alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of dELiA*s Corp.: (a) Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-90435),
(b) Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-53670), (c) Form S-3 (Registration
No. 333-36300) and (d) Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-91837) of our report dated
March 30, 1999 (April 14, 1999 as to Note 1 sentences 2 and 3), appearing in the
annual report on Form 10-K of dELiA*s Corp. for the fiscal year ended
February 3, 2001.

                                          DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New York, New York
May 4, 2001
Deborah Harrison KHATANA, petitioner, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY.

No. 17-7418.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

AT HOME AUTO GLASS, LLC 

A/A/O ANTHONY ANTORINO, 

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D21-2215 

LT Case No. 2021-SC-000971

MENDOTA INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 26, 2022

Nonfinal Appeal from the County Court

for Seminole County, 

James J. DeKleva, Judge.

Chad A. Barr, of Chad Barr Law, 

Altamonte Springs, for Appellant.

Matthew C. Scarborough and Amy 

Lee, of Scarborough Attorneys at 

Law, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

At Home Auto Glass, LLC a/a/o Anthony Antorino appeals the trial 

court’s nonfinal order granting Appellee, Mendota Insurance Company’s, 
2

motion to transfer venue pursuant to section 47.122, Florida Statutes (2020). 

Based on our recent decision in At Home Auto Glass, LLC v. Mendota 

Insurance, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1706 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 12, 2022), which 

involved the same parties and is indistinguishable in all material respects 

from the instant case, we reverse the order transferring venue and remand 

this case for further proceedings. 

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LAMBERT, C.J., EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3803 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude Federal Pell Grants 

from gross income. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 17, 2019 

Mr. DESAULNIER (for himself, Mr. ZELDIN, and Mr. KING of New York) 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 exclude 

Federal Pell Grants from gross income. 

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 ‘‘Pell Grant Flexibility 

5 Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF FEDERAL PELL GRANTS FROM 

7 GROSS INCOME. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 117 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following new subsection: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3803 IH

1 ‘‘(e) FEDERAL PELL GRANTS.—Gross income does 

2 not include any amount received as a Federal Pell Grant 

3 awarded under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the High4 er Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a).’’. 

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

6 this section shall apply to amounts received in taxable 

7 years beginning after December 31, 2018. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
II-00482

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Spencer Stall <spencers@kitcarson.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 5:42 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Spencer Stall

P.O. Box 1001

E1 Prado, NM 87529
Ann L. MARTIN, et vir, petitioners, v. Adrienne L. BAILEY, et al.

No. 17-1031.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Office denied.
| 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 16, 2011 |                                 |
|----------------|--------------------------------------|
|           | /s/ Kaleil Isaza Tuzman              |
|           | Kaleil Isaza Tuzman                  |
|           | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

----
Mary CHEPAK, petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION.

No. 15-9776.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
| 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/ Jeremy Hemann                         |                                                                                                                                                          |
| Name:  Jeremy Hemann            |                                                                                                                                                          |
| Title:  Chief Financial Officer |                                                                                                                                                          |
| Dated:   May 13, 2011      |                                                                                                                                                          |
**Exhibit 8.1*****Company Subsidiaries***Novogen Limited is a company limited by shares and is incorporated and domiciled in Australia.Novogen Limited has prepared a consolidated financial report incorporating the entities that itcontrolled during the financial year ended June 30, 2006, which included the following:       *Name of Entity* *Country of Incorporation* *Ownership %*Novogen Laboratories Pty Ltd Australia  100 Novogen Research Pty Ltd Australia  100 Central Coast Properties Pty Ltd Australia  100 Phytosearch Pty Ltd Australia  100 Phytogen Pty Ltd Australia  100 Glycotex Pty Ltd Australia  100 Norvogen Pty Ltd Australia  100 Novogen Inc USA  100   Glycotex Inc USA  84.3 Novogen Limited(U.K.) U.K.  100   Promensil Limited U.K.  100   Novogen BV Netherlands  100 Novogen New Zealand Limited New Zealand  100 Novogen Canada Limited Canada  100 Marshall Edwards, Inc. USA  86.9   MarshallEdwards Pty Limited* Australia  86.9  * Owned indirectly through Marshall Edwards, Inc.
247
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying annual report on Amendment No. 1 to Form
10-K of Roanoke Technology Corp. for the period ended October 31, 2004, David L.
Smith, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Roanoke Technology
Corp. hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, that:

     1.   Such annual Report on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K for the period
          ended October 31, 2004, 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 such annual Report on Amendment No.1 to
          Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2003, fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of Roanoke Technology Corp..

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Roanoke Technology Corp. and will be retained by it and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

ROANOKE TECHNOLOGY CORP.


Dated:  March 22, 2005


/s/ David L. Smith
----------------------------------------
David L. Smith
Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer
Willie Andre JACKSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7823.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT
</LEGEND>
<CIK>0000850660
<NAME>THERMADYNE HOLDINGS CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           8,788
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,610
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,485
<INVENTORY>                                    112,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               208,720
<PP&E>                                          96,395
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 399,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,709
<BONDS>                                        719,106
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           59,497
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                     519,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   399,714
<SALES>                                        391,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               391,471
<CGS>                                          253,495
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  253,495
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                86,402
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,510
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,292)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,841
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,133)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,133)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (4.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.66)


</TABLE>
**Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 January 2012 – Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft v Commission**

**(Case T-407/09)**

Action for annulment – State aid – Contracts for the sale of apartments as part of the privatisation of publicly-owned apartments in Neubrandenburg – Complaint – Act not subject to review – Inadmissibility – Action for failure to act

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Commission letter merely communicating
a provisional first analysis as to a possible State aid measure – Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 25-27, 29-30)*

2.                     *Actions for failure to act – Institution called upon to act – Definition of position within the meaning of Article 232, second
para., EC – Concept – Commission letter merely communicating a provisional first analysis as to a possible State aid measure
– Included – Inadmissibility (Arts 88(2) EC and 232 EC) (see paras 37-39, 41)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION, first, for annulment of the Commission decision claimed to be contained in the letter of 29 July 2009 declaring that some contracts concluded by the applicant regarding the sale of apartments as part of the privatisation of publicly-owned apartments in Neubrandenburg did not fall within the scope of Article 87(1) EC and, second, for a declaration of the Commission’s failure to act, under Article 232 EC, since the Commission did not define its position on those contracts on the basis of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1). |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission, Bavaria Immobilien Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co., Objekte Neubrandenburg KG and Bavaria Immobilien Trading GmbH & Co. Immobilien Leasing Objekt Neubrandenburg KG. |
**Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2010 – Deutsche Bahn v OHIM (Horizontal combination of the colours
grey and red)**

**(Case T-404/09)**

Community trade mark – Application for Community trade mark consisting in a horizontal combination of the colours grey and red – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 28-37)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R-379/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of a colour sign, consisting in the combination of the colours grey and red, as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Deutsche Bahn AG |
| Community trade mark sought: | Trade mark consisting of the combination of the colours grey and red for services in Class 39 – Application No 6733315 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Deutsche Bahn AG to pay the costs. |
|   | (1) | the      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Oconee Financial Corporation (the      “Company”) for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 (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 result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Jerry K.      Wages                                          Jerry K. WagesSr. Executive Vice President and      Chief FinancialOfficer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Cesar COUTINO-LOPEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8131.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Order entered October 12, 2022 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01051-CV 

IN RE TOMMY RAY KING, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 265th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F12-55339-R 

ORDER 

Before Justices Osborne, Partida-Kipness, and Smith 

Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DENY relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus. 

/s/ ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS 

 JUSTICE
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 1 1 , 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00860

- CV

IN RE VILORE FOODS COMPANY, Inc.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

On December 12, 2019, Relator Vilore Foods Company, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The Real Party in Interest responded, and the Relator replied. Having reviewed the petition, response, and reply, we conclude Relator is entitled to the relie f requested. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(c).

We order the Honorable Joe Lopez to (1) vacate his October 2, 2019 order denying Vilore

Foods Company, Inc.’s plea to the jurisdiction a nd (2) render an order granting Vilore Food s Company, Inc.’s plea to the jurisdiction which dismisses Catalina Castillo’s cause for want of jurisdiction.

The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to comply with this order within fifteen days

fro m the date of this opinion and order.

It is so ORDERED on March 1 1 , 2020

.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1 1 th day of March, 2020

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019CVF00316 D1, styled Catalina Castillo v. Vilore Foods Co., Inc. and Raymundo Bretano , pending in the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Joe Lopez presiding.
1320.

#### Sanders *v.*The State.

Accusation of misdemeanor, from city court of Tifton — Judge Eve. June 13, 1908.

Submitted October 6,

Decided October 12, 1908.

*Smith & Foy,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. J. Wallace, solicitor,*contra.

Russell, J.

The decision in this ease is controlled by the ruling in *Holsey*v. *State,*ante, 453 (61 S. E. 836). The evidence did not authorize the verdict of guilty *Judgment reversed.*
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 Commerce

###### International Trade Administration

Pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether an instrument of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instrument shown below is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States.

Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

*Docket Number:*                     01-001R.                     *Applicant:*                     St. Louis Science Center, 5050 Oakland Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63110.                     *Instrument:*                     Universal Planetarium, Universarium Model IX.                     *Manufacturer:*                     Carl Zeiss, Germany.                     *Intended Use:*                     Original notice of this resubmitted application was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     of February 8, 2001.                

Gerald A. Zerdy,

Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 01-16170 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P