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


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


I consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
(No. 333-3100-LA) on Form SB-1, of Amour Fiber Core Inc., of our report dated 
April 30, 1996, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet, consolidated 
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year
ended December 31, 1995 included in the December 31, 1996 Annual Report on Form 
10-K of Amour Fiber Core Inc.


/s/ ROBERT T. TAYLOR, CPA
-------------------------
Robert T. Taylor, CPA

Bothell, Washington

March 3, 1997
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2584

To provide for the allocation of interest accruing to the Abandoned Mine

Reclamation Fund, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 17, 2000

Mr. ROBB (for himself and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

A BILL

To provide for the allocation of interest accruing to the

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, 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 ‘‘Coal Accountability

5 and Retired Employee Act for the 21st Century’’.

6 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR MINER BENE7 FITS.

8 (a) REALLOCATION.—Notwithstanding any other

9 provision of law, interest credited to the fund established

10 by section 401 of the Surface Mining Control and Rec-
2

S 2584 IS

1 lamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1231) not transferred

2 to the Combined Fund identified in section 402(h)(2) of

3 such Act prior to the date of enactment of this Act shall

4 be transferred to such Combined Fund within 30 days

5 after the enactment of this Act for the purpose set forth

6 in section 402(h)(2) of the Surface Mining Control and

7 Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232(h)(2)) as

8 amended by this Act.

9 (b) AMENDMENTS TO SURFACE MINING ACT.—Sec10 tion 402 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation

11 Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232) is amended as follows:

12 (1) In subsection (g)(2) strike ‘‘including that

13 interest accruing as provided in section 401(e) and’’.

14 (2) In subsection (h)(2)—

15 (A) Strike ‘‘sum of—’’ and all that follows

16 through ‘‘$70,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘sum of the

17 amount of interest which the Secretary esti18 mates will be earned and paid to the fund dur19 ing the fiscal year with such amount used, not20 withstanding any other provision of law, to pay

21 the amount of any shortfall in any premium ac22 count for any plan year under the Combined

23 Fund’’.

24 (B) Strike subparagraphs (A) and (B).
3

S 2584 IS

1 (3) Strike paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection

2 (h).

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DELONTE FITZGERALD DAVAGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messittee, District Judge. (CR-95- 77-PJM, CA-96-1909-PJM) Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 27, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Delonte Fitzgerald Davage, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Mason Thomas, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governedby Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions in which the United States is a party have sixty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).The district court entered its order on August 23, 1996; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on December 26, 1996, which is beyond the sixty-day period. Appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain either an extension or a reopening ofthe appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000736 30-JAN-2020 07:46 AM
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. EARNINGS
PER SHARE INFORMATION HAS BEEN RESTATED TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SFAS
128, EARNINGS PER SHARE.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                           8,114
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,897
<INVENTORY>                                    628,018
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               777,249
<PP&E>                                       1,205,949
<DEPRECIATION>                                 303,421
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,819,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          367,739
<BONDS>                                        742,341
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           636
<OTHER-SE>                                     559,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,819,393
<SALES>                                      1,521,108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,521,108
<CGS>                                        1,072,288
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,449,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,203
<INCOME-TAX>                                       517
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,686
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  3,352
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,334
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.40 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40 <F2>
        
<FN>
<F1> Represents basic earnings per share in accordance with SFAS No. 128,
earnings per share. 
<F2> Represents diluted earnings per share in accordance with SFAS No. 128, 
earnings per share.
</FN>

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENNIS HELLERVIK and THO HELLERVIK, Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. 3M COMPANY; et al., Defendants - Appellees. No. 12-56373D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00522-RGKFMO
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 6, 2014 Pasadena, California Before: FISHER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and BATTAGLIA, District Judge. ** Dennis and Tho Hellervik appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their complaint for asbestos-related injuries and from its denial of leave to amend their 

# FILED
JUN 16 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.complaint. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Henry A. v. Willden , 678 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2012), we reverse the district court’s denial of leave to amend. We need not decide whether the complaint was properly dismissed. “Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc. , 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Chang v. Chen , 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir. 1996)). Here, the only reason the district court gave for denying leave to amend was that the Hellerviks “have already had tw o chances to state sufficient factual allegations to support their claims.” This is no reason not to permit amendment of a complaint. See Foman v. Davis , 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (identifying “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments prev iously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment” as the sort of factors th at may justify denying leave to amend a complaint); Henry A. , 678 F.3d at 1005 (“‘[A] district court should grant leave to amend . . . unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.’” (quoting Lopez v. Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000)). 2Because the district court did not give a legitimate reason for withholding leave to amend, it abused its discretion. See Eminence Capital , 316 F.3d at 1052 (“A district court’s failure to consider the relevant factors and articulate why dismissal should be with prejudice instead of without prejudice may constitute an abuse of discretion.” (citing Foman , 371 U.S. at 182)). We remand to the district court so that the Hellerviks may file an amended complaint. REVERSED and REMANDED
.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Consolidated  Balance  Sheet at March  31,  1998 and the  related  Statement  of
Consolidated  Operations  for the  three  months  ended  March  31,  1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000743872 
<NAME>                        Homestake Mining Company
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1998      
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               130,232
<SECURITIES>                                         120,288
<RECEIVABLES>                                         45,127
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                           66,805
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     391,766
<PP&E>                                             1,978,030
<DEPRECIATION>                                     1,179,475
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1,307,370
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                121,749
<BONDS>                                              264,673
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                             146,770
<OTHER-SE>                                           376,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1,307,370
<SALES>                                              159,360
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     174,343
<CGS>                                                133,694 <F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        143,874 <F2>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      18,905 <F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     3,528
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        8,036  
<INCOME-TAX>                                           8,097
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (4,611)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (4,611)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.03)

<FN>
<F1> Includes  Production  costs and  Depreciation,  depletion and  amortization
     from the Statement of Consolidated Operations.
<F2> Includes  Production  costs,  Depreciation,  depletion and amortization and
     Administrative  and general  expense  from the  Statement  of  Consolidated
     Operations.
<F3> Includes  Exploration  expense  and Other  expense  from the  Statement  of
     Consolidated Income.


</FN>
        



</TABLE>
"' FILED !N COJfTT OF APPEALS

12S- Zzs: 3* Appeals Dlsria

NOV Vft.2015 J

PAM ESTES.CLEF* _.

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

FrHE copy

11/13/2015

BAKER, JONATHAN Tr. Ct. No. F13-00422-T

COANo. 12-14-00185-CR

PD-0966-15

Pursuant to Rule 69.4(a) T.R.A.P., the record is returned to the court of appeals.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
v150341_10-74 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


     

    Exhibit
10.74
#### American Case and Register Company, Appellant, v. Martha B. Griswold and Morgan B. Griswold, Respondents.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6790

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

QUENETTA BARNES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District 

Judge. (3:06-cr-00191-JRS-1)

Submitted: July 24, 2012 Decided: August 14, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quenetta Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Aber Brumberg, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Laura Colombell Marshall, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; G. Michael 

Favale, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Quenetta Barnes appeals the district court’s order 

denying her request to credit her with intermittent time served 

during her term of supervised release and apply that credit to 

her current term of imprisonment following the revocation of her 

supervised release. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Barnes, No. 3:06-cr00191-JRS-1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 10, 2012). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

November 16, 2017.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-17-00871-CV

IN RE AMANDA LYNN SHAW, Relator 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

308th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-63844 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On November 2, 2017, relator Amanda Lynn Shaw filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017); 

see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the 

Honorable Michael Sydow, Jr., associate judge of the 308th District Court of Harris 

County, to set aside his October 16, 2017 interim orders pending resumption of the 

emergency temporary orders hearing. 
2

Effective September 1, 2017, the Texas Legislature expanded the courts of 

appeals’ mandamus jurisdiction to include associate judges by amending Section 

22.221(b)(3) of the Texas Government Code.

1 However, the amendment applies 

only to “a suit filed under Chapter 45, Title 1, Title 4, or Title 5, Family Code, on or 

after the effective date of this Act.”

2

 The underlying suit was filed on September 21, 

2016, before the September 1, 2017 effective date of the amendment. Therefore, we

have no jurisdiction over the associate judge in this mandamus proceeding.3

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Brown. 

 

1

See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b)(3) (providing that a court of appeals for a court of appeals 

district may issue a writ of mandamus against “an associate judge of a district or county court 

appointed by a judge under Chapter 201, Family Code, in the court of appeals district for the judge 

who appointed the associate judge”). 

2 Act of June 15, 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., ch. 1013, § 2(b), 2017 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 4051.

3

See id. (“A suit filed under Chapter 45, Title 1, Title 4, or Title 5, Family Code, before the 

effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect on the date the suit was filed, and the 

former law is continued in effect for that purpose.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,178,088
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       38,888
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,450,407
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,158,850
<PP&E>                                           2,820,083
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,752,099
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,910,303
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,384,362
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             5,832
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,512,645
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,910,303
<SALES>                                         14,427,108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,427,108
<CGS>                                            5,811,602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,062,219
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,542,877
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  65,135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (22,262)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (19,177)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (3,085)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6559

SYLVESTER GRAHAM, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

NORA HUNT, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:06-hc-02217-BO) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 27, 2008 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Sylvester Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Sylvester Graham seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Graham

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 257 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 257

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 Entitled ``The Cochran-Inouye National Missile Defense Act of 1999''.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Missile Defense Act of 
1999''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY.

    It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is 
technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system 
capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited 
ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or 
deliberate) with funding subject to the annual authorization of 
appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for National 
Missile Defense.

SEC. 3. POLICY ON REDUCTION OF RUSSIAN NUCLEAR FORCES.

    It is the policy of the United States to seek continued negotiated 
reductions in Russian nuclear forces.

            Passed the Senate March 17, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 257

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 Entitled ``The Cochran-Inouye National Missile Defense Act of 1999''.
```