alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of National Processing, Inc. of our report dated January 23, 2003,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of National Processing,
Inc. and subsidiaries included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2002.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Registration Statement              Description                                 Shares Registered
----------------------              -----------                                 -----------------
<S>                              <C>                                            <C>
Form S-8 (333-53345)             National Processing Company, Inc.
                                 Nonemployee Directors Stock
                                 Option Plan                                         200,000

Form S-8 (333-53347)             National Processing Company, Inc.
                                 1996 Stock Option Plan                            4,000,000

Form S-8 (333-43556)             National Processing Company, Inc.
                                 2000 Stock Option Plan                            5,000,000


Form S-3 (333-58958)             National City Savings & Investment Plan              60,000
                                 National City Savings & Investment Plan No. 2
                                 National City Savings & Investment Plan No. 3

Pre-Effective Amendment          National City Savings & Investment Plan
No. 1 to Form S-3                National City Savings & Investment Plan No. 2
(333-58958)                      National City Savings & Investment Plan No. 3

Form S-8 (333-71534)             National Processing. Inc.
                                 2001 Restricted Stock Plan                          500,000

Post-Effective Amendment         National City Savings & Investment Plan
No. 1 to Form S-3                National City Savings & Investment Plan No. 2
(333-58958)                      National City Savings & Investment Plan No. 3
</TABLE>


                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Cleveland, Ohio
February 17, 2003
Overview of Reclamatio

FY 15-17 Budget

Glen KnowlesBureau of ReclamationGlen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Technical Work GroupJune 11, 2015
GCDAMP Triennial Budget Proc

Fiscal Years 2015-2017

Sec. Designee Anne Castle May 7, 2014 memo

– Develop a three year budget and work plan for the 

for fiscal years 2015-2017

– Revise and update the biennial budget developme

timeline and process to a triennial process

– Organize the FY2015-17 TWP around:

• The four DFCs: Colorado River Ecosystem, Cultura

Resources, Recreation, and Hydropower

• TWG recommendations• A need to be responsive to the outcomes of the GC

EIS

2
Where are we in the TWP Proce

FY 14• Heavy lifting, the 

FY15-17 TWP - good news, its done!

FY 15• Easy times, revie

and approve FY year of the TWP

FY 16• Some work to do, do 

we need to change anything?

FY 17• Heavy lifting, dev

the FY 18-20 TW

3
GCDAMP Budget FY 15-17

GCDAMP Budget Power Revenues

FY 15 = $10,754,967 (1.7% CPI) (was 3%)

Reclamation = $2,116,578 (-$26,820GCMRC = $8,638,389 (-$110,65

FY 16 = $11,077,616 (3% CPI)

Reclamation = $2,180,075GCMRC = $8,897,541

FY 17 = $11,409,944 (3% CPI)

Reclamation = $2,245,477GCMRC = $9,164,467

4
5
Proposed Budget Motion

for August AMWG MeetingProposed Motion: AMWG recommends the FinaFY2015-17 Triennial Budget and Work Plan from Bureau of Reclamation and the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center for implementFY 2016, with a FY 2015 corrected CPI of 1.7%, corrections to the GCMRC overhead rates as pto the AMWG at their meeting August 26-27, 20the Secretary of the Interior for approval.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1667 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1667

 To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require publication of 
  the basis for determinations that species are endangered species or 
              threatened species, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2015

Mrs. Lummis (for herself, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, and 
   Mr. Collins of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require publication of 
  the basis for determinations that species are endangered species or 
              threatened species, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``21st Century Endangered Species 
Transparency Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO PUBLISH ON THE INTERNET THE BASIS FOR LISTINGS.

    Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1533(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(9) The Secretary shall make publicly available on the 
        Internet the best scientific and commercial data available that 
        are the basis for each regulation, including each proposed 
        regulation, promulgated under subsection (a)(1), except that, 
        at the request of a Governor or legislature of a State, the 
        Secretary shall not make available under this paragraph 
        information regarding which the State has determined public 
        disclosure is prohibited by a law of that State relating to the 
        protection of personal information.''.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2009258DE.01003601.xml

| 1.10.2009 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 258/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2009

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 258/36

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 316/2009 der Kommission vom 17. April 2009 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1973/2004 mit Durchführungsvorschriften zu der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1782/2003 des Rates hinsichtlich der Stützungsregelungen nach Titel IV und IVa der Verordnung und der Verwendung von Stilllegungsflächen für die Erzeugung von Rohstoffen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 100 vom 18. April 2009
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 100 vom 18. April 2009

Auf Seite 4, Artikel 1 Nummer 6:

anstatt:

| „6. | In Kapitel 13 werden Abschnitt 2 „Saisonentzerrungsprämie“ (Artikel 96, 97 und 98), Artikel 117, Abschnitt 4 Unterabschnitt 2 „Extensivierungsprämie“ (Artikel 118 und 119), Abschnitt 6 „Ergänzungszahlungen“ (Artikel 125) und Artikel 133 gestrichen.“ |
| --- | --- |

„6.

In Kapitel 13 werden Abschnitt 2 „Saisonentzerrungsprämie“ (Artikel 96, 97 und 98), Artikel 117, Abschnitt 4 Unterabschnitt 2 „Extensivierungsprämie“ (Artikel 118 und 119), Abschnitt 6 „Ergänzungszahlungen“ (Artikel 125) und Artikel 133 gestrichen.“

muss es heißen:

| „6. | In Kapitel 13 werden Abschnitt 2 „Saisonentzerrungsprämie“ (Artikel 96, 97 und 98), Artikel 117, Abschnitt 4 Unterabschnitt 2 „Extensivierungsprämie“ (Artikel 118 bis 119), Abschnitt 6 „Ergänzungszahlungen“ (Artikel 125) und Artikel 133 gestrichen.“ |
| --- | --- |

„6.

In Kapitel 13 werden Abschnitt 2 „Saisonentzerrungsprämie“ (Artikel 96, 97 und 98), Artikel 117, Abschnitt 4 Unterabschnitt 2 „Extensivierungsprämie“ (Artikel 118 bis 119), Abschnitt 6 „Ergänzungszahlungen“ (Artikel 125) und Artikel 133 gestrichen.“

---
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

B.T. PALMER, A.Y. MARKS, M.N. FULTON

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MICHAEL J. MILLER

PRIVATE FIRST CLASS (E-2), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201600160

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 21 January 2016.

Military Judge: Maj M.D. Sameit, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commander, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing, New 

Orleans, LA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: Col E.R. Kleis, USMC.

For Appellant: LCDR Ryan C. Mattina, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

28 July 2016

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted without 

assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved 

by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military 

Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

 For the Court 

 R.H. TROIDL 

 Clerk of Court
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7274** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CLIFTON JERMAINE SWINTON, a/k/a Compton , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Terry L. Wooten , Chief District Judge. ( 4:09

- cr
- 01145

- TLW

- 1 )

Submitted : November 1 9 , 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER , KING , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Clifton Jermaine Swinton, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Clifton Jermaine Swinton appeals the district court ’ s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion for a sentence reduction

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. Swinton , No. 4:09

- cr
- 01145

- TLW

- 1
(D.S.C. July 29, 2015) . We deny Swinton’s motion s for a transcript at government expense and to appoint counsel, and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Industrial Marine, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 63646-ADR

)

Under Contract No. N68335-20-A-0061 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Justin Hawkins

 Vice President

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

 Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Daniel C. Carleton, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: October 12, 2023

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63646-ADR, Appeal of Industrial 

Marine, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: October 12, 2023

 

CHRISTOPHER M. MCNULTY

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Exhibit
4.9


 


PROMISSORY
NOTE


 


	Principal
    Amount $US 10,000.00	Burbank,
    California
	 	July
    16,2018


 


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Imaging3,Inc,
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, and having an office and principal place of business
at 3022 North Hollywood Way, Burbank, California (hereinafter called “Borrower”) promises to pay to the order of Donald
B. Mickey, an individual whose address is 7741 Hess Place, Unit 1, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (the “Lender”), the
principal amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) on or before the earlier of the Borrower funding the a private placement of
its common stock in the amount of $250,000.00 (the “Private Placement”) or September 15, 2018 (the “Maturity
Date”).


 





1. INTEREST
RATE. The interest rate shall be 2% from the date of this Note to the Maturity Date.


 


2.
COMMON STOCK GRANT. The borrower
agrees to issue ten thousand (10,000) shares of its $0,001 par value common stock to the Lender the day the Note is funded. On
the day the note is funded, the Company will instruct its transfer agent, VStock transfer to issue a certificate in the amount
of ten thousand shares to the Lender.


 


3.
REPAYMENT. The parties hereto agree
that at the time of repayment, at the discretion of the Lender, this note may be convertible into common shares of the Borrower
at a conversion rate determined by the parties hereto in good faith at that time.


 


4.
GOVERNING LAW. This Note and its
interpretation, construction, validity and enforceability shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. No interpretation
or construction shall, however, be adverse to or decided against the Lender with respect to any unclear or ambiguous terms or provisions
of this Note based on same having been drafted by the Lender’s counsel.


 


5.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Note constitutes
the entire understanding between Borrower, and Lender and to the extent that any writings not signed by Lender or oral statements
or conversations at any time made or had shall be inconsistent with the provisions of this Note and the other Loan Documents, the
terms of this Note shall prevail.




 


PRIOR
TO SIGNING THIS NOTE, BORROWER HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS NOTE. BORROWER AGREES TO THE TERMS OF THIS NOTE
AND ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF A COMPLETED COPY OF THIS NOTE.


 





	 	Imaging3,
    Inc.
	 	 
	 	/s/
    John Hollister
	 	By
    John Hollister, CEO, Director


 


Wiring
Instructions:


 




    	1
#### MOORE, Respondent, v. CLEARY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

December 3, 1895.)

Action by Mary A. Moore against James Cleary, administrator.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK    Document 324    Filed 12/16/16    Page 1 of 10

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK    Document 324    Filed 12/16/16    Page 2 of 10

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK    Document 324    Filed 12/16/16    Page 3 of 10

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK    Document 324    Filed 12/16/16    Page 4 of 10

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK    Document 324    Filed 12/16/16    Page 5 of 10

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK    Document 324    Filed 12/16/16    Page 6 of 10

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK    Document 324    Filed 12/16/16    Page 7 of 10

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK    Document 324    Filed 12/16/16    Page 8 of 10

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK    Document 324    Filed 12/16/16    Page 9 of 10

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK    Document 324    Filed 12/16/16    Page 10 of 10
S. AMANDA MARSHALL, OSB# 95347 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

ANNEMARIE SGARLATA, OSB# 065061 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Email: annemarie.sgarlata@usdoj .gov 

AMY E. POTTER 

Email: Amy.Potter@usdoj .gov 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2902 

Telephone: (503) 727-1156 

Attorneys for the United States 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 6:12-CV-01624._MC 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

$6,600.00 IN UNITED STATES 

CURRENCY, in rem, 

Defendant. 

SEAN BEEMAN, 

Claimant. 

FINAL JUDGEMENT 

AND CERTIFICATE 

OF REASONABLE CAUSE 

Based upon the Settlement Agreement filed on March 16, 2015 ECF No. 67, on this 

Court's Order of Default entered February 27, 2013 ECF No. 17, and upon the records and files 

' 

in this action, 

FINAL JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF REASONABLE CAUSE Page 1 of2 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 69 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 2
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction and, 

pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the United States shall return defendant $6,600.00 in U.S. 

Currency, in rem to claimant Sean Beeman, along with $15,000.00 in U.S. currency to Sean 

Beeman's attorney, Brian Michaels, constituting both attorney's fees and costs. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465, this Court CERTIFIES that there was reasonable cause for 

the arrest of the defendant, in rem, $6,600.00 in U.S. Currency and that no federal, state, county, 

or city official or agency involved in such arrest be liable to suit or judgment on account of such 

arrest of defendant real property. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this _Q_ day of March 2015. 

Respectfully sub1p.itted, 

s/ Amy E. Potter 

AMY E. POTTER 

s/ AnneMarie Sgarlata 

ANNEMARIESGARLATA 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

\ L 

HONORABLE MICHAEL J. McSHANE 

United States District Judge 

FINAL JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF REASONABLE CAUSE Page 2 of2 

Case 6:12-cv-01624-MC Document 69 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 2
#### BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REEDHYCALOG UK, LTD. and Reedyhycalog LP, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 2006-1494.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 22, 2007.

Before SCHALL, BRYSON, Circuit Judges, and HOLDERMAN, Chief District Judge.*

*

 Honorable James F. Holderman, Chief District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The case is on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs declaratory judgment action because the court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to show that there was an actual *989controversy between the parties. The court so ruled because it found that even accepting the plaintiffs characterization, the facts were insufficient to create “an objective and reasonable apprehension of suit” on the plaintiffs part. In the alternative, the court held that even if the plaintiff had a reasonable apprehension of suit, the court would exercise its discretion and dismiss the action because there was “a possibility that the dispute may be resolved without the need for legal action.”

While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided *MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 764, 166 L.Ed.2d 604 (2007), and this court decided *Sandisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.,*480 F.3d 1372 (Fed.Cir.2007), and *Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.,*482 F.3d 1330 (Fed.Cir.2007). In those cases, the Supreme Court and this court rejected the use of the “reasonable apprehension of suit” test to determine whether a live case or controversy is present in a declaratory judgment patent suit. This court in *San-disk*also rejected a district court’s use of its discretionary authority to dismiss an action under circumstances similar in various respects to those in this case.

In light of the change in the legal standards applicable to the issues presented in this case, and in light of the possibility that the trial court may be required to make factual findings in order to resolve the jurisdictional issue, we consider the best course to be to remand the case to the district court so that the district court can apply the newly applicable standards in the first instance. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of dismissal and remand for reconsideration in light of *Medlmmune, Sandisk,*and *Teva.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       5,229,339
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,624,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,735,177
<PP&E>                                      26,965,071
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,824,945
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,340,646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,191,152
<BONDS>                                      5,891,548
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    16,807,290
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,481,485
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,340,646
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,078,677
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,518,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,481,839
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             234,905
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,911,892
<INCOME-TAX>                                   753,015
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,158,877
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,158,877
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
<FN>
<F1>FOR PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-18981, 333-18983, 333-18985, 333-18987, 333-18989, 333-29153, 333-63493,
333-36646 and 333-46126 all on Form S-8 of SRS Labs, Inc., of our report dated
February 12, 2001, appearing in SRS Labs, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2000.


/s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
March 28, 2001
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RAUL GARCIA, No. 3:16-cv-00390-SB

Plaintiff,

v. 

 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, ORDER

a Delaware Corporation,

Defendant.

HERNANDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings and Recommendation (#47) on July 27,

2017, in which she recommends that this Court grant Defendant Union Pacific Railroad

Company's motion for summary judgment. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were

timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840

F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's

1 - ORDER
report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find

no error.

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings & Recommendation [47].

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [33] is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2017.

 

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ

United States District Judge

2 - ORDER