alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Boyd Bros. Transportation Inc.:

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Boyd Bros. Transportation
Inc. as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 1996. These financial statements are the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such financial statements present fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position of the Company at December 31, 1996 and 1995,
and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 1996 in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.

As discussed in Note 8 to the financial statements, the Company terminated its S
Corporation status on March 30, 1994 and became subject to corporate income
taxes on that date.






/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Birmingham, Alabama
February 13, 1997
#### Alice M. WINDOM, Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al., Appellees.

No. 77-1242.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 15, 1977.

Decided Dec. 21, 1977.

Louis Gilden, St. Louis, Mo., on brief, for appellant.

James J. Gallagher, Associate City Counselor, St. Louis, Mo., for appellees; Jack L. Koehr, on brief.

Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, LAY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.

*79PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant Alice M. Windom, a well-educated black woman, filed a civil rights action against her former employer, the City of St. Louis, and two male supervisors, alleging that she was discriminatorily discharged from her position as a social worker with the City on account of her sex. She also alleged sex discrimination in defendants’ failure to promote her to a higher position, and a violation of the right of free speech in her transfer to a position in the city jail. In a trial to the court, Judge Nangle held that she was not discriminatorily treated, either in the failure to promote or in her discharge; nor were her rights of free speech abridged.

A review of the record discloses that plaintiff was embroiled in numerous and continuing disputes with her supervisors to the point of insubordination. Her actions were well beyond the pale of objective criticism of departmental policies and of her supervisors’ official actions in the discharge of their duties and functions.

The district court applied correct and appropriate principles of law to its factual findings, which were appropriate on the record and certainly were not clearly erroneous.

The application of plaintiff’s counsel for attorney’s fees on this appeal is without merit and is denied.

We affirm on the basis of Judge Nangle’s persuasive and well-reasoned opinion, which is reported at 427 F.Supp. 806 (1977).
WEAVER v. DEDMON, et al.

203P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Leonard T. Jernigan, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kristina Brown Thompson, Attorney at Law, Anthony L. Lucas, Attorney at Law, for Weaver, Shaun.

M. Hayes Jernigan, Attorney at Law.

J. Timothy Wilson, Attorney at Law, M. Pierce Sandwith, Attorney at Law, Bryan L. Cantley, Attorney at Law, for Seegars Fence Company, Inc., et al.

The following order has been entered on the joint motion filed on the 29th of August 2017 by Plaintiff and Defendants (Seegars Fence Company, Inc. of Elizabeth City and Builders Mutual Insurance Company) to Hold Petitions for Discretionary Review in Abeyance:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
# C_2013032EN.01001501.xml

| 2.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EFSA

(Case T-457/07) (1)

1

(Public procurement - Tender procedure - Provision of IT consultancy assistance services - Rejection of a tender and decision to award the contract to another tenderer - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Selection criteria - Award criteria - Compliance with award criteria laid down in the tender specifications - Manifest error of assessment)

2013/C 32/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented initially by A. Cuvillier, subsequently by S. Gabbi and D. Detken, and finally by D. Detken, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of EFSA of 1 October 2007 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in response to Call for Tenders EFSA/IT/2007/14 for IT Consultancy Assistance (OJ 2007/S 97-118626) and awarding the contract to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) rejecting the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in response to Call for Tenders EFSA/IT/2007/14 for IT Consultancy Assistance and awarding the contract to another tenderer; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) rejecting the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in response to Call for Tenders EFSA/IT/2007/14 for IT Consultancy Assistance and awarding the contract to another tenderer;

| 2. | Orders EFSA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EFSA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---
Tully v. City of Wilmington

348A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 19, 2017

Katie Weaver Hartzog, Attorney at Law, Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for City of Wilmington.

S. Luke Largess, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Cheyenne Chambers, Attorney at Law, for Tully, Kevin J.

J. Michael McGuinness, Attorney at Law, Elizabethtown, Megan Ashley Milliken, Attorney at Law, for Southern States Police Benevolent Association, et al.

M. Travis Payne, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Professional Fire Fighters and Paramedics of North Carolina.

Michael C. Byrne, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police.

Robert M. Elliot, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Reynolds Michael Elliot, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of January 2017 *807by N.C. Advocates for Justice for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of January 2017."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4076 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4076

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 5, 2014

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To address shortages and interruptions in the availability of propane 
   and other home heating fuels in the United States, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Home Heating Emergency Assistance 
Through Transportation Act of 2014'' or the ``HHEATT Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. PROPANE AND HOME HEATING FUEL EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
covered emergency exemption issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration shall remain in effect until May 31, 2014, unless the 
Secretary of Transportation, after consultation with the Governors of 
affected States, determines that the emergency for which the exemption 
was provided ends before that date.
    (b) Covered Emergency Exemption Defined.--In this section, the term 
``covered emergency exemption'' means an exemption issued under section 
390.23 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, or extended under 
section 390.25 of such title that--
            (1) was issued or extended during the period beginning on 
        February 5, 2014, and ending on the date of enactment of this 
        Act; and
            (2) provided regulatory relief for commercial motor vehicle 
        operations providing direct assistance supporting the delivery 
        of propane and home heating fuels.
    (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) may be 
construed to prohibit the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
from issuing or extending a covered emergency exemption beyond May 31, 
2014, under other Federal law.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 4, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# Official Journal C 201/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 201 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 517 August 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 201

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 517 August 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 201/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2008/C 201/02 | Commission communication pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Modification by the United Kingdom of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between Glasgow-Campbeltown, Glasgow-Tiree and Glasgow-Barra (1) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 201/01

Euro exchange rates

1

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2008/C 201/02

Commission communication pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Modification by the United Kingdom of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between Glasgow-Campbeltown, Glasgow-Tiree and Glasgow-Barra (1)

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 201/03 | Call for applications for pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) | 4 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Commission

2008/C 201/03

Call for applications for pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS)

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 19 November 2008 – Rautaruukki v OHIM (RAUTARUUKKI)**

**(Case T-269/06)**

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark RAUTARUUKKI – Absolute grounds for refusal of registration – Descriptive character – Absence of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Evidence offered in support

1.                     *Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 20-21)*

2.                     *Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure
of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 33-35)*

3.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid
of any distinctive character or which are descriptive or customary in character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(3)) (see
paras 50-51)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2006 (Case R 48/2006-4) concerning registration of the word mark RAUTARUUKKI as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Rautaruukki Oyj |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark RAUTARUUKKI for goods in particular in Class 6 – Application No 3608081 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Rautaruukki Oyj to pay the costs. |
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1885/2004

of 28 October 2004         

fixing the maximum export refund on oats in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004 of 3 September 2004 on a special intervention measure for oats in Finland and Sweden for the 2004/2005 marketing year (3),

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 22 to 28 October 2004, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004, the maximum refund on exportation of oats shall be EUR 31,95/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 29 October 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 October 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

(2)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1431/2003 (OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 16).

(3)OJ L 285, 4.9.2004, p. 3.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Nicole Marie JACKSON, Defendant.

No. COA17-250

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 3, 2017

NO ERROR.
# C_2011347EN.01002702.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Dimos Peramatos v Commission

(Case T-312/07) (1)

1

(Financial contribution granted for an environmental project - LIFE - Decision to recover in part the amount paid out - Determination of the obligations of the recipient undertaken in the financed project - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 347/40

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dimos Peramatos (Perama, Greece) (represented by: G. Gerapetritis and P. Petropoulos, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, Agents, assisted by A. Somou, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment or, in the alternative, amendment of Decision E(2005) 5361 of the Commission of 7 December 2005 relating to Debit Note No 3240504536 which was issued to the Dimos Peramatos (Municipality of Perama) to recover the financial contribution which had been paid by the Commission in the context of the subsidy granted to the Dimos Peramatos by Commission Decision C(97)/1997/29 final of 17 July 1997.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Dimos Peratamos to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dimos Peratamos to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 29, 2010
y0322 

# Order

March 29, 2010

139793

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139793 COA: 291933 St. Clair CC: 03-003005-FC TIMOTHY DELBERT TEICHOW, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 2, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0036

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JUSTIN LEE LONGTINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 15, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 7 2020

04/07/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0036
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4321 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require that lists of employees 

eligible to vote in organizing elections be provided to the National Labor 

Relations Board. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2014 

Mr. ROE of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. KLINE, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. WILSON

of South Carolina, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. HUNTER, 

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. SALMON, Mr. 

DESJARLAIS, Mr. ROKITA, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. GOWDY, Mrs. BROOKS of 

Indiana, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. MESSER, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. 

KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. RIBBLE, and Mr. SCHWEIKERT) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require that 

lists of employees eligible to vote in organizing elections 

be provided to the National Labor Relations Board. 

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 ‘‘Employee Privacy Pro5 tection Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4321 IH

1 SEC. 2. LISTS OF EMPLOYEES ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN ELEC2 TIONS. 

3 Section 9(c)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations 

4 Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)(1)(B)) is amended by adding at 

5 the end the following: ‘‘Not earlier than 7 days after a 

6 final determination by the Board of the appropriate bar7 gaining unit, the Board shall acquire from the employer 

8 a list of all employees eligible to vote in the election to 

9 be made available to all parties, which shall include the 

10 names of the employees, and one additional form of per11 sonal contact information of the employee (such as tele12 phone number, email address, or mailing address) chosen 

13 by the employee in writing.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
BH/RE, L.L.C., a Nevada limited liability company (Company), for the period
ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:  (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 as of the dates and for the periods
expressed in the Report. Date: August 4, 2004
    
    /s/ Robert EarlRobert EarlManager/s/ Douglas P. TeitelbaumDouglas P. TeitelbaumManager/s/ Thomas AvalloneThomas AvalloneActing Chief Financial Officer
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
WILSON v. CARVER

254P09-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 6, 2017

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

David Reed Wilson, for Wilson, David Reed.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of November 2017 *496by Petitioner for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of November 2017."
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00351-CV

ASPEN EXPLORATION, INC.,

Appellant

v.

PARKER OFFSHORE DRILLING USA, LLC,

Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Jim Hogg County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC-07-92

Honorable Alex William Gabert, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 15, 2008

DISMISSED

Before the court is appellant’s motion for voluntary dismissal. Appellant’s motion to dismiss

is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Costs of appeal are taxed

against the appellant. See id. at (d). 

PER CURIAM
In the MATTER OF: T.S.P.

No. COA17-653

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 19, 2017

VACATED. REMANDED.