alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 15.2

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form F-3 (No. 333-203977) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-81524, 333-100472,
333-107160, 333-122785, 333-125978, 333-135116, 333-151490, 333-161683, 333-161684, 333-167643 and 333-196453) of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of our report dated April 26, 2017 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers AB
|PricewaterhouseCoopers AB    
|Stockholm, Sweden            
|April 26, 2017
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending July 23, 2022

----

Forms            Forms -- initial Board review to extend without revision the Reporting and Disclosure Requirements of CRA-Related Agreements (Reg G) (FR G).             -Approved, July 19, 2022                        Forms -- final Board review to extend with revision the Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Loans Secured by Real Estate Located in Flood Hazard Areas (Reg H) (FR H-2).            -Approved, July 19, 2022                        Forms -- final Board review to extend with revision the Federal Reserve Payments Study (FR 3066).            -Approved, July 19, 2022                        Forms -- final Board review to extend without revision the Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with the CFPB's and the Board's Reg V (FR V).            -Approved, July 19, 2022                        Forms -- initial Board review to extend without revision the Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with the CFPB's Reg E (Electronic Fund Transfers) (FR E).            -Approved, July 19, 2022            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-252-01,02-JD

Eduardo K. Fernandez-Avalos 

Maria C. Rosario

O R D E R

The Joint Assented to Motion to reschedule jury trial

(document no. 29) filed by the defendants is granted.

Defendants shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within

10 days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by

granting a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and

the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), for

the reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: May 1, 2008

cc: Mark Irish, Esq.

Martin K. Leppo, Esq.

Paul J. Twomey, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00252-JD Document 30 Filed 05/01/08 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No.333-72254 and 333-67438) pertaining to the Schawk, Inc. 1991 Outside Directors’ Formula StockOption Plan and the 2001 Equity Option Plan, respectively, of our reports dated March 8, 2006, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Schawk, Inc., Schawk, Inc.management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Schawk, Inc., included in the AnnualReport (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.Ernst & Young LLPChicago, Illinois
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE INTERIM
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,167
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,427
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,594
<PP&E>                                           4,388
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (721)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,227
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,197
<BONDS>                                         56,234
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,336
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            90
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,370
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,227
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,700
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,290)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,290)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,290)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.48)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

Certificate 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 Quarterly Report of First Georgia Community Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
John L. Coleman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Elaine S. Kendrick, Chief Financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | To my knowledge, 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/ John L. ColemanJohn L. Coleman, President and C.E.O.(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Elaine S. KendrickElaine S. Kendrick, Secretary and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)




May 10, 2005



21
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Kristie Lynn Zimmerman, Appellant, v Quality Inn et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

[806 NYS2d 316]

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compen*830sation Board, filed April 7, 2004, which ruled that the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier was discharged from liability pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a.

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in September 1993 and collected benefits between February 1994 and July 9, 1999. Benefits were terminated as of the latter date due to a finding of fraud pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a. While claimant sought full board review of this decision and further initiated an appeal to this Court, her request for review was denied and her appeal ultimately deemed abandoned. In April 2004, the Workers’ Compensation Board discharged the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier from liability in accordance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1). Claimant appeals.

To the extent that claimant is even aggrieved by the Board’s decision to shift liability from the employer’s carrier to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, its decision will be affirmed *(see*Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a [1]). We are simply unpersuaded by her attempt to halt application of this statutory provision by claiming that same is premature since she might be entitled to future wage replacement benefits, despite the prior finding of fraud, under the Court of Appeals’ decision in *Matter of Losurdo v Asbestos Free*(1 NY3d 258 [2003]). Notably, claimant failed to timely perfect her appeal from the prior Board decision finding that she committed fraud and prohibiting her from receiving future benefits. Nothing contained within the Court’s holdings in *Matter of Losurdo v Asbestos Free (supra)*resurrects the abandoned issue of her entitlement to future wage replacement benefits.

Mercure, J.P., Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02250-LTB

WARREN DANIEL CLINTON, Real Party in Interest, Ex Parte, Florida, (Foreign State),

ex rel,

Applicant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENCY

Babcock, Senior Judge

Applicant submitted a Notice of Appeal on October 21, 2011. The court has

determined that the document is deficient as described in this order. Applicant will be

directed to cure the following if he wishes to pursue this appeal.

(A) Filing Fee 

 X is not submitted

(B) Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed on Appeal Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed. R. App. P. 24 in a Habeas Corpus Action:

X is not submitted

is missing affidavit

is missing required financial information

is missing an original signature by the prisoner

is not on proper form (must use the court’s current form 

other

Accordingly, it is 

Case 1:11-cv-02250-LTB Document 13 Filed 10/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED that Applicant cure the deficiencies designated above within thirty (30)

days from the date of this order. Any papers that Applicant files in response to this order

must include the civil action number on this order. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mail to Applicant, together with a

copy of this order, an original and one copy of the following forms: Prisoner's Motion and

Affidavit for Leave to Proceed on Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed. R. App.

P. 24 in a Habeas Corpus Action. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, if Applicant fails to cure the designated deficiencies

within 30 days from the date of this order, the court of appeals will be so notified.

DATED at Denver, Colorado this 25th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock

SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:11-cv-02250-LTB Document 13 Filed 10/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 8Federal Reserve Bank of: St. LouisFilings received during the week ending September 27, 2008FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
* Judge Hall participated in the oral argument of this case, but recused himself thereafter. The case is decided, and the opinion filed, by a quorum of the panel. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2320
FOOD LION, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, INC.; ABC HOLDING COMPANY, INCORPORATED; AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INCORPORATED; ABC NEWS; LYNN NEUFER; RICHARD N. KAPLAN; IRA ROSEN; SUSAN BARNETT, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-513-4) Argued: May 9, 1997 Decided: June 19, 1997 Before HALL, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. * Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 ARGUED: Michael John Mueller, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Nathan Lewin, MILLER, CASSIDY, LARROCA & LEWIN, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Richard L. Wyatt, Jr., Charles L. Warren, Steven E. Ross, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; W. Andrew Copenhaver, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, P.L.L.C., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. William H. Jeffress, Jr., Randall J. Turk, Daniel J. Cloherty, MILLER, CASSIDY, LARROCA & LEWIN, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; Nathan Siegel, CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, INC., New York, New York, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Food Lion, Inc., appeals an order of the district court dismissing, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), its action seeking a declaration that it is the owner of the copyright to videotapes made by undercover journalists employed by defendant Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., and damages for the infringement of its alleged copyright. We have considered the briefs and heard the arguments of the parties, and we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated by that court in its memorandum opinion. Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. , 946 F.Supp. 420 (M.D.N.C. 1996).

AFFIRMED
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6957** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DEVRONN DEMONN RIDDICK , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 2:10

- cr - 00070

- RBS

- FBS

- 2 )

Submitted : November 5, 2014 Decided: November 13, 2014

Before KEENAN and WYNN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Devronn Demonn Riddick, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIA M: Devronn Demonn Riddick appeals the district court ’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in his criminal case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district cour t. See United States v. Riddick , No. 2:10

-

cr - 00070

- RBS

- FBS

- 2 (E.D. Va. May 14, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisi onal process.
AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Landmark West!, Appellant, v Robert B. Tierney et al., Respondents.

[807 NYS2d 342]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered September 6, 2005, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 brought by a community advocacy group seeking to prohibit respondent Tierney, Chair of the City of New York Landmarks Preservation Commission, from participating in proceedings related to the possible landmark designation of a building located at 2 Columbus Circle in Manhattan, which building respondent Museum of Arts and Design intends to purchase, inter alia, granted respondents’ motions to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claims challenging the legality of the Commission’s procedures are improperly raised for the first time on appeal *(see Sean M. v City of New York,*20 AD3d 146, 149-150 *320[2005]), and also collaterally estopped by the findings made in *Matter of Landmark West! v Burden*(3 Misc 3d 1102[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50331[U] [2004], *affd*15 AD3d 308, 309 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 713 [2005]) that, inter alia, the Commission was not obligated to hold a public hearing before deciding not to calendar a request for the property’s designation as a landmark. Insofar as petitioner’s application is based on NY City Charter § 1046 (c), which prohibits ex parte communications between parties and a hearing officer in an “adjudication,” i.e., “a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of named parties are required by law to be determined by an agency on a record and after an opportunity for a hearing” (NY City Charter § 1041), the application was properly denied on the ground that landmark designations are administrative, not adjudicative, in nature *(see Matter of Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. of Am. v City of New York,*82 NY2d 35, 41 [1993]; *Matter of Doro's Rest. v City of New York,*179 AD2d 406, 407 [1992]), and therefore not subject to section 1046. Petitioner’s conspiracy and 42 USC § 1983 claims lack allegations sufficient to show a scheme to undermine its First Amendment right to petition the Commission. We have considered and rejected petitioner’s other arguments. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ. *[See*9 Misc 3d 1102(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 51374(11) (2005).]
Exhibit 99.1



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 Quarterly Report of Community Bancorp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.





/s/ Richard C. White

Richard C. White, Chief Executive Officer

March 28, 2003
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 21.1
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                             AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            PERCENTAGE OF       JURISDICTION
   NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                        STOCK OWNED      OF INCORPORATION
   ------------------                       -------------     ----------------
<S>                                         <C>               <C>
1. Gulf Southwest Nevada Bancorp, Inc.          100.0%             Nevada
</TABLE>


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
   SUBSIDIARIES OF GULF SOUTHWEST           PERCENTAGE OF       JURISDICTION
         NEVADA BANCORP, INC.                STOCK OWNED      OF INCORPORATION
   ------------------------------           -------------     ----------------
<S>                                         <C>               <C>
1. Merchants Bank                               100.0%             Texas

2. Funds Management Group, Inc.                  80.0%             Texas
</TABLE>
Order entered June 7, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01371
- CR DALE ALLEN BECKER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F90
- 35497
- S



### O RDER In this case, appellant raises an issue related to the costs assessed against him. The record, however, does not contain a cost bill or other document with an itemized list of costs assessed in this case. Accordingly, we OR DER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and c ourt appointed attorney fees. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s record include a document explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court appointed attorney fee.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of th is order, by electronic transmission, to the

Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
1 John T. B oyd, C hief J ustic e (R et.), Se ven th C ourt o f Ap pea ls, sitting b y ass ignm ent. T EX
. G OV ’ T

C ODE A NN . §75 .002 (a)(1 ) (Ve rnon 199 8). NO. 07-03-0148-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL E MARCH 23, 2004

______________________________

TONY G. BAILEY , Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 364 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2002-439,301; HON. BRADLE Y UNDERWOOD, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., an d BOYD, S.J. 1 Appellant , Tony G. Bail ey, appeals his convi ctions for poss essing, w ith intent t o deliver, a controlled substance (methamphetamine ) and manufacturing a controlled substa nce. His s ole issue on app eal invol ves wh ether he vol untarily consented to a second search of his house. As a result ofthat search, the contra ban d in questi on was found. So too was

it later admi tted into ev idence at tri al prior to appel lant attempting to suppress its

admission. We affirm the judgment of the trial cour t.2

The record illustrates that when the po lice arri ved at appell ant’shome they did so with the intent tosearch for an i ndividual named Roberts. Appellant invited the police in and permitted them tolook for Rober ts. After discovering various items of contraband, the police testified that th ey asked for an d receive d additional co nsent to conduct a n additional search for drugs and drug-makingparaphernalia

. On appeal, appel lant contends that the contraband found should have bee n suppressed because th e second purported instan ce of cons ent wa s coe rced . Howeve r, th is rea son f or su ppre ssin g the e vi d ence was nev er mentioned below. I ndeed, appellant deni ed, at trial, that he even consented to the second search of his abode. Hav ing denied that he even consented to a s econd search, he could have hardly ar

gued that

his consent to the second sea rch was coer ced. So, because the ground underlyi ng his cl aim on appeal does not match that utter ed a t trial, i t w as not preserved for review

. See Johnson v. Sta te, 651 S.W.2d 303, 31 1 (T ex. App.-- San Antonio 1983 , no p et.) (hold ing th at th e app ella nt wa s preclu ded from seeking review of the voluntariness of his girlfriend’s cons ent to search when his objecti on at trial w as that the police failed to obt ain permission from him to search). Accordingl y, we affirm the judgment of the trial cour t.

Brian Quinn Justice Do not publish

.