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

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-13917, 333-14509, 333-18851,
333-51291, 333-40932, 333-48114, 333-86376, 333-102738 and 333-107638) pertaining to The Sabre Group Holdings, Inc. 1996
Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan, 1996 Directors Stock Incentive Plan, Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Deferred Compensation Plan; Sabre Holdings Corporation Employee Stock
Purchase Plan and 2000 Stock Option Plan; GetThere.com, Inc. 1996 Stock Incentive Plan and 1999 Stock Incentive Plan; Travelocity.com LP Second Amended 1999 Long-Term Incentive
Plan, Travelocity Holdings, Inc. Amended 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan, Travelocity.com LP Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Travelocity Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase
Plan and Sabre Holdings Corporation 2003 Directors Deferred Compensation and Deferred Stock Unit Plan, respectively; and the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No
333-99209) of our report dated January 21, 2004, except as to Note 17 as to which the date is January 30, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and financial statement schedule of Sabre Holdings Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.

Dallas,
Texas
February 27, 2004

---

QuickLinks
STATE of North Carolina v. Christina Sheree DAVIS.

No. 473P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Christina Sheree Davis.

Thomas Pitman, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of September 2006 by Defendant *815in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 57 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 57

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To repeal certain sections of the Act of May 26, 1936, pertaining to 
                          the Virgin Islands.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CERTAIN LAWS PERTAINING TO THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.

    (a) Repeal.--Sections 1 through 6 of the Act of May 26, 1936 
(Chapter 450; 49 Stat. 1372-1373; 48 U.S.C. 1401-1401e) are repealed.
    (b) Effective Date.--This section shall be deemed to have taken 
effect on July 22, 1954.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 17, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                H. R. 57

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To repeal certain sections of the Act of May 26, 1936, pertaining to 
                          the Virgin Islands.
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

PAUL R. AARON, JR., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3545

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed March 21, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Polk County; Mark F. Carpanini, Judge.

Paul R. Aaron, Jr., pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

 

SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Charles H. SMITH, III, Employee, Plaintiff v. RICHARDSON SPORTS LTD. PARTNERS, d/b/a Carolina Panthers, Employer and Legion Insurance Company, Carriers, Defendants.

No. 566P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

R. James Lore, Raleigh, for Charles H. Smith, III.

Shannon P. Metcalf, Hatcher B. Kincheloe, Charlotte, for Richardson Sports, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 24th day of October 2005 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*825"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON recused.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (1)

Pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  created  by  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  the  following  certification  is  being  made to
accompany  Catskill  Litigation  Trust's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended June 30, 2006;

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  Catskill  Litigation  Trust (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Joseph
E. Bernstein,  Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 that to my knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or  Section  15(d),  as  applicable,  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 Company.

                                           /s/ Joseph E. Bernstein
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Joseph E. Bernstein
                                           Title: Acting Chief Executive Officer
                                           Date:  August 10, 2006

         (1)      A  signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by
                  Section 906 has been provided to Catskill Litigation Trust and
                  will be retained by Catskill Litigation Trust and furnished to
                  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff  upon
                  request.

The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350 and is not  being  filed as part of the  Report  or as a  separate
disclosure document.
```
IDAHO 

#48 #48 0.1% $379 #49 #44 #44 

$0.7 B SPENT IN 0.8% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $0.2 B CONTRACT 10,879 NUMBER OF $0.5 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 8% Research and

Development: 5% 

Supplies and

Equipment: 45%

Service: 42%

By Service 

Army

23%

Navy/Marines

13%

Air Force

37%

Other Defense

27%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 10%

Active Duty: 33%

National 

Guard: 42%

Civilian: 15%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

44%

Navy/Marines

4%

Air Force

52%

Other Defense

0%

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions)

Brad Hall & Associates $40.8 M

Lightforce $14.1 M

PKL Services $13.8 M

Owyhee Group Companies $10.6 M

TDX Corp. $9.0 M

Dawn Enterprises $7.0 M

Doyon Limited $6.3 M

Milpower $6.1 M

AERO Specialties $6.0 M

General Dynamics $5.9 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$0.4

$0.3

$0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2

FY13

$0.2

$0.1

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

$460.1 MILLION 10,879

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Reserve Total

Ada 81 920 2,817 697 4,515

Elmore 3,491 488 209 29 4,217

Bannock ND 11 209 153 ND

Kootenai 0 75 160 105 340

Canyon ND ND 261 0 ND

Twin Falls 0 ND 93 73 ND

Jerome 0 ND 122 0 ND

Bonneville 22 15 90 0 127

Nez Perce ND ND 87 0 ND

Clearwater 17 56 22 0 95

42 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

IDAHO 

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (K = thousands, M = millions)

Elmore

Ada

Bonneville

Clearwater

Bingham

Kootenai

Canyon

Blaine

Jefferson

Bannock

(M = millions)

$80.0 M

$50.2 M

$48.2 M

$16.5 M

$14.9 M

$9.5 M

$6.7 M

$1.3 M

$766.0 K

$735.0 K

Elmore

Ada

Bannock

Kootenai

Canyon

Clearwater

Bonneville

Twin Falls

Bonner

Latah

$240.9 M

$156.3 M

$11.5 M

$11.2 M

$6.3 M 

$5.5 M

$4.9 M

$3.9 M

$3.4 M 

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 43

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

$2.7 M

Kootenai

Clearwater

Elmore

Canyon

Ada

Jefferson

Bingham

Blaine

Bonneville

Bannock

Kootenai

Elmore

Canyon

Ada

Kootenai

Elmore

Canyon

Ada

Bonneville

Bannock

Latah

Twin Falls

Clearwater

Bonner
# C_2013318EN.01000301.xml

| 1.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/3

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 30 October 2013

adopting the Council's position on draft amending budget No 9 of the European Union for the financial year 2013

2013/C 318/03

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1), and in particular Article 41 thereof,

1

Whereas:

| — | the Union's budget for the financial year 2013 was definitively adopted on 12 December 2012 (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

the Union's budget for the financial year 2013 was definitively adopted on 12 December 2012 (2),

2

| — | on 3 October 2013, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 9 to the general budget for the financial year 2013, |
| --- | --- |

—

on 3 October 2013, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 9 to the general budget for the financial year 2013,

| — | given the fact that draft amending budget No 9 to the general budget for 2013 needs to be adopted without delay, it is justified to shorten, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Council's Rules of Procedure, the 8-week period for the information of national Parliaments, as well as the 10-day period foreseen for placing the item on the Council's provisional agenda laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 1 on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

given the fact that draft amending budget No 9 to the general budget for 2013 needs to be adopted without delay, it is justified to shorten, in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Council's Rules of Procedure, the 8-week period for the information of national Parliaments, as well as the 10-day period foreseen for placing the item on the Council's provisional agenda laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 1 on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council's position on draft amending budget No 9 of the European Union for the financial year 2013 was adopted on 30 October 2013.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 30 October 2013.

For the Council

The President

L. LINKEVIČIUS

---

(1)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 66, 8.3.2013, p. 1, with corrigendum in OJ L 134, 18.5.2013, p. 21.

2

---
#### Maureen Kain, Respondent, v Mello J. Testa, Doing Business as Club New York, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[801 NYS2d 640]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (John G. Ringrose, A.J.), entered December 20, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of defendant Mello J. Testa, doing business as Club New York, for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against him.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting the motion in part and dismissing the second cause of action and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained at a night club owned by Mello J. Testa (defendant). Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the negligence cause of action inasmuch as defendant failed to meet his initial burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to that cause of action *(see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Although defendant submitted his deposition testimony in which he asserted that he was unaware that any of his patrons were planning to cause a disturbance, he also submitted the deposition testimony of a patron who overheard other patrons that evening discussing the fact that a disturbance would occur. On the record before us, there are issues of fact whether defendant, as the owner of the premises, had the opportunity to control the conduct of the patrons on his premises and was reasonably aware of the necessity to control their conduct and, if *1386so, whether he breached his duty to control their conduct *(see Williams v TeDave Enters.,*242 AD2d 861 [1997]; *Cittadino v DeGironimo,*198 AD2d 801, 802 [1993]; *see also Lindskog v Southland Rest.,*160 AD2d 842, 843 [1990]; *Huyler v Rose,*88 AD2d 755 [1982], *appeals dismissed*57 NY2d 777 [1982]; *Stevens v Kirby,*86 AD2d 391, 394 [1982]).

We further conclude, however, that the court erred in denying that part of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging that defendant violated General Obligations Law § 11-101. Because the identity of the patrons who upended the pool table onto plaintiff s legs is unknown, plaintiff will be unable to establish in support of that cause of action that the particular patrons were underage or intoxicated *(see Furio v Palm Beach Club,*204 AD2d 1053, 1054 [1994]). Moreover, because the identity of any such patrons is unknown, no “ ‘reasonable or practical connection’ between the sale of alcohol and the resulting injuries” can be established by plaintiff *(Catania v 124 In-To-Go, Corp.,*287 AD2d 476, 477 [2001], *lv dismissed*97 NY2d 699 [2002]). We therefore modify the order accordingly. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J, Green, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). K A D / R es ear ch 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT P A U L A P U E N T E S - S O L I S ; e t a l., P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 72254 A ge nc yN os . A 098- 126- 424

A 098- 126- 287 A 098- 126- 288 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dC L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P aul aP ue nt e s - S ol i s and he rtw o c hi l dr e n, na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of G uat el m al a, pet i t i on for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) o r d e rd is m is s in g th e irap p e a l f r o m an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g th e ir



# FI LED DE C 28 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSK AD / Res ea r ch 07- 72254 2 appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um and w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua nt to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e , O c h a v e v . I NS , 254 F . 3d 8 5 9 , 8 6 1 - 6 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) , an dw e d e n yth e p e titio n . T he re cord do es no tcom pel the concl usi on thatchanged o r e xtra ordi nary c ir c u m s tan c e s e x c u s e dth e u n tim e lyf ilin g o f p e titio n e r s ’ a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n . See 8 C . F . R . § § 12 08 . 4(a) (4), (5); R am adan v. G on zales , 47 9 F . 3d 64 6, 65 6-58 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) (p er cu ri am ). A cco rd i n g l y, p et i t i o n ers’ asyl u m cl ai m fai l s. P u en tes- S o li s c o u ldo n ly sp ec u late as to th e r ea so n s f o r h erh u sb an d ’s di s appe ar anc e , the anony m ous thr e a t s , the a tt a c ks byl oc a l w om e n, and ar ape and in ju ry b y m as k ed m en . T h er ef o re , sub stan ti al ev id en ce su p p o rts th e B IA ’s c onc l us i on tha tP ue nt e s - S ol i s f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe s e i nc i de nt s oc c urr e d on a c c o u n t o f

ap r o te c te dg r o u n d . Se e Mo l i n a -Es tra da v . I NS , 293 F . 3d 1089, 1094- 95 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( e vi de nc e di d notc om pe l af i ndi ng of pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof an im p u te dp o litic a l o p in io n w h e r e p e titio n e ro f f e r e dn o e v id e n c e th a t h is f a m ily m e m b e rh e ldp artic u larp o litic a l b e lie f s o rth a t a tta c k e r s m a d e an ys ta te m e n ts sugg es t i ng they att ac ked b ec ause of the fam i l y m em ber’ s pol i t i ca l bel i ef s) . A c c o r d in g ly , p e titio n e r s ’ w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im f

a ils . See O chave, 254 F . 3d a t868. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
DAVIS v. CHEROKEE CASINO.

No. 456A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 30, 2006.

Andrew S. Culicerto, Charlotte, for Casino, et al.

D. Andrew Turman, for Davis.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th day of August 2006 by Defendants for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of August 2006."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5

<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,531
<SECURITIES>                                    17,467
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,450
<ALLOWANCES>                                       392
<INVENTORY>                                     11,614
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,597
<PP&E>                                          39,821
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,826
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,113
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,717
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,719
<SALES>                                         60,568
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,568
<CGS>                                           34,666
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,666
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,823<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    45<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,988
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,211
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,777
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,777
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
<FN>
<F1>RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES
<F2>PROVISION FOR BAD DEBT
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1080/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1080/2013 of 31 October 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1080/2013                     

# of 31 October 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 31 October 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.