1.1999, p. 71).’;

read:

‘... and OJ L 5, 9.1.1999, p. 71).’.

---
Page 1 - STIPULATED GENERAL

JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT COSTS

{01108891; 1}

LINDSAY HART, LLP

Tyson L. Calvert, OSB #032809

Email: tcalvert@lindsayhart.com

Todd A. Zilbert, OSB # 891449

Email: tzilbert@lindsayhart.com

LINDSAY HART, LLP

1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400

Portland, Oregon 97201-5640

Phone: 503-226-7677

Fax: 503-226-7697

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

DAVID V. NAVIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN F. BJORGE, a Washington resident, and

GORDON TRUCKING, INC., a foreign

corporation,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-02264-SI

STIPULATED GENERAL JUDGMENT

OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

AND WITHOUT COSTS

Based on the parties’ stipulation below, and the court being fully advised; now, therefore

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter dismissed with prejudice as

to all claims and without an award of costs to any party.

Dated this ____ day of _________________, 2016.

Hon. Michael H. Simon

27th May

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Case 3:15-cv-02264-SI Document 10 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 2
IT IS SO STIPULATED:

David V. Navin AL

Plaintiff Pro Se 01

Tyson L. Calvert, OSB No. 032809

ilOP Attorney for Defendants

Page 2 - STIPULATED GENERAL

JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT COSTS

{01108891; 1}

LINDSAY HART, LLP

Case 3:15-cv-02264-SI Document 10 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3369

___________

Robin McGhee, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Northwest Airlines, Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellee. *

*

___________

Submitted: May 15, 1998

Filed: June 4, 1998

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robin McGhee appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict denying Title

VII race and sex discrimination claims against her employer, Northwest Airlines, Inc.

See 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. She argues that she is entitled to a new trial because of the

denial of her motion to compel discovery of interview notes taken during Northwest’s

internal investigation of her claims. The district court denied the motion to compel

1

after finding that the particular documents were protected work product. See
-2-

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). The notes fall within this category and Northwest never asked

witnesses to testify about the contents of the interviews, but McGhee argues she is

entitled to them because they are relevant to her claim that Northwest took inadequate

remedial action. As an additional basis for a new trial she argues the court erred in

instructing the jury. We have carefully considered the arguments and after reviewing

the record find that there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s discovery

ruling and that the instructions as a whole fairly submitted the case to the jury. See

Karcher v. Emerson Elec. Co., 94 F.3d 502, 509 (8th Cir. 1996); cert. denied, 117 S.Ct.

1692 (1997). For these reasons we affirm the judgment. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2032

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building in Juneau, Alaska, as

the ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 2032 ES

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HURFF A. SAUNDERS FED2 ERAL BUILDING.

3 The Federal building in Juneau, Alaska, shall be

4 known and designated as the ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal

5 Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

9 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

10 a reference to the ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building’’.

Passed the Senate June 2, 1998.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2032

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building in Juneau, Alasing’’. ka, as the ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal Build-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF REGENT ASSISTED LIVING, INC. AS OF MARCH
31, 2000, AND THE RELATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS IN THE
PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          2,748,825
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     794,211
<ALLOWANCES>                                       37,000
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                9,113,942
<PP&E>                                         49,946,374
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,038,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 63,064,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           8,607,495
<BONDS>                                        42,241,278
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                     9,349,841
<COMMON>                                       10,619,349
<OTHER-SE>                                    (26,366,781)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   63,064,468
<SALES>                                        15,321,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,522,840
<CGS>                                          10,342,499
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15,648,639
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                857,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (936,986)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (936,986)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (936,986)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.24)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 158 (Thursday, August 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 46675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17794]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-30-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7--Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, Notification 
of Proposed Production Activity, MSD International GMBH (Puerto Rico 
Branch) LLC (Pharmaceuticals), Las Piedras, Puerto Rico

    On April 16, 2021, MSD International GMBH (Puerto Rico Branch) LLC 
submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ 
Board for its facility within Subzone 7G, in Las Piedras, Puerto Rico.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (86 FR 22014-22015, April 26, 2021). 
On August 16, 2021, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's 
decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this 
time. The production activity described in the notification was 
authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, 
including Section 400.14.

    Dated: August 16, 2021.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17794 Filed 8-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 206

To prohibit the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of

1993, or any amendment made by such Act, to an individual who

is incarcerated in a Federal, State, or local correctional, detention, or

penal facility, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 28, 1997

Mr. REID introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To prohibit the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, or any amendment made by such

Act, to an individual who is incarcerated in a Federal,

State, or local correctional, detention, or penal facility,

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICATION TO INCARCERATED INDIVID4 UALS.

5 The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42

6 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) is amended—

7 (1) by moving section 5 to the end of the Act;
2

•S 206 IS

1 (2) by redesignating section 5 as section 8; and

2 (3) by inserting after section 4 the following

3 new section:

4 ‘‘SEC. 5. APPLICATION TO INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS.

5 ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,

6 nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act

7 shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way ad8 dress that portion of the First Amendment regarding laws

9 prohibiting the free exercise of religion, with respect to

10 any individual who is incarcerated in a Federal, State, or

11 local correctional, detention, or penal facility (including

12 any correctional, detention, or penal facility that is oper13 ated by a private entity under a contract with a govern14 ment).’’.

15 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—This amendments made by this

17 Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

18 (b) EFFECT ON CAUSES OF ACTION EXISTING BE19 FORE DATE OF ENACTMENT.—The amendment made by

20 section 1(3) shall apply with respect to a cause of action

21 arising under the Religous Freedom Restoration Act of

22 1993 prior to the date of enactment of this Act, if a final

23 decision has not been entered in the action prior to such

24 date.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of
Nicholas Financial, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and six months ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Peter L Vosotas                  
|Peter L. Vosotas                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                     
|Dated: November 12, 2010
# C_2006182EN.01000701.xml

| 4.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/7

---

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licenses pursuant to Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers (1)
   (2)

1

2

(2006/C 182/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

SPAIN

Operating licences granted

Category B:   Operating licences including the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

| Name of air carrier | Address of air carrier | Permitted to carry | Decision effective since |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EUROAIRLINES, S.L. | Virgen de Monserrat, 37 |
| E-08340 La Roca del Valles (Barcelona) |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

EUROAIRLINES, S.L.

Virgen de Monserrat, 37

E-08340 La Roca del Valles (Barcelona)

passengers, mail, cargo

28.6.2006

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.

1

(2)  Communicated to the European Commission before 31.8.2005.

2

---
#### Rosemarie D'Amico, Appellant, v Archdiocese of New York et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[944 NYS2d 106]—

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered March 9, 2011, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, the motion of defendants Archdiocese of New York, St. Joseph School, Church of St. Joseph, and Church of Joachim (Church defendants) denied, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff tripped and fell on the sidewalk abutting property owned and operated by the Church defendants. She commenced this personal injury action against them and defendants West New York Restoration, Inc. and West New York Restoration of CT, Inc. (collectively West New York), which, pursuant to a contract with the Archdiocese, repaired and replaced the sidewalk in 1998.

In opposition to the Church defendants’ submission of evidence demonstrating that the sidewalk defect was trivial, plaintiff submitted the affidavit of an engineer who measured the defect at 11/16 of an inch, and opined that it constituted a “substantial defect” under 34 RCNY 2-09 (f) (5) (iv). Accordingly, we cannot find, as a matter of law, that the defect was trivial (see *Narvaez v 2914 Third Ave. Bronx, LLC,*88 AD3d 500 [2011]; *Tese-Milner v 30 E. 85th St. Co.,*60 AD3d 458 [2009]), and the issue is a question for a finder of fact *(Trincere v County of Suffolk,*90 NY2d 976, 977-978 [1997]).

The Church defendants also failed to demonstrate that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition, which is visible in photographs and which plaintiff testified she had noticed previously (see *Jacobsen v Krumholz,*41 AD3d 128 [2007]).

Supreme Court properly granted defendant West New York’s motion because it offered evidence that it did not have a contract to maintain the sidewalk and had not created the alleged condition as a result of its work on the subject sidewalk about a decade earlier, and plaintiff failed to submit any evidence to raise an issue of fact as to its responsibility *(see Church v Callanan Indus.,*99 NY2d 104, 111-112 [2002]; *Izzo v Proto Constr. & Dev. Corp.,*81 AD3d 898, 899 [2011]; *Dennebaum v Rotterdam Sq.,*6 AD3d 1045 [2004]). We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.