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

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements pertaining to the PRT Group, Inc. Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Incentive
Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-44725), pertaining to the PRT Group Inc. 401(k) Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-95247), and pertaining to the PRT Group, Inc. Form S-3
related to the shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of the Series A Senior Participating Redeemable Preferred Stock and related warrants (Form S-3 No. 333-36468) of our
report dated March 19, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of enherent, Corp. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2003.

Hartford,
CT
March 26, 2004

---

QuickLinks
NO. 07-08-0256-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	SEPTEMBER 12, 2008

	______________________________

	AMADO FLORES, APPELLANT

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 287th DISTRICT COURT OF BAILEY COUNTY;

	NO. 2202; HON. GORDON HOUSTON GREEN, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

On Motion to Dismiss

	Appellant, Amado Flores, filed a pro se Notice of Appeal to appeal a judgment of revocation and sentence entered against him in the 287th District Court of Bailey County, Texas.  However, appellant has now filed a motion to dismiss his appeal.

	Because the motion meets the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a)1 and this Court has not delivered its decision prior to receiving it, the motion is hereby granted and the appeal is dismissed.  Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue.

							Mackey K. Hancock

							 	Justice

Do not publish.ain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal in a criminal case and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal.  Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). 

	From the docketing statement, it would appear sentence was imposed on May 4, 2009.  Appellant was required to give notice of appeal within 30 days after the day sentence was imposed or within 90 days after the day sentence was imposed if appellant filed a motion for new trial.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a).   There is no indication that appellant filed a motion for new trial, making appellant’s notice of appeal due on or before June 3.  Appellant filed his notice of appeal on June 30.  Appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal prevents this court from having jurisdiction over his appeal.  Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210.  Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.1 

								Mackey K. Hancock

									Justice

Do not publish.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

11 a.m., Friday, October 7, 2005.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. 

# STATUS:

Closed. 

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 Surveillance Matters. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100. 

Jean A. Webb, 

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05-18334 Filed 9-12-05; 11:52 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
# C_2008022EN.01000602.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Rafael de Bustamante Tello v Council of the European Union

(Case C-10/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of ‘work done for another State’)

(2008/C 22/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Rafael de Bustamante Tello (represented by: R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, abogados)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and D. Canga Fano, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 Bustamante Tello v Council (T-368/03), dismissing an action for annulment of the Council's decision of 28 July 2003 refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance under Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr de Bustamante Tello to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr de Bustamante Tello to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of CPI International, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 29, 2007 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joel Littman,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
| /s/ Joel A. Littman     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |
| Joel A. Littman         |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| August 13, 2007         |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6446

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BILLY T. JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-7043

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BILLY T. JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers,

District Judge. (5:02-cr-00140-2)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008
- 2 -

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy T. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Erik S. Goes,

Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia; Lisa

Grimes Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Billy T. Johnson appeals

the district court’s orders denying his motion under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2000) for a reduction of sentence. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.

Johnson, No. 5:02-cr-00140-2 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 10, 2008; June 5,

2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NUMBER 13-08-00229-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

EPGT TEXAS PIPELINE, L.P. 

NOW KNOWN AS ENTERPRISE

TEXAS PIPELINE, L. P. , Appellant,

v.

ABEL VILLANUEVA, Appellee.

On Appeal from the 398th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, EPGT Texas Pipeline, L.P. now known as Enterprise Texas Pipeline,

L.P., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 398th District Court of Hidalgo

County, Texas, in cause number C-690-07-I. Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the
2

appeal on grounds that the trial court has granted a new trial which renders the appeal

moot. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s motion to

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party incurring

same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax

costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no

motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 18 day of September, 2008. th
Exhibit 21.1
List of Subsidiaries of Berry Plastics Corporation
Berry Iowa Corporation (DE)
Packerware Corporation (DE)
Knight Plastics, Inc. (DE)
Berry Sterling Corporation (DE)
Berry Plastics Design Corporation (DE)
Poly-Seal Corporation (DE)
Venture Packaging, Inc. (DE)
Venture Packaging Midwest, Inc. (DE)
Berry Plastics Technical Services, Inc. (DE)
CPI Holding Corporation (DE)
Cardinal Packaging, Inc. (OH)
AeroCon, Inc. (DE)
Pescor, Inc. (DE)
Berry Tri-Plas Corporation (DE)
Landis Plastics, Inc. (IL)
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation II (DE)
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation III (DE)
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation V (DE)
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation VI (DE)
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation VII (DE)
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation VIII (DE)
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation IX (DE)
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation X (DE)
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation XI (DE)
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation XII (DE)
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation XIII (DE)
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation XIV, LLC (DE)
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation XV, LLC (DE)
NIM Holdings Limited (E&W)
Berry Plastics U.K. Limited (E&W)
Norwich Acquisition Limited (E&W)
Capsol Berry Plastics S.p.A. (Italy)
Ociesse S.r.l. (Italy)
Berry Plastics Asia Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Certification for Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Ohio State Bancshares, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
  [This paragraph intentionally left blank.]
   5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: April 11, 2007
    /s/
    GARY E. PENDLETONGary E. Pendleton, President and CEO
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6482

HABEEB ABDUL MALIK, a/k/a Ron Tearia Nicholas,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN OZMINT, Director of SCDC; JANICE PHILLIPS, Health Care

Authority, SCDC; EILEEN DELANEY, Nurse Practitioner III;

VAUGHN JACKSON, Major, SCDC; FNU THOMAS, Food Service

Coordinator SCDC, all sued in their personal, official

capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(8:07-cv-00387-RBH)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 20, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Habeeb Abdul Malik, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON,

MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Habeeb Abdul Malik appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Malik v. Ozmint,

No. 8:07-cv-00387-RBH (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2008). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina v. Brent Tyler MILLER.

No. 199PA15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Noell P. Tin, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Miller, Brent Tyler.

Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 15th of June 2015 by State of NC 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:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."

*846Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
**Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 10 April 2008 – 2K‐Teint and Others v Commission and EIB**

**(Case T-336/06)**

Non-contractual liability – Financing contract concluded with Morocco – EIB’s alleged negligence and failures in monitoring a loan financed by the Community budget – Limitation – Inadmissibility

1.                     *Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the
Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53, first para.) (see paras 71, 97, 118)*

2.                     *Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute
– Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Application for compensation for damage allegedly
caused by a Community institution – Minimum requirements (Art. 288 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19 and 46, first
para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 72-73, 81, 86, 117)*

3.                     *Actions for damages – Limitation period – Interruption – Conditions (Arts 230 EC, 232 EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute
of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 95, 104-105, 108)*

4.                     *Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Date to be taken into consideration where
knowledge of the fact causing the damage was obtained belatedly (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice,
Art. 46) (see paras 96-102)*

5.                     *Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Damage of a continuing nature – Date to be
taken into consideration (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 106-107, 113-114)*

6.                     *Actions for damages – Reimbursement of costs incurred at national level – Sole jurisdiction of national court applying national
law – Inadmissibility (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 121)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the EIB’s negligence and failures in monitoring the use of funds intended for the completion of the project of 2K-Teint, in performance of the financing contract concluded between the EIB, as agent of the Community, and the Kingdom of Morocco. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders 2K-Teint SARL, Mohammed Kermoudi, Khalid Kermoudi, Laila Kermoudi, Mounia Kermoudi, Salma Kermoudi and Rabia Kermoudi to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB). |
In the Matter of K.Q.R.

No. COA15-1367.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed in part; Reversed and Remanded in part.
John T. TURCHIN and Susan Turchin, Plaintiffs, v. ENBE, INC.1 , Defendant.

No. COA15-1236.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# C_2009153EN.01003502.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/35

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 May 2009 — Omnicare v OHIM

(Case T-277/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark OMNICARE - Earlier national figurative mark OMNICARE - Refusal of an application for restitutio in integrum)

2009/C 153/67

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Omnicare, Inc. (Covington, Kentucky, United States) (represented initially by M. Edenborough, Barrister, and O. Patterson, Solicitor, and subsequently by M. Edenborough)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by S. Laitinen, and subsequently by G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Astellas Pharma GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 July 2006 (Case R 446/2006-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH and Omnicare, Inc. and rejecting the application for restitutio in integrum brought by the latter.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 July 2006 (Case R 446/2006-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 July 2006 (Case R 446/2006-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Omnicare, Inc.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Omnicare, Inc.;

| 3. | Orders Astellas Pharma GmbH to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Astellas Pharma GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 759 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 759

     To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 5, 2007

   Mr. Webb introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN IRAN.

    (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
funds appropriated or otherwise made available by any Act, including 
any Act enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be 
obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or 
above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, 
except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress enacted in a 
statute enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Exceptions.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply 
with respect to military operations or activities as follows:
            (1) Military operations or activities to directly repel an 
        attack launched from within the territory of Iran.
            (2) Military operations or activities to directly thwart an 
        imminent attack to be launched from within the territory of 
        Iran.
            (3) Military operations or activities in hot pursuit of 
        forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter 
        enter into Iran.
            (4) Military operations or activities connected with the 
        intelligence or intelligence-related activities of the United 
        States Government.
    (c) Report.--Not later than 24 hours after determining to utilize 
funds referred to in subsection (a) for purposes of a military 
operation described in subsection (b), the President shall submit to 
the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the determination, 
including a justification for the determination.
    (d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this section, 
the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
            (1) the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations 
        and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
            (2) the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs 
        and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House 
        of Representatives.
                                 <all>
```