alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel UTILITIES COMMISSION; NORTH CAROLINA TEXTILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; THE CITY OF DURHAM; NORTH CAROLINA OIL JOBBERS ASSOCIATION; JOSEPH L. BERRY; ROBERT AREY; GREAT LAKES CARBON CORPORATION; DUKE UNIVERSITY; HOUSTON V. BLAIR; BETTY MAJETT; and ROBERT MORGAN, Attorney General v. DUKE POWER COMPANY

No. 7410UC116

(Filed 6 March 1974)

Utilities Commission § 4— power company — general rate increase

Order of the Utilities Commission allowing a power company to increase its rates is affirmed where the findings of the Commission are supported by competent evidence and the rates fixed by the Commission were established as provided by statute.

Judge Parker dissenting.

Appeal by Duke Power Company from an order of the North Carolina Utilities Commission entered on 21 June 1973 in Docket No. E-7, Sub 145.

This is a general rate case initiated by Duke Power Company in an application seeking approval of proposed changes in its rate structure. Others named in the title of the case were allowed to intervene and become parties to the proceeding. On *9021 June 1973, the Commission issued its final order which, among other things, allowed approximately seventy-two percent of the proposed increase. Duke Power Company appealed.

*Edward B. Hipp, Commission Attorney, and John R. Molm, Associate Commission Attorney, for the North Carolina Utilities Commission; Claude V. Jones, attorney for the City of Durham; Boyd, Byrd, Ervin & Blanton by Robert B. Byrd, for Great Lakes Carbon Corporation; Attorney General Robert Morgan by I. Beverly Lake, Jr., Assistant Attorney General and Robert P. Gruber, Associate Attorney, for the State.*

*William H. Grigg, Steve C. Griffith, Jr., Clarence W. Walker and John M. Murchison, Jr., for defendant appellant, Duke Power Company.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

The Courts are not authorized to fix rates for a public utility. That responsibility lies with the Utilities Commission. The findings of the Commission, when supported by competent evidence, are conclusive. This court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission even when it is of the opinion that the rate of return authorized by the Commission is inadequate.

After a review of the record, we are of the opinion that the findings of the Commission in this case are supported by substantial evidence and that the rates fixed by the Commission were established as provided by statute.

Affirmed.

Judge Britt concurs.

Judge Parker dissents.

Judge Parker

dissenting:

The record in this case, as in case No. 7410UC140 decided this day, indicates to me that the Commission made its determination as to fair rate of return on the basis of book value rather than on the basis of the fair value of the utility’s property. As in case No. 7410UC140, I would remand this proceeding with direction that the Commission fix the rate of return on fair value as required by G.S. 62-133 (b) (4).
STATE of North Carolina v. Timothy Lamont HAZEL

No. COA18-266

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 6, 2018

NO ERROR.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-93423, 333-38078, 333-44794, 333-57486, 333-84904, 333-104108, 333-113651, 333-123323, 333-132478, 333-138898, 333-141287 and 333-149622) pertaining to the 2006 Equity
Incentive Plan, the 2000 International Stock Option Plan, the 2000 Non-Officer Stock Option Plan, the 1997 Stock Option Plan, the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 1999 Nonemployee Directors Stock Option Plan of Maxygen, Inc., and in the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-143018) and the related Prospectuses, of our reports dated March 10, 2009 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Maxygen, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting of Maxygen, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008.



/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP




|                     
|---------------------
|Palo Alto, California
|March 10, 2009
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 23.3




July 9, 1997

Territorial Resources, Inc.
734 7 Avenue SW
Suite 1345
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2P 3P8

Gentlemen:

The undersigned firm of Independent Petroleum Engineers of Houston, Texas, USA,
knows that it is named as having prepared an evaluation effective December 31,
1996 and dated May 28, 1997 for the interests of Territorial Resources, Inc. in
Mongolia.  GEO Engineering, Inc. hereby gives its consent to use the said
evaluation in Territorial Resources, Inc., 10K report for the 12 months ended
March 31, 1997.

Sincerely,

GEO Engineering, Inc.

/s/ Jay O. Gallagher

Jay O. Gallagher, Director
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 204 (Monday, October 24, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21126]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Initial Review Group Biomedical Research and Research 
Training Review Subcommittee B
    Date: November 8-9, 2005.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Clarion Hotel Bethesda Park, 8400 Wisconsin Avenue, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Arthur L. Zachary, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher 
Building, Room 3AN-18, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2886, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2f554e4c474e5d564e6f414648425c0141464701484059"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f051e1c171e0d061e3f111618120c5111161751181009">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 13, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-21126 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of
Chief Financial Officer

I, Daniel M. Behrendt, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K as amended by Amendment No. 1 of TASER International, 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;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 15, 2012 |  | By: |  | /s/ Daniel M. Behrendt 
|                        |  |     |  | Daniel M. Behrendt     
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm









Implant Sciences Corporation


Wilmington, Massachusetts








We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (No.’s 333-109677, 333-111434, 333-117366, 333-124058, 333-127167, 333-129911) and Forms S-8 (No.’s 333-42816, 333-111117, 333-138292, 333-144892) of our report dated February 14, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Implant Sciences Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2010.













/s/ Marcum LLP


Boston, Massachusetts


February 14, 2011
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5243 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to clarify that 

the Act does not affect standards or procedures in medical malpractice 

actions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2010 

Mr. CUELLAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

to clarify that the Act does not affect standards or 

procedures in medical malpractice actions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONSTRUCTION REGARDING PPACA NOT AF4 FECTING STANDARDS OR PROCEDURES IN 

5 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS. 

6 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

7 (Public Law 111–148) is amended by inserting after secVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:56 May 07, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5243.IH H5243

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5243 IH

1 tion 3512 the following new section (and by inserting a 

2 corresponding item in the table of contents of such Act): 

3 ‘‘SEC. 3513. CONSTRUCTION REGARDING STANDARD OF 

4 CARE. 

5 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The development, recognition, or 

6 implementation of any guideline or other standard under 

7 any provision of this Act shall not be construed to estab8 lish the standard of care or duty of care owed by health 

9 care providers to their patients in any medical malpractice 

10 action or claim (as defined in section 431(7) of the Health 

11 Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 

12 11151(7)). 

13 ‘‘(b) SAVINGS CLAUSE FOR STATE MEDICAL MAL14 PRACTICE LAWS.—Nothing in this Act or the amendments 

15 made by this Act shall be construed to modify or impair 

16 State law governing legal standards or procedures used 

17 in medical malpractice cases, including the authority of 

18 a State to make or implement such law.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 23, 2009 

p0316 

Order 

 

March 23, 2009 

137391 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137391 

 COA: 284870 

Calhoun CC: 98-001925-FC 

LAURENCE DEANE COY II, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 6, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
**Exhibit
      32.1**








**CERTIFICATION**  **PURSUANT
      TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS
      AMENDED**





Pursuant
      to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
      of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), James Chu, Chairman of the Board of
      Directors and Chief Executive Officer of ViewSonic Corporation (the “Company”),
      and James A. Morlan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
      certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:





1. The
      Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, to
      which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”),
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
      Exchange Act; and





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







Date:
                March 16, 2007/s/
                James Chu
            
            /s/
                James A. MorlanJames
                Chu
            
            James
                A. MorlanChairman
                of the Board of Directors and
              Chief
                Executive Officer
            
            Chief
                Financial Officer





__________________


This
      certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed
      filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
      reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933,
      as
      amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before
      or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation
      language contained in such filing.
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Robinson, Appellant, *v.*Cavell.

Submitted November 19,1957.

Before Rhodes, P. J., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.

*53January 21, 1958:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

On March 18, 1957, the relator petitioned for his discharge from Western State Penitentiary on habeas corpus. He had been committed on sentences which when cumulated amounted to imprisonment for a term of 15 to 30 years from November 25, 1947. This appeal is here on the record in the court below, Avithout argument and without briefs.

In dismissing the petition for the writ President Judge McNaugher said: “At the hearing on a rule to shoAV cause why a Avrit of habeas corpus should not issue, the relator being represented by counsel, it appeared that the only averment of the petition to be considered in such a proceeding vvas that the relator was of tender years at the time of sentence and was not at that time represented by an attorney. It is not altogether clear whether counsel representing him was present (although there was counsel at least representing joining defendants), but in any event the record shows that he had previous experience as a defendant in the courts and that there Avas no ingredient of unfairness which Avould invalidate the pleas of guilty. It is to be noted also that the petitioner waited [almost] ten years after sentence before making complaint. The rule to show cause will therefore be discharged.”

The sentences of relator on November 25,1947, were on his convictions by pleas of guilty to three distinct *54charges of armed robbery and receiving stolen goods. If as he stated in his petition that he pleaded guilty on a promise that sentence would be suspended, it can hardly be that he would have waited more than nine years after sentence to complain. In any view however his delay in making the application convicts him of such laches as will prevent him from raising the question now, especially since Judge Egan who heard his pleas and passed sentence and the city detective who is alleged to have promised relator a suspended sentence are both deceased. Relator by his own delay has made it impossible to' develop the material facts and the dismissal of the petition without the taking of testimony was proper. *Com. ex rel. Quinn v. Smith,*144 Pa. Superior Ct. 160, 19 A. 2d 504. Moreover, even if relator was not represented by the lawyer who appeared for his co-defendants, he was not prejudiced. Cf. *Com. ex rel. Popovich v. Cloudy,*170 Pa. Superior Ct. 482, 87 A. 2d 489. He was 21 years old when he entered his pleas and he had had experience in the criminal courts and he knew the nature and seriousness of the crimes to which he confessed his guilt. This proceeding has much in common on the facts with *Com. ex rel. Reese v. Cloudy,*170 Pa. Superior Ct. 488, 87 A. 2d 492, and is ruled by the principles of that case.

Order affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-38339) of RTI International Metals, Inc. of our
report dated June 27, 2001 relating to the financial statements of the RMI
Titanium Company Employee Savings and Investment Plan, which appears in this
Form 10-K/A. We also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-38340) of RTI International Metals,
Inc. of our report dated June 27, 2001 relating to the financial statements of
the RMI Titanium Company Bargaining Unit Employee Savings and Investment Plan,
which appears in this Form 10-K/A.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
June 27, 2001
<Page>


                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
reports (and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of
this Registration Statement File No. 333-91931 for Hartford Life and Annuity
Insurance Company Separate Account Ten on Form N-4.

Hartford, Connecticut                                /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 8, 2002
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES SMITH

No. 7121SC368

(Filed 23 June 1971)

Burglary and Unlawful Breakings § 5— sufficiency of evidence to support guilty verdict

The trial court did not err in failing to set aside a jury verdict finding defendant guilty of felonious breaking and entering.

On *certiorari*to review order of *Johnston, Judge,*4 March 1970 Criminal Session, Superior Court of Forsyth County.

*553' Defendant was charged under G.S. 14-54 with felonious breaking and entering. He waived his right to counsel and entered a plea of not guilty. Defendant cross-examined some of the State’s witnesses. He elected not to testify himself but requested that the arresting officer be called to testify. This was done. Defendant attempted to question the officer with respect to what was done at his preliminary hearing. When the court explained to him that what the judge did in the preliminary hearing was not competent, defendant said he did not want to ask the witness anything else. No arguments were made to the jury, the defendant having expressed his desire not to argue his case to the jury. Verdict of guilty as charged was returned on 4 March 1970. On 9 March 1970 he wrote the trial judge that he wanted to appeal. Whereupon the court appointed counsel to perfect his appeal.

*Attorney General Morgan by Staff Attorney Price for the State.*

*Charles R. Redden for defendant appellant.*

MORRIS, Judge.

Defendant’s sole assignment of error reads as follows: “Counsel for appellant has read the transcript and sets out as the error that the Court failed to set aside the verdict *ex mero motu*as being based on circumstantial evidence.” We think it only fair to counsel for appellant to state that the basis for appeal advanced by counsel was at the insistence of defendant himself.

The evidence for the State tended to show that the building of D. D. Bean & Sons, Inc., was broken into and that entrance was gained by breaking out a window in a garage type door to the building. An accomplice testified that he and defendant and a man named Thomas had gone to the building at defendant’s urging. Defendant had told them they could get some “easy money” there. All three had been drinking, but they were not drunk. The accomplice testified that defendant broke a window, and all three entered the building. After entrance was gained, Thomas stumbled in the dark and was told by defendant to go to the back of the building. Defendant went to a desk and opened it and remarked that that wasn’t what he was looking for. Defendant then told the witness he was making too much noise *554and told him to go in the back and sit down. He did, and the next thing he knew the officers were there and he was arrested. Defendant was not caught in the building. Tracks in the snow were found by officers leading into a wooded area at the rear of the building. Willie Gadson, the accomplice, identified defendant as the third person involved.

It is obvious that this direct evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and the court did not err in failing to set the verdict aside.

Affirmed.

Judges Brock and Hedrick concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5039 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 

design, planning, and construction of the Groundwater Replenishment 

System Expansion to reclaim and reuse municipal wastewater in the 

Orange County, California region, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2010 

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and 

construction of the Groundwater Replenishment System 

Expansion to reclaim and reuse municipal wastewater 

in the Orange County, California region, and for other 

purposes. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5039 IH

1 SECTION 1. ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REGION, 

2 WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

4 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (title XVI of Public 

5 Law 102–575; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by add6 ing at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. ll. ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REGION, WATER 

8 RECLAMATION, REUSE, AND TREATMENT 

9 PROJECT. 

10 ‘‘(a) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the costs 

11 of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

12 the lesser of the following: 

13 ‘‘(1) 25 percent of the total costs. 

14 ‘‘(2) $26,000,000 (indexed to January 2010 

15 prices). 

16 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide 

17 funds for the operations and maintenance of the project 

18 described in subsection (a).’’. 

19 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

20 in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and 

21 Adjustment Act of 1992 is amended by inserting after the 

22 last item the following: 

23 ‘‘SEC. ll. Orange County, California region, water reclama24 tion, reuse, and treatment project.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS