alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.2





Consent of KPMG LLP





The Board of Directors


bigchalk.com, inc.:





We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-99982, 333-48425, and 333-93099) on Form S-8 of ProQuest Company (formerly known as Bell & Howell Company) of our report dated March 22, 2002, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of bigchalk.com, inc. and subsidiaries, as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001,
which report appears in the fiscal 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of ProQuest Company.





/s/    KPMG LLP





Chicago, Illinois


March 29, 2002
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 28-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10312

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JIMMY GORDON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:16-CR-208-1

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jimmy Gordon appeals his guilty plea conviction for sexual exploitation 

of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Gordon argues that the conduct 

described in the factual resume supporting his guilty plea was not sufficient to 

establish the offense of conviction because it did not reflect that a minor 

engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 26, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10312 Document: 00514323454 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2018
No. 17-10312

2

Because Gordon did not object to the factual sufficiency of the factual 

resume in the district court, review is for plain error. See United States v. 

McCall, 833 F.3d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 

313 (5th Cir. 2010). Courts employ a six-factor test to determine whether an 

image depicts sexually explicit conduct. See United States v. Steen, 634 F.3d 

822, 826 (5th Cir. 2011). A review of those factors in light of the stipulations 

in the written factual resume, Gordon’s admissions at his rearraignment, and 

the record as a whole, see Trejo, 610 F.3d at 313, shows that the district 

committed no clear or obvious error in finding a sufficient factual basis for 

Gordon’s guilty plea. Specifically, the record supports a conclusion that the 

focal point of the image in question was the child’s uncovered genitalia and 

that the image was created to be sent to a third party to elicit a sexual response 

from the viewer. See McCall, 833 F.3d at 563–64. Gordon’s argument that the 

factual resume was insufficient because it did not reflect that the minor 

actively engaged in the sexually explicit conduct is without merit. See id. at 

563 n.4, 564 n.6.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-10312 Document: 00514323454 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                               13,339
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       205,296
<ALLOWANCES>                          7,068
<INVENTORY>                         101,756
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    325,148
<PP&E>                              391,309
<DEPRECIATION>                      241,655
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      799,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               321,525
<BONDS>                             497,252
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                 23
<OTHER-SE>                          (64,571)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        799,854
<SALES>                             856,971
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    856,971
<CGS>                               531,513
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       784,929
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   40,592
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      31,450
<INCOME-TAX>                         12,580
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  18,870
<DISCONTINUED>                      (22,441)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     (28,889)
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        (32,460)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (1.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (1.63)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-742

In Re: TERRY WENDELL COPELAND,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-1211-AMD)

Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 6, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Wendell Copeland, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry Copeland has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus

seeking recusal of the district court judge presiding over his 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) motion. Mandamus is a

drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See

Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which

the relief sought could be granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818,

826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.

1979). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden

of showing that he has "no other adequate means to attain the

relief he desires" and that his right to such relief is "clear and

indisputable." Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35

(1980). Copeland has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny

Copeland's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deny mandamus

relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 656 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain individuals 

who have attained age 50 and who are unemployed to receive distributions from qualified retirement plans without incurring a 10 percent 

additional tax. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 22, 2009 

Mr. PLATTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain individuals who have attained age 50 and who are 

unemployed to receive distributions from qualified retirement plans without incurring a 10 percent additional 

tax. 

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


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 656 IH

1 SECTION 1. NO ADDITIONAL TAX ON DISTRIBUTIONS FROM 

2 QUALIFIED RETIREMENT PLANS TO CERTAIN 

3 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ATTAINED AGE 50 

4 AND WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 72(t) of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to subsection 

7 not to apply to certain distributions) is amended by adding 

8 at the end the following new subparagraph: 

9 ‘‘(H) DISTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN INDI10 VIDUALS WHO HAVE ATTAINED AGE 50 AND

11 WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED.— 

12 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Distributions to 

13 an individual after separation from em14 ployment if— 

15 ‘‘(I) as of the date of such dis16 tribution, such individual has attained 

17 age 50, 

18 ‘‘(II) such individual has received 

19 unemployment compensation for 12 

20 consecutive weeks under any Federal 

21 or State unemployment compensation 

22 law by reason of such separation, and 

23 ‘‘(III) such distribution is made 

24 during any taxable year during which 

25 such unemployment compensation is 

26 paid or any succeeding taxable year. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 656 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) REEMPLOYMENT AND SELF-EM2 PLOYMENT.—Rules similar to the rules of 

3 clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (D) 

4 shall apply for purposes of this subpara5 graph.’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 subsection (a) shall apply to distributions made after the 

8 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
---



Exhibit
  99.2



CONSENT
  OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS



We consent
  to the use in this annual report of Bell Canada on Form 40-F of our comments
  by auditors for U.S. readers on Canada-U.S. reporting differences and auditors
  report both dated March 2, 2005 on the consolidated balance sheets of Bell Canada
  as at December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the consolidated statements of operations,
  retained earnings and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period
  ended December 31, 2004 which appear in this annual report of Bell Canada on
  Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2004.



(signed)
        Deloitte & ToucheDeloitte
          & Touche LLP  Montreal,
    Canada
    March 11, 2005
Case 1:07-cv-05310-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05310-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### Woodrow Davis, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

— Weiss, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Murray, J.), entered December 23, 1985, which dismissed the claim.

Claimant appeals the dismissal of his claim, following trial, to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained on July *98318, 1983 while an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility. Cell doors were opened and closed using a 3- to 4-foot steel operating wheel manually turned by a correction officer. Another wheel called the "indicator wheel” was used to select either specific cell doors or all cell doors to be opened or closed. Testimony showed that a three-step procedure or method was taught to and utilized by correction officers to warn inmates that cell doors were to be opened or closed. The officer first shouts "on the bars”. Then a steel pin is removed from the operating wheel which causes the wheel to move suddenly and a loud "clunking noise” reverberates which can be heard throughout the cells. Next, the operating wheel is "rattled” or "flipped” or "jiggled”. This "rattles” or "jiggles” the cell doors which further warns an inmate that the cell door is about to move. The three-foot-wide cell door usually takes 4 to 8 seconds to become fully open.

Claimant, in keeplock at the time of his accident, was washing the bars on his cell with a rag and a pail of soapy water. When the door on his cell opened, claimant’s left hand and forearm were caught between the door and the bars, inflicting a soft tissue contusion. The Court of Claims concluded that claimant had no reason to rest his hand on the horizontal bar and that he had ample opportunity to withdraw his hand as soon as the door started to open. In addition, the court found that claimant was more interested in listening to conversation than paying attention to the warnings, and took no steps to safeguard himself from injury.

The issue essentially distills to the credibility of witnesses, a decision within the domain of the trial court which should not be disturbed if adequately supported by the record *(see, Raynor v State of New York,*98 AD2d 865, 866). Our review of the record discloses ample evidence to support the decision reached by the Court of Claims. Correction officers who testified described the three-step warning method and the officer who opened the doors testified that he specifically recalled shouting "on the bars” before proceeding. It was not unusual for all cell doors to be opened even if some inmates were to remain in their cells. There was no conflict in the correction officers’ testimony. However, claimant’s description of the accident should be considered unworthy of belief. Finally, the State is not an insurer against any injuries which might occur to inmates *(Casella v State of New York,*121 AD2d 495). There must be a demonstration of a lack of reasonable care *(Killeen v State of New York,*66 NY2d 850), which claimant has here failed to make in this case.

*984Judgment affirmed, with costs. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr. and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Clear All

        08 September 2023    

                    USS Gerald R. Ford "Beach Det" at NSA Souda Bay                 
                Naval Support Activity Souda Bay, Greece, hosted Sailors assigned to a remotely located logistics detachment of USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), in support of the ship’s forward operations in the Mediterranean Sea, Aug. 16 to Sept. 6, 2023.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, J. William Grimes, Chief Executive Officer of i3 Mobile, Inc., certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of i3 Mobile, Inc.;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

          a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

          b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

          c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

     5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize, and report financial information; and

          b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2003

/s/ J. William Grimes
------------------------
Name:  J. William Grimes
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 67-3 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 1 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 67-3 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 2 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 67-3 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 3 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 67-3 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 4 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 67-3 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 5 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 67-3 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 6 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-05740-SCR Document 2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### Holly Szafranski, Appellant, v John Priebe, as Father and Natural Guardian of Jason Priebe, an Infant, Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: The court erred in precluding plaintiffs discovery of defendant’s karate manual. CPLR 3101 (a) provides, in pertinent part, "There shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action”. That language is to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure of facts bearing on the controversy which will assist in preparation for trial. "The test is one of usefulness and reason” *(Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co.,*21 NY2d 403, 406). Plaintiff established that defendant’s karate manual is possibly relevant to prosecution of her personal injury action and thus "material and necessary” within the meaning of the statute. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J. — discovery.) Present —Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Director, National Institutes of Health, the authorities under Public Law 106-310 (Children's Health Act of 2000), title I, section 104 (a) and (c) as amended, to establish and to administer the Autism Coordinating Committee. I am also delegating the authority under title I, section 104(b)(1) to select as members of the Committee, such Directors of national research institutes and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as appropriate. I will retain the authority under title 1, section 104(b) (1) and (2) pertaining to the selection of additional members of the Committee.

This delegation shall be exercised under the Department's existing delegation of authority and policy on regulation. In addition, I ratify and affirm any actions taken by you or your subordinates which involved the exercise of the authorities delegated herein prior to the effective date of this delegation.

This delegation is effective upon date of signature.

Dated: April 25, 2001.

Tommy G. Thompson,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-11300  Filed 5-3-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00428-CV

ALMA INVESTMENTS, INC.

v.

BAHIA MAR CO-OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

On Appeal from the

197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2006-07-3289-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 16, 2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,046
<SECURITIES>                                    12,261
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,956
<ALLOWANCES>                                       226
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,026
<PP&E>                                           8,682
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,006
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,544
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,831
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,953
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,317
<SALES>                                         65,397
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,397
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,033
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,043
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  55
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (108)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (170)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (170)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 7, 2012

d1031

Order 

November 7, 2012

145263

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145263

COA: 309304

Livingston CC: 10-019113-FH; 

TROY ROLAND HAMILTON, 10-019114-FH

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 30, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.