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

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-43248) and (ii) the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-56122) pertaining to the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan and 2000 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan of Active Power, Inc. of our report dated January 15, 2003,
with respect to the financial statements of Active Power, Inc. included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

Austin, Texas
                                                                   March 7, 2003
CAROLINA FIRST BANK v. STARK.

No. 369P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Tobias S. Hampson, Raleigh, for Stark.

Mark P. Henriques, Sarah Motley, Charlotte, for Carolina First Bank.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of August 2008 by Defendants for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Stay Dissolved by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of February 2009."
exv10w7wa






Exhibit 10.7(a)




PLEXUS CORP.




BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND COMMITTEE COMPENSATION



BOARD MEMBERS



	 	 	 	 	 

	Annual Retainer
	 	$	45,000.00 	 USD
	Chairman of
the Board Fee
	 	$	75,000.00	 USD
	Meeting Attendance Fee (in person)
	 	$	2,000.00 	 USD
	Meeting Attendance Fee (not in person)
	 	$	1,000.00 	 USD






COMMITTEE MEMBERS




(AUDIT, COMPENSATION/LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT,

AND NOMINATING/CORPORATE GOVERNANCE)



	 	 	 	 	 

	Comp/LD Committee Chairperson Fee (annual)
	 	$	10,000.00 	 USD
	Nominating/CG Committee Chairperson Fee (annual)
	 	$	10,000.00 	 USD
	Audit Committee Chairperson Fee (annual)
	 	$	15,000.00 	 USD
	Committee Member Meeting Attendance Fee (in person)
	 	$	1,500.00 	 USD
	Committee Member Meeting Attendance Fee (not in person)
	 	$	750.00 	 USD






DIRECTOR EQUITY COMPENSATION




     Board members will receive equity compensation as may be approved and in accordance with
Plexus’ equity compensation plans.













 





EDUCATIONAL EXPENSE REIMBURSMENT




     Plexus will reimburse each director for the out-of-pocket cost associated with one educational
seminar per year that is designed to educate directors on their obligations as directors, best
practices in corporate governance, or the skills necessary to be more effective directors. A list
of qualifying seminars will be maintained by the General Counsel. Approved educational expenses
will be reported to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee annually.



OTHER COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE AS A DIRECTOR




     A director may be asked by the Chairman or CEO to attend or participate in meetings or events
outside of Board or Committee meetings in his or her capacity as a director to perform one or more
of the duties of directors under the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, such as
orientations or meetings with Company personnel or third parties. Directors will be entitled to
$500 (if present telephonically) and $1,000 (if present in person) for each such meeting or event.
Such fees will be reported to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee annually.



TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT




     All directors will receive reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket travel expenses (e.g.
airfare, hotel, rental car and meals) incurred in connection with meetings and the above activities
upon providing receipts and a completed expense reimbursement form.



FEE AND REIMBURSEMENT PAYMENT




     All fees and expense reimbursements will be paid by Plexus quarterly, typically at the time of
quarterly Board meetings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the consolidated financial statements of The Associated Group, Inc. included in
Form 10-Q for the nine months ending September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                  229,727
<SECURITIES>                                  0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                            21,995
<ALLOWANCES>                              4,110
<INVENTORY>                               2,686
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        303,461
<PP&E>                                  398,402
<DEPRECIATION>                           79,616
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        2,719,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   381,278
<BONDS>                                 803,239
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  3,856
<OTHER-SE>                              902,509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          2,719,245
<SALES>                                     530
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         48,760
<CGS>                                       342
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           151,702
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         19,589
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          2,095
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       71,374
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (369,649)
<INCOME-TAX>                             (8,454)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (361,195)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                           (361,195)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (9.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0
<FN>
<F1>
Does not include $1,950,678 of noncurrent marketable equity securities
and $54,954 restricted cash and investments.
</FN>



</TABLE>
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 348/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 348/2014 of 4 April 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 348/2014                     

# of 4 April 2014

# 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, 4 April 2014.

*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.
# CE2004084EN.01004302.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/43

---

(2004/C 84 E/0048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3014/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   European market in car insurance

Subject:

Although the common market has been developing for some time and in certain sectors has been completed, the internal market in car insurance has a long way to go, in particular as regards third-party insurance. For example, it is still impossible to insure a vehicle with an insurance company based outside the Member State in which the owner of the vehicle resides.

| 1. | What initiatives has the Commission promoted to harmonise the internal market in car insurance? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What initiatives has the Commission promoted to harmonise the internal market in car insurance?

| 2. | In view of the fact that it is impossible to insure a vehicle with an insurance company based outside the Member State in which the owner of the vehicle resides, what steps will the Commission take to remedy this anomaly? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In view of the fact that it is impossible to insure a vehicle with an insurance company based outside the Member State in which the owner of the vehicle resides, what steps will the Commission take to remedy this anomaly?

---
STATE v. DURHAM.

No. COA08-464.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Wake (07CRS27554).

Case reported without published opinion. No error in part, reversed and remanded in part.
STATE v. NELSON.

No. COA08-490.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (06CRS54388, 06CRS31286).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. CHAPMAN.

No. COA08-488.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 4, 2008.

Certification Date November 24, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (06CRS89165, 06CRS89166, 06CRS89168).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. John P. CARPENTER.

No. 207P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Parker, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd day of December 2008 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31(c) and Rule 15 of App. Procedure:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of February 2009."
STATE v. Tracy Donnell COUSIN.

No. 212P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 25, 2015.

Tracy Donnell Cousin, Bunn, for Cousin, Tracy Donnell.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Wallace W. Bradsher, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of June 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
#### Jennifer Peck Barnett, Respondent, v Craig Barnett, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 291]

*830Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered on or about May 12, 2005, which, in an action for divorce, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion to mutually restrain the parties from permitting their son to be in the presence of either’s paramour during his or her parenting time, pending a further order of the court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly based the challenged restraint upon a finding that it is in the child’s “best interests to have the benefit of his parents’ full attention during his time with them, at least until his apparent anxiety (as reported by [the forensic evaluator]) about the divorce has abated” *(see Colley v Colley,*200 AD2d 839, 840 [1994]; *cf. Anonymous v Anonymous,*286 AD2d 656 [2001]). Such finding is adequately supported by the forensic evaluator’s opinion that defendant is insufficiently mindful of the child’s divorce-related anxiety and that his time with the child needs to be more relaxed. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.
----

(2004/C 65 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(2 June 2003)

Subject:   Iraq — serious danger to civilians from unexploded landmines and looting activities

According to Human Rights Watch, following the end of the recent war in Iraq, civilian casualty figures have shot up compared with the number of casualties during the war itself, principally because of the large quantities of unexploded ordnance — landmines, grenades and other explosive devices — left behind in residential areas following the sudden collapse of the Iraqi military command and control structure and the resulting flight of military personnel who abandoned their equipment. Many of the victims are children who suffer serious injury from playing with explosive devices. At the same time looting is continuing, while snipers, conjectured to be Baath Party members, seeking to destabilise the country, are injuring and killing many innocent civilians. In addition, countless documents are being destroyed in Iraq. According to Amnesty International, British troops were involved in the mass destruction of electricity supply company documents in Basra.

At the same time, American armed monitoring forces in Iraq are ignoring appeals for mine clearance and more patrols. Appeals by international human rights organisations for at least some level of policing have also been disregarded.

What measures will the Council take in an effort to ensure that the occupying and monitoring forces in Iraq comply with international agreements and effectively protect the Iraqi civil populace from the above dangers which are threatening not only their individual lives and welfare but also the very structure of the State?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

The Council agrees with the Honourable Parliamentarian that the issue of unexploded landmines and other ammunition is a serious danger to the population. It is well aware of the security situation in Iraq, which causes severe difficulties to both the population of Iraq and to the occupying forces in the country, who have the responsibility at this point of time of securing the country and protecting the population. The European Council in Thessaloniki welcomed the improving humanitarian situation but expressed concerns by the continuing challenge to provide security to the civilian population.

The Council has, however, no reason to doubt that the occupying forces comply with international agreements and obligations relating to the protection of the Iraqi people.

----
EXHIBIT 32

 

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

ALL-AMERICAN SPORTPARK, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

 

     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of All-American SportPark, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2010:

 

     (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of All-American SportPark, Inc. 

 

 

Dated:  August 13, 2010

 

 

 

/s/ Ronald S. Boreta                   

Ronald S. Boreta

Chief Executive Officer 

(Principal Executive Officer) and

Principal Financial Officer

 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to All-American SportPark, Inc. and will be retained by All-American SportPark, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

 

 

----
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1314/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1314/2014 of 10 December 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1314/2014                     

# of 10 December 2014

# 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 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing                           a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79,                           (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007(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, 10 December 2014.

*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 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
No. D-548.

#### In re Disbarment of Marble.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 475 U. S. 1079.]
# C_2023338EN.01003801.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/38

---

Action brought on 28 July 2023 — DZ Bank v SRB

(Case T-484/23)

(2023/C 338/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank, Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger, M. Weber and D. Schoo, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as the contested decision together with Annexes I, II and III concern the applicant’s contribution, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as the contested decision together with Annexes I, II and III concern the applicant’s contribution,

| — | order the SRB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the SRB to pay the costs.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the SRB and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

| — | order the SRB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the SRB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on relies on nine pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-440/23, Berlin Hyp v SRB.

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11131

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TRINITY M WILLIS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-33-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Trinity M. Willis has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Willis has filed a response. Our independent review of the

record, counsel’s brief, and Willis’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-11131

2

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
<PAGE>


                                                           EXHIBIT 21.1


                              METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK, INC. & SUBSIDIARIES
                                          AS OF MARCH 23, 1998

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                NAME                         JURISDICTION                        D/B/A

<S>                                          <C>                              <C>
Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.                   DE

Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc.          DE

Metromedia Fiber Network of Illinois, Inc.       DE

Metromedia Fiber Network of New Jersey, Inc.     DE

Metromedia Fiber Network of New York, Inc.       DE

NFN Communications, Inc.                         DE

International Optical Network, L.L.C.            DE                                ION
 (f/k/a MFNRAC, L.L.C.)

MFN of IL, L.L.C.                                DE

MFN of NY, L.L.C.                                DE

MFN of NJ, L.L.C.                                NJ

MFN of VA, L.L.C.                                VA

</TABLE>