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

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Chateau Communities, Inc. or CP Limited Partnership on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-
40166 and 333-28583) and Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-36323, 333-28703, 333-38898,
333-38898-01, 333-43981, 333-43981-01, 333-74399, and 333-38307) of our report
dated February 14, 2001, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements
and financial statement schedule of Chateau Communities, Inc. and CP Limited
Partnership, respectively as of December 31, 2000 and 1999 and for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 2000, which reports are included in
the Annual Reports on Form 10-K, respectively.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 26, 2001
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 908 

To amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 

to reauthorize the Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2009 

Ms. WATERS (for herself, Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts, Mr. SMITH of New 

Jersey, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, and Mr. 

WAXMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 

Act of 1994 to reauthorize the Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program. 

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 ‘‘Missing Alzheimer’s 

5 Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization of 2009’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 908 IH

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MISSING ALZHEIMER’S 

2 DISEASE PATIENT ALERT PROGRAM. 

3 Section 240001 of the Violent Crime Control and 

4 Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14181) is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as fol7 lows: 

8 ‘‘(a) GRANT.—Subject to the availability of appro9 priations to carry out this section, the Attorney General, 

10 through the Bureau of Justice Assistance and in consulta11 tion with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 

12 shall award competitive grants to nonprofit organizations 

13 to assist such organizations in paying for the costs of plan14 ning, designing, establishing, and operating locally based, 

15 proactive programs to protect and locate missing patients 

16 with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias and other 

17 missing elderly individuals.’’; 

18 (2) in subsection (b)— 

19 (A) by inserting ‘‘competitive’’ after ‘‘to re20 ceive a’’; and 

21 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

22 sentence: ‘‘The Attorney General shall periodi23 cally solicit applications for grants under this 

24 section by publishing a request for applications 

25 in the Federal Register and by posting such a 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 908 IH

1 request on the website of the Department of 

2 Justice.’’; 

3 (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as fol4 lows: 

5 ‘‘(c) PREFERENCE.—In awarding grants under sub6 section (a), the Attorney General shall give preference to 

7 national nonprofit organizations that have a direct link to 

8 patients, and families of patients, with Alzheimer’s disease 

9 and related dementias.’’; and 

10 (4) by amending subsection (d) to read as fol11 lows: 

12 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

13 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

14 $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 

15 2016.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
# C_2010211EN.01000601.xml

| 4.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/6

---

Commission notice concerning the quantity not applied for to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 October to 31 December 2010 under certain quotas opened by the EU for poultrymeat, eggs and egg albumin

2010/C 211/04

Commission Regulations (EC) No 533/2007 (1), (EC) No 536/2007 (2), (EC) No 539/2007 (3), (EC) No 1384/2007 (4) and (EC) No 1385/2007 (5) opened tariff quotas for imports of products in the poultrymeat, egg and egg albumin sectors. The import licence applications lodged during the first seven days of June 2010 for the subperiod 1 July to 30 September 2010 do not, for quotas 09.4068, 09.4070, 09.4169, 09.4015, 09.4402, 09.4091, 09.4411 and 09.4421, cover the quantities available. Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 (6), the quantities that were not applied for are to be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, from 1 October to 31 December 2010; they are set out in the Annex to this notice.

1

2

3

4

5

6

---

(1)  OJ L 125, 15.5.2007, p. 9.

1

(2)  OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 6.

2

(3)  OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 19.

3

(4)  OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 40.

4

(5)  OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 47.

5

(6)  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

6

---

ANNEX

| Quota order number | Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 October 2010 to 31 December 2010
  (in kg) |
| --- | --- |
| 09.4068 | 1 869 500 |
| 09.4070 | 300 250 |
| 09.4169 | 4 166 250 |
| 09.4015 | 27 000 000 |
| 09.4402 | 2 836 588 |
| 09.4091 | 420 000 |
| 09.4411 | 3 825 000 |
| 09.4421 | 122 502 |

Quota order number

Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 October 2010 to 31 December 2010

(in kg)

09.4068

1 869 500

09.4070

300 250

09.4169

4 166 250

09.4015

27 000 000

09.4402

2 836 588

09.4091

420 000

09.4411

3 825 000

09.4421

122 502

---
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1098

Natural Gas Fixed Swap - Panhandle - Platts Inside FERC

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the monthly price published by Platts Inside FERC for 

the location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the Platts Inside FERC Panhandle

published price for the corresponding contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each contract shall be valued 

as the contract quantity in MMBtus multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day prior to the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
Exhibit 21.
Subsidiary of Princeton National Bancorp, Inc.

|                               |                                   
|------------------------------ | ----------------------------------
|Citizens
  First National Bank | Princeton
  National Bancorp, Inc.
|                               | owns 100
  percent of the shares  
|                               | Citizens
  First National Bank.   

---
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549



---

FORM 8-K

---



CURRENT REPORT



PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 16, 2007



Commission File Number 0-23903



---

eAUTOCLAIMS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



Nevada
        95-4583945(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
        (IRS Employer
Identification No.)




110 East Douglas Road, Oldsmar, Florida
        34677(Address of principal executive offices)
        (Zip Code)




(813) 749-1020

(Registrants telephone number)



---

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):



oWritten communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)



oSoliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))







---

---

Item 4.02.
        Non-Reliance on Previously Issued Financial Statements or a Related Audit Report or Completed Interim Review.




We have determined to restate our financial statements for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2006 for the manner in which we accounted for the gain on the sale our building. The decision to make the Restatement was made by our Audit Committee on May 14, 2007. The Audit Committee concluded that our financial statements for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2006 should no longer be relied upon due to this restatement.



Restated financial information for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2006 will be included in the Financial Statements and related Notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2007. Certain information relating to the quarterly financial information for the periods included in the Restatement will also be reflected in the Notes to Financial Statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2007.



Authorized officers of the company have discussed the matters set forth herein with the companys independent auditors.



---



SIGNATURE



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.



Date:   May 14, 2007
        
        eAUTOCLAIMS, INC.By:
        /s/  Jeffrey DicksonPrint Name:
        Jeffrey DicksonTitle:
        CEO and President


---

---
# C_2019288EN.01004601.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — adidas v EUIPO — Shoe Branding Europe (Representation of three parallel stripes)

(Case T-307/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing three parallel stripes - Absolute grounds for invalidity - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Form of use unable to be taken into account - Form that differs from the form under which the mark has been registered by significant variations - Inversion of the colour scheme)

(2019/C 288/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh and H. O’Neill, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde; Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 (Case R 1515/2016-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Shoe Branding Europe and Adidas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders adidas AG to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Shoe Branding Europe BVBA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders adidas AG to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Shoe Branding Europe BVBA;

| 3. | Orders Marques to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Marques to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---
#### TAR HEEL HOME HEALTH, INC. v. N.C. DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES

No. 244P98

Case below: 129 N.C.App. 646

Petition by petitioner for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 October 1998. Justice Wynn recused.
**Baker, flatts,**  **Andre k.**  **rherton**

httornsys **at** Law lCspsr8on

Build& &ouston,

Texas DsarSlrs:

we have your lett ouropmonwithrere?6Tlo0 plantand othsr 6 a? 800% to 

### rei@r6 plnionnlewlpupcmthe qaesproposed

sgraarsaz



### Yiolate+s 

### 0r the Stat6 

### 0r Tntas,or sion of Tew isstmd wider the 

### *ThistJgmm&mt

shall h6 subfeet to all Yslid xmlea and regulation6 **ef** the **Railroad Ce~saioa**  **ol Texas**  **or 0thbT**  regulatory **body hay** * **jurisdio** t&on;and Sellers

will epeFatsth4.rwells and produoethe gas thekefraa in atmordauoe

with all sooh orders,tu3336 and rt?@tlatioins, rrnd B%yerwill aparate its pdaat,lines evrd~qtipnent, inawor&anrre with all autrh

**orders,** m&leeand ~e@.etiens."jjaker, aotts, Andrarp

Bc whartoa,

Pa&e e in Yiew of

CoaotruSng

the agreemat a8 a whole,partloular .Lrt101e X-VIII quoted abow, it la our oplnlon %a the proposed

a&reFnt does not violateany of the oon~am-~ tion statute6

of the State of Telbutu or any 

### orders

of the I&$& road CotiSSlon of 'fezso issuedunder the authority of SU& rtatutes

and that the proposed agroamnt io **authorized** under the ~oVl8ions of 8eotlon 81 of Irrtiole

**6008** of the Retired Civilstatutes.

**COMMIITEE**
1 ... S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 47. 4. 

# C OURT OFAPPEALS S E CONDDI S T RICTOFT E XAS

FORT W ORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 39 3- CR DE I ON S HAR R A GA B R I E L AP P E L L ANT V . THE STATE OF TE XA S STATE

----- ----- FR O M THE 3 62 DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY ND

----- ----- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1 

### AND J UDGME NT

----- ----- W e h aveco ns i der ed “Appel l ant ’ s W i t hdr aw al O fN ot i ceO f A ppe al . ” The m o ti o n c o m p l i e s w i th ru l e 4 2 .2 (a ) o f th e ru l e s o f a p p e l l a te p ro c e d u re . Te x. R. A pp. P. 42 . 2( a) . N o deci sio n o ft hi s courthavi ng been del i ver ed bef or e w e re c e i v e d th i s m o ti o n , w e g ra n t th e m o ti o n a n d d i s m i s s th e a p p e a l . S ee Te x. R. A pp. P. 4 2 .2 (a ), 4 3 .2 (f). P E R C U R I A M PA N EL: W A LKER, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d M C C O Y, J. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b)DEL I VERE D: Dec e m be r18, 2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,362-02

EX PARTE CLARENCE DEWAYNE WILLIS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 18F1425-005-B IN THE 5TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM BOWIE COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to ninety nine years’ imprisonment. The

Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Willis v. State, No. 06-19-00246-CR (Tex.

App.—Texarkana Nov. 18, 2020) (not designated for publication). Applicant filed this application

for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this

Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that trial counsel was ineffective by refusing to cross-examine a key

witness, and failing to call impeachment and rebuttal witnesses. Applicant has alleged facts that, if

true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Accordingly, the

record should be developed. The trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. TEX.CODE
2

CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s

claim. In developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). 

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If

Applicant is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel

to represent him at the hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. If counsel is appointed or

retained, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whethertrial counsel’s

performance was deficient and Applicant was prejudiced. The trial court may make any other

findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to Applicant’s claim.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

Filed: November 02, 2022

Do not publish
#### Benigno Memije CARBEJAL, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-76980.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 8, 2008.

Benigno Memije Carbejal, Riverside, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, Margot L. Na-*580del, Esquire, Stacy S. Paddack, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Benigno Memije Carbejal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination. *Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Memije Carbejal did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where the record includes a Departure Verification form and a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal. *See Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales,*485 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir.2007) (an expedited removal order interrupts an alien’s continuous physical presence for cancellation purposes).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Baylake Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin L. LaLuzerne, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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; and




(2)

        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/Kevin L. LaLuzerneKevin L. LaLuzerneTreasurer and Chief Financial Officer




August 8, 2008



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Baylake Corp. and will be retained by Baylake Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.







---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1296

FLORENCE N. GWANYALLA,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals.

Submitted: September 26, 2008 Decided: October 31, 2008

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sopo Ngwa, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G.

Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant

Director, Glen T. Jaeger, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Florence N. Gwanyalla, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of

her applications for relief from removal. 

Gwanyalla first challenges the determination that she

failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of

a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show

that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable

factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have

reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Gwanyalla fails

to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed

to qualify for asylum, Gwanyalla cannot meet the more stringent

standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198,

205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430

(1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Gwanyalla failed

to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be

tortured if removed to Cameroon. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008).

 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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