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

                                                                 EXHIBIT 23

         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No.'s 333-26743, 333-61467, 333-74490 and 333-118861)
of Cenveo, Inc. of our reports dated February 28, 2007, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Cenveo, Inc., Cenveo,
Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Cenveo, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.

                                                /S/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                          ---------------------------------

Stamford, Connecticut
February 28, 2007
----

----

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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 respects,                  the                  financial condition and results of operations of the                  Company. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                    |   |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/                  Robert E.                  Rook                                                                                    |   |   |   |   |
| Robert                  E.                  RookChief                    Executive OfficerNovember 14,                        2007 |   |   |   |   |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7141

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CAMILLE FORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CR-94-163, CA-98-1206-2)

Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 29, 2001

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Camille Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Camille Ford appeals the district court’s order denying her

motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Ford, Nos. 94-163; CA-98-1206-2 (E.D.

Va. filed June 16, 2001; entered June 18, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 99.16****CONSENT OF J. NOVILLO**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F and the documents incorporated byreference therein (the “40-F”) of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December31, 2009, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and theAnnual Information Form (the “AIF”) and Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) of theCompany for the year then ended, which are filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference inthe 40-F.     I hereby consent to the references, as applicable, to my name in connection with (including,as an expert) the following report(s) and documents: 1. The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connectionwith information relating to the Alumbrera Mine, and the propertiesdescribed therein.Date:March 19, 2010              /s/ Julio Bruna Novillo     Name:  Julio Bruna Novillo, AusIMM     Xstrata Copper
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,858
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     66,579
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          11,377
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            11,695
<LOANS>                                        172,413
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 275,047
<DEPOSITS>                                     241,105
<SHORT-TERM>                                        41
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,704
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,521
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,501
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 275,047
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,487
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,355
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   598
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                21,440
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,487
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,648
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,792
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      724
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 112
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,548
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,548
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,548
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,820
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.73
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.17
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,102
<LOANS-PAST>                                       168
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     7
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    795
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,955
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,068
<RECOVERIES>                                       172
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,783
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,783
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            400
        

</TABLE>
* 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. 07-20723

ROBERT ALPERT

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

THE BENNET LAW FIRM, PC

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Texas, Houston

No. 4:06-CV-1642

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and OWEN and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136581 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136581 

 COA: 277776 

Kalamazoo CC: 06-001819-FC 

KELVIN DEWAYNE MILLER, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 3, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0915 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June
30, 2007 (the Form
10-Q) fully complies
with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained
in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material
respects, the financial
condition and results of
operations of the
Company.
 /s/ FRED M. POWELLFred M. PowellChief Financial Officer
  35
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2009 – Hansgrohe v OHIM (AIRSHOWER)**

**(Case T-307/07)**

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark AIRSHOWER – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 24, 37)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2007 (Case R 1281/2006-1) concerning the registration of the word mark ‘AIRSHOWER’ as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Hansgrohe AG |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark AIRSHOWER for goods in Class 11 – Application No 4869319 |
| Decision of the examiner : | Registration partially refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Hansgrohe AG to pay the costs. |
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of ADESA, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Caruso, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)             the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/   Thomas J. Caruso                  |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Thomas   J. Caruso                      |   |
| *Chief Executive Officer and President* |   |
|                                    |   |
| Date:   April 20, 2012             |   |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

KRISTOPHER LIONEL GOLDTOOTH, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10170 

D.C. No. 3:12-cr-08148-PGR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018**

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Kristopher Lionel Goldtooth appeals the district court’s judgment revoking 

his supervised release and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon 

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

Goldtooth contends that the district court improperly based its imposition of 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUN 18 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-10170 

the statutory maximum sentence on punitive factors. Because Goldtooth did not 

raise this objection in the district court, we review for plain error. See United 

States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). We conclude 

that there is no error of any kind. The record demonstrates that the district court 

correctly sanctioned “primarily the defendant’s breach of trust, while taking into 

account, to a limited degree, the seriousness of the underlying violation and the 

criminal history of the violator.” U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt. A(3)(b); see also United 

States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court may “properly 

look to and consider the conduct underlying the revocation as one of many acts 

contributing to the severity of the violator’s breach of trust so as not to preclude a 

full review of the violator’s history and the violator’s likelihood of repeating that 

history”). 

Goldtooth also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We 

conclude that the above-Guidelines, 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable 

in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of 

the circumstances, including Goldtooth’s repeated violations of the terms of his 

supervised release. See United States v. Leonard, 483 F.3d 635, 637 (9th Cir. 

2007).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2009055EN.01005101.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/51

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 27 November 2008 — Klug v EMEA

(Case F-35/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Unfavourable appraisal report - Psychological harassment)

(2009/C 55/92)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bettina Klug (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: W. Grupp, lawyer, initially, then by S. Zickgraf, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMEA) (represented by: V. Salvatore, S. Vanlievendael, Agents, assisted by H.-G. Kamman and N. Rössler, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the European Medicines Agency rejecting the applicant's claim for an extension of her employment contract — Application for a new staff report — Application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007, p. 45.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

 No. 08-1852

 

ROMAN TIFFER, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

WORKER=S COMPENSATION; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CORPORATION; 

ABACUS CORPORATION; THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:08-

cv-01417-JFM) 

 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Roman Tiffer, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Roman Tiffer appeals the district court=s order dismissing 

without prejudice his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '

1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). In his informal appellate brief, Tiffer does 

not address the district court=s ruling that he failed to allege 

facts setting forth a claim cognizable in federal court.* 

Therefore, Tiffer has waived appellate review of that issue. See

4th Cir. R. 34(b) (AThe Court will limit its review to the issues 

raised in the informal brief.@). Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court=s order. 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

 *

We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal because the 

order of dismissal suggests that no amendment to the complaint 

could cure the defects in Tiffer=s case. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. 

Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993).
NC DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. LEDFORD

223PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 31, 2016

Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Public Safety.

Larry Leake, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for Ledford, Chauncey John.

Jamie A. Stokes, Attorney at Law.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 27th of October 2016 by Respondent:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 31st of October 2016."

Respondent shall have up to and including the 19th day of December 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# C_2008051EN.01004303.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/43

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2007 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission

(Case T-367/07 R)

(Application for interim relief - Directive 91/414/EEC - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - No urgency)

(2008/C 51/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom); Dow AgroSciences BV (Hoek, Netherlands); Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S (Kongens Lyngby, Denmark); Dow AgroSciences GmbH, (Munich, Germany); Dow AgroSciences (Mougins, France); Dow AgroSciences Export (Mougins); Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft (Budapest, Hungary); Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl (Milan, Italy); Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland); Dow AgroSciences Distribution (Mougins); Dow AgroSciences Iberica, SA (Madrid, Spain); Dow AgroSciences s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic); Dow AgroSciences LLC (Indianapolis, Indiana, United States) (represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and L. Parpala, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2007/437/EC of 19 June 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of haloxyfop-R in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 163, p. 22) pending the full resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7121

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHNEY FREEMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (2:88-cr-00076-jcc-2; 2:97-cv-00409-jcc)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johney Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Johney Freeman seeks to appeal the district court’s order

treating his “Writ of Coram Nobis” as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Freeman has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. 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.

 DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 333-119285, Form S-8 No. 333-03886, Form S-8 No. 333-37299, Form
S-8 No. 333-74565, Form S-8 No. 333-96197, Form S-8 No. 333-37658, Form S-8 No.
333-72778 and Form S-8 No. 333-107273) pertaining to Renal Care Group, Inc.'s 9%
Senior Subordinated Notes due 2011, the Renal Care Group, Inc. Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan, the Renal Care
Group, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors, the Renal Care Group,
Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. Third Amended and
Restated Stock Incentive Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. Fourth Amended and
Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, the Dialysis Centers of America, Inc. Equity
Compensation Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. 1999 Long - Term Incentive Plan,
the Renal Disease Management by Physicians, Inc. Amended and Restated 1997/1998
Stock Plan, and the Renal Care Group, Inc., Amended and Restated 1999 Long-Term
Incentive Plan of our report dated March 1, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Renal Care Group, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.


                                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Nashville, Tennessee
March 1, 2005