alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**






We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
      Statement Nos. 33-47415, 33-17488, 33-60196, 333-18135, 333-136061 and
      333-138506 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-25377 on Form S-3, and
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 5 to Registration Statement No. 333-124512 on
      Form
      S-1, of our report dated October 8, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial
      statements of The Dress Barn, Inc. (which
      report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs
      regarding the Company’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
      No. 123(R), “Share-Based Payments,” as revised, as of July 31, 2005
      and for the
      restatement described in Note 13 to the consolidated finanical
      statements ) and
      our
      report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting dated
      October 8, 2007 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion on the
      effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial
      reporting) ,
      appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Dress Barn, Inc. and for
      the
      year ended July 28, 2007.




/s/
      Deloitte & Touche LLP




New
      York,
      New York


October
      8, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           1,556
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,973
<ALLOWANCES>                                       355
<INVENTORY>                                     13,167
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,871
<PP&E>                                          14,629
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,965
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,723
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,195
<BONDS>                                         16,437
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,742
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,025
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,723
<SALES>                                         39,771
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,843
<CGS>                                           30,116
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,853
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,713)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (130)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,583)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,583)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.33)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIEL ECKARD, AKA Gabriel Allen 

Eckard, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CHARLES MITCHELL, Classification 

Counselor; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-36010 

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01810-RSM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Gabriel Eckard appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process 

violations while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-36010 

§ 1291. We review de novo. Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 

(9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Eckard failed 

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his placement in maximum 

security housing was not reasonably related to the jail’s legitimate objectives of 

maintaining safety and security. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538-39 (1979) 

(“Absent a showing of an expressed intent to punish on the part of detention 

facility officials . . . if a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is 

reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without 

more, amount to punishment.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

To the extent that Eckard contends he was retained in maximum security housing 

without due process, we reject this contention as unsupported by the record. See 

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1100 (9th Cir. 1986) (inmates in 

administrative segregation are entitled to due process protections consisting of 

periodic review, notice of hearings, and an opportunity to be heard), abrogated in 

part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83 (1995).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Eckard’s motion to 

amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because Eckard 

failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 

F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review and discussing 
3 19-36010 

factors for granting a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 12
<TABLE>
                       ENRON CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                    COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
                               FIXED CHARGES
                           (Dollars in Millions)
                                (Unaudited)


<CAPTION>
                                     Three Months
                                        Ended               Year Ended December 31,
                                       3/31/99       1998   1997    1996     1995     1994

<S>                                      <C>       <C>      <C>    <C>      <C>      <C>
Earnings available for fixed charges
 Net income                              $253      $  703   $105   $  584   $  520   $  453
 Less:
   Undistributed earnings and
    losses of less than 50%
    owned affiliates                        -         (44)   (89)     (39)     (14)      (9)
   Capitalized interest of
    nonregulated companies                (14)        (66)   (16)     (10)      (8)      (9)
 Add:
   Fixed charges(1)                       245         809    674      454      436      487
   Minority interest                       32          77     80       75       27       30
   Income tax expense                      62         204    (65)     297      310      190
     Total                               $578      $1,683   $689   $1,361   $1,271   $1,142

Fixed Charges
 Interest expense(1)                     $229      $  760   $624   $  404   $  386   $  445
 Rental expense representative
  of interest factor                       16          49     50       50       50       42
     Total                               $245      $  809   $674   $  454   $  436   $  487

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges       2.36        2.08   1.02     3.00     2.92     2.34

<FN>
(1) Amounts exclude costs incurred on sales of accounts receivables.
</TABLE>
#### LOEB v. SPENCER (3 cases).

Supreme Court of Florida

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gilberto Brown

v. Civil No. 07-cv-174-SM

United States of America

O R D E R

Re: (Document No. 7) Unopposed Motion to Vacate Writ,

Rescind Travel Orders, and Continue Hearing

Ruling: Granted, in part. This is an aging petition under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 that requires a hearing, as explained in the

court's order dated February 8, 2008. Petitioner makes factual

allegations that he can only establish by presenting supporting

evidence which, in all likelihood, would include his testifying

under oath. Petitioner seeks to continue the scheduled hearing

and vacate the writ and transportation arrangements made to

secure his presence, on grounds that he does not wish to disrupt

his participation in a drug treatment program which may lead, on

successful completion, to an earlier release from incarceration. 

No indication of when the referenced drug treatment program will

be completed is contained in petitioner's motion. Obviously, the

required hearing cannot be continued indefinitely. The motion is

granted to this extent: the writ is vacated, the travel orders

rescinded, and the hearing is continued by agreement. The

defendant shall advise the clerk, promptly, when his drug

treatment program will be completed and the court will reschedule

the hearing. A lengthy delay will not likely be accommodated. 

Petitioner might wish to explore the availability of

teleconferencing capabilities at the institution in which he is

incarcerated, as he may be able to present his case by that

medium, given that this is a civil case.

_____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

March 3, 2008

cc: Bjorn R. Lange, Esq.

Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, AUSA

Case 1:07-cv-00174-SM Document 8 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of US Unwired Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 (the Report), I, Robert W. Piper, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    Robert W.
Piper               
|                                     
|Robert W. Piper                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|November 6, 2003
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 Community Bancorp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Principal Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Community Bancorp. and will be retained by Community Bancorp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








/s/ Louise M. Bonvechio


Louise M. Bonvechio, Treasurer


(Principal Financial Officer)





April 4, 2013
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 FranciscoDistrict: 12Federal Reserve Bank of: San FranciscoFilings received during the week ending December 9, 2017FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodALL WEST BANCORP                                                                                                        CICChange in Control Notice filed by Matthew Moskowitz, Plainview, New York, Yaakov Markowitz, Brooklyn, New York; Jarret Prussin, Westport, Connecticut, Paul Brown, Monte Carlo, Monaco, and Menachem Wilenkin, Brooklyn, New York, to acquire voting shares of All West Bancorp, and thereby indirectly acquire shares of FinWise Bank, both of Sandy, Utah. Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 11/27/2017CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, THE                                                                                         * SLHC AcquisitionThe Charles Schwab Corporation, San Francisco, California, to acquire a de novo depository institution, Charles Schwab Trust Bank, Henderson, Nevada, a state-chartered savings bank.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 01/08/2018FARMERS AND MERCHANTS BANK OF LONG BEACH                                                                                * BranchFarmers and Merchants Bank of Long Beach, Long Beach, California, proposes to open a new branch at 33 East Carrillo Street, Santa Barbara, California.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not applicableFNBEly Bancorporation                                                                                                   * 3A1FNBEly Bancorporation to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the outstanding common stock of The First National Bank of Ely, both of Ely, Nevada.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 01/05/2018SILVERGATE BANK                                                                                                         * BranchSilvergate Bank, La Jolla, California, proposes to open a new branch at 277 Rancheros Drive, Suite 300, San Marcos, California.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not applicable
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00350-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ROBERT WHITTALL,

Defendant.

ORDER TO DISMISS

Upon consideration of the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, and for good cause

shown, it is hereby

ORDERED that Government’s Motion to Dismiss Count One of the Indictment

(ECF Doc. No. 30), filed March 14, 2012, is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that Count One of the Indictment be dismissed as to the defendant.

Dated: March 28, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

WILEY Y. DANIEL,

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cr-00350-WYD Document 37 Filed 03/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1



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 Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, G. Richard Patton, President, Chief Executive Officer of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund,
LLC.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ G. Richard Patton                          
|G. Richard Patton                              
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
|May 5, 2004                                    



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and will retained by Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Opinion issued April 16, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00483-CV

———————————

IN RE MICHAEL B. MARTIN AND MARTIN WALTON LAW FIRM, 

Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, Michael B. Martin and Martin Walton Law Firm, filed a petition 

for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s June 2, 2023 order granting the 

request of real party in interest 3M Company to take pre-suit depositions and to 

obtain documents from Martin and the law firm pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil 
2

Procedure 202.

1 Relators’ petition sought “a stay and reversal of [the June 2, 2023 

order] authorizing 3M Company to conduct Rule 202 Pre-Suit Depositions of 

Michael B. Martin, individually, and as a corporate representative of Martin 

Walton Law Firm . . . and to produce records[.]”

Our review of relators’ mandamus petition reflects that relators have failed 

to establish that they are entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny

relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We lift our 

stay order of June 30, 2023. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Hightower.

Justice Goodman, concurring in the result.

1 The underlying case is 3M Company v. Michael B. Martin and Martin Walton Law

Firm, cause number 23-CV-0488, pending in the 10th District Court of Galveston

County, Texas, the Hon. Kerry L. Neves, presiding.
Exhibit 10.36B

              [Letterhead of Allied Healthcare International Inc.]



                                               December 2, 2003


Ms. Sarah L. Eames
555 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022

Dear Ms. Eames:

         This will confirm our agreement with respect to the matters set forth
below, as follows:

         1. You are presently indebted to Allied Healthcare International Inc.
(the "Company") in the aggregate amount of $418,718 representing principal and
accrued interest through the date hereof on that certain loan from the Company
to you evidenced by a promissory note dated April 30, 2002 (the "Loan");

         2. Concurrent with the execution hereof, you shall tender to the
Company and the Company shall accept, in full payment and satisfaction of the
Loan, 73,459 shares of common stock of the Company, which shares have been held
by you for at least one year prior to the date hereof. Such amount shall be
allocated to accrued interest and principal in the manner set forth in the note
evidencing the Loan.

         3. The Company shall hold you harmless and shall pay to you on demand,
all amounts which you may incur, or be subject to, for United States federal,
New York State and, if applicable, New York City income taxes on account of or
with respect to the Transaction, including any amount of such income taxes which
may actually be included as a result of the receipt of any payment required to
be made pursuant to this Paragraph 3. The Company may withhold from any amount
owed or to be paid to you under this Agreement any amount required by law to be
withheld for taxes or otherwise. Amounts withheld by the Company from any
payment pursuant to this Paragraph 3 shall be timely paid to the appropriate
taxing authority, and such payments shall be treated as having been paid to you
by the Company for purposes of this Agreement.

                [Remainder of the page intentionally left blank]






         Please indicate your agreement with the foregoing by countersigning
this letter where indicated below.

                             Sincerely yours,

                             ALLIED HEALTHCARE INTERNATIONAL INC.



                             By:    /s/ Timothy M. Aikten
                                -------------------------
                                    Name:  Timothy M. Aitken
                                    Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

AGREED TO:



/s/ Sarah L. Eames
------------------------------------
Sarah L. Eames
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jazzmen D. Williams, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 700]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered November 30, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The testimony that the defendant shot at the victim’s friend shortly before the date of the incident was probative on the issues of motive and intent, and to rebut the defense of justification *(see People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233; *People v Jones,*289 AD2d 257). Moreover, the probative value of that evidence outweighed any prejudice to the defendant, particularly in light of the County Court’s cautionary instruction that the evidence was to be considered only on the issue of whether the defendant was the initial aggressor *(see People v Corella,*281 AD2d 428). Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting that evidence.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of depraved indifference murder beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Roe,*74 NY2d 20; *People v Smith,*255 AD2d 404).

*561The various remarks made by the prosecutor in his closing statement, which the defendant contends are improper, were either fair comment on the evidence, permissive rhetorical comment, responsive to defense counsel’s summation (see *People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105; *People v Sostre,*282 AD2d 766), or not so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *People v Williams,*247 AD2d 643).

The hearing court’s finding that the warrantless entry of police officers into the defendant’s apartment was effected with the voluntary consent of the defendant’s mother is supported by the record and will not be disturbed on appeal *(see People v Thomas,*223 AD2d 612). In any event, under the totality of the circumstances in this case, the warrantless entry was proper due to the existence of exigent circumstances (see *People v Green,*103 AD2d 362).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.