alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(a)


 


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM 


 


We consent to the incorporation by reference
in this Post-Effective Amendment No.  216 to Registration Statement No 33-26305 on Form N-1A of our report dated February
27, 2012, relating to the financial statements and financial highlights of BlackRock Index Equity Portfolio, one of the portfolios
constituting BlackRock FundsSM, (the “Fund”) and of our report dated February 27, 2012, relating to the
financial statements and financial highlights of Master S&P 500 Index Series of Quantitative Master Series LLC, appearing in
the Annual Report on Form N-CSR of the Fund for the year ended December 31, 2011. We also consent to the references to us under
the headings “Financial Highlights” in the Prospectuses and “Financial Statements” in the Statement of
Additional Information, which are part of such Registration Statement.


 


	 
	 /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
	Boston, Massachusetts     
	April 24, 2012
Brian William SCHUMAKER, petitioner, v. Hector JOYNER, Warden.

No. 18-7060.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32

                            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 Annual Report of Avalon Oil & Gas, Inc., (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kent Rodriguez,
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.



Date: July 15, 2008                       By: /s/ Kent Rodriguez
                                              ----------------------
                                              Name: Kent Rodriguez
                                              Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                              Principal Financial Officer
MISSOURI, EX REL. Darrin LAMASA, Petitioner, v. Michael WRIGHT, Associate Circuit Judge, 12th Judicial Circuit, Warren County, Missouri.

No. 19-711

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.
Agreement for Network Interconnection



 Exhibit 4.4 
 INDOSAT CELLULAR WIRELESS NETWORK AND TELKOM’S FIXED TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK 

Third Amendment 
 The
third amendment of cooperation agreement on interconnection between Telkom’s fixed telecommunications network and Indosat’s cellular mobile network, No Telkom: Tel.185/HK 820/DCI-A1000000/2011 – No. Indosat: 032/C00-C0H/LGL/2011 dated
July 20, 2011. 
 The Parties: 
  

	1.	 PT Telkom Tbk; and 


  

	2.	 PT Indosat Tbk 



Scope of The Amendment 
 This third amendment was made to cover results of interconnection tariff repeated calculations 2010 for Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) which was implemented in July 1, 2011 based on Regulation of
Ministry of Communications and Informatics No. 16/PER/M.KOMINFO/06/2011 dated June 27, 2011. In Addition, there were amendments of this third amendment regarding (i) Numbering and (ii) Call Scenario. 

Period of Amendment: 
 This fifth amendment effective on July 1st, 2011 and have same expiration date as Cooperation Agreement. 
 Fourth Amendment

 The fourth amendment of cooperation agreement on interconnection between Indosat cellular mobile
network and Telkom’s fixed telecommunications network, No. Telkom: Tel. 259/HK 820/DCI-A1000000/2011 – No. Indosat: 043/C00-C0H/LGL/2011 dated December 20th, 2011. 

The Parties: 
  

	1.	 PT Telkom; and 


  

	2.	 PT Indosat Tbk 



Scope of The Amendment 
 This fourth amendment was made to extent period of agreement effective from January 1, 2012 until December 31, 2014 and can be extended or terminated prior expiration of agreement based on the
parties agreement that contained into amendment. 
 In addition, there were amendments as follows: 

 

	 	•	 	 The parties agree to change point 8 of A. Support Document Planning and Operating E regarding Point of Interconnection and Central Gate.



  

	 	•	 	 The parties agree to change A.1 Support Document regarding Telkom’s Network Information. 



 

	 	•	 	 The parties agree to change Tabel Routing on the A.9 Support Document regarding Indosat’s Tabel Routing. 



 

	 	•	 	 The parties agree to change Interconnection Services List and Telkom’s Tariff on C1 Document.
Harmon L. TAYLOR, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 18-536.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District denied.
Moses McCORMICK, et al., petitioners, v. Kim A. BROWNE, et al.

No. 18-730.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO. 5:23-CR-18

§

ANDREW HUNTER §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The above-styled matter was referred to the Honorable J. Boone Baxter, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. Judge Baxter conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 11 and issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 28). Judge 

Baxter recommended that the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea and conditionally approve the 

plea agreement. He further recommended that the Court finally adjudge Defendant as guilty of 

Count 1 of the Indictment. Count 1 of the Indictment charges violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 111 (a) (1), 

assaulting a federal official. The Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation 

should be accepted. It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 28) is ADOPTED. It is further

ORDERED that the Defendant’s guilty plea is accepted and approved by the Court. 

Further, the plea agreement is approved by the Court, conditioned upon a review of the presentence 

report. It is finally 

ORDERED that, pursuant to the Defendant’s plea agreement, the Court finds the 

Defendant GUILTY of Count 1 of the Indictment in the above-numbered cause and enters a

Case 5:23-cr-00018-RWS-JBB Document 34 Filed 12/06/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

80
2

JUDGMENT OF GUILTY against the Defendant as to Count 1 of the Indictment.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 6th day of December, 2024.

Case 5:23-cr-00018-RWS-JBB Document 34 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

81
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FILED AS PART OF THE ANNUAL REPORT IN FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,007
<SECURITIES>                                    53,018
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        287
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,403
<PP&E>                                           9,435
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,078
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,593
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,808
<BONDS>                                         69,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       106,993
<OTHER-SE>                                   (105,208)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,593
<SALES>                                            503
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   503
<CGS>                                            4,722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,161
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (4,553)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,633)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,633)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,633)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.30)


</TABLE>
KANEKA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY GROUP COMPANY, et al.

No. 19M96

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record denied.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

LAMAR VALDEN SIMMONS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0763 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 1987-001119

The Honorable Ronda R. Fisk, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Lamar Valden Simmons, Florence

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Maria Elena Cruz, and Judge 

David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 5-15-2018
STATE v. SIMMONS

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Lamar Valden Simmons seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s 

sixth untimely, successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) 

(petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

v.

PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00214-JRG

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00206-JRG

(Member Case)

LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

v.

FORTINET, INC.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00207-JRG

(Member Case)

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF 

ASSERTED CLAIMS AND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

Plaintiff Lionra Technologies Limited (“Lionra”), hereby provides notice that on July 6, 

2023, it served its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions upon Defendants’ 

counsel of record via electronic mail pursuant to the Scheduling Conference Order (Dkt. No. 11).

Dated: July 6, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brett Cooper

Brett E. Cooper (NY SBN 4011011)

bcooper@bc-lawgroup.com

Seth R. Hasenour (TX SBN 24059910)

Case 2:23-cv-00214-JRG Document 19 Filed 07/06/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 83
- 2 -

shasenour@bc-lawgroup.com

Jonathan Yim (NY SBN 5324967)

jyim@bc-lawgroup.com

Drew B. Hollander (NY SBN 5378096)

dhollander@bc-lawgroup.com

BC LAW GROUP, P.C. 

200 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor

New York, NY 10016 

Tel.: (212) 951-0100

Fax: (646) 293-2201

Attorneys for Plaintiff Lionra Technologies

Limited

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been 

served on all counsel of record on July 6, 2023. 

/s/ Brett Cooper

Brett Cooper

Case 2:23-cv-00214-JRG Document 19 Filed 07/06/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 84
Stevie Elbert JONES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5350

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 4 Filed 01/11/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 27
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

BRANDON D. WILLIAMS §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-cv-149

BALDEN POLK, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Brandon Williams, proceeding pro se, filed what has been construed as a civil rights lawsuit.

This matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the

Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States

Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition

of the case.

 Discussion

Plaintiff previously filed a substantially similar complaint raising similar allegations against

the same defendants. That lawsuit has been assigned civil action number 9:23cv139. As this matter

is repetitious of civil action number 9:23cv139, it should be dismissed without prejudice.

Recommendation

This lawsuit should be dismissed without prejudice as repetitious.

Objections

Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within 14 days after

being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).

A party’s failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district

judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Case 9:23-cv-00149-MAC-CLS Document 3 Filed 09/26/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 15
Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual

findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n.,

79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

2

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 26th day of September, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00149-MAC-CLS Document 3 Filed 09/26/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 16
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT  AUDITORS'  CONSENT

We  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference in Registration Statement No.
333-55290 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 11, 2004 (which report expresses
an  unqualified  opinion  and  includes  an  explanatory paragraph relating to a
change  in  accounting  method),  included  in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Peet's  Coffee  &  Tea,  Inc.  for  the  year  ended  December  28,  2003.





San  Francisco,  California
March  11,  2004
No. 6:23-cv-00228

Jay Williams,

Plaintiff,

v.

Betty Herriage,

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff Jay Williams, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil 

rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without paying the filing fee or 

moving to proceed in forma pauperis. The case was referred to United 

States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b).

On June 20, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the plaintiff be denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis and this case be dismissed without prejudice due to the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to comply with the court’s order to either pay the fee or file a properly supported motion to proceed as a 

pauper. Doc. 4. A copy of the report was mailed to the plaintiff, who

did not file written objections.

When no party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass 

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied that it 

contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. The plaintiff is denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 

this case is dismissed without prejudice. 

Case 6:23-cv-00228-JCB-KNM Document 5 Filed 08/10/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 10
- 2 -

So ordered by the court on August 10, 2023.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00228-JCB-KNM Document 5 Filed 08/10/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 11
FINISHMASTER INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

EXHIBIT 11.1-STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Nine Months
NET INCOME FOR COMPUTATION                            Ended       Year Ended March 31,
   OF PER SHARE AMOUNTS                            December 31,     1995      1994
                                                      1996
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                 <C>          <C>          <C>
Net Income attributable to common stock-- primary
     and fully diluted                              $  660,000   $2,649,000   $3,462,000
                                                    ==========   ==========   ==========

PRIMARY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average shares outstanding                           6,000,103    6,000,000    6,000,000

Neteffect of dilutive  stock  options--based
     on the Treasury Stock Method using
     average market price                                    0       46,000            0
                                                    ----------   ----------   ----------
                    TOTAL                            6,000,103    6,046,000    6,000,000

PER SHARE AMOUNT(1)                                 $     0.11   $     0.44   $     0.58
                                                    ==========   ==========   ==========


FULLY DILUTED
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average shares outstanding                            6,000,103   6,000,000   6,000,000

Net effect of dilutive stock options--based on the
   Treasury Stock Method using the quarter-end
   market price if higher than average market price           0      46,000      39,634
                                                    ----------   ----------   ----------
                        TOTAL                         6,000,103   6,046,000   6,039,634

PER SHARE AMOUNT(1)                                   $    0.11   $    0.44   $    0.57
                                                      =========   =========   =========
</TABLE>

(1)        Aggregate  dilution  from stock options is less than three percent of
           earnings  per common  share  outstanding  and  therefore  need not be
           reported for either primary or fully diluted earnings per share.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

VALVE CORPORATION, 

GEARBOX SOFTWARE, LLC 

 Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-419-JRG-RSP 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANT VALVE CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF APPEARANCE RE 

KATHLEEN R. GEYER 

 To the Honorable Court and all parties, please take notice the following attorney hereby 

enters an appearance as additional counsel of record for Defendant Valve Corporation, and is 

authorized to received service of all pleadings, notices, orders and other papers in the above 

captioned matter on behalf of Defendant Valve Corporation. 

Dated: November 6, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Kathleen R. Geyer 

Michael E. Jones (SBN: 10929400) 

Shaun W. Hassett (SBN: 24074372) 

Potter Minton 

102 North College, Ste. 900 

Tyler, Texas 75702 

903-597-8311 (telephone) 

mikejones@potterminton.com 

shaunhassett@potterminton.com 

Kathleen R. Geyer 

Christopher P. Damitio 

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP 

1420 Fifth Avenue Suite 3700 

Seattle, WA 98101 

(206) 467-9600 (telephone) 

KGeyer@kilpatricktownsend.com 

CDamitio@kilpatricktownsend.com 

Attorneys for Defendant, Valve Corportion

77966254v.1 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 8 Filed 11/06/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 132
SOLO PAGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

KRISHNENDU DASGUPTA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BECKETT COLLECTIBLES, LLC

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-00838

JUDGE MAZZANT

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in 

Support (“Motion”). The Court, having considered said Motion, the Response, the Reply, any 

pleadings, along with the evidence attached thereto, and the arguments of the parties, finds that the 

Motion should be GRANTED. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support be GRANTED and for such other and 

further relief, both general or special, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

Case 4:23-cv-00838-ALM Document 31 Filed 07/03/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 295
---

Exhibit 99.1



| |                                  
| | ---------------------------------
| | PricewaterhouseCoopers           
| | LLP/s.r.l./s.e.n.c.r.l.          
| | Chartered Accountants            
| | 1250 René-Lévesque Boulevard West
| | Suite 2800                       
| | Montréal, Quebec                 
| | Canada H3B 2G4                   
| | Telephone +1 514 205 5000        
| | Facsimile +1 514 876 1502        

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

We hereby consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 40-F
for the year ended April 25, 2010 of Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. of our report
dated July 13, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statement and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting which appears in this
Annual Report on Form 40-F. We also consent to the reference to us under the
heading "Interests of Experts" in the Annual Information Form included in this
Annual Report on Form 40-F.

Chartered Accountants

Montréal, CanadaJuly 13, 2010

PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP/s.r.l./s.e.n.c.r.l., an Ontario limited liability partnership, or, as the
context requires, the PricewaterhouseCoopers global network or other member
firms of the network, each of which is a separate legal entity.

---