alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

The
Board of Directors
Metron Technology N.V.

The
audits referred to in our report dated July 12, 2001, included the related financial statement schedule as of May 31, 2001, and for each of the years in the
three-year period ended May 31, 2001, included in the May 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Metron Technology N.V. This financial statement schedule
is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, this financial statement
schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-54634) on Form S-8 of Metron Technology N.V. of our reports
dated July 12, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Metron Technology N.V. and subsidiaries as of May 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended May 31, 2001 and the related schedule, which
reports appears in the May 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Metron Technology N.V.



Mountain
View, California
August 27, 2001

---

QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge SANCHEZ-FUENTES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-51259.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donna F. Coltharp, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*597PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jorge Sanehez-Fuentes raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
##### 



EXHIBIT 23 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
HEI, Inc.: We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos., 333-70426,
333-40026, 333-104830, 333-113419, and 333-115982) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-86338, 333-95529,
333-95551, 333-49489, 33-33322, 33-46928, and 33-46929) on Form S-8 of HEI, Inc. of our reports
dated January 12, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of HEI, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of August 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
changes in shareholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended August 31, 2004 and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 31,
2004, of HEI, Inc. /s/ KPMG LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota
January 13, 2005
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1776 

To amend title 31 of the United States Code to require that Federal children’s 

programs be separately displayed and analyzed in the President’s budget. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2019 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Ms. HARRIS, and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Budget 

A BILL 

To amend title 31 of the United States Code to require 

that Federal children’s programs be separately displayed 

and analyzed in the President’s budget. 

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 ‘‘Children’s Budget 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 31. 

7 Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1776 IS

1 ‘‘(40)(A) A detailed, separate analysis for the 

2 prior fiscal year, the current fiscal year, the fiscal 

3 year for which the budget is submitted, and the en4 suing fiscal year identifying the amounts of gross 

5 and net appropriations or obligational authority and 

6 outlays that are directed to children within the 

7 United States and territories including— 

8 ‘‘(i) summaries of the total amount of such 

9 appropriations or new obligational authority 

10 and outlays requested for children and chil11 dren’s programs; 

12 ‘‘(ii) an estimate of levels of spending on 

13 children and children’s programs; and 

14 ‘‘(iii) a detailed breakdown of spending on 

15 children and children’s programs by agency and 

16 initiative. 

17 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph— 

18 ‘‘(i) the term ‘children’ means individuals 

19 under 19 years of age; and 

20 ‘‘(ii) the term ‘spending on children’ in21 cludes— 

22 ‘‘(I) Federal entitlement spending 

23 that goes directly to children; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1776 IS

1 ‘‘(II) outlays for programs and initia2 tives that, consistent with their mission, 

3 deliver services exclusively to children; 

4 ‘‘(III) outlays for programs and initia5 tives that, while not serving children di6 rectly, have as a core mission goal the im7 provement of children’s health, education, 

8 welfare, or general well-being; and 

9 ‘‘(IV) the share of funding for Federal 

10 programs and initiatives that deliver serv11 ices to both children and adults that is 

12 consistent with the share of program bene13 fits for children based on the best available 

14 data. 

15 ‘‘(C) In implementing this paragraph, including 

16 determining what Federal activities or accounts con17 stitutes spending on children or children’s programs, 

18 the Office of Management and Budget shall consult 

19 periodically with the Committee on the Budget and 

20 the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, the 

21 Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Ap22 propriations of the House of Representatives, and 

23 the Congressional Budget Office.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### PAUL ALLEN v. AUBREY BRANNON.

(Filed 21 September, 1966.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Biddle, J.,*January 1966 Session of BüTHEREORD.

Action and cross action arising out of a collision between a pickup truck owned and operated by plaintiff and an automobile owned and operated by defendant. The collision occurred August 16, 1964, about 5:30 p.m., on U.S. Highway #221, a paved two-lane highway extending north from Spartanburg, S. C., to Eutherfordton, N. C. Plaintiff drove his truck north on #221 and turned from the highway to his right, entering the premises of Lancaster’s Service Station. There plaintiff got gas. Later, he drove into said highway for the purpose of proceeding south thereon. Meanwhile, defendant was proceeding north on said highway.

Plaintiff’s version: He had entered the highway and was proceeding south thereon on his right side of said highway when the northbound car of defendant crossed the center line and collided with his truck.

Defendant’s version: As he approached the Lancaster Service Station, he observed plaintiff’s truck come to the highway and stop. Thereafter, plaintiff’s truck entered the highway across defendant’s line of travel when defendant was so close he was unable to avoid a collision notwithstanding he put on brakes and attempted to do so.

The jury answered two issues, to wit: *“1.*Was the plaintiff in*165jured, and was plaintiff’s automobile damaged by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the Complaint? ANSWER: Yes. 2. Was the defendant injured, and was defendant’s automobile damaged by the negligence of the plaintiff, as alleged in the Answer? Answer: Yes.” Other issues, relating solely to damages, were not answered.

The court entered judgment (1) that plaintiff have and recover nothing of defendant, and that plaintiff pay the costs of the action, and (2) that defendant have and recover nothing of plaintiff.

Defendant excepted and appealed.

*Hamrick & Hamrick for plaintiff appellant.*

*Hamrick & Jones for defendant appellee.*

Per Curiam.

When considered in relation to the pleadings and the charge, the only reasonable interpretation of the verdict is that the jury found that the collision and all resulting damages were caused by the actionable negligence of defendant and by the actionable negligence of plaintiff. Hence, the verdict supports the judgment. See *Nicholson v. Dean,*267 N.C. 375, 148 S.E. 2d 247, and cases cited.

There was no objection by plaintiff to the issues as submitted. Plaintiff, by exceptions to the charge, *undertakes*to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant submission of the second issue. However, careful examination of the evidence compels the conclusion that, when considered in the light most favorable to defendant, it was sufficient to require submission of the second issue and to support the jury’s verdict with reference thereto.

Each of plaintiff’s assignments of error has received careful consideration. In our view, none discloses prejudicial error. The verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.

No error.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6541** 

STEVEN L. SAUNDERS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Cou rt for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T. S. Ellis III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:09

- cv - 01204

- TSE

- IDD )

Submitted : September 28 , 2010 Decided: October 5, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD , and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un pu blished per curiam opinion

. Steven L. Saunders, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Steven Saunders appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for a writ of habeas corpus. While his appeal was pending before the court, the presiding district judge in Saunders’s habeas proceeding filed a “Memorandum of Intent” indicating to the court that Saunders had sent a letter to the judge pointing out that the district judge had failed to rule on one of Saunders’s habeas claims. The memorandum indicated that Saunders was correct and the court had in fact failed to fully dispose of Saunders’s claims, and that the letter would be treated as a motion for reco nsideration. The memorandum advised Saunders to file in this court a motion for a limited remand for the purposes of granting the district court jurisdiction to consider the motion for reconsideration. The district judge has indicated that the motion for reconsideration would be well

taken. Saunders has made such a motion, and for the reasons set forth in the district judge’s memorandum, we grant the motion for a remand, and remand the case to the district court to consider Saunders’s motion for recon sideration.
REMANDED
Case 1:06-cv-15057-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-14998-AKH Document 7 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-14998-AKH Document 7 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-14998-AKH Document 7 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-14998-AKH Document 7 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 4 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-15145-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-16 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-16 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-16 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03387-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03387-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03387-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03387-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03387-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03387-LBS Document 1-2 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 6 of 6
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22122]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the regular meeting of the Farm 
Credit Administration Board (Board).

Date and Time: The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the 
offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on 
November 8, 2005, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes 
its business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanette C. Brinkley, Secretary to the 
Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting of the Board will be open to 
the public (limited space available). In order to increase the 
accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should 
make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the 
meeting are:

Open Session

A. Approval of Minutes

     October 13, 2005 (Open)

B. Reports

     Office of Management Services Report

C. New Business--Regulations

     FCA Organization--Final Rule

    Dated: November 2, 2005.
Jeanette C. Brinkley,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 05-22122 Filed 11-2-05; 12:50: pm]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
```
#### In the Matter of Proving the Will of Mary Gleason, Deceased. John Gleason, Appellant; Jessie Q. Fara, Respondent.

*Matter of Gleason (Will), 177*App. Div. 907, affirmed.

(Argued May 27, 1918;

decided June 11, 1918.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 1, 1917, which affirmed a decree of the New York County Surrogate’s Court admitting to probate the will of Mary Gleason, deceased. The objections to probate were: *First.*That the said will was not duly executed as required by law. *Second.*That the said will was not the last will and testament of the decedent. *Third.*That at the time of the making of the will the decedent was not of sound mind and memory, and mentally capable of making a will, and that she could not, - and in fact did not make, execute and deliver any valid will. *Fourth.*That the said will was not freely and voluntarily made or executed, and that the subscription and publication thereof were procured by undue influence.

*John L. Farrell*for appellant.

*Elihu J. Zwilling*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.
Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 26-6      Filed 06/19/2007     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 26-6      Filed 06/19/2007     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 26-6      Filed 06/19/2007     Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 14 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 14 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 14 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03211-PKC Document 19 Filed 11/27/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### GUSTER McCOLLUM v. GROVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

No. 505PA82

(Filed 8 March 1983)

We granted plaintiffs petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 (1981) on 5 October 1982 to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. That decision, written by *Judge Becton*with *Judges Hedrick*and *Hill*concurring, held the trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for directed verdict and in denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. 58 N.C. App. 283, 293 S.E. 2d 632 (1982). In so doing, the court affirmed the judgment of *Collier, Judge,*entered 16 March 1981 in Superior Court, Guilford County.

*Alexander, Ralston, Pell & Speckhard, by Stanley E. Speckhard, for plaintiff appellant.*

*Bateman, Wishart, Norris, Henninger & Pittman, P.A., by Robert J. Wishart, for defendant appellee.*

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### STATE v. WILSON

No. 314 PC

Case below: 47 NC App 586

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 August 1980.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## News Release

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Soldier Accounted For From Korean War (Little Bear, M.)

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
Case 1:07-cv-03347-DC Document 20 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses will meet on December 12-13, 2005 in room 230 at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The sessions will convene at 8 a.m. and adjourn at 5 p.m. Sessions will be open to the public.

The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on proposed research studies, research plans and research strategies relating to the health consequences of military service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Gulf War.

The Committee will review VA program activities related to Gulf War veterans' illnesses and updates on scientific research on Gulf War illnesses published since the last committee meeting. Additionally, there will be preliminary information on treatment research for Gulf War illnesses, research related to possible health effects of exposures during the 1991 Gulf War, and discussion of committee business and activities. 

Members of the public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Dr. William J. Goldberg, Designated Federal Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs (121E), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Dr. William J. Goldberg at (202) 254-0294.

Dated: November 17, 2005.

By direction of the Secretary.

E. Philip Riggin,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-23207 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 25-7      Filed 06/19/2007     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 25-7      Filed 06/19/2007     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 25-7      Filed 06/19/2007     Page 3 of 3