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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Hanover Direct, Inc.:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 2-92383, 2-94286, 33-52059, 33-52061, 33-52353, 33-52687, 33-58756,
33-58758, 33-58760, 33-66394, 333-3871, 333-02743, 333-03871, 333-13817,
333-25141, 333-51433, 333-80007, 333-91687, 333-91689, 333-88148, 333-88156 and
333-101564) on Form S-8 of Hanover Direct, Inc. of our report dated April 2,
2004 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Hanover Direct, Inc. as
of December 27, 2003 and December 28, 2002 and the related consolidated
statements of income (loss), shareholders' deficiency, and cash flows for the
years then ended, and the related 2002 and 2003 consolidated financial statement
schedule, which report appears in the December 27, 2003 annual report on Form
10-K of Hanover Direct, Inc.

     Our report dated April 2, 2004 contains an explanatory paragraph relating
to the fact that the 2001 consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Hanover Direct, Inc. were audited by other auditors who
have ceased operations. Our report also refers to the adoption of the provisions
of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 150, "Accounting for Certain
Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity" in
2003 and of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and
Other Intangible Assets" in 2002.

     Our report also indicates that the Company's consolidated balance sheet as
of December 28, 2002 has been restated to classify certain long-term debt as
current.

KPMG LLP

New York, New York
April 9, 2004
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JACK CONRAD GLEASON

No. 7518SC647

(Filed 19 November 1975)

Criminal Law § 131 — new trial for newly discovered evidence — discretion of court

A motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and refusal to grant the motion is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion.

Appeal by defendant from *Kivett, Judge.*Judgment entered 1 May 1975 in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 November 1975.

. Defendant was convicted at the 8 July 1974 Criminal Session of Guilford Superior Court of possession and sale of the controlled substance Methylenedioxy amphetamines (MDA). From judgment imposing prison sentences, he appealed to the Court of Appeals. In an opinion filed 5 March 1975 and reported in 24 N.C. App. 732, 212 S.E. 2d 213, this court found no error in the trial, or judgment.

Thereupon, defendant filed a motion in the trial court asking for.-a new trial on-the ground of newly discovered evidence. Following a hearing, the court entered an order denying the motion from which order defendant appeals.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Wilton E. Ragland, Jr., for the State.*

*Smith, Carrington, Patterson, Follín & Curtis, by J. David James, for defendant appellant.*

BRITT, Judge.

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court and refusal to grant the motion is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion. *State v. Parker,*235 N.C. 302, 69 S.E. 2d 542 (1952), *cert. denied,*344 U.S. 825, 97 L.Ed. 642, 73 S.Ct. 25 (1952) ; *State v. Morrow,*264 N.C. 77, 140 S.E. 2d 767 (1965) ; *State v. Lee,*22 N.C. App. 4, 205 S.E. 2d 360 (1974).

*588We have carefully. reviewed the record in this case and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion.

Judges Vaughn and Arnold concur.
#### COTTIE N. WITHERS and Husband, ULYSEES WITHERS, SARAH NORFLEET, WILLIE BARNES and wife, COSEANNA TILLERY BARNES, ESTHER BARNES PLATT, and ANNIE BARNES v. LONG MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

(Filed 20 March 1963.)

Appeal by plaintiffs from Morris, *J.,*November, 1962 Civil Term, Edgecombe Superior Court.

The plaintiffs instituted this civil action to have the court adjudge that they, their heirs and assigns, have a perpetual right of way, “56.5 feet wide by approximately 324.5 feet long,” for purposes of ingress and egress over a certain specifically described tract of land acquired by the defendant from the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad by deed dated August 29, 1960. The plaintiffs alleged they have acquired the right of way by adverse and hostile user for more than 20 years next preceding the institution of the action.

The plaintiffs’ evidence failed to show any hostile or adverse use or occupation of the right of way now claimed. They did offer evidence that the defendant had closed by fence a part of what they had used for said purposes. From a judgment of nonsuit, the plaintiffs appealed.

*Earl Whitted, Jr., for 'plaintiffs, appellants.*

*Bourne & Bourne, by Henry C. Bourne for defendant appellee.*

*140Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs’ allegations and evidence show the defendant acquired the land by deed from the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad which in turn had acquired it in fee and held it for railroad purposes. The evidence failed to show any dedication by the owner, or the exercise or assumption of any control over it by any city, county, or State authority. Prior to the deed to the defendant, the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad had held and used the property in its public transportation business. The land so held was protected against loss by adverse possession. G.S. 1-44. At most, the plaintiffs were permissive licensees. The erection of the fence was a revocation of the license.

The judgment of nonsuit is

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 217 (Thursday, November 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 68468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22479Filed]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
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 Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project Review 
Meeting.
    Date: December 5, 2005.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To Review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Arlington, 1325 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22209.
    Contact Person: John F. Connaughton, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of 
Health, Room 757, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452. 
(301) 594-7797, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e0838f8e8e81958788948f8e8aa08598949281ce8e8984848bce8e8988ce878f96">[email protected]</a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 2, 2005.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-22479Filed 11-9-05; 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>
# C_2007126EN.01000401.xml

| 7.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4635 — Groupe CNP/Groupe AVH/Club/Planet Parfum/DI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 126/06)

On 1 June 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4635. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4635. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 68128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22211]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34771]


Union Pacific Railroad Company and Wichita Terminal Association--
Trackage Rights Exemption--BNSF Railway Company

    BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) has agreed to grant local trackage 
rights to Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), and to the exercise of 
those rights by UP's agent, Wichita Terminal Association (WTA), over 
BNSF's line of railroad between BNSF milepost 209.3 and BNSF milepost 
212.5, a distance of approximately 3.2 miles in Wichita, KS.
    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on November 1, 
2005. The purpose of the trackage rights is to allow UP access to the 
Ralston Purina Plant (RPP) (its successors and assigns), located in 
Wichita. UP has advised that, under the agreement, UP may provide 
service to RPP or use WTA as its agent to exercise the rights granted 
and to provide service to RPP.
    As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the 
acquisition of the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions 
imposed in Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 354 I.C.C. 
605 (1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease and 
Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).
    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If it contains 
false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. 
Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed 
at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically 
stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34771, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a 
copy of each pleading must be served on Robert T. Opal, General 
Commerce Counsel, Union Pacific Railroad Company, 1400 Douglas Street, 
Stop 1580, Omaha, NE 68179.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: November 2, 2005.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22211 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Order entered November 30 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 19 - 01545 - CV IN THE MATTER OF DEMPSTER A. ROSS On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Coll in County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416 - 02315 - 2019

ORDER Befo re the Court is appellant’s November 23, 2020 third motion for extension of time to file his brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than January 8, 202 1 . As the b rief was first due June 19, 2020, we caution appellant that failure to file the brief may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c).

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-65113,333-84848, 333-96717 and 333-110553) on Forms S-8 of our reports dated March 17,2006,  relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule of Cache, Inc. and subsidiaries(the “Company”) and management’s report on the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion onthe effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reportingbecause of a material weakness), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Cache, Inc. and subsidiaries for the fiscal year ended December 31,2005. 

/s/ DELOITTE ANDTOUCHE LLP

New York, New YorkMarch 17, 2006

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5651 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5651

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, as the ``Andrew W. Bogue 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ANDREW W. BOGUE FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
COURTHOUSE.
    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Isomet
Corporation Financial Statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             338
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,531
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,620
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,971
<PP&E>                                           2,558
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,302
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,167
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,906
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,218
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,302
<SALES>                                          2,401
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,402
<CGS>                                            1,594
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  29
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    436
<INCOME-TAX>                                       169
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                267
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       267
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       14
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,836
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,320
<INVENTORY>                                      2,214
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,863
<PP&E>                                          50,206
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,849
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,509
<BONDS>                                         40,736
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,466
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,027
<SALES>                                        117,233
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,075
<CGS>                                          108,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  131,816
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,947
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   545
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,681
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,545
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,818
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,727
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,727
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        

</TABLE>
# C_2007262EN.01001001.xml

| 1.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/10

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4862 — Transdev/Connexxion Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 262/09)

On 2 October 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4862. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4862. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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

April 12, 2013

t0409

Order 

April 12, 2013

144875 (52)

BETH HOFFMAN, Personal Representative

of the Estate of EDGAR BROWN, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144875

COA: 289011

Calhoun CC: 2003-003576-NH

DR. PETER BARRETT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration is considered, and it is 

DENIED. We reaffirm the principle stated more than 100 years ago in Peoples v Evening 

News Ass’n, 51 Mich 11, 21 (1883), that “rehearing will not be ordered on the ground 

merely that a change of members of the bench has either taken place, or is about to 

occur.” The same is true for reconsideration. Likewise, we elect to apply MCR 

2.119(F)(3) to these cases, which states, “[A] motion for rehearing or reconsideration 

which merely presents the same issues ruled on by the court, either expressly or by 

reasonable implication, will not be granted.” MCR 2.119(F)(3). Instead, the moving 

party must demonstrate “a palpable error by which the court and the parties have been 

misled and show that a different disposition of the motion must result from correction of 

the error.” Id. In this case, the moving party has failed to satisfy either of these 

requirements and has, therefore, failed to demonstrate grounds for reconsideration. 

Further, the Court has published for comment proposed amendments of MCR 

7.313(E) and MCR 7.313(F) to incorporate into the Court’s rules the standards set forth 

in MCR 2.119(F)(3) with regard to motions for rehearing and reconsideration. The 

publication order that contains the proposed rule changes is attached.