alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.






CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
2-64879, 2-80037, 33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825,
33-58851,  33-64345, 333-8141, 333-38131 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.;
Registration Statement Nos. 33-58139, 333-9817, 33-64215, 333-30879 of Sears,
Roebuck and Co. and Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp.; Registration Statement
Nos. 33-64775 and 333-18591 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck and
Co. Deferred Compensation Plan; Registration Statement Nos. 33-57205 and
333-11973 of Sears Roebuck and Co. and the Sears 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan
(formerly, The Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees); and
Registration Statement No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears DC
Corp.; of our report dated February 20, 1998, incorporated by reference in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sears, Roebuck and Co. for the year ended
January 3, 1998.


/S/Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 12, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements
of operations of the Company's Form 10-Q, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              25
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      494
<ALLOWANCES>                                        20
<INVENTORY>                                        521
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1159
<PP&E>                                            1495
<DEPRECIATION>                                     652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3537
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1015
<BONDS>                                            743
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         11
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                         994
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3537
<SALES>                                           1296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1296
<CGS>                                              723
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1147
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  39
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    126
<INCOME-TAX>                                        41
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 85
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        85
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.20


</TABLE>
exhibit1067_16xwjexpa-05






This copy of the document filed as an Exhibit excludes certain identified information  because such information is both (i) not material and (ii) would likely cause competitive  harm if publicly disclosed. Omissions are designated by the symbol [...***...].       The Boeing Company   P.O. Box 3707   Seattle, WA 98124 2207   Page 1  BOEING PROPRIETARY  WJE-PA-05130-LA-2105443    Allegiant Air, LLC  1201 N. Town Center Drive  Las Vegas, NV 89144    Subject: [...***...]    Reference: Purchase Agreement No. PA-05130 (Purchase Agreement) between The  Boeing Company (Boeing) and Allegiant Air, LLC (Customer) relating to  Model 737-8-200 and Model 737-7 aircraft (each or collectively, Aircraft)    This letter agreement (Letter Agreement) amends and supplements the  Purchase Agreement. All terms used but not defined in this Letter Agreement will have  the same meaning as in the Purchase Agreement.  1. [...***...].  1.1 [...***...] Aircraft is defined by Configuration Specification D019A008,  Revision X, dated April 30, 2020. [...***...].  1.2 [...***...]. Boeing and Customer will [...***...] in accordance with the  following [...***...]:  1.2.1 [...***...].  1.2.2 [...***...].  1.2.3 [...***...].  2. [...***...].  2.1 [...***...] Purchase Agreement [...***...]:  2.1.1 [...***...];  2.1.2 [...***...];  2.1.3 [...***...]Purchase Agreement; and  2.1.4 [...***...].   





 






  WJE-PA-05130-LA-2105443       Page 2  BOEING PROPRIETARY  2.2 [...***...].  2.3 [...***...] Purchase Agreement [...***...] Boeing [...***...] Aircraft.  3. [...***...].  [...***...] addressing one or more of the following [...***...]:  3.1 [...***...].  3.2 [...***...].  3.3 [...***...].    ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO this          Date:           ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC  THE BOEING COMPANY       By:   By:        Name:   Name: [...***...]       Title:   Title: Attorney-In-Fact
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5599 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the scope of the provision 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘Wire Act’’, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2010 

Mr. MURPHY of New York (for himself and Mr. GUTHRIE) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the scope 

of the provision commonly referred to as the ‘‘Wire Act’’, 

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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wire Clarification Act 

5 of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SCOPE OF SO-CALLED ‘‘WIRE ACT’’. 

7 Section 1084 of title 18, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following new sub9 section: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5599 IH

1 ‘‘(f) CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE.—This section, sub2 chapter IV of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code 

3 (enacted into law by the Unlawful Internet Gambling En4 forcement Act of 2006), and any other provision of Fed5 eral law that establishes criminal penalties for any activity 

6 involved in placing, receiving or otherwise transmitting a 

7 bet or wager shall not apply to any bet or wager that is 

8 permissible under the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 

9 (15 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.).’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 8, 2021

NO. 03-20-00409-CR

Bo Michael Dresner, Appellant

v.

State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the order denying a pretrial request for bond reduction entered by the trial 

court. Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent 

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
### 57

# ATTORNEYGRIEVANCECOMMISSIONIN

## THEOF

# MARYLANDCOURTOF

## APPEALSOF

# MARYLAND Petitioner, Misc. 

### Docket

# AGV.

### N0. September Term,20 7



## JEFFREY

# ADAM WERTKIN Respondent.

# ORDER This matter 

### came before the Court 

### on the Joint Petition 

### ofthe Attorney 

### Grievance 

### Commission of 

### Maryland and Respondent, Jeffrey 

## Adam Wertkin, t0 disbar the 

### Respondent from the practice 

### of law. 

### The Court having considered the Petition, it is this 

### day of201 8, 

### by the Court 

### of 

### Appeals of 

### Maryland;

## ORDERED, that Respondent, Jeffrey 

## Adam Wertkin, be, 

### and he hereby is, disbarred 

### from the practice 

### of law in the State 

### 0f 

### Maryland for violation of 

### Rule 8.4(b), (c) 

### and (d) 

### 0f the 

### Maryland Lawyers’ Rules 

### of Professional 

### Conduct and Rules 19-308.4(b), (c) 

### and
(d) 

### of the 

### Maryland Attorneys’ Rules 

### 0f Professional Conduct; 

### and it is further

## ORDERED, that the Clerk 

### 0f this Court shall 

### remove the 

### name of Jeffrey 

## Adam Wertkin 

### from the register 

### of attorneys in this Court 

### and certify that fact to the Trustees 

### of the Client Protection 

### Fund ofthe 

### Bar 

### ofMaryland and all Clerks 

### 0f all judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with 

### Maryland Rule 19-736(d).

Senior 

### Judge 

## January

/s/ Clayton Greene Jr. 16th
#### MARIA ALDONA TOIGO, Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. TOIGO, Respondent.

No. 23037

March 24, 1993

849 P.2d 259

*William R. Phillips,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Jimmerson, Davis & Santoro,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

On November 4, 1991, the trial court entered a decree dissolving the marriage of Maria Aldona Toigo (“Aldona”) and Michael J. Toigo (“Michael”). On appeal, Aldona challenges several findings of the trial court concerning the character and division of community assets and debts, and the trial court’s denial of her request for alimony and attorney’s fees.

Although Aldona bases her arguments upon the testimonial evidence presented at trial, she failed to include the trial transcript as part of the record on appeal.

> In deciding cases, an appellate court must confine its consideration to the facts reflected in the record and the necessary and reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, the statements made by counsel in their briefs, alleging facts or their arguments made in open court, portraying what might have occurred, will not be considered on appeal.

Lindauer v. Allen, 85 Nev. 430, 433, 456 P.2d 851, 853 (1969). Without the trial transcript, this court has no basis for disturbing the findings of the trial court.

Michael has practiced law in Nevada since 1977, and currently has a gross income in excess of $6,000 per month. Despite *351Michael’s success, the trial court found that Aldona’s net share of the community estate amounted to less than $12,000. For services rendered in preparation for trial, Aldona’s attorney apparently charged fees in excess of $13,000. Subsequent to filing a notice of appeal, Aldona’s attorney filed an attorney’s lien for $26,017.40 against Aldona’s award.

Aldona’s attorney apparently performed minimal discovery and called no witnesses, aside from Aldona, at the divorce hearing. His fee seems excessive. Furthermore, a lawyer who appeals a trial court’s findings without providing the trial transcript or at least a statement permitted by NRAP 10(e) does a disservice to his client.

We strongly recommend that appellant’s counsel reassess his fees and advise this court of the results of his reconsideration.

The decree of the trial court is affirmed.1

1

The Honorable Miriam Shearing, Justice, did not participate in the decision of this matter.
#### Daniel L. CHU, David E. Garthright, Frank C. Pierno, James A. McCazzio, Joseph W. Filoramo, and Pedro O. Jimenez, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 04-3272.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 8, 2005.

*302
      *ORDER*

Daniel L. Chu et al. move without opposition to voluntarily dismiss their petition for review (N.Y.0351030099-I-1; NY0351030098-I-1; NY0351030095-I-1; NY0351030091-I-1; NY03510090-I-1; NY0351030088-I-1).

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 131375 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### SHEILA M. TOBEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 131375 COA: 267805 WCAC: 04-000500 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 9, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0918 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.

September 26, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Alliant
Energy Corporation (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2003
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
Erroll B. Davis, Jr.  Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch Eliot G. Protsch  Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer

November 13, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22081]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review, Request 
for Comments; Renewal of an Approved Information Collection Activity, 
Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs for Personnel Engaged 
in Specified Aviation Activities

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: 14 CFR part 121, Appendices I and J, require specified 
aviation employers to implement FAA-approved antidrug and alcohol 
misuse prevention programs and conduct testing of safety-sensitive 
employees. To monitor compliance, institute program improvements, and 
anticipate program problem areas, the FAA receives report from the 
aviation industry.

DATES: Please submit comments by December 7, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Street on (202) 267-9895.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs for 
Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation Activities.
    Type of Request: Renewal of an approved collection.
    OB Control Number: 2120-0535.
    Forms(s): None.
    Affected Public: A total of 6,602 air carriers.
    Frequency: The information is conducted on an as-needed basis.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Response: Approximately 3.5 hours per 
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 22,768 hours annually.
    Abstract: 14 CFR Part 121, Appendices I and J, require specified 
aviation employers to implement FAA-approved antidrug and alcohol 
misuse prevention programs and conduct testing of safety-sensitive 
employees. To monitor compliance, institute program improvements, and 
anticipate program problem areas, the FAA receives reports from the 
aviation industry.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, Attention FAA Desk Officer.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Department, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of 
the proposed information collections; ways to enhance the quality, 
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, 
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.

    Dated: Issued in Washington, DC, on October 28, 2005.
Judith D. Street,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Information Systems and 
Technology Services Staff, ABA-20.
[FR Doc. 05-22081 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying Amendment No. 3 to the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Advantage Capital Development Corp. for the Quarter Ending December
31, 2004, I, Jeffrey Sternberg, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Advantage Capital Development Corp. hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:


     1.   Such amended quarterly report of Form 10-Q for the period ending
          December 31, 2004, 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 such Amended Quarterly Report on Form
          10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004, fairly represents in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Advantage Capital Development Corp.



Dated:    May 11, 2005


ADVANTAGE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT CORP.


By:  /s/ Jeffrey Sternberg
-----------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
#### CLIFMAR, INC., a Nevada corporation, Appellant, v. THEODORE B. LEE and DORIS S. LEE, Respondents.

No. 9399

September 15, 1978

584 P.2d 157

[Rehearing denied October 16, 1978]

*Jones, Jones, Bell, LeBaron, Close & Brown,*and *Robert A. Kimsey,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Bell, Young & Barney, Ltd.,*Las Vegas, for Respondents.

*595OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Respondents commenced this action seeking judicial termination of a lease, restitution of the premises, and lease payments due and owing. A trial without jury resulted in judgment in favor of respondents. Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment. We disagree.

By written agreement dated June 29, 1973, respondents leased appellant 13,000 square feet of vacant, unimproved real property located in Las Vegas, Nevada. The lease provided, *inter alia,*that (1) the term would be ten (10) years, with monthly lease payments of $300; (2) the land would only be used as a parking lot; and, (3) all notices regarding the lease were to be in writing.

In February, 1974, appellant’s president, James Schiff, discovered a water line running along the northern boundary of the property. The line, used to provide water service to adjacent property, encroached about one or two feet onto the leased property. Schiff considered the line to be a substantial interference with his use of the property and discontinued payment of rent.

Respondents attempted to settle the dispute with appellant and, after several months of unsuccessful negotiations, commenced this action. Appellant defended on the ground the presence of the water line constituted a constructive eviction and, further, it had, upon discovery of the line, orally terminated the lease and abandoned the property. This abandonment, it argued, impressed respondents with a duty to mitigate damages and, having failed to do so, respondents were precluded from recovering damages for unpaid rent.

After hearing contradictory testimony from the parties, the district court found the water line was a *de minimis*encroachment and there had been no constructive eviction. The court further found appellant had neither effectively terminated the lease nor abandoned the property; but rather, had continuously retained a possessory interest therein. Appellant vigorously contends these findings are not supported by the evidence.

*596Constructive eviction and abandonment are factual determinations to be made by the trier of fact. *See*Scott v. Prazma, 555 P.2d 571 (Wyo. 1976) (constructive eviction); Gangadean v. Erickson, 495 P.2d 1338 (Ariz.App. 1972) (abandonment). Where a trial court, sitting without a jury, makes such determinations upon conflicting evidence, those determinations will not be disturbed on appeal where, as here, they are supported by substantial evidence. Havas v. Engebregson, 94 Nev. 336, 580 P.2d 122 (1978); J & J Building Contractors, Inc. v. Savage Construction, Inc., 92 Nev. 590, 555 P.2d 488 (1976).

Respondents’ request for attorney’s fees on appeal is denied.

The judgment is affirmed.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SACRAMENTO 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER,

Sacramento, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0397

Issued: February 27, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On January 17, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a July 27, 2020 merit decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-0397.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the July 27, 2020 decision was January 23, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until January 17, 2023, more than 180 days after the

July 27, 2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0397 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).
2

explained her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0397, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0397 is dismissed.

Issued: February 27, 2023

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).