alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We have issued our reports dated March 14, 2007, accompanying the consolidated financial statements andschedule and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingincluded in the Annual Report of Third Wave Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2006.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in theRegistration Statements of Third Wave Technologies, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-139964, effectiveJanuary 12, 2007) and Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-57664, effective March 27, 2001, 333-120169, effectiveNovember 2, 2004 and 333-134783, effective June 6, 2006).GRANT THORNTON LLP
- Home

# OIG Reports

## 2023 Reports:

                  - OIG-2023-08 – Review of United States Capitol Police Recruiting Mechanisms and Reemployed Annuitant Program
                  - OIG-2023-07 – Analysis of Mental Health and Wellness Program 
                  - OIG-2023-06 - Assessment of Outside Employment and Voluntary Work
                  - OIG-2023-04 - Top Management Challenges Facing the United States Capitol Police Fiscal Year 23
                  - OIG-2023-02 - Independent Auditor's Report Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2022 and 2021
                  - OIG-2023-05 - Analysis of Outdated Standard Operating Procedures and Directives
                  - OIG 2022-I-0015 Survey of United States Capitol Police Field Offices
                  - 2023-I-0007 - Review of USCP Insider Threat Capabilities

## 2022 Reports:

                  - 2022-I-0010 - Assessment of United States Capitol Police Bias Prevention Practices
                  - OIG-2022-06 - Review of United States Capitol Police Communications Section's Dispatch and Call Taking Process
                  - 2022-I-0003 - Review of the United States Capitol Police Training Services Bureau
                  - OIG-2022-01 - Management Advisory Report Issuance of Ammunition
                  - OIG-2022-03 - Review of Post-January 6, 2021, Overtime Usage and Status of Supplemental Appropriations 

## 2016 Reports:

                  - OIG-2016-06 – Inspection of the United States Capitol Police Office of Professional Responsibility

## 2013 Reports:

                  - OIG-2013-04 Performance Audit of USCP Canine (K-9) Program

## 2012 Reports:

                  - OIG ICR-2012-0001 Oversight Review of the United States Capitol Police Office of Professional Responsibility

## The Department

              - Our Mission
              - Our History
              - Executive Team
              - United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund
              - Office of Inspector General
              - Bureaus and Offices
              - Human Capital Strategic Plan
              - Oversight
              - USCP Department Strategic Plan
#### BALTZER AND TAAKS *v.*NORTH CAROLINA.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.

No. 52.

Argued February 3, 4, 1896.

Decided March 2, 1896.

*Baltzer*v. *North*Carolina, *ante*240, followed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

*Mr. Simon Sterne*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. James E. Shepherd*and *Mr. Charles M. Busbee,*(with whom was *Mr. F. 1. Osborne*on the brief,) for defendant in error.

*247Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court.

The claim presented in this case to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina differs somewhat from that relied on iii that court in the case of *Hermann R. Baltzer*v. *The State of North Carolina,*No. 93 of the docket of this court. The question of the power in the state court to give the relief, prayed for was by it decided adversely to the plaintiffs in error upon grounds identical with those considered by us in the case just decided. Our reasons for affirmance there expressed are conclusive of the issues here, and consequently the judgment is

*Affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
   This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from Electric
   Lightwave,  Inc.'s  Financial  Statements for the period ended March 31, 1999
   and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
                                               
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         7,920
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  17,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               29,974
<PP&E>                                         585,533
<DEPRECIATION>                                 47,749
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 574,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          84,511
<BONDS>                                        372,164
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       498
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,365
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   574,418
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               38,216
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  25,224
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               9,034
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (34,582)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   370
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (34,952)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (34,952)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.70)
                                               
                                               

</TABLE>
** **

**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Intermec, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended July 2, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Fredric B. Anderson, VicePresident and Controller, acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that:

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Fredric B. Anderson             |     |
|-------------------------------------|----------|
| Fredric B.  Anderson                |     |
| *Vice  President and Controller*    | * * |
| *(Acting  Chief Financial Officer)* | * * |
| August  9,  2006               |     |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Gregory Baldwin, Respondent, v Walter Kelly, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Appellant.

— Determination unanimously annulled on the law and petition granted *(see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly,*125 AD2d 923, *lv granted*69 NY2d 608). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

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.

 

August 6, 2021

Order 

Clerk

August 6, 2021

163067(51)(53)

POWER WELLNESS MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Petitioner-Appellee,

and

CHELSEA HEALTH & WELLNESS

FOUNDATION, doing business as 5 HEALTHY 

TOWNS FOUNDATION, 

Intervenor-Appellee, 

SC: 163067

v COA: 352226

Tax Tribunal: 18-001383-TT

CITY OF DEXTER, 

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of respondent-appellant to extend the time 

for filing its reply is GRANTED. The reply submitted on August 2, 2021, is accepted as 

timely filed. On further order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Municipal 

League to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on August 

3, 2021, is accepted for filing.
---

---

Exhibit 15.1

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-13144) pertaining to the
Employees stock option plan of Compugen Ltd. of our report dated March 31, 2008,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Compugen Ltd. included in this
Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

|                 |                                 
|---------------- | --------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|March 31, 2008   | KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER    
|Tel-Aviv, Israel | A Member of Ernst & Young Global



---

---
#### John Creegan et al., Appellants, v John Mazella, Respondent.

— In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ferraro, J.), entered May 20, 1985, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution pursuant to CPLR 3216, and (2) a judgment of the *359same court, dated May 30, 1985, which dismissed the action with prejudice.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered May 20, 1985 is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

After commencing the action at bar in June 1981, the record discloses that the only actions taken by the plaintiffs were those made in response to the defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars and certain of the defendant’s discovery demands. In January 1984, following a period of two years during which the action was entirely quiescent, the defendant served upon the plaintiffs a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. Thereafter, by stipulation dated March 4, 1984, the parties agreed that the "90 day notice previously served upon the plaintiff dated January 4, 1984 is hereby extended to 90 days after the Examinations Before Trial of both the plaintiff and the defendant have been completed”. The examinations were completed on July 18, 1984. Although the defendant requested discovery of certain items shortly after the completion of the examinations and requested the examination of the plaintiff Theresa Creegan, which was never scheduled, it is undisputed that the plaintiffs never served a note of issue during the nine-month period which elapsed between the completion of the EBT’s and the defendant’s April 1985 motion to dismiss. In opposition to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs submitted a 21/i-page affirmation by an attorney who lacked personal knowledge of the events recounted. No medical documentation establishing the merits of the action was submitted, and the motion to dismiss was granted.

We conclude that the action was properly dismissed. The papers submitted on the original motion to dismiss contained no affidavit from a physician, hospital records or other evidence to establish that there is merit to the plaintiffs’ claims of malpractice *(see, Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp.,*60 NY2d 685; *Hatcher v City of New York,*99 AD2d 481; *Savino v Guido,*81 AD2d 860). Moreover, the record fails in any sense to support the plaintiffs’ contentions that their failure to file a *360note of issue was attributable to the defendant’s conduct *(cf. Aquilino v Adirondack Tr. Lines,*97 AD2d 929; *Baxt v Cohen,*96 AD2d 661). Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARCOS MARRUFO, ADRIANA 

MARUFFO, DONNA J. KELLY, AND 

ROBERT E. HEDICKE,

Appellants,

V.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00164-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. AND 

JOHN TRIEN, 

Appellees.

§

§

§

(TC# 2011DCV05390)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court to determine whether it should be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. Finding that the Appellants’ brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want

of prosecution.

On August 6, 2014, the Clerk notified Appellants that their brief was past due and no 

motion for extension of time had been filed. The letter advised the parties that the Court 

intended to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless Appellants responded within ten 

days and showed grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1). Neither the 

brief nor a motion for extension of time in which to file the brief has been filed. Pursuant to 

Rules 38.8(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal for want of 
- 2 -

prosecution.

September 3, 2014

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

Rivera, J. (Not Participating)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,258,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,584,300
<OTHER-SE>                                     499,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,258,400
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               315,800
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                88,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             151,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6303 

To preserve Medicare beneficiary choice by repealing section 3204(a) of the 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Mr. ARCURI (for himself and Mr. MCMAHON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To preserve Medicare beneficiary choice by repealing section 

3204(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Beneficiary 

5 Choice Preservation Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF MEDICARE BENEFICIARY 

7 CHOICE. 

8 Effective as if included in the enactment of the Pa9 tient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6303 IH

1 111–148), subsection (a) of section 3204 of such Act (re2 lating to changes in the annual continuous open enroll3 ment and disenrollment period under Medicare Advan4 tage) is repealed and the provision of law amended by 

5 paragraph (1) of such subsection is restored as if sub6 section had never been enacted. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ENOCH HENRY ROGERS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2442

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 27, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hardee County; Marcus J. Ezelle, 

Judge.

Rachael E. Reese of O'Brien

Hatfield, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Kiersten E.

Jensen, Assistant Attorney

General, Tampa, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EVELYN L. MIDDLETON , pro se , Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR , Defendant. Case No. 1:17-cv-00878 (TNM)

ORDER Upon consideration of the Defenda nt’s Motion to Dismiss for la ck of subject matter jurisdiction and fa ilure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the pleadings, relevant law, and related legal memoranda in opposition and in support, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion t o Dismiss is GRANTED and the Seco nd Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and

ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot. It is

further

ORDERED that the following pre-filing res trictions are implemented: Ms . Middleton is not permitted to file any actions in the District Court for the District of Colum bia related to the above-captioned matter ( i.e, . her retirement account or the handling of her complaints abou t the account by any individual, the Depar tment of Labor, or the Unit ed States), without preauthorization from a judge in t his District upon a finding that the case could be meritorious rather than repetitive. If Ms. Middlet on wishes to file a related act ion, she shall submit to the Clerk of
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              sep-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                         1,697
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         3,740
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    20,803
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         2,815
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           2,772
<LOANS>                                        64,122
<ALLOWANCE>                                    243
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 96,020
<DEPOSITS>                                     78,661
<SHORT-TERM>                                   0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1,069
<LONG-TERM>                                    10,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,288
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 96,020
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                1,255
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              392
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               50
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               1,697
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             937
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,082
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          615
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  5
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                557
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                222
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   143
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.93
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 2.67
<LOANS-NON>                                    0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   365
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                365
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               239
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  3
<RECOVERIES>                                   2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              243
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           243
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0



</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESVIN OCTAVIO BONILLA BARRIOS,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 70229

Agency No. A206

- 912

- 674

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 20 , 2020 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Esvin Octavio Bonilla Barrios, a native and citizen of Guatemala , petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order affirming the decision of an

asylum officer during expe dited removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 24 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 70229

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the removal order because it was issued

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and none of the exceptions to the res triction on

judicial review of expedited removal orders apply. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii) (“[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to review” determinations

made under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)); Pena v. Lynch , 815 F.3d 452, 455

- 56 (9th

Cir. 2016) (conc luding that this court generally lacks jurisdiction to review

removal orders issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and describing the limited

exceptions).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.