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

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements, as listed below, of Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. of our reports dated February 24, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010.



|                              |  |          |  |                                                 
|----------------------------- |  | -------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Registration
Statement
Number |  | Form     |  | Description                                     
|333-38430                     |  | Form S-8 |  | 1996 Non-Incentive Stock Option Plan, as Amended
|333-26837                     |  | Form S-8 |  | 1997 Stock Option Plan                          
|333-57293                     |  | Form S-8 |  | 1998 Stock Option Plan                          
|333-78313                     |  | Form S-8 |  | 1999 Stock Option Plan                          
|333-38432                     |  | Form S-8 |  | 2000 Stock Option Plan                          
|333-61918                     |  | Form S-8 |  | 2001 Stock Option Plan                          
|333-88570                     |  | Form S-8 |  | 2002 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan     
|333-109228                    |  | Form S-8 |  | 2003 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan     
|333-160796                    |  | Form S-8 |  | 2008 Omnibus Incentive Plan                     
|333-167023                    |  | Form S-8 |  | 2008 Omnibus Incentive Plan, as Amended         



|                 |  |  |  |                      
|---------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|McLean, Virginia |  |  |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 24, 2011
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 Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the decision to designate a class of employees at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On April 5, 2010,                               ( print page 27785)                            as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:                    

All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, from August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1961, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.

This designation became effective on May 5, 2010, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on May 5, 2010, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the Special Exposure Cohort.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Interim Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to                         *DCAS@CDC.GOV*.                    

John Howard,

Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 2010-11874 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6494

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

LARRY KENNETH SPEED, a/k/a Kenneth Richard Godfrey, a/k/a 

Kenny Speed,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:00-cr-00092-RAJ-1; 2:13-cv-00589-RAJ)

Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Kenneth Speed, Appellant Pro Se. Randy Carl Stoker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Kenneth Speed seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Speed 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kevin C. Quinn, President of the Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of September 30, 2004 of
First Chester County Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     (a)  Designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or caused such
disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to
ensure that  material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including  its
consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c)  Disclosed  in this  report  any  change in the  registrant's  internal
control over financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual  report)  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's  auditors  and the audit  committee  of the  registrant's  board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) All significant  deficiencies and material  weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

     (b) Any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.

November 15, 2004


/S/ Kevin C. Quinn
------------------
Kevin C. Quinn
President
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8
No. 333-159096 of Golden Minerals Company of our report to the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Golden Minerals Company dated February 22, 2010, except for
Note 2 and Note 27 as to which the date is March 23, 2010, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Golden Minerals Company at December 31, 2009 and the related
statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss), changes in equity (deficit) and cash flows for the 282 day period ended December 31, 2009 and our report to the Board of
Directors and Shareholders of Apex Silver Mines Limited dated February 22, 2010 relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Apex Silver Mines Limited at December 31, 2008 and the
related combined statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss), changes in equity (deficit) and cash flows for the 83 day period ended March 24, 2009 and each of the two years
in the period ended December 31, 2008, which appear in this Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Denver, Colorado
March 26, 2010

---



QuickLinks
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Joel Landrick Ard, Jr. v. Renee Carrington

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00067

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 12

- 19985

Trial court: 61st District Court of Harris County

The District Court Clerk is ORDERED to file a supplemental clerk’s record with the Clerk of

thi s Court that contains the following document:

 Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Judgment filed July 27, 2012

.

 First Amended Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to M odify Judgment dated August 24, 2012.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.5(c).

The supplemental clerk’s record is to be filed with the Clerk of thi s Court by March 10 , 201 4

.

The cost of preparing th e supplemental clerk’s record will be assessed as part of the costs of this

appeal on issuance of this Court’s judgment.

It is so ordered

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 27 , 2014
IIB

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2279

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 6, 2000

Referred to the Committee on Resources

AN ACT

To authorize the addition of land to Sequoia National Park,

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,
2

S 2279 RFH

1 SECTION 1. ADDITION TO SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after the

3 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior

4 shall acquire by donation, purchase with donated or appro5 priated funds, or exchange, all interest in and to the land

6 described in subsection (b) for addition to Sequoia

7 National Park, California.

8 (b) LAND ACQUIRED.—The land referred to in sub9 section (a) is the land depicted on the map entitled

10 ‘‘Dillonwood’’, numbered 102/80,044, and dated Sep11 tember 1999.

12 (c) ADDITION TO PARK.—Upon acquisition of the

13 land under subsection (a)—

14 (1) the Secretary of the Interior shall—

15 (A) modify the boundaries of Sequoia Na16 tional Park to include the land within the park;

17 and

18 (B) administer the land as part of Sequoia

19 National Park in accordance with all applicable

20 laws; and

21 (2) The Secretary of Agriculture shall modify

22 the boundaries of the Sequoia National Forest to ex23 clude the land from the forest boundaries.

Passed the Senate July 27, 2000.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

July 19, 2024

CR-2023-0254

Cary Trant Jefferson v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: CC16-1084.80) 

NOTICE 

You are hereby notified that on July 19, 2024, the following action was taken 

in the above-referenced cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals:

Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
Exhibit 15****

 

Letter Regarding Unaudited 

Interim Financial Information 

 

Alfa Corporation 

Montgomery, Alabama 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

 

Re: Registration Statement No. 33-83134 on Form S-3 and 33-77916 and 33-76460 on Form S-8 

 

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the usetherein of our report dated November 7, 2003, related to our review of interim financial information. 

 

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), our report dated November 7, 2003 related to our review of interim financial information is not considered part of a registration statement prepared orcertified by an accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. 

 

KPMG LLP 

 

Atlanta, Georgia 

November 7, 2003
#### ELLIS H. ROSS, Respondent, v. EDMUND FERRIS AND CHARLES KIRK, Appellants.

*Stipulation not to enforce a judgment for a certain time*— sureties *on the appeal bond are released thereby.*

The defendants were sureties to an undertaking on an appeal from a justice’s ' judgment. Subsequently, by stipulation of the parties, a judgment of affirmance was entered, on the condition that execution should not be issued thereon for six months.

*Held,*that this operated as an extension of time, and released the sureties.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga county, ■affirming a judgment of a justice of the peace in favor of the plaintiff.

The action was brought upon an undertaking given on an appeal from a justice’s judgment, which was signed by the defendants as sureties. The appeal was not heard ; but, in pursuance of a stipulation between the parties, a judgment of affirmance was entered “ upon the stipulation and condition that execution should not issue upon the judgment to be entered, under six months.”

*211
      *Charles E. Parker,*for the appellants.

*Ambrose P. Eaton*and *Lyman L. iSettel,*for the respondent.

*Per Curiam:*

Stipulations made by attorneys in actions are held to be binding, without any regard to the question of consideration. Therefore, the agreement in this case, that execution should not be issued until six months after the recovery of judgment, was a valid extension of the time within which the debt could be collected. There could be no question on this point, for the stay of execution was made a part of the judgment itself.

It is a familiar doctrine that any valid extension of time, given by the creditor to the principal debtor, releases the sureties. We do not mean by this that the ordinary extensions of time in actions, or the putting a case over from one term to another, would discharge such sureties as the defendants are. But the agreement to delay execution is a very different matter. It extends the time of payment, which would otherwise be fixed by the judgment. It prevents the sureties, if they should pay the debt, from immediately enforcing the judgment obtained by the creditor, and to which they might be entitled by subrogation.

This is not a question of good faith or bad faith on the part of the creditor. It is merely the application of a rule of law, well settled and necessary for the protection of all sureties.

The judgment of the County Court and of the justices’ court must be reversed, with costs.

Present — LearNed, P. J., Bocees and BoardmaN, JJ.

Judgment reversed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 32.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of United Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paula
J. Delaney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Paula J. Delaney
-------------------------
Paula J. Delaney
Chief Financial Officer


March 29, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM GEOSCIENCE CORPORATION 1998 FORM 10K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             659
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,708
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,376
<INVENTORY>                                     65,046
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,199 
<PP&E>                                          28,334
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,067
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,485
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   150,850
<SALES>                                        122,933
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               122,933
<CGS>                                           83,808
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,586
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,047
<INCOME-TAX>                                       111
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,936
<DISCONTINUED>                                   4,573
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,509
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.75
        

</TABLE>
# John C. Spooner: A Featured Biography

**

----

John Coit Spooner of Wisconsin was widely regarded as the Senate's leading constitutional expert of his time. Chairmain of the Committee on Rules, Spooner was a member of the Senate Four, a group of powerful senators who dominated Senate action around the turn of the 20th century. Spooner was a highly skilled orator and debater, and became a close advisor to Presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. As a member of the "old guard" faction of the Republican Party, Spooner was among those attacked in David Graham Phillips' exposé articles, "The Treason of the Senate," published in *Cosmopolitan* magazine in 1906.

All Featured Biographies

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-50112 Conference Calendar

__________________ TOMMY LEE JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus THOMAS VANNOY, Chief of Police; JOHN PALAMARA; J. SCHARF, Police Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-93-CV-227
- - - - - - - - - - April 18, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tommy Lee Jackson appeals from the district court’s denial of his F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(6) motion. We have reviewed the record and Jackson’s contentions and discern no error by the district court. See Jackson v. Vannoy , No. W-93-CA-227 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 1996). Jackson’s appeal presents arguments determined against him in his previous appeal. Jackson v. Vannoy , 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 148No. 96-50112 -2- (1995). This appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Jackson that the filing of frivolous appeals in this court will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Jackson is further cautioned to review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court. Because of the disposition of the appeal, Jackson’s motions for substitution of parties, a transcript and documents, and additional parts of the record are moot and they are denied as such. APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.