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

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Efficient Networks, Inc.:

     We consent to the inclusion of our report on the financial statements of
FlowPoint Corporation incorporated by reference herein which report appears in
the Efficient Networks, Inc. Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Registration
No. 333-94289) declared effective by the Commission on February 2, 2000.

                                           KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
September 15, 2000
# In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

OCTOBER 21, 2014

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE

84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).

1. ED100468 TIMOTHY ASHLOCK, APP V. STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

2. ED100624 ROCKY OLIPHANT, APP V. SIF, RES

3. ED100718 LENA JOHNSTON, RES V VI NCENZO ACQUAVIVA, APP

4. ED100737 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V BOYCE BROWN, APP

5. ED101111 PARVEEN MOHAMMED, RES V COUNTRY MUTUAL INS.,

APP

6. ED101589 GEORGE KNIEST, APP V STATE OF MISSO URI, RES
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02765-WJM-BNB

DALIP BASANTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY METCALF, M.D.,

JASON ROZESKI, M.D.,

PLATTE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, and

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order [Doc. # 101, filed

2/5/2013]. Following a hearing yesterday, I made rulings on the record which are incorporated

here.

The parties have agreed to pay a reasonable rate for travel time incurred by Dr. Huffman

in appearing in Colorado for his deposition. No relief is requested from me in connection with

that agreement. 

I am not aware of any authority allowing me to require a party to compensate a local

expert for travel time to appear at a lawyer’s office for deposition, and I will not require such

payment. 

The parties have encountered a problem concerning whether an expert should be paid for

time reserved for a deposition or only for the time actually expended in conducting the

deposition. To resolve the dispute, I will require that any party intending to examine another

Case 1:11-cv-02765-WJM-BNB Document 116 Filed 02/21/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

party’s expert provide in advance of the deposition an estimate of the amount of time of

examination. The party examining must pay the expert for the greater of the time reserved or the

time of examination.

In addition, at the parties’ request the case schedule is modified to the following extent:

Discovery Cut-Off: May 20, 2013.

(All discovery must be completed by the discovery cut-off. All

written discovery must be served so that responses are due on or

before the discovery cut-off.)

Dispositive Motions Deadline: June 20, 2013.

 Expert Disclosures:

(a) The defendants shall designate all experts and

rebuttal experts and provide opposing counsel with

all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)

on or before March 1, 2013.

(b) The plaintiff shall designate all rebuttal experts and

provide opposing counsel with all information

specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before

March 28, 2013. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated February 21, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02765-WJM-BNB Document 116 Filed 02/21/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
216 La. 766

#### The PURE OIL COMPANY v. STATE MINERAL BOARD et al.

No. 39659.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1950.

Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Francis, Houston, Tex., Liskow & Lewis, Lake Charles, 'for plaintiff-appellant.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., Carroll Buck, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., John L. Madden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appel-lee.

McCALEB, Justice.

This case was consolidated for all purposes with the suit of The Texas Company v. State Mineral Board et al., 216 La. 742, 44 So.2d 841. The decision in that matter controls here.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02576-BNB

CALVIN LYNIOL ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOCTOR DAVID ALLRED, Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Employee,

Defendant.

ORDER DRAWING CASE

On completion of the Court’s review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2C, it has

been determined that this case does not appear to be appropriate for summary

dismissal. Therefore, the case will be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate

judge. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2D. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate

judge.

DATED October 31, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02576-BNB Document 11 Filed 10/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Sinie Bell SMITH v. Bryan CLEMMONS, Sheriff, and E. Frank Brian, Deputy Sheriff.

No. 3308.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Nov. 22, 1950.

Jos A. Gladney, Baton Rouge, for appellant. '

Major & Sanders,. Baton Rouge, for ap-pellee.

LOTTINGER, Judge.

The plaintiff, Sinie Bell Smith, filed two suits for civil damages resulting from injuries sustained when she was allegedly beaten by deputy sheriffs of the Parish of East Baton Rouge. The demand in each suit is against the sheriff and his deputy in their official capacities, and against the deputy in his individual capacity. The suits were consolidated for purposes of trial and trial was before jury. In each 'case the verdict and judgment were in favor of defendants.

, For the reasons this day assigned in the case entitled Smith v. Clemmons, Sheriff, La.App., 48 So.2d 813, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed at plaintiff’s costs.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                            Washington, D.C. 20549


                                   FORM 8-K

                                CURRENT REPORT

               Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
                             Exchange Act of 1934


        Date of Report (Date of earliest Event reported) April 20, 2000


                        Physicians Resource Group, Inc.
            (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

        Delaware                     1-13778                   76-0456864
(State or other jurisdiction       (Commission               (IRS Employer
      of incorporation)            File Number)           Identification No.)

               14800 Landmark Blvd., Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75240
         (Address of principal executive offices)          (Zip Code)

       Registrant's telephone number, including area code (972) 892-7200
<PAGE>

Item 5.  Other Events

     On April 20, 2000, Physicians Resource Group, Inc. (the "Company"), a
debtor-in-possession, filed a monthly operating report for the period March 1,
2000 through March 31, 2000 with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (the "Bankruptcy Court"), Case
Number 00-30748-RCM.

     The Company's monthly operating reports for the periods from February 1,
2000 through February 29, 2000 and from March 1, 2000 through March 31, 2000
(collectively, the "Monthly Operating Reports") have been amended.  The amended
Monthly Operating Reports were filed with the Bankruptcy Court on May 3, 2000
and are filed as exhibits to this Current Report on Form 8-K. The Monthly
Operating Reports were amended to reflect certain reclassifications of amounts
included in the prepetition and postpetition components of the Monthly Operating
Reports.  As of March 31, 2000, the reclassifications resulted in an increase of
approximately $675,000 over previously reported "Prepetition Owner's Equity,"
with no change in the previously reported "Total Liabilities and Owner's
Equity."

Item 7.  Financial Statements and Exhibits

     (c)  Exhibits:

          99.1 Amended Monthly Operating Report for February 1, 2000 through
               February 29, 2000
          99.2 Amended Monthly Operating Report for March 1, 2000 through March
               31, 2000

                                       2
<PAGE>

                                  SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on
its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


                                    PHYSICIANS RESOURCE GROUP, INC.

DATE: May 5, 2000                   By: /s/ Michael Yeary
          -                           ----------------------------------------
                                            Michael Yeary, President and
                                            Chief Restructuring Officer

                                       3
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

PAUL CHARLES , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1447

[ December 1, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Scott Suskauer , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502013CF003225AXXXMB

.
Paul Charles, Perry, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, Assistant Attorney G eneral, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Paul Charles appeals an order summarily denying his multi

- claim motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand as to one claim regarding appellant’s rejection of a plea offer. See Alcorn v. State , 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013).

Appellant was charged by indictment with first degree murder with a weapon, attempted first degree murder with a weapon, and armed burglary of a dwelling

. The state argued first degree murder as premeditated or under a felony

- murder theory.

A jury found appellant guilty as charged on the first two counts, and of the lesser included offense of armed trespass for the third count. The trial

court sente nced appellant to consecutive terms of life in prison for the murder, thirty years for attempted murder, and five years for armed trespass.

I n his motion for postconviction relief

, appellant alleged trial counsel failed to advise him that attempted s econd degree murder was a qualifying2 felony for first degree felony murder and that this omission caused him to reject a plea to a forty

- year term for second degree murder. We accept the state’s concession that the record does not refute this legally suff icient claim and that an evidentiary hearing is required. See Brinson v. State , 18 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

On remand, the trial court shall also evaluate appellant’s related claim

t hat counsel mis advised him that any homicide conviction woul d be for no more than second degree murder and would likely result in a sentence of twenty

- five to fifty years because of appellant’s lack of criminal history

. We otherwise affirm.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part

, and remanded

.

M AY , G ERBER and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60339-60340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24126]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,662]


Steelcase, Inc.; Andersons Desk, Inc.; City of Industry Plant, 
City of Industry, California; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance on July 31, 2008, applicable to workers of 
Steelcase, Inc., City of Industry Plant, City of Industry, California. 
The notice was published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2008 (73 
FR 46923).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged 
in the production of office furniture.
    New information shows that some workers separated from employment 
at the subject firm have had their wages reported under a separate 
unemployment insurance (UI) tax account for Andersons Desk, Inc.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-63,662 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Steelcase, Inc., Andersons Desk, Inc., City of 
Industry Plant, City of Industry, California, who became totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after July 9, 2007, 
through July 31, 2010, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 and are also 
eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under 
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.


[[Page 60340]]


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of October 2008.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E8-24126 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1674 

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to give preference to local communities in the application consideration process for the conservation reserve 

program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 21, 2007 

Mr. SALAZAR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to give preference 

to local communities in the application consideration 

process for the conservation reserve program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM. 

4 Section 1234 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 

5 U.S.C. 3834) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(h) OFFERS BY RESIDENT OWNERS AND OPERA8 TORS.—In determining the acceptability of contract offers 

9 for new enrollments, the Secretary shall, to the maximum 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 1674 IS

1 extent practicable, give preference to an offer from an 

2 owner or operator that is a resident in the county in which 

3 the land is located, or in a contiguous county, if the land 

4 would provide at least equivalent conservation benefits (as 

5 determined by the Secretary) as compared to land under 

6 competing offers.’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge John L. Kane

Civil Action No. 11-cv-2300-AP

MICHAEL A. ZELLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Judge John L. Kane ORDERS

Unopposed Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Briefing Schedule (doc. #9), filed January

3, 2012, is GRANTED. Opening brief is due February 13, 2012; response brief is due

March 14, 2012; reply brief is due March 29, 2012.

Dated: January 4, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02300-CMA Document 10 Filed 01/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02740-CMA-MEH

CAROL POLLARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Kansas corporation,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on Clerk’s

Default (Doc. # 11), filed January 27, 2012. The Court, having fully considered the

merits of Plaintiff’s Motion, and for good cause shown, FINDS:

1. The Court has personal jurisdiction over all the parties.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.

3. Clerk’s Default was entered on December 5, 2011.

It is therefore

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on Clerk’s Default is GRANTED. 

Default Judgment shall enter in favor of Plaintiff Lori Monk and against Defendant Bryon

Bellerud II as follows:

1. Plaintiff Lori Monk shall recover from Defendant Bryon Bellerud II

$1,000.00 in statutory damages. 

Case 1:11-cv-02740-CMA-MEH Document 12 Filed 01/31/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

2. Plaintiff Lori Monk shall recover from Defendant Bryon Bellerud II

$2,995.00 in attorney’s fees.

3. Plaintiff Lori Monk shall recover from Defendant Bryon Bellerud II $380.00

in costs.

DATED January 31, 2012

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02740-CMA-MEH Document 12 Filed 01/31/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7042
ROBERT EARL BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE H AMPTON, Warden; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-94-1113-18AJ) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 23, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Earl Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewedthe record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Brown v. Hampton , No. CA-94-1113-18AJ (D.S.C. May 30, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

                            GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION

        I, William  Maguire,  hereby  certify that I am the duly elected  Senior
Vice  President of GMAC Mortgage  Corporation  (the  "Servicer"),  a corporation
organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of  Pennsylvania,  that I have made
such  reasonable  investigation  as I have  deemed  necessary  to  deliver  this
Certificate, including discussions with responsible officers of the Servicer and
further certify to the best of my knowledge as follows:

               1. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar
        year  beginning  January 1, 2002 and ending on  December  31,  2002 (the
        "Calendar Year") and of its performance under the servicing  agreements,
        including  the  servicing  agreement  dated as of March  26,  2002  (the
        "Servicing  Agreement"),  by and among the Servicer, the Issuer, and the
        Indenture Trustee, has been made under my supervision.

               2. To the  best  of my  knowledge,  based  on  such  review,  the
        Servicer  has  complied  in  all  material  respects  with  the  minimum
        servicing  standards set forth in the Uniform Single Attestation Program
        for Mortgage  Bankers and has fulfilled all of its material  obligations
        in all material respects throughout the Calendar Year.


        Capitalized  terms not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the
Servicing Agreement.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I have hereunto signed my name and affixed the seal of the
Servicer.

Dated:  March 31, 2003
Re: GMACM Home Equity Loan Trust 2002-HE2
                                                   GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION



                                                   By:    /s/William Maguire
                                                   Name:  William Maguire
                                                   Title:  Senior Vice President
Vi, < OF To TW^ rt*toR.ftfclt Aa\><S£5 of tugcmcr of CtfWVXHfVu

4PP£fU>? 5<£Cpv\A vfw©Vc.o«v 4-©r ^w e.fcfcv\«>i©i^ o> s\x^y "^se) Y5 ^ ^U'clv "\WV^U©rie<- U^-S coaOVcUjJI \ * ^Hve SCsQv1^ b^-fneb- G»««-V RECEIVEDIN 

### JAN°62D15 JAN 06 2015 Abel Acosta, Clerk Abel Acosta, ClerkH 

### TVNET ?HTDTCW^:^ ^Xv^ul^W^CoaA VW^V'^^v -for reWecc«-t^5

lOas \ryCocr^eci "V^oA- Cp-tcVo-f J+ppewAs tt^M~k J^C^+cic&- 3H 

### THE: ?fc£SEVJV VEA'fcCltfk" *°* ?-V.^Mv£ ?eV.^««x £0-

•\/=» _V^e^-S\v>ce. ^^A- V^ive TeA-\\-\o«N.€v U^5 laee<\ ^A\-€«.vvj\Vyvo

### St r\^^cV ^WvxJLa^-s^leVv^.o^er- ctWo a-^ts <rWtA-

©A. 

### ftWW ^3©6 Choree QvvtV- ^Tr^s-Vc/CGcw^ri V%lHWe. la-^V- A £>£«_<- ^<b a^r^tv 

## CLO&2- OlmJLJblMyt fy *4& "the cdt&dUn &£ dke CX*>pf, Q-IL&3) V^jlJ^ v^TsKvn^CA 

### £jt\^ .^ik b\S4-rlG&-<X"HorA€^

\^50 £ VWib^^uSle 3100 Pett-Mc*^*- yro-Se
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 7, 2011

t1130 

# Order

December 7, 2011

143603

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143603 COA: 296915 Jackson CC: 08-004311-FH KEONDO SHAMAAR TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 28, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the
case of People v Vaughn (Docket No. 142627) is pending on appeal be fore this Court and
that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER th at the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the
decision in that case.