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, 2002,
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, 2001.

<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

POS-AM (333-58958)               National City Savings & Investment Plan
                                 National City Savings & Investment Plan No. 2
                                 National City Savings & Investment Plan No. 3

</TABLE>

                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Cleveland, Ohio
February 18, 2002
#### Giovanni Del Priore et al., Appellants, v Furnival Machinery Company et al., Defendants, and J J F & L Development Associates et al., Respondents.

*696We agree with the plaintiffs’ contention that the hearing which was held pursuant to an order of the same court (Hurowitz, J.), dated February 23, 1984, was not warranted with respect to the respondent Trebor Construction, Inc., a corporation. The plaintiffs’ motion papers included an affidavit evidencing service upon that respondent by service upon the Secretary of State *(see,*CPLR 310, 311 [1]; Business Corporation Law § 306). Since this affidavit of service was not controverted, by the respondents’ sworn denial or otherwise, it was sufficient proof of service *(cf. Olmo v Olmo,*102 AD2d 864; *Green Point Sav. Bank v Taylor,*92 AD2d 910). Moreover, service was properly effected upon the respondent J J F & L Development Associates, a limited partnership, by service upon the respondent Trebor Construction, Inc., a general partner of that limited partnership *(see,*CPLR 310, 311 [1]; Business Corporation Law § 306; *Hickey v Naruth Realty Corp.,*71 AD2d 668).

With respect to the other respondents, D-G Company, Joseph J. Rains Company, Frank Vurckio and Joseph Silver-man, the plaintiffs’ motion papers and supporting affidavits of service did not conclusively establish proper service upon them. However, at the hearing, the plaintiffs did provide proof of service upon these respondents, by the process server’s testimony and additional affidavits of service, which evidence was not adequately refuted by these respondents *(see,*CPLR 308 [2]; 310; *Hickey v Naruth Realty Corp., supra).*Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos. 333-18981, 333-18983,
333-18985, 333-18987, 333-18989, 333-29153, 333-63493, 333-36646, 333-46126, 333-67710,
333-133346 and 333-137569 all on Forms S-8 of SRS Labs, Inc., of our report dated March 12, 2008, relating to our audit of the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appear in SRS Labs, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/
SQUAR, MILNER, PETERSON, MIRANDA & WILLIAMSON, LLP

Newport
Beach, California
March 12, 2008.

---



QuickLinks
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1848 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit employment 

of children in tobacco-related agriculture by deeming such employment 

as oppressive child labor. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 16, 2015 

Mr. CICILLINE (for himself, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, 

Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. SCHIFF, and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit 

employment of children in tobacco-related agriculture by 

deeming such employment as oppressive child labor. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TOBACCO-RELATED AGRICULTURE EMPLOY4 MENT OF CHILDREN. 

5 Section 3(l) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 

6 (29 U.S.C. 203(l)) is amended— 

7 (1) in this first sentence— 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1848 IH

1 (A) by striking ‘‘in any occupation, or (2)’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘in any occupation, (2)’’; and 

3 (B) by inserting before the semicolon the 

4 following: ‘‘, or (3) any employee under the age 

5 of eighteen years has direct contact with to6 bacco plants or dried tobacco leaves’’; and 

7 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘other 

8 than manufacturing and mining’’ and inserting ‘‘, 

9 other than manufacturing, mining, and tobacco-re10 lated agriculture as described in paragraph (3) of 

11 the first sentence of this subsection,’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1690 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1690

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 29, 2015

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the United States courthouse located at 700 Grant Street 
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as the ``Joseph F. Weis Jr. United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 700 Grant Street in 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the ``Joseph 
F. Weis Jr. United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Joseph F. Weis 
Jr. United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 28, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Robert Lynn McCarver, Appellant

No. 06-13-00030-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 6th District Court of Red 

River County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

CR01215). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Robert Lynn McCarver, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 8, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
| EX-21.1      SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT |
|---------------------------------------------|

| Name      of Subsidiary                         |   | State      of Incorporation |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                                            |   |                        |
| Impac      Funding Corporation*                 |   | California                  |
|                                            |   |                        |
| Impac      Warehouse Lending Group, Inc.        |   | California                  |
|                                            |   |                        |
| IMH      Assets Corp.                           |   | California                  |
|                                            |   |                        |
| Integrated      Real Estate Service Corporation |   | California                  |

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 07, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 07, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0505. ROBERT REAGAN v. TERRY BARNARD, CHAIRMAN.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2016CV274877
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19401]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-
Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service <SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Date of required notice: September 8, 2021.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
August 24, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class 
Package Service Contract 76 to Competitive Product List. Documents are 
available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2021-129, CP2021-134.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2021-19401 Filed 9-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Ecock, Appellant.

*673The defendant’s claims of error with respect to the court’s justification charge and supplemental charge are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467, 471), and are, in any event, without merit *(see, People v Goetz,*68 NY2d 96; *People v Almodovar,*62 NY2d 126, 131-132). Any prejudice arising from the single instance of improper questioning by the prosecutor was, in this instance, negated by the court’s prompt curative instruction *(see, People v Santiago,*52 NY2d 865; *People v Heppard,*121 AD2d 466; *People v Davis,*108 AD2d 924).

Finally, the sentence and amended sentence imposed evince neither an abuse of discretion nor a failure to observe sentencing principles on the part of the sentencing Judge *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 86-87). Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Bonds, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 811]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.), rendered October 19, 2010, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In 2004, defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. He was sentenced, respectively, to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 3 to 6 years and 4V2 to 9 years. Following the passage of the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 (L 2009, ch 56, as codified in CPL 440.46), defendant applied to be resentenced. At the conclusion of a hearing on his application, County Court vacated the sentence previously imposed for his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and resentenced defendant to five years in prison, to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Because County Court failed to follow the procedures specifi*1242cally set forth in the statute prior to imposing defendant’s new sentence, we must reverse. The Drug Reform Law Act provides that once a defendant is determined to be eligible for resentencing, the court must notify the defendant of the new sentence that it will impose and enter an order, which includes written findings of fact setting forth its reasons for the proposed sentence *(see*L 2004, ch 738, § 23). A defendant must also be notified that the original sentence will be vacated and the new sentence imposed, unless a motion is made by the defendant to withdraw the application to be resentenced or an appeal is taken from the court’s order setting forth the terms, as well as the reasons for the new sentence *(see*L 2004, ch 738, § 23; *People v Holliman,*85 AD3d 1397, 1398 [2011]; *People v Williams,*85 AD3d 1446, 1447 [2011]; *People v Loyd,*53 AD3d 679, 680 [2008]; *People v Love,*46 AD3d 919, 921 [2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 842 [2008]). Here, County Court resentenced defendant without providing him with a written order — or, more importantly, an opportunity to withdraw his application to be resentenced after being informed of the court’s proposed new sentence. Therefore, given the objections that defendant has raised in this appeal regarding the new sentence, it must be vacated and the matter remitted for further proceedings *(see People v Holliman,*85 AD3d at 1398; *People v Williams,*85 AD3d at 1447).

Peters, EJ., Mercure, Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the resentence imposed; matter remitted to the County Court of Schenectady County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.
#### Moore *v.*Baylis.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

May 12, 1890.)

*1.*Trespass—Damages—Goods Taken.

In an action for trespass in wrongfully entering pn plaintiff’s premises for the purpose of carrying away personal property belonging to plaintiff’s intestate, the value of plaintiff’s property carried away by defendant may be included in the damages.

2. Evidence—Opinion—Value op Property.

Any person knowing the value of personal property may testify to his opinion as to its value.

Appeal from circuit court, Queens county.

Action for trespass by Elizabeth A. Moore against John Baylis. There was a verdict for plaintiff for $450. From the .judgment entered thereon, defendant appeals.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*JB. W. Doioning,*for appellant. *William JR. De Puy,*for respondent.

Dykman, J.

The appeal in this case is destitute of merit. The defendant made a wrongful entry upon the premises of the plaintiff for the purpose of taking some articles of personal property which he claimed belonged to his intestate. Such unjustifiable entry was sufficient to sustain the action, and, as the plaintiff claimed that some of the articles carried away by the defendant belonged to her, it was left to the jury to find whether the claim was well founded; and, if such was the finding, then the jury was permitted to enhance the damages by including the value of such property so wrongfully appropriated in the verdict to be rendered. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the amount of the verdict indicates that the plaintiff was allowed something for personal property taken in addition to the damages for the wrongful entry. The evidence justifies such a verdict, and the charge was without fault.

The objection to the testimony of witnesses respecting the value of the articles taken was not well founded. Any person who knows the value of personal property may give an opinion on the subject. The judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Water Quality Conditions in Lake Powell and 

below Glen Canyon Dam 



10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

20 

10 

20 

20 

20 

20 

10 

10 

10 

20 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

20 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

20

20

3650 

3600 

elevation, ft 10

1020

20

Penstock 

River Outlet 

20

20

Lake Powell Forebay Temperature, Jan 2000 - Oct 20231020 20

20

20

20

20

Deg C 

24 

22 

18 

16 

14 

10 

8 

6 

4 

3550 

3500 

3450 

3400 

3350 

3300 

2 

0 3250 

3200 

20 

12 
25 

25 

20 

15 

25 

15 

15 

20 

20 

10 

15 

10 

20 

10 

25 

15 

10

10 

15 15 

10 

10 

elevation, ft 

3550 

Deg C 3500 

Lake Powell Forebay Temperature March 2021 - Oct 2023 20

Penstock 

26 

24 

22 

20 

3450 

3400 

3350 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

River Outlet 

3300 

3250 

3200 

28 
4

4

2

8

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8

4 

4

8 

8 

4 

4 

8 

8

4

4 

4 

8 

4 

4 

8 

8

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

4

8 

8 

8 

8

4 

8 

8 

2 

8 

8 

8 

4 

8 

4 

4 

8 

8

4 

8 

2 

4 

8 

4

4 

8 

4 

4 2 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

2

8 

8 

4 

8 

4 

4 

4 

2

4 

4 

4 4 

4 

4

8

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 2 

4 

4

2

4 

4 

8

8

elevation, ft 

3650 

Penstock 

River Outlet

8

4 8

4

4

8

8

4

4 8

8

8

4 2

2

4

8

8

4

8

3600 

3550 

3500 

mg/L 

13 

12 

11 

10 

9 

3450 

3400 

3350 

3300 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4

4

Lake Powell Forebay Dissolved Oxygen, Jan 2000 - Oct 2023

8 4

8

3 

2 

3250 1 

0 

3200 

14 
8

8 

8 

4 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

4 

8 

8 

4 

8 

2 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

2 4 

elevation, ft 

3550 

2 

3500 mg/L

 L ake Powell Forebay Dissolved Oxygen, March 2021 - Oct 2023

4

Penstock 14 

13 

12 

11 

10 

9 

3450 

3400 

3350 

8 

7 

6 

River Outlet 

5 

4 

3 

3300 2

3250 

3200 

1/1/2022 1/1/2023 

1 
500 

500 

500

500

700 

500 

500 

500

500 

500

500 

500 

500 

500 

500

500

500

500 

500

500

500 

500 

500

500 

500 

700 

Lake Powell Forebay TDS, Jan 2000 - Oct 2023 elevation, ft 

3650 

3600 

500

Penstock 500

500 500

River Outlet 

700

3550 mg/L

3500 

3450 

3400 

3350 

3300 

880 

840 

800 

760 

720 

680 

640 

600 

560 

520 

480 

440 

400 

360 

320 

280 

240 

3250 

3200 

200 
500 

300 

400 

600 

500 

400 

600 

300 

500 

500 

600 

500 

500 

600 

600 

700 

700 

600

600 

700 

600 

700 

600 

700 

elevation, ft 

3550 

3500 TDS mg 

Penstock 

860 

800 

740 

680 

3450 

3400 620 

560 

500 

River Outlet 

3350 

440 

380 

320 

260 

200 

3300 

Lake Powell Forebay TDS, March 2021 - Oct 2023 700

3250 

3200
#### Baylies *v.*Philadelphia *&*R. Coal & Iron Co.

*(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.*

June 2, 1890.)

Landlord and Tenant—Action tor Rent—Eviction op Tenant.

In an action for rent reserved in a lease the defense that defendant was evicted by a third person from a right of way to the North river from the leased premises, which was appurtenant to the lease, is not established, where it appears that *317the premises were not bounded by the river, and that the only communication with the river was over other property which did not abut thereon, and which defendant held under a lease from another person.

Appeal from special term.

Action .by Nathalie E. Bavlies against the Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Company. The court directed a verdict for plaintiff, and a motion for a new trial was overruled, from which defendant appeals.

Argued before Labremore, C. J., and Bookstaver, J.

*William J. Kelley,*for appellant. *Edmund L. Baylies,*for respondent.

Bookstaver, J.

The complaint alleges a cause of action for three months’ rent which it is charged is due from defendant as the assignee of a lease made in 1873 covering six lots on Twenty-Ninth street. The answer denied that the leased premises are fully set forth in the complaint, admits the original letting, but denies that the covenants of the lease are binding upon the dedefendant, and also avers that the defendant has not been in the possession of the premises leased, for the reason that a right of way to the North river was appurtenant to said lease, which was an element of value, and a consideration inducing to the assignment of the lease, and that there was an eviction of the defendant from a-part of the demised premises by the department of docks, under an act of the legislature by which the department laid out and constructed an exterior street outside of these premises in such manner as to destroy the water approach aforesaid. From the evidence it appears that the lots in question were not at any time during the lease bounded by the North river, and that the only communication between these lots and that river was over certain other lots on Twenty-Eighth street which did not abut thereon, and were in the possession of the defendant under a lease from other parties. Consequently the right of way was not dependent upon the lease in question, but upon another lease by other parties. The defendant, having alleged the existence of the right of way, is bound to prove it; and no proof sufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury was offered by the defendant. But, even if it had succeeded in establishing that it obtained from the lease a right of way to the water over the lots in question, it is not shown that the plaintiff was in any way responsible for the interference therewith, and therefore the right of way could not be used as a defense in the action by the plaintiff to recover the rent. *Gallup*v. *Railroad Co.,*65 N. Y. 1. The verdict, therefore, was properly directed for the plaintiff; and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.