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

                               [MOSHE HARPAZ LOGO]


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement on Form S-3 (file #333-38010) filed on May 30, 2000 as to the use
of our report dated March 12, 2000 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Multimedia K.I.D., Inc. included in the Form 10-KSB as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Tel-Aviv, Isreal

September 28, 2000


                                             Moshe Harpaz
                                             /s/ Moshe Harpaz
                                             Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF VISION TWENTY-ONE, INC.

SUBSIDIARY                                                  JURISDICTION OF
                                                             INCORPORATION
Vision 21 Managed Eye Care of Tampa, Bay, Inc.                  Florida
Vision 21 Management Services, Inc.                             Florida
Vision 21 of southern Arizona, Inc.                             Florida
Vision 21 of Sierra Vista, Inc.                                 Florida
Vision Twenty-One Managed EyeCare, IPA,Inc.                     New York
Vision Twenty-One Eye Surgery Centers, Inc.                     Florida
Vision Twenty-One Surgery Centers, Ltd.                         Florida LP
Vision Twenty-One Surgery Center-Largo, Ltd.                    Florida LP
The Complete Optical Laboratory, Ltd.                           New Jersey
Vision Twenty-One Refractive Center, Inc.                       Florida
Vision Twenty-One of Wisconsin, Inc.                            Wisconsin
     Vision Insurance Plan of America, Inc.                     Wisconsin
Eye Surgery Center Management, Inc.                             Florida
LSI Acquisition, Inc.                                           New Jersey
MEC Health Care, Inc.                                           Maryland
Vision 21 Physician Practice Management Company                 Florida
Vision Twenty-One Eye Laser Centers, Inc.                       Florida
BBG-COA, Inc                                                    Delaware
     BVC Administrators, Inc.                                   New Jersey
     Block Vision, Inc.                                         New Jersey
          UVC Independent Practice Association, Inc.            New York
          Block Vision of Texas, Inc.                           Texas
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49257-49258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16695]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 
2, notice is hereby given that the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige 
National Quality Award will meet Thursday, September 15, 2005. The 
Judges Panel is composed of ten members prominent in the field of 
quality management and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The 
purpose of this meeting is to review the consensus process, select 
applicants for site visits, determine possible conflict of interest for 
site visited companies, begin stage 3 judging process, discuss Judges' 
survey revisions, review feedback to first stage applicants, a 
debriefing on the State and Local Workshop and a program update. The 
applications under review contain trade secrets and proprietary 
commercial information submitted to the Government in confidence.

DATES: The meeting will convene September 15, 2005, at 9 a.m. and 
adjourn at 3 p.m. on September 15, 2005. The entire meeting will be 
closed.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Administration Building, Lecture Room D, 
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Harry Hertz, Director, National 
Quality Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, telephone number (301) 975-2361.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Assistant Secretary for Administration, 
with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on 
December 20, 2004, that the meeting of the Judges Panel will be closed 
pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. app. 2, as amended by section 5(c) of the Government in the 
Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409. The meeting, which involves 
examination of Award

[[Page 49258]]

applicant data from U.S. companies and a discussion of this data as 
compared to the Award criteria in order to recommend Award recipients, 
may be closed to the public in accordance with section 552b(c)(4) of 
title 5, United States Code, because the meetings are likely to 
disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained 
from a person which is privileged or confidential.

    Dated: August 13, 2005.
William Jeffrey,
Director.
[FR Doc. 05-16695 Filed 8-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
AKIMA CORP. v. SATELLITE SERVICES, INC.

No. COA06-112.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 19, 2006.

Certification Date January 8, 2007.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (05CVS340).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION 906 OF THE**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I, Thomas B. Specketer, Vice President and Controller of MidAmerican Energy Company (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 
 
 
 
 Dated: November 4, 2004
 
 
 /s/ Thomas B. Specketer
 Thomas B. Specketer
 Vice President and Controller
 (chief financial officer)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

GINO CARLUCCI, a.k.a. Gene David 

Odice, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10183 

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00464-KHV

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Kathryn H. Vratil, District Judge, Presiding**

Submitted March 13, 2018***

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Gino Carlucci appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 

motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. We have 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, Senior United States District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 17-10183 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carlucci’s Rule 33 

motion. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1259 (9th Cir. 2009) (en 

banc) (stating standard of review). First, Carlucci’s evidence concerning how 

Robert Garback came into possession of the two watches might be admissible to 

impeach Garback, but does not undermine the evidence that Carlucci obtained the 

watches from Garback under false pretenses. See id. at 1257 (newly discovered 

evidence does not support a new trial if it is “merely impeaching”). Second, the 

record does not show that a new trial would probably result in an acquittal. See id.

There is significant evidence in the record implicating Carlucci in the conspiracy to 

commit money laundering, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and willful 

filing of a false tax return. See United States v. Jackson, 209 F.3d 1103, 1106-07 

(9th Cir. 2000) (affirming denial of motion for new trial where new evidence 

would not have created a reasonable doubt). On this record, Carlucci also cannot 

show that the government violated its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 

U.S. 83 (1963), and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). 

Finally, insofar as Carlucci is challenging the denial of his motion for 

appointment of counsel, he has not shown that the district court abused its 

discretion. See United States v. Harrington, 410 F.3d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of CUNO Incorporated ("CUNO") of our report dated December 11, 2003, included in
the 2003 Annual Report to Shareholders of CUNO.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of CUNO listed in Item
14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the
financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to
the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material
respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-39763) pertaining to the CUNO Incorporated 1996 Stock
Incentive Plan, the CUNO Incorporated Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan,
and the CUNO Incorporated Savings and Retirement Plan and the registration
statement (Form S-8 No. 333-54388) pertaining to the CUNO Incorporated 1996
Stock Incentive Plan and the CUNO Incorporated Non-employee Directors' Stock
Option Plan of our report dated December 11, 2003, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements incorporated herein by reference, and our
report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial
statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of CUNO.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
December 17, 2003
FICKEL v. FICKEL.

No. COA05-1062.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 1, 2006.

Certification Date August 21, 2006.

Appeal from Buncombe (03CVD4357).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
GOOD HOPE v. NCDHHS.

No. 58A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 30, 2006.

Susan M. Fradenburg, Greensboro, William W. Stewart, Jr., Raleigh, for Good Hope Hospital.

C. Winston Gilchrist, Lillington, for Town of Lillington.

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Marcus Lodge, for NCDHHS.

Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Wallace C. Hollowell, III, Benjamin N. Thompson, K. Edward Greene, Kathleen A. Naggs, Raleigh, Denise M. Gunter, Winston-Salem, for Betsy Johnson Regional Hosp.

S. Todd Hemphill, Diana E. Ricketts, Raleigh, for Amisub of NC.

Forrest W. Campbell, Greensboro, for N Hospital Asso.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of May 2006 by Petitioners for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Petitioner (Good Hope Hospital, Good Hope Health System and Town of Lillington) shall have up to and including the 21st day of June 2006 to file and serve their brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of May 2006."
# L_2013075EN.01003301.xml

| 19.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 75/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 75/33

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2013/134/CFSP

of 18 March 2013

amending Decision 2011/173/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/173/CFSP (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/173/CFSP (1).

| (2) | On the basis of a review of Decision 2011/173/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 22 March 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of a review of Decision 2011/173/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 22 March 2014.

| (3) | Decision 2011/173/CFSP should be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 2011/173/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 6 of Decision 2011/173/CFSP, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘This Decision shall apply until 22 March 2014.’.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 18 March 2013.

For the Council

The President

S. COVENEY

---

(1)  
  OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 68.

1

---
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 8, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00666-CR

NO. 14-21-00667-CR

JOHN REGINALD DAY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1643495, 1643496

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered guilty pleas to the offenses of (1) felon in possession of a 

firearm and (2) possession with intent to deliver cocaine, a controlled substance. In 

accordance with the terms of two plea bargain agreements with the State, the trial 

court assessed punishment at confinement for 20 years in the Institutional Division 

of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for each offense to run concurrently.

We dismiss the appeal. 
2

The trial court signed two certifications of the defendant’s right to appeal in 

which the court certified these are plea bargain cases, and the defendant has no 

right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certifications are

included in the records on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The records support

the trial court’s certifications. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005). On January 3, 2022, this court notified the parties that the appeals

would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless a party demonstrated that the 

court has jurisdiction. No response has been received. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Stacy BATTS, Jayquan Batts, and Shayquan Batts, by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, William Lewis King, Plaintiffs v. Shawan L. BATTS, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff v. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Third-Party Defendant.

No. 237P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

W. Earl Taylor, Jr., Wilson, for Stacy Batts, et al.

Jerry A. Allen, Jr., Goldsboro, for Shawan Batts.

Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, for NC DOT.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd day of May 2006 by Plaintiffs 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."
Exhibit 32.1



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 Apple REIT Six, Inc., (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company as of June 30, 2005, and for the period then ended.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Glade M. Knight    
|Glade M. Knight        
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|August 4, 2005         
|                       
|/s/ Bryan Peery        
|Bryan Peery            
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|August 4, 2005
James S. RHEW v. Luetta FELTON.

No. 453P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Michael S. Harrell, Raleigh, for Rhew.

K. Edward Greene, Heidi C. Bloom, Raleigh, for Felton.

*811*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st day of September 2006 by Defendant 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
STATE v. Cornelius TUCKER, Jr.

No. 118P01-15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of February 2006 by Defendant to Proceed in Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of March 2006."
Avon Neal McKINLEY v. Judy SILLS, Manager - Combined Records NC Department of Correction.

No. 143P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 21, 2006.

Avon Neal McKinley, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Plaintiff on the 17th day of March 2006 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Franklin County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st day of March 2006."
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ GARY L. THURMAN, Petitioner

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent

______________________

2022

- 2196

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. AT

- 0752

- 17

- 0162

- I

- 1.

______________________
Before D YK , B RYSON , and P ROST , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R
Having consider ed the parties’ responses to the court’s order to show cause , the court now transfers this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Gary L. Thurman appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, challe nging his removal from the United States Postal Service. Before the Board, Mr. Thurman argu ed that the Postal Service violated T itle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After t he Board issued its final decision Case: 22-2196 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 12/22/2022THURMAN v. USPS 2

affirming the agency’s removal action, Mr. Thurman filed this petition to review that decision

. Mr. Thurman states that he wishes to continue to pursue his T itle VII claim

, ECF No. 3 at 2; ECF No. 6 ; ECF No. 12

. Although this court has jurisdiction to review certain decisions of the Board

, in cas es involving agency actions appealable to the Board and alleged to be based on Title VII discrimination, the appropriate forum for review is the district court. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2) ( lis t ing cases of discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964) ; Pe rry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 137 S. Ct. 1975, 1985 (2017). Here, there appears to be no dispute that Mr. Thurman raised a discrimination claim before the Board, even though the Board declined to consider it on the grounds that it was unduly vague and not raised before the administrative judge.

T his court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, may , if in the interest of justice, transfer a case to another court where it

“ could have been brought at the time it was filed

. ” Here, the Postal Se rvice asserts without contradiction that court is the Northern District of Georgia. While t he Postal Service urges dismissal over transfer

, contending that Mr. Thurman’s discrimination claim “is arguably frivolous ,” ECF No. 13

- 1 at 9, we deem it the bette r course to transfer to allow the district court to consider any argument on the merits.
Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 , this case and all transmittals are transferred to the United States District Court Case: 22-2196 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 12/22/2022THURMAN v. USPS 3

for the Northern District of Georgia.

December 22 , 2022 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 22-2196 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 12/22/2022
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41706-41707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14917]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3071-007]


Rapidan Hydroelectric, LLC, Blue Earth County; Notice of Transfer 
of Exemption

    1. On May 31, 2022, Rapidan Hydroelectric, LLC, exemptee for the 5 
Megawatts Rapid Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 3071, filed a letter 
notifying the Commission that the project was transferred from Rapidan 
Hydroelectric, LLC to Blue Earth County. The exemption from licensing 
was originally issued on July 1, 1982.\1\ The project is located on the 
Blue Earth River, Blue Earth County, Minnesota. The transfer of an 
exemption does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rapidan Redevelopment Ltd, 20 FERC ] 62,006 (1982). 
Subsequently, on June 4, 2004, the project was transferred to 
Rapidan Hydroelectric, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Blue Earth County is now the exemptee of the Rapidan 
Hydroelectric

[[Page 41707]]

Project No. 3071. All correspondence must be forwarded to Ryan Thilges, 
P.E., Engineer/Public Works Director, Blue Earth County, 35 Map Drive, 
P.O. Box 3083, Mankato, MN 56002-3083, Phone: (507) 304-4031, Email: 
_____________________________________-
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f4868d959ada809c9d98939187b496988191919586809c979b819a808d999ada939b82"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cbb9b2aaa5e5bfa3a2a7acaeb88ba9a7beaeaeaab9bfa3a8a4bea5bfb2a6a5e5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: July 7, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14917 Filed 7-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>