alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-157685, 333-149203, 333-145074, 333-139555, 333-125490, 333-121584, 333-121583, and 333-107238) of sanofi-aventis, of our reports datedMarch 9, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of sanofi-aventis and its subsidiaries and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of sanofi-aventis, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F)for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

ERNST & YOUNG Audit 

Represented by Christian Chiarasini and Jacques Pierres 

Paris-La Défense, France

March 12, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Clifford K. Bown,
certify, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for VASCO Data Security International, Inc. for the quarter ended on June 30, 2009, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|                                                                                    
|/s/ Clifford K. Bown                                                                
|Clifford K. Bown Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer August 7, 2009
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 63 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### *In re*BUB, Michael Edward

(MR 21636)

St Louis, MO

Order of the Court:

The motion by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to approve and confirm the report and recommendation of the Hearing Board is allowed, and respondent Michael Edward Bub is censured.
Motion Granted, Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed, and Memorandum

Opinion filed August 2 7 , 2019

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00142- CV

IN RE CITY OF HOUSTON, ET AL. , Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 333rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015-35252 & 2015-35252A

MEMORANDUM OPINION On February 20, 2019, relators the City of Houston, et al., filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of a severance order, signed October 12, 2018, and a final judgment, signed October 12, 2018 (“the Original Proceeding”). On March 26, 2019, the court consolidated the Original Proceeding with a related appeal: No.
14

- 18 -00896-CV, City of Houston et al. v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (“the Appeal”).2

On August 16, 2019, the parties filed a “Joint Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Abate Appeal.” 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion to dismiss the mandamus petition is granted. The Original Proceeding is dismissed. The Appeal will be abated by separate order.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Bourliot.

1 Although the Appeal and the Original Proceeding were consolidated, both cause numbers remain open. The motion bears the cause number of the Appeal but not the cause number of the Original Proceeding. The substance of the motion makes clear the parties seek relief in the Original Proceeding. Accordingly, we treat the motion as having been filed in the Original Proceeding.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.4



                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


         The undersigned, a director of Sybron Dental Specialties, Inc., hereby
constitutes and appoints Stephen J. Tomassi and Gregory D. Waller, or either of
them, his true and lawful attorneys and agents, each with full power and
authority to act as such without the other, to do any and all acts and things
and to execute any and all instruments which either one of said attorneys and
agents may deem necessary or advisable to enable said Corporation to comply with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"), as amended; and including
specifically, but without limitation of the foregoing, full power and authority
to each of said attorneys and agents to sign the name of the undersigned to the
Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2001, and any
amendment(s) thereto, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant
to the requirements of the Act, the undersigned hereby ratifying and confirming
all that said attorneys and agents, or either of them, shall do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed and delivered these
presents as of the 7th day of December 2001.





                                                      /s/ Floyd W. Pickrell, Jr.
                                                    ----------------------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA 1 8 -0 248

STATE OF MONTANA

,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JORY RUSSELL STRIZICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is

given an extension of time until Octobe r 19, 2020 to prepare, file and serve the

Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 18 2020

09/18/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0248
# CE2010117EN.01022501.xml

| 6.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 117/225 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 117/225

---

Tuesday 24 March 2009The placing of biocidal products on the market ***I

P6_TA(2009)0159

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 March 2009 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market as regards the extension of certain time periods (COM(2008)0618 – C6-0346/2008 – 2008/0188(COD))

2010/C 117 E/40

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0618),

having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0346/2008),

having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0076/2009),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal as amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

| 2. | Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

Tuesday 24 March 2009P6_TC1-COD(2008)0188

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 24 March 2009 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2009/.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market as regards the extension of certain time periods

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive 2009/107/EC.)

---
CAUSE NOS. 12-19-00123-C R , 12-19-00124-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ALEXANDRO CAMACHO , } APPEALED FROM 114TH DISTRICT APPELLANT

V. } COURT IN AND FOR
THE STATE OF TEXAS, } SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS APPELLEE ORDER
Came on f

or review the status of the instant appeal s , and the same having been considered, it appears that Appellant is not currently represented by counsel. On April 5, 2019, the Docketing Statement was due to be filed. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.2 . On April 5, 2019, th is Court notified Appellant that a Docketing Statement was to be filed and gave him until April 15, 2019, to file it. Thereafter, Appellant filed a defective Docketing S tatement

. Pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.2 it is ORDERED that the Honorable Christi J. Kennedy, Judge of the 114th District Court of Smith County, shal l immediately conduct a hearing to determine the cause of Appellant’s failure to file a compliant Docketing Statement and whether the Appellant has abandoned the appeal s

. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court determine whether: (1) Appellant is indigent and e ntitled to the appointment of counsel on appeal; (2) Appellant has sufficient funds to retain counsel; or (3) Appellant desires to represent himself on appeal. It is ADDITIONALLY ORDERED that once findings are made as to the above issues,
the trial court shall appoint counsel, give Appellant an appropriate deadline for retaining counsel, or administer the appropriate warnings concerning the dangers of self

- representation, in accordance with its findings and the court shall also take necessary action to ins ure the prompt filing of a proper Docketing Statement with this Court.It is FINALLY ORDERED that a supplemental record containing the court’s findings of

fact and conclusions of law and any appropriate order(s) attendant thereto be certified to this
Court on or before May 13, 2019

. WITNESS the Honorable James T. Worthen, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, 12 th Court of Appeals District of Texas, at Tyler.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT , at my office this 11th day of April 2019 , A.D.

________________________________ KATRINA MCCLENNY, CL ERK 12 TH COURT OF APPEALS
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10474]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-249-001]


Trunkline Gas Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

April 23, 2001.
    Take notice that on April 17, 2001, Trunkline Gas Company 
(Trunkline) tendered for filing additional workpapers to support its 
Fuel Reimbursement Filing. Trunkline asserts that the purpose of this 
filing is to comply with the Commission's order issued March 28, 2001 
in Docket No. RP01-249-000, 94 FERC para. 61,348 (2001).
    Trunkline further states that copies of this filing are being 
served on all parties to this proceeding and applicable state 
regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before April 30, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10474 Filed 4-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20681

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS MORENO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-95-CR-142-14

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

July 25, 2002

Before JONES, DUHÉ, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Luis Moreno appeals from his conviction of drug-trafficking

and money-laundering conspiracies. Moreno argues that the district

court’s proceedings were void ab initio because the district court

did not make an express, oral, adjudication of guilt or acceptance

of Moreno’s plea agreement. Moreno persistently and mistakenly

relies on Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625 (1896), a case that

was clearly overruled by Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642

(1914), with regard to the issue for which Moreno cites it.
2

Although the district court did not expressly and precisely state

that the court was accepting the plea and finding the defendant

guilty, the record shows that there could have been no plausible

doubt as to whether Moreno’s plea had been accepted and his guilt

adjudicated. Because Moreno did not object to the alleged error,

his claim is reviewed for plain error, and he has shown none. See

United States v. Vonn, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1048 (2002). Moreno’s

contention that the district court failed to expressly accept his

plea agreement likewise fails plain-error review because Moreno

received the bargained-for dismissal of other counts. See United

States v. Morales-Sosa, 191 F.3d 586, 588 (5th Cir. 1999).

Moreno also contends that his life sentence is improper under

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The Government

contends that Moreno waived his Apprendi contention by waiving his

right to appeal his sentence and that Moreno’s Apprendi contention

is unavailing on its merits. Moreno’s waiver of any appeal of his

sentence is valid. See United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516,

518 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292

(5th Cir. 1994). Even without it, Moreno’s appeal has no merit.

There was no Apprendi violation in the case. Moreno’s indictment

alleged that he had conspired to possess with intent to distribute

1,000 or more kilograms of marijuana, an offense carrying a

statutory maximum penalty of life imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. §§

841(b)(1)(A), 846. Moreno’s life sentence was within that range.

See United States v. Keith, 230 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2000),

cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1182 (2001).
3

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0660

IN THE MATTER OF: 

R.V.,

A Youth.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 3, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 28 2024

08/28/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0660
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001044693
<NAME> I-INCUBATOR.COM, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              38
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    38
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,929
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          246,978
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,432
<OTHER-SE>                                     160,828
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,154
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               650,450
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,571
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (542,060)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (542,060)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-429-CR

JUAN MANUEL LOPEZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered the appellant’s “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” The

motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R.

App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we

received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f). 

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: January 15, 2009
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of P.M. & E. M

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00753

- CV

Trial court case number: 2021

- 01374J

Trial court: 313th District Court of Harris County

On D ecember 13, 2022 , Appellant J.S.M.R. a/k/a J.M. filed a n Unopp osed Se c ond

Motion for Extension of Time to File A p pellant ’ s Brief, requesting an extension from December

13, 2022 to December 30 , 2022

. We grant the motion.

Appellant J.S.M.R. a/k/a J.M ’ s bri e f is due December 30, 2022.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas

- Molloy

Acting individually

Date: December 20 , 2022
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 September 10, 2019

b0904

Order 

Clerk

September 10, 2019

157431

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 157431

COA: 334256

Wayne CC: 16-002807-FC

TRAMANUEL DURHAM,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of December 19, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 

2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

People v Ames (Docket No. 156077). On order of the Court, the case having been decided 

on June 26, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), the application is again considered, and it is 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed 

by this Court.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 15

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated August 14, 2000 on our review of interim
financial information of W. R. Grace & Co., (the "Company") as of and for the
period ended June 30, 2000 and included in the Company's quarterly report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is incorporated by reference in its
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-37024, 333-49083, 333-49507,
333-49509, 333-49511, 333-49513, 333-49515, 333-49517, 333-49703, and
333-49705).

Very truly yours,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Baltimore, Maryland
August 14, 2000




                                     II-20
HYNES & HOWES INSURANCE COUNSELORS, INC.
                    Statement of Retained Earnings (Deficit)
              For the Years Ended September 30, 1999, 1998 and 1997


                                              Year Ended September 30,
                                        1999            1998            1997

Balance at Beginning of Year    $ (3,070,740)   $ (3,087,380)   $ (3,082,995)

Income (Loss) for the Year            35,287          16,640          (4,385)

Increase in carrying value
  of affiliate                           157               0               0

Unrealized gains in installment
  sales contracts from prior
  years (Note 12)

Balance at End of Year          $ (3,027,801)   $ (3,070,740)   $ (3,087,380)


                          Statement of Paid-In Capital
              For the Years Ended September 30, 1999, 1998 and 1997

Balance at Beginning
  and End of Year               $        100    $        100    $        100



Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements.
Exhibit 32



Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, as amended.



In connection with the Annual Report of Knight-Ridder, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 26, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), P. Anthony Ridder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Steven B.
Rossi, Senior Vice President/Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|              |  |                                     
|------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|March 2, 2005 |  | /s/ P. Anthony Ridder               
|              |  | P. Anthony Ridder                   
|              |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|              | 
|              |  | /s/ Steven B. Rossi                 
|              |  | Steven B. Rossi                     
|              |  | Senior Vice President/Finance and   
|              |  | Chief Financial Officer