alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
On Command Corporation:


        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (Nos. 333-33149 and 333-16957) on Form S-8 of On Command Corporation
(an indirect consolidated subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation) of our
reports dated February 12, 2003, except as to Note 6 to the consolidated
financial statements, which is as of March 28, 2003, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of On Command Corporation and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, and the
related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the December 31,
2002, Annual Report on Form 10-K of On Command Corporation.

        Our reports dated February 12, 2003, except as to note 6 to the
consolidated financial statements, which is as of March 28, 2003, contain an
explanatory paragraph that the maximum leverage ratio permitted under the
Company's debt facility was 4.25, and the Company's actual leverage ratio was
3.99. Because the maximum leverage ratio permitted at March 31, 2003 steps down
to 3.50, the Company believes that it would not have been in compliance with
such covenant at March 31, 2003 had it not reached agreement with its bank
lenders to postpone, until June 29, 2003, the step down of the leverage ratio
from 4.25 to 3.50. The Company is seeking to restructure the debt facility and
such restructuring is contingent on certain events, which raises substantial
doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The
consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

        Our reports refer to a change in the method of accounting for goodwill
in 2002.


                                    KPMG LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 28, 2003
# CE2004088EN.01005901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/59

---

(2004/C 88 E/0064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2024/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject:   Violation of freedom of worship in Turkmenistan

Subject:

There are serious, continual and systematic violations of freedom of worship in Turkmenistan.

The latest of countless attacks against the Protestant church in the country happened on 31 May. Five members of the church in the city of Abadam, Nuri Berdiev, Nabat Niyazova, Guzelya Syraeva, Lyudmila Galkina and Akgulya Niyazova were taken from their homes by the local police and interrogated at length at the police station. The police also confiscated books and threatened to seize their apartment if they continued to meet there for the purposes of worship.

This attack was only the latest in a long series of acts of repression and intimidation on the part of the Turkmenistan authorities against Catholics, Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses, none of whom are authorised to be registered with the government authorities, and their activities are considered illegal.

Furthermore, the OCSE office in the Turkmen capital has refused to comment on the reports of raids and violations of religious freedom in Turkmenistan, and Dieter Matthei, an OCSE official in Ashgabad, states that he has no information on the attacks against Protestants and that for any information about freedom of religion in Turkmenistan one should apply to the OCSE head office in Vienna.

In view of the above, can the Commission say whether it is aware of the serious, persistent and systematic violation of religious freedom in Turkmenistan and the events mentioned?

What steps will it take or request in order to exert pressure on the Turkmenistan authorities to ensure that religious freedom is guaranteed in the country?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

(16 July 2003)

The Commission is very concerned about the difficulties faced by religious groups which wish to establish themselves in Turkmenistan.

While the Constitution of Turkmenistan ensures religious freedom, the law implementing the Constitution requires all religious groups to register officially and do so with the support of 500 signatures of citizens over 18 years old. The law effectively restricts all religious activity other than Sunni Islam and the Russian Orthodox Church.

There is at present no formal bilateral framework for discussing these matters between EU institutions and Turkmen authorities since our Trade and Cooperation Agreement does not cover issues of human rights.

However, the Commission is working actively with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions on promoting human rights in Turkmenistan.

---
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0000785

28-MAY-2014

07:53 AM
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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
On2 Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Mark J. Meagher, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section. 1350, as adopted pursuant
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 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 the Company.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ MARK J. MEAGHER    
| |                        
| | Mark J. Meagher        
| | Chief Financial Officer
| | On2 Technologies, Inc. 

March 28, 2003
J. 

sentencing range for attempted lewdness since 1997 is 2 to 20 years in 

prison, see 1997 Nev. Stat., ch. 455, §5, at 1722; 1997 Nev. Stat., ch. 314, § 

2, at 1178, and appellant stipulated to the 8-to-20-year sentence in his 

guilty plea agreement. To the extent that he challenged the validity of his 

guilty plea, such a challenge is outside the narrow scope of claims 

permissible in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See Edwards, 112 

Nev. at 708, 918 P.2d at 324. Therefore, without considering the merits of 

that claim, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the 

motion. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

aft.oz, 

Hardesty 

cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge 

Frederick Vonseydewitz 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1941A 400
# C_2023083EN.01003002.xml

| 6.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/30

---

Action brought on 24 January 2023 — Markt-Pilot v EUIPO (MARKT-PILOT)

(Case T-22/23)

(2023/C 83/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Markt-Pilot GmbH (Beilstein, Germany) (represented by: M. Nielen and A. Puff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark ‘MARKT-PILOT’ — Application No 18 531 626

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2022 in Case R 672/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
HOUSING AUTHORITY v. PARTEE.

No. 183P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 25, 2008.

Ann Moukperian, for Housing Authority.

Adam Shestak, for Partee.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 658 S.E.2d 69.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of April 2008 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 25th day of April 2008."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 643 

To amend section 1922A of title 38, United States Code, to increase the 

amount of supplemental insurance available for totally disabled veterans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2007 

Mr. AKAKA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend section 1922A of title 38, United States Code, 

to increase the amount of supplemental insurance available for totally disabled veterans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disabled Veterans In5 surance Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE FOR TOTALLY DIS7 ABLED VETERANS. 

8 Section 1922A(a) of title 38, United States Code, is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘$20,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$40,000’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
HYDE v. STATE of N.C.

No. 88P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 9, 2015.

Mason W. Hyde, Salisbury, for Hyde, Mason White.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of October 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Prohibition:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of October 2015."
STATE v. TOLLIVER

No. COA05-1687.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 16, 2007.

Certification Date February 5, 2007.

Appeal from Forsyth (02CRS38882, 02CRS38885, 02CRS38886).

Case reported without published opinion. No prejudicial error.
IN RE R.C.

No. COA08-130.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from McDowell (06750).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                        $683,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               850,000
<PP&E>                                      24,470,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,764,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,111,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          477,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,634,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,111,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,221,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,268,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (47,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (47,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Lawrence Donnell FLOOD.

No. 16A09.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 12, 2008.

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, Staples Hughes, Appellate Defender, for Flood.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 7th day of January 2009 in this matter for a Writ of Certiorari Regarding Removal of Trial Attorney in Capital Case to review the order of the Superior Court, Alamance County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Defendant's Emergency Petition for Writ of Certiorari is allowed for the limited purpose of remanding this case to the trial court with instructions for the trial court to hold an ex parte hearing on defendant's motion to remove his counsel. Robert C. Collins. By order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of January 2008."
# C_2023121EN.01001702.xml

| 3.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/17

---

Action brought on 21 February 2023 — Timothy Jacob Jensen Studios v EUIPO (DESIGNERS TRUST)

(Case T-92/23)

(2023/C 121/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Timothy Jacob Jensen Studios A/S (Højslev, Denmark) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark DESIGNERS TRUST — Application for registration No 1 626 949

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2022 in Case R 1149/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2023304EN.01000301.xml

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 24 April 2023 — IMI — Imagens Médicas Integradas SA v Autoridade da Concorrência

(Case C-258/23, Imagens Médicas Integradas)

(2023/C 304/04)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IMI — Imagens Médicas Integradas SA

Defendant: Autoridade da Concorrência

Questions referred

| I. | Do the business records at issue in this case, which are transmitted by e-mail, constitute ‘correspondence’ for the purposes of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

I.

Do the business records at issue in this case, which are transmitted by e-mail, constitute ‘correspondence’ for the purposes of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

| II. | Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude business records arising from e-mail communications between managers and employees of undertakings from being seized in the course of an investigation into agreements and practices prohibited under Article 101 TFEU (ex Article 81 TEC)? |
| --- | --- |

II.

Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude business records arising from e-mail communications between managers and employees of undertakings from being seized in the course of an investigation into agreements and practices prohibited under Article 101 TFEU (ex Article 81 TEC)?

| III. | Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude such business records from being seized on the prior authorisation of a judicial authority, in this case the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is responsible for representing the State, defending the interests determined by law, bringing criminal prosecutions on the basis of the principle of legality and defending democratic legality in accordance with the Constitution, and which operates independently of the other central, regional and local authorities? |
| --- | --- |

III.

Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude such business records from being seized on the prior authorisation of a judicial authority, in this case the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is responsible for representing the State, defending the interests determined by law, bringing criminal prosecutions on the basis of the principle of legality and defending democratic legality in accordance with the Constitution, and which operates independently of the other central, regional and local authorities?

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
ELECTROSCOPE, INC. BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND STATEMENTS OF 
OPERATION AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,315,898
<SECURITIES>                                 4,059,033
<RECEIVABLES>                                  162,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,500
<INVENTORY>                                    495,452
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,101,958
<PP&E>                                         647,423
<DEPRECIATION>                               (447,650)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,471,961
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          461,867
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    16,941,317
<OTHER-SE>                                     290,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,471,961
<SALES>                                        682,306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               682,306
<CGS>                                          509,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,426,336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (151,842)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,102,093)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,102,093)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,102,093)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004088EN.01005801.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/58

---

(2004/C 88 E/0063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2022/03

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject:   Arrest of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi

Subject:

Burma's leading advocate of human rights and democracy, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, was detained on 30 May 2003 near Monywa in Burma. The country's military junta says that Aung San Suu Kyi and 19 other members of her National League for Democracy Party (NLD) have been placed in ‘protective custody’ following clashes between her supporters and pro-government demonstrators in northern Burma.

More than 100 students, NLD supporters and Buddhist monks were arrested in the early hours of 31 May 2003; a number of members of parliament were also detained. Seven high-ranking NLD officials were placed under house arrest and more than 50 local branches of the NLD party were forced to shut down. The arrests are viewed as the biggest defeat for democracy in Burma for many years.

What real pressure has the Commission and the EU exerted to persuade the junta in Burma immediately to release the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and the other detainees, including the members of parliament? How can the EU lend force to the demands that the military junta should break the spiral of violence and pave the way for a speedy transition to democracy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

(7 July 2003)

The Commission and Member States have repeatedly called for the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the arrested NLD officials and supporters, the reopening of NLD offices throughout the country as well as the reopening of all universities in Burma/Myanmar.

On 16 June 2003 the Union also decided to implement without delay the strengthened sanctions which are specifically targeted on the military leaders and their supporters. Originally there were envisaged to enter into force on or before 29 October 2003 as agreed in the Common Position on Burma/Myanmar (2003/297/CFSP) of 28 April 2003 (1).

1

In addition, the Union has intensified discussions on the situation in Burma/Myanmar with its dialogue partners in Asia in order to encourage them to use their influence on the Burmese Government to release Aung San Suu Kyi and support progress on the issues of good governance, and economic reform. On 17 June 2003, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has launched an unprecedented call to Burma/Myanmar for ‘a peaceful transition to democracy’.

It is encouraging to see the strong international reaction to the detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and the Commission sincerely hopes that this consolidated pressure will influence the Burmese Government to release her and all her supporters and finally show some signs of willingness to work towards national reconciliation and a return to democracy.

---

(1)  OJ L 106, 29.4.2003.

1

---