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



                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We hereby consent to the use in the Annual Report of Integral Systems Inc. on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2001 of our report dated
November 21, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Integral Systems, Inc. and its subsidiaries as of September 30, 2001 and 2000,
and for each of the three years in the period ended September 30, 2001, and we
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such report in the
Registration Statements of Integral Systems, Inc. on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-48790,
333-31306 and 333-82499) and in the Registration Statement of Integral Systems,
Inc. on Form S-8 (No. 333-61559).



                                       /s/ Rubino & McGeehin, Chartered
                                           ----------------------------
                                           Rubino & McGeehin, Chartered
                                           Certified Public Accountants





Bethesda, Maryland
December 20, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INKTOMI
CORP. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          41,802
<SECURITIES>                                    77,131
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,382
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,904
<PP&E>                                          29,759
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,778
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,723
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                     123,974
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,598
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,612
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,639
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,448
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,568)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,568)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,568)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Date: March 15, 2007

Courtroom Deputy: J. Chris Smith

FTR Technician: Kathy Terasaki

___________________________________________________________________________

Civil Action No. 02-cv-00311-RPM

CLIMAX MOLYBDENUM COMPANY, Gregg Anderson

a Delaware Corporation, David Palmer

Chris Rockers

Plaintiff,

v.

MOLYCHEM, LLC., an Illinois Limited Liability Company, Donald Trinen

Roman Pizarro

Defendant,

v.

PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION, David Palmer

Additional Party on Counterclaim.

___________________________________________________________________________

COURTROOM MINUTES

___________________________________________________________________________

Motions Hearing

11:00 a.m. Court in session.

Court’s preliminary remarks.

Mr. Trinen states Court is correct in its understanding of the claims asserted.

Mr. Anderson’s response to the Motion for Dismissal of Claims Against Additional Party on

Counterclaim Phelps Dodge Corporation is that dismissal be under the condition of with

prejudice.

Mr. Trinen states he has no objection to dismissal with prejudice,

ORDERED: Defendant Molychem LLC’s Motion for Dismissal of Claims Against

Additional Party on Counterclaim Phelps Dodge Corporation, filed March 8,

2007 [209], is granted and claims are dismissed with prejudice.

Discussion between Court, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Palmer and Mr. Trinen regarding discovery.

Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 213 Filed 03/15/07 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

March 15, 2007

02-cv-00311-RPM

ORDERED: Climax Molybdenum Company’s and Phelps Dodge Corporation’s Motion to

Strike Numerous Expert Reports of Molychem LLC Served More than 30

days After the Deadline for Completion of All Expert Reports, filed January

29, 2007 [191], is denied.

ORDERED: Climax Molybdenum Company’s and Phelps Dodge Corporation’s Second

Motion for Extension of Time for Expert Discovery and to File Dispositive

Motions and Request for Expedited Ruling Under Local Rule 7.1.C., filed

February 15, 2007 [200], is denied with respect to dispositive motions and

granted with respect to Expert Discovery Deadline, Expert Discovery

Deadline extended to May 15, 2007.

ORDERED: Pretrial conference scheduled June 1, 2007 at 2:00 p.m.

11:20 a.m. Court in recess.

Hearing concluded. Total time in court: 20 min.

Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 213 Filed 03/15/07 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Otto Cardona

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00056-JL

Insight Technology,

Inc., et al.

 O R D E R

The parties shall enter an agreement which substantially

conforms to the defendant’s proposal (Exhibit A to document no.

16) with two qualifications:

(1) ¶8 shall be modified to allow for disclosure during

“meetings or conferences with counsel in preparation for” such

testimony; and 

(2) a provision incorporating the procedure set forth at ¶17

of the defendant’s objection (document no. 17) shall be included

in the agreement.

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: August 27, 2008

cc: Christopher E. Grant, Esq.

Debra Weiss Ford, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00056-JL Document 22 Filed 08/27/08 Page 1 of 1
MODEM MEDIA, INC.





Exhibit 4.4(a)





EXHIBIT B





ASSIGNMENT FORM





FOR VALUE RECEIVED the
undersigned registered owner of this Warrant hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the Assignee named below all of the rights of the undersigned under this Warrant, with respect to the number of shares of Common Stock set forth below:





|
|

|
|




Name and Address of Assignee

No. of Shares of Common StockThe Convertible Fund, LP

190,000





14 Duck Pond Road


East Norwalk, CT 06855








and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Sloane
Levy attorney-in-fact to register such transfer on the books of MODEM MEDIA, INC. maintained for the purpose, with full power of substitution in the premises.





Dated: 3/28/02

Print Name: General Electric Capital CorporationSignature:     /s/    Gregory WalterWitness:       /s/    Barbara J. Gould





|NOTICE: |  | The signature on this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the within Warrant in every particular, without alteration or
enlargement or any change whatsoever.
|------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 909 

Commemorating the courage of the Haitian soldiers that fought for American 

independence in the ‘‘Siege of Savannah’’ and for Haiti’s independence 

and renunciation of slavery. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2007 

Mr. MEEK of Florida submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the courage of the Haitian soldiers that 

fought for American independence in the ‘‘Siege of Savannah’’ and for Haiti’s independence and renunciation 

of slavery. 

Whereas in the fall of 1779, Haitian soldiers of the Chasseurs-Volontaires de Saint Domingue volunteered to join 

in the fight for American independence; 

Whereas the unit was comprised of over 500 men of color 

from the island of Haiti; 

Whereas on October 9, 1779, the soldiers of ChasseursVolontaires de Saint Domingue served as the largest unit 

of soldiers of African descent to fight in the ‘‘Siege of Savannah’’; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 909 IH 

Whereas records show that over 500 men sailed treacherous 

waters to join the effort against the British; 

Whereas over 300 of them lost their lives attempting to drive 

the British from Savannah; 

Whereas the Savannah Monument, a project of the Haitian 

American Historical Society represents the Haitian soldiers that fought in the ‘‘Siege of Savannah’’; 

Whereas the Savannah Monument was erected in Savannah, 

Georgia on Monday, October 8, 2007, to recognize the 

Haitian involvement in the fight for American independence; and 

Whereas the Savannah Monument includes a statute of a 12- 

year-old drummer boy, depicting Mr. Henri Christophe, 

who became a leader in Haiti’s Revolution to gain independence and renounce slavery: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives com2 memorates the courage of the Haitian soldiers that fought 

3 for American independence in the ‘‘Siege of Savannah’’ 

4 and for Haiti’s independence and renunciation of slavery. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### In the Matter of James M. Di Gioia, Petitioner, v Brion Travis, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 117]

Carpinello, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by an order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Board of Parole which revoked petitioner’s parole.

Petitioner was released on parole after serving six years of a sentence imposed for his conviction of sodomy in the first degree. The record indicates that while on parole, petitioner encountered a female inmate participating in a work release program in the waiting room of the parole office and the two conversed briefly. A month later, petitioner saw the female in front of the parole office and asked her twice if she needed a ride or wanted to go anywhere. She rebuffed his offers and returned to the office. Based upon this second incident, petitioner was charged with fraternizing with a known felon and, following a final parole revocation hearing, his parole was revoked. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination, contending that respondents’ interpretation of the term “fraternize” was arbitrary and capricious. We agree.

Under the terms of his parole, petitioner may not “fraternize with any person he knows to have a criminal record” (9 NYCRR 8003.2 [g]). Despite the deference generally accorded to the interpretation of regulations given by the agency charged with enforcing them, deference to respondents’ interpretation of the term “fraternize” is not required as “no particular administrative expertise is necessary to ascertain the purely legal meaning of [this term]” *(Matter of Town of Camillus v Commissioner of Dept. of Envtl. Conservation,*256 AD2d 967, 968).

Although “fraternize” is not expressly defined, in the parole *633context courts have interpreted comparable provisions to prohibit contact which is “something more than merely a fleeting or casual acquaintance” *(Birzon v King,*469 F2d 1241, 1243; *see, United States v International Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., AFL-CIO,*998 F2d 120, 125). Here, at most, the evidence establishes that petitioner’s conduct was nothing more than an attempt to fraternize, which, in our view, does not rise to the level of association or fraternization proscribed by the regulation *(see, Matter of Hicks v Russi,*219 AD2d 851).

Moreover, counsel for respondents asserted that the regulatory definition of “fraternize” was subjective and depended upon petitioner’s underlying conviction, i.e., for a forger the subject conduct was permissible, but for petitioner, a convicted sex offender, the conduct constituted fraternization. However, this interpretation of “fraternize” is inherently arbitrary and subject to discriminatory application as it is entirely dependent upon the subjective determination of a parole officer *(see, People v Foley,*94 NY2d 668, 681, *cert denied*531 US 875; *People v Nelson,*69 NY2d 302, 308).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, with costs, and petition granted.
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

 This document was initially inadvertently filed on May 2, 2012. 1

NO. SCWC-30516

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

________________________________________________________________

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

LAWRENCE PAI, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. 30516; CASE NO. 1DTA-10-00706)

AMENDED SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER1

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.; 

with Acoba, J., dissenting)

Petitioner Lawrence Pai (“Pai”) seeks review of the

Intermediate Court of Appeal’s July 14, 2011 Judgment on Appeal,

entered pursuant to its June 14, 2011 Summary Disposition Order,

which affirmed the District Court of the First Circuit’s April 9,

2010 Order and Notice of Entry of Order. The District Court

adjudged Pai guilty of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of

an Intoxicant, in violation of Hawai#i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-30516

03-MAY-2012

08:50 AM
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

 HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) provided at the time of the alleged offense, “A 2

person commits the offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of an

intoxicant if the person operates or assumes actual physical control of a

vehicle . . . [w]ith .08 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters

of breath[.]” 

2

§ 291E-61(a)(3)(2007). We accepted Pai’s application for writ 2

of certiorari and now affirm the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal.

On certiorari, Pai contends that the ICA gravely erred

in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in an HRS § 291E61(a)(3) charge. In State v. Nesmith, we agreed that mens rea

need not be alleged (or proven) in an HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) charge,

as the legislative intent to impose absolute liability for an HRS

§ 291E-61(a)(3) offense plainly appears. State v. Nesmith, ____

Hawai#i ___, ___ P.3d ____ (2012). Therefore, the ICA did not

gravely err in so holding.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’S Judgment on Appeal

is affirmed. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 3, 2012.

 

Timothy I. MacMaster /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

for petitioner/

defendant-appellant /s/ Paula A. Nakayama

Keith M. Kaneshiro, /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. 

Prosecuting Attorney,

and Anne K. Clarkin, /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,

for respondent/plaintiffappellee
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 29, 2019

p0722

Order 

Clerk

July 29, 2019

158551 & (15)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158551

COA: 343807

Saginaw CC: 74-000598-FY

ROBERT THOMPSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 10, 2018 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion to hold this 

case in abeyance is DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-355-MSK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART,

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS,

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART,

Defendants.

RESTRICTED - LEVEL 3

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RESTRICT

The United States of America, by District of Colorado United States Attorney John

F. Walsh, through Assistant United States Attorney Linda Kaufman and Assistant United

States Attorney Martha Paluch, hereby files this brief in support of its Motion to Restrict

Document.

1. The Court has authority to seal documents upon a showing of compelling

reasons. See D.C.COLO.LCrR 47.1(A). 

2. The document in question contains information that could jeopardize prompt

apprehension of the defendant because it reveals information known to the authorities

relating to her flight.

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 311 filed 07/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
Dated this 11th day of July, 2013.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

JOHN F. WALSH

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

DISTRICT OF COLORADO

BY: s/ Linda Kaufman 

LINDA KAUFMAN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

United States Attorneys Office

District of Colorado

1225 17 Street, Suite 700 th

Denver, CO 80202

(303)-454-0100 Phone

(303) 454-0409 Fax

E-mail: Linda.Kaufman@usdoj.gov

BY: s/ Martha Paluch 

MARTHA PALUCH

Assistant U.S. Attorney

United States Attorneys Office

District of Colorado

1225 17 Street, Suite 700 th

Denver, CO 80202

(303)-454-0100 Phone

(303) 454-0409 Fax

E-mail: Martha.Paluch@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the Government

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 311 filed 07/11/13 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Myron L. Michelman, Petitioner, and Betty P. Michelman, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

November 30, 1954.

*Weil, Gotschol & Manges*for petitioner.

*Hays, Podell, Algase, Crum & Feuer*for respondent.

Samuel M. Gold, J.

Motion to compel arbitration is denied. While a right of visitation is involved as against a right of custody, as in *Matter of Hill (199*Misc. 1035) one of the cases there relied upon withheld approval of an award of arbitrators which was concerned with a right of visitation *(Wattman*v. *Wattman,*N. Y. L. J., Jan. 15, 1940, p. 221, col. 7). Either custody or visitation, however, is a matter involving the well-being of a child. This well-being is not only the primary object of parents, as was recognized by the parties to the agreement *sub judice,*but is also a primary interest to the State acting as a corporate body. Since it is well known that arbitrators need not follow the law in their considerations and awards, the courts of this State have in certain situations involving public policy set aside awards in conflict with such policy *(Matter of Publishers' Assn. [Newspaper Union],*280 App. Div. 500, and cases there cited) and have refused to direct arbitration in such situations *(Matter of Kramer & Uchitelle,*288 N. Y. 467).

The well-being of this child as it will or may be affected by visitation rights can only be determined on a hearing. In denying this application the merits of the child’s well-being have neither been considered nor passed upon; all that has been *571held is that there may be no arbitration in this aspect. In the interests of justice the court renews the suggestion made at the time of the argument that the parties contact it for the purpose of arranging a conference in chambers, where the visitation question may he discussed and resolved.
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 May 19, 2012FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFARMERS BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                                4c8Farmers Bancshares, Inc., Hardinsburg, Kentucky, to engage in lending activities through the purchase of loans from its subsidiary bank, Farmers Bank, Hardinsburg, Kentucky.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: 06/01/2012MATHIAS BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                                * 3A3Mathias Bancshares, Inc., Springdale, Arkansas, to acquire 100 percent of Decatur State Bank, Decatur, Arkansas.Newspaper: 06/15/2012Federal Register: 06/15/2012MERCANTILE BANCORP, INC.                                                                                                * 3A5Mercantile Bancorp, Inc., Quincy, Illinois, to merge with its wholly owned subsidiary, The Royal Palm Bancorp, Inc., Naples, Florida, and thereby cause its subsidiary bank, The Royal Palm Bank of Florida, Naples, Florida, to become a direct subsidiary of Mercantile Bancorp, Inc.Newspaper: 06/20/2012Federal Register: 06/18/2012
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.0

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form
  10-K) of Digital Sound Corporation of our report dated January 25, 1997,
  included in the 1996 Annual Report to Shareholders of Digital Sound
  Corporation.

    Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Digital
  Sound Corporation listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility
  of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion
  based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule
  referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial
  statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
  information set forth therein.

    We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
  Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-09755, Form S-8 No. 33-35019, Form S-8 No. 33-
  42184, Form S-8 No. 33-50376, Form S-8 No. 33-67000 and Form S-8 No. 84730)
  pertaining to the 1983 Employee Stock Option Plan, the Directors' Stock
  Option Plan and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Digital Sound
  Corporation or our report dated January 25, 1997, with respect to the
  financial statements and schedule of Digital Sound Corporation included and
  incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
  ended December 31, 1996.

  By /s/ Ernst & Young L.L.P.
  Ernst & Young L.L.P.