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


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We conent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 33-62402) pertaining to the 1991 Incentive Stock Option Plan,
Stock Grants and Non-Qualified Stock Option Agteements, the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-93546) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan,
1994 Director Stock Option Plan and the Written Compensation Agreement with R.
David Ridgeway, the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (no. 333-21699)
pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(No. 333-21701) pertaining to the 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and
Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreements, the Registration Statement on Form S-3
(No. 333-06865) pertaining to the registration of 1,614,802 shares of common
stock, the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-21117) pertaining to the
registration of 493,895 shares of common stock, the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (No. 333-28315) pertaining to the registration of 318,607 shares of
common stock, the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-18575) pertaining
to the registration of 5,000,000 shares of common stock and $5,000,000 of debt
securities, the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-53327) pertaining to
the registration of 421,528 shares of common stock, the Registration Statement
on Form S-3 (No. 333-60637) pertaining to the registration of 1,590,500 shares
of common stock, the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-67381)
pertaining to the registration of 150,000 shares of common stock of Children's
Broadcasting Corporation of our report dated March 4, 1999, with respect to the
audited financial statements included in the Annual Reports (Forms 10-KSB) for
the years ended December 31, 1997 and December 31, 1998.




                                       /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
                                       BDO Seidman, LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 31, 1999
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-46]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Government-Owned Invention; Availability for Licensing

AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. 
Government and is available for licensing in the U.S. (and in foreign 
markets) in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious 
commercialization of results of federally funded research and 
development.
    A ``Method And System For Measuring The Diffusion Tensor And For 
Diffusion Tensor Imaging'' was developed by P.J. Basser and J.H. 
Mattiello of the National Center for Research Resources and D. LeBinah 
of the Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center. The National Institutes 
of Health is the assignee of patent rights to this technology, which 
are covered under U.S. Patent Application Number 08/103,009, filed 
August 6, 1993.
    This application describes a new modality of nuclear magnetic 
resonance imaging. Specifically, this is a method and system for 
measuring the diffusion tensor and for generating images related to the 
diffusion tensor. Several advantages can be achieved with this method 
and system for measuring the effective diffusion tensor for spin-
labeled nuclei. The diffusion tensor may be used for generating a 
diffusion ellipsoid for the measured region. Such techniques may be 
used for imaging fiber orientation in tissue. Measurements in diffusion 
tensor may also be used for aligning and calibrating the magnetic field 
gradients of the NMR apparatus itself.

ADDRESSES: Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent 
application may be obtained by writing to J.E. Fahner-Vihtelic at the 
Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 
Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804 
(telephone 301/496-7735 ext. 285; fax 301/402-0220). A signed 
Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of 
the patent application.

    Dated: December 20, 1994.
Barbara M. McGarey,
Deputy Director, Office of Technology Transfer.
[FR Doc. 95-46 Filed 1-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Opinion filed September 24, 2009

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

___________

No. 11-09-00073-CV

__________

 OWL CREEK OPERATING CO., INC.; DALLAS O&G ENERGY 

 GROUP, L.P.; AND OWL CREEK WEST, L.L.C., Appellants

V.

 SODA SPRINGS PARTNERS, L.P. AND GOLDEN CHEEK 

VENTURES, L.P., Appellees

On Appeal from the 29th District Court

 Palo Pinto County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C42419

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants have filed in this court a notice of dismissal. Appellants state that they have

deposited with the clerk of the trial court the amount owed under the judgment. The appeal is

dismissed.

PER CURIAM

September 24, 2009

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
#### WESTERN CAROLINA POWER COMPANY v. L. F. KLUTZ et al.

(Filed 12 December, 1928.)

1. Appeal and Error — Review—Discretionary Order of Judge Changing Venue Not Re viewable.

The transfer of a cause from the court of one county to another in the discretion of the trial judge for the convenience of witnesses and to promote justice, C. S., 470, is not reviewable on appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. Venue — Changing Venue — Discretionary Power of Judge to Change Venue.

When the trial judge in the proper exercise of his discretion under C. S., 470, has transferred a cause from one county to another for trial, the question of his ultimate purpose to consolidate the cause with other like cases does not arise on appeal to the Supreme Court.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Schenck, J.,*at Yadkinville, 16 May, 1928, from ALEXANDER.

Special proceeding instituted in the Superior Court of Alexander County to condemn land for the development of hydroelectric plant.

The cause was removed to Catawba County for trial, upon motion of counsel for respondents, the same being allowed by the court “in the exercise of its sound discretion, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by C. S., 470,” as set out in the judgment.

Petitioner appeals, assigning error, in that the only purpose for removing said proceeding, either alleged or found by the court, was to permit a subsequent consolidation and trial with three other condemnation proceedings pending in the Superior Court of Catawba County, with respect to land on the opposite bank of the same stream, which petitioner alleges would be an improper consolidation.

*J. H. Burke, R. S. Hutchison and W. S. O’B. Robinson, Jr., for petitioner.*

*Clyde Hoey and Manming & Manning for respondents.*

*359Stacy, 0. J.

Even if it be conceded that the present proceeding cannot properly be consolidated for trial with the three other condemnation proceedings pending in the Superior Court of Catawba County as petitioner alleges — which question is not presented and therefore not decided — still the motion to remove, on the grounds stated, “for the convenience of witnesses and to promote the ends of justice,” 0. S., 470, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and is not reviewable on appeal. *Perry v. Perry,*172 N. C., 62, 89 S. E., 999; *Byrd v. Spruce Co.,*170 N. C., 429, 87 S. E., 241; *Garrett v. Bear,*144 N. C., 23, 56 S. E., 479.

Affirmed.
#### JOE SMITH v. ZELMORE SMITH.

(Filed 31 May, 1941.)

Divorce § 11—

Thel presence of plaintiff husband in court with his witnesses is tantamount to a tender of such'witnesses and a request for findings of fact, and in such circumstances it is error for the court, without finding any facts, to order plaintiff to pay defendant counsel fees “before empanelling the jury to try the issues” involved in the husband’s action for divorce and the wife’s cross action for divorce *a mensa et thoro.*

Appeal by plaintiff from order allowing counsel fees by *Rousseau, J.,*at December Term, 1940, of Eoksyth.

*W. Avery Jones for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Eastings, Booe & Abbott for defendant, appellee.*

Pee Cukiam.

Plaintiff instituted divorce action against defendant, his wife, upon the ground of more than thirteen years separation. Defendant filed cross action against plaintiff, her husband, for *divorce a mensa et thoro,*wherein more than thirteen years separation is admitted and the further allegation is made of such treatment of her by him as to render her condition intolerable and life burdensome. In this cross action alimony and counsel fees are asked.

The cause came on for trial. 'Whereupon the court, without finding any facts, ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $50.00 counsel fees, and deferred the question of alimony until the trial of the cause. Included in this order was the following: “. . . said (counsel) fees to be paid before empanelling the jury to try the issues.” To this order the plaintiff excepted and appealed, assigning error.

We are constrained to hold that the exception of the plaintiff is well taken. “. . . 'whether the wife is entitled to alimony is a question of law upon the facts found/ reviewable on appeal by either party, and the 'court below must find the facts’ upon request.” *Caudle v. Caudle,*206 N. C., 484, 174 S. E., 304. The same is true of counsel fees. The fact that the plaintiff was in court with his witnesses prepared, perhaps, to show that the separation was due to the fault of the defendant and that she was able to pay her own counsel was tantamount to a tender of said *769witnesses and a request that the facts upon which any order was based be found after a hearing by the court of such witnesses, and the failure to find the facts under these circumstances was error, since until such facts are found this Court is unable to determine the correctness of the ruling as a matter of law. *McManus v. McManus,*191 N. C., 740, 133 S. E., 9; *Caudle v. Caudle, supra.*

Error.
#### TARBORO BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. L. F. BELL, Administrator c. t. a. of W. L. BELL, Deceased, and Others.

(Filed 29 April, 1936.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Moore, Special Judge,*at April Term, 1935, of Edgecombe.

Affirmed.

This is an action to recover judgment for the amount due on a note executed by *W.*L. Bell, deceased, on 20 April, 1931, and payable to the plaintiff.

The note sued on was secured by a deed of trust executed by *W.*L. Bell, deceased. This deed of trust was foreclosed by a sale of the property described therein, under the power of sale contained in the deed of trust, on 22 June, 1933. The plaintiff was the purchaser at said sale and is now the owner of the property. The plaintiff has applied the amount of its bid at the sale as a payment on the note. The property described in the deed of trust and now owned by the plaintiff as the purchaser at the sale was fairly worth a sum in excess of the amount due on the note at the time of the sale.

From judgment that plaintiff recover nothing of the defendant, and that the defendant recover of the plaintiff his costs in the action, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning error in the judgment.

*H. H. Philips for plaintiff.*

*Gilliam & Bond for defendant.*

*36Connor, J.

The judgment in this action is affirmed on the authority of *Richmond Mortgage and Loan Corporation v. Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., et al., ante,*29. In that case it was held that section 3 of chapter 275, Public Laws of North Carolina, 1933, is valid. On the facts found by the judge presiding at the trial of this action, there is no error in the judgment.

Affirmed.

DeviN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
**Exhibit 31.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES**
 **13A-14 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF**
 **THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I, John D. Mazzuto, the Chief Financial Officer (the principal financial officer) of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc., certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc.; 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 
 4.
The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-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 quarterly report is being prepared; and 
 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. 
 5.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 
 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. 
 6.
The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 
 
 
 
 Dated: January 21, 2005
 
 /s/ John D. Mazzuto
 John D. Mazzuto, Chief Financial
 Officer, Vice Chairman of the Board and Assistant Secretary
##### 



EXHIBIT 4.1 SPECIMEN STOCK CERTIFICATE OF THE REGISTRANT, appears as below: COMMON STOCK SHARES
[ ]CUSIP 037933 10 8 [GOLD APRIA LOGO HERE] APRIA HEALTHCARE
GROUP INC. This Certifies that [SHAREHOLDERS NAME] SPECIMEN is the record holder of [NUMBER OF SHARES] FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK,
$.001 PAR VALUE, OF APRIA HEALTHCARE GROUP INC. transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon
surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer
Agent and registered by the Registrar. WITNESS the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized officers. Dated: [CORPORATE SEAL HERE] Secretary Chairman And further described: The left margin is a psychedelic blue pattern similar to that found on U.S. paper currency. The certificates number is
found in the upper left corner of the document. The center of the certificate with the shareholders name and number of
shares is blue and white striped. Placed vertically in the lower right corner is the authorized signature of the
Transfer agent and Registrar.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               Mar-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2023

- 1463

_____________________________
W ILLIAM D AVID H URST , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Jennie Kinsey , Judge

.

July 29, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , M.K. T HOMAS , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 William David Hurst, pro se, Appellant.

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner
, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody
, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

I N THE INTEREST OF J. O., A CHILD

,

Appellant

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 225

- C V

Appeal from the

388 th D istrict Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2015DCM2215 )

O R D E R

Appellant has filed a motion for a stay of proceedings. Because the record on this motion

is insufficient to demonstrate the need for a stay, the motion is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4 th d ay of De cember

, 20 20

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000544

28-JUN-2018

08:12 AM
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3116

Sowa Tool & Machine Co. Ltd:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ JOHNS MANVILLE CORPORATION, JOHNS MANVILLE, INC., Appellants

v.
KNAUF INSULATION SPRL, KNAUF INSULATION, INC., Cross

- Appellants

______________________
2017

- 1807, 2017

- 2285, 2017

- 2303

______________________ Appeals from the United States Patent and Trad emark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s

. IPR2015 -0 1453, IPR2016

- 00130.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
D AVID E. S IPIORA , Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Denver, CO, argued for appellants. Also represen ted by D ARIN J AMES G IBBY , E DWARD J OHN M AYLE , K RISTOPHER L. R EED

.
J OSHUA P AUL L ARSEN , Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, IN, argued for cross

- appellants. Also repr esented by J EFFREY T.G. K ELSEY , J AMES S WEENEY ; S PIROB EREVESKOS , D ANIEL J AMES L UEDERS , Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP , Indianapolis , IN

.

______________________
T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (W ALLACH , L INN , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges ).
AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 13, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 2, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00847-CV

FRED WYNN AND ELVIRA WYNN, Appellants

V.

TRIDENT GENERAL CONTRACTING, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 61st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-20921

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed October 20, 2022. No clerk’s record 

has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal 

informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. 

On February 21, 2023, notification was transmitted to all parties of the 

court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within 

fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and 

provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). No 
2

response was filed. On March 23, 2023, appellant was ordered to provide this court 

with proof of payment for the record on or before April 3, 2023. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.3(c). In the order, the court notified appellant that failure to comply with the 

court’s order would result in dismissal of the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). 

No response was filed.

Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record.

We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Wilson.