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

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statements No. 333-54706, No. 333-108054, and No.333-111183; Amendment No. 5 to Registration Statement No. 333-66371; and Registration Statement No. 333-99435 of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. on Forms S-3, to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-68302 of U.S.Restaurant Properties, Inc. on Form S-8, and to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 4 to Registration Statement No. 333-119116 of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. on Form S-4 of our reports relating to the financials statements of U.S.Restaurant Properties, Inc. and management’s report on effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting dated February 24, 2005 (our report on the financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatoryparagraphs relating to changes in the methods of accounting for discontinued operations in 2002 and asset retirement obligations in 2003 as required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 144*, Accounting for theImpairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets* and SFAS No. 143,*Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations*, respectively), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. filed on or about February 24, 2005.

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Dallas, Texas 

February 24, 2005
583 A.2d 317

#### DAVID FELDMAN AND RUTH SIMON v. PAUL LEMING AND BEVERLY LEMING.

February 6, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
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 Annual Report of IBSG International, Inc; (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Rivers,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001,
      that:





The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







IBSG
                International, IncDate: June
                  13, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Michael
                RiversMichael
              RiversChief
                Executive Officer
#### W. W. Nelson v. S. W. & J. L. Cockrell.

(No. 5980.)

Appeal from Scurry County.

J. D. Martin, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 448. *Occupation license of a firm not subject to execution; case stated.*Appellees having a judgment against one Eeed, a member of the firm of Nelson & Reed, retail liquor dealers, caused an execution to be issued thereon, and caused said execution to be levied upon said Reed’s interest in the occupation license of said firm. Nelson, appellant, made claim under the statute for the trial of the right of property to said license. Judgment was rendered against Nelson and his sureties on his claim bond for §112 and interest and costs. *Held,*the judgment is erroneous. The occupation license was the property of the firm of Nelson & Reed, and essential to the carrying on of the business of said firm. Said firm could legally have transferred it to another firm or person upon the books of the officer by whom the same was issued [Sayles’ Civ. Stat. art. 46G8a]; and if said firm had been closed out by legal process, said license could have been sold under such process as any other asset of said firm, and the purchaser thereof would have been authorized to carry on business finder it. But different firms or persons are not permitted, to follow an occupation under one license. [Sayles’ Civ. Stat. art. 4668cZ.] The firm of Nelson & Reed was not closed out by legal process. A sale of Reed’s interest in the license could not impair *548or affect the right of said firm to carry on its business under said license. Nelson could not be compelled to accept a purchaser of the license as a partner in the business. Such a purchaser could not carry on the business under the license. He could not transfer the license. He would acquire no legal right or benefit by such purchase. The license was, not subject to the execution under the facts as presented in the record.

April 10, 1889.

Reversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         103,731
<SECURITIES>                                     4,985
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,856
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     19,607
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               214,533
<PP&E>                                          46,863
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 300,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,105
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       196,432
<OTHER-SE>                                    (56,845)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   300,778
<SALES>                                         94,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                94,132
<CGS>                                           40,975
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,682
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,067
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,408
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,958
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,395
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,395
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5693]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              THE JOURNAL

  The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's 
proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
  Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-80333) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, 1999 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan, 1999 Non-employee Directors' Stock Option Plan and Options
Granted Outside Any Plan of Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. and in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-32218) pertaining to the Common Stock
Issuable Upon Exercise of Options Assumed by Copper Mountain Networks, Inc.,
Originally Granted Under the OnPREM Networks Corporation 1998 Stock Option Plan
and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-38798) pertaining to the
2000 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan and 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended
of Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. of our report dated January 30, 2001, with
respect to the financial statements of Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Copper Mountain
Networks, Inc. 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.


                                                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Diego, California
March 5, 2001
#### STATE ex rel. Edmond D. SPENCER v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0048.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Spencer, Edmond D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 064076; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1496.

Denied.
#### H. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. Van Bayless.

(No. —, Op. Book No. 1, p. 176.)

Appeal from Smith County.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 500. *Railroad company; not responsible for injuries caused by an independent contractor in the construction of the road.*Appellee recovered of appellant a judgment *248for the value of his mule, which was killed by a train on appellant’s road. At the time the mule was killed, the road and trains were being controlled and operated by contractors engaged in the construction of the road, over which contractors the railroad company had no control. *Held:*A person, either natural or artificial, is not liable for the acts or negligence of another, unless the relation of master and servant, or principal and agent, exist between them. When an injury is done by a party exercising an independent employment, the party employing him is not responsible to the party injured. A company is generally responsible for the acts of only such persons as sustain towards it the relation of agents or servants. It is important to ascertain what circumstances create this relation, so as to determine its liability. The relation does not subsist when the employee exercises an independent employment, and is not under the immediate direction of the employer. Thus, if A. lets out a piece of work to R, and B., or his servant, while engaged in performing it, injures 0., A. is not responsible; for B. and the persons employed by him are not the servants of A. This doctrine is now well established in America. [1 Parsons on Con. 88-93; Story on Agency, § 454a; 24 Barb. 355; Redfield on Railways, 505, 506; 3 Mass. 349; 46 Penn. 213; 17 Mo. 121; 4 Exch. 244.] In the case at bar, the trial court charged the jury as follows: “I charge you that contractors for the construction of a railroad are, during the execution of said work, the servants of the company, and that the tortious acts of the contractors, while about the business of the company, are properly chargeable to it.” This charge was erroneous.

§ 501. *Employer is liable for act of contractor, when.*When a contractor is employed to do an unlawful act, a person injured by such unlawful act, or by any result of it, may recover damages from either the contractor or the employer, or both. [Shearman & Redfield on Neg. § 84.]

§ 502. *Statute not applicable to this case.*Article 4926, Revised Statutes, does not apply to this case so as *249to make the railroad company liable for the killing of plaintiff’s mule. If the company had been in possession of the road and operating the same when the mule was killed, then the company would certainly be liable. But the proof in the case is that, at the time the mule was killed, neither the road nor the cars upon it were in the possession or under the control of the company. The company had no such legal control or interest in the road as would make it liable under the statute for stock killed or injured by the construction train run by the contractors thereon, for their own sole use and benefit, and under their exclusive direction and control.

November 24, 1876.

Reversed and remanded.
763 A.2d 355

#### In the Matter of R. Gregory HENNIGER. Petition for Reinstatement from Inactive Status.

No. 52 DB 2000.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 30, 2000.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 30th day of October, 2000, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated September 28, 2000, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that R. GREGORY HENNIGER, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         189,432
<SECURITIES>                                   172,048
<RECEIVABLES>                                  130,684
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,521
<INVENTORY>                                     87,053
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               627,330
<PP&E>                                         150,329
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 704,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          148,049
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       640,871
<OTHER-SE>                                    (84,100)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   704,820
<SALES>                                        444,208
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               444,208
<CGS>                                          201,185
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  201,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               410,014
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (155,828)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,177
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (168,005)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (168,005)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.61)
        

</TABLE>
583 A.2d 334

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN HARVEY RUSSELL.

March 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### James Farris v. J. & A. Seisfield.

(No. 1164, Op. Book No. 1, p. 752.)

Appeal from Collin County.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 350. *Partnership, judgment against.*The judgment of the district court having been rendered upon proper service had upon Bryant, one of the members of the partnership of Parris & Bryant, was sufficient to bind the partnership and the property of the individual member so served. [Pas. Dig. art. 1514.] *Qucere:*Where such judgment has been rendered, can the plaintiff, by a new suit, recover judgment against the partner not served, so as to subject his individual property also to the payment of the original judgment ?

§ 351. *Venue of. suit.*A defendant must be sued in the county of his residence, unless the case comes within some of the exceptions named in the statute. [Pas. Dig. art. 1423.]

*150April 30, 1879.

§ 352. *Jurisdiction of county court.*Under the present constitution and laws, the county court has no jurisdiction to set aside a judgment of the district court.

Reversed and remanded.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11

                      MICRION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
                 Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings
<CAPTION>
                                                                (unaudited)
                                                            For the three months
                                                            ended September 30,
                                                            1995           1996
                                                           ------         ------
                                                    (in thousands except per share data)
<S>                                                        <C>            <C>   
Net Income ...........................................     $  487         $  982

(a) Computation of Primary Earnings per Share:

Weighted average common equivalent shares outstanding
  Common stock .......................................      3,903          4,033
  Common stock equivalents:
    Warrants(1) ......................................         52             44
    Options(2) .......................................         31             44
                                                           ------         ------
Weighted average common and common equivalent shares
outstanding ..........................................      3,986          4,121
                                                           ======         ======


 Primary Earnings per Share ..........................     $ 0.12         $ 0.24
                                                           ======         ======


(a) Computation of Fully Diluted Earnings per Share:

Weighted average common equivalent shares outstanding
  Common stock .......................................      3,903          4,033
  Common stock equivalents:
    Warrants(1) ......................................         52             48
    Options(2) .......................................         31             77
                                                           ------         ------
Weighted average common and common equivalent shares
outstanding ..........................................      3,986          4,158
                                                           ======         ======


 Fully Diluted Earnings per Share ....................     $ 0.12         $ 0.24
                                                           ======         ======
<FN>
(1) Warrants issued 5/94 for 100,000 shares, less shares reacquired under the treasury
    stock method.

(2) Options granted 11/94, 12/94, 5/95, 1/96 and 7/96 under option plan, less shares 
    reacquired under the treasury stock method.
</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 3 , 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00147

- CV

Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Appellant

v.

Omar Weaver Rosales, 201701087, 201700840, 201700279, 201700153, 201607308,

201607292, 201701948, 2 01702052, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES KELLY AND S MITH
REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE ;

CONCURRING OPINION B Y JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on February 20, 2018 . Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in

the court’s judgment

. Th erefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the

case to the trial court for further proceedings

. The appellee shall pay all costs relating to this

appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1138 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 31
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1138

                          [Report No. 110-71]

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, as the ``J. 
   Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2007

 Mr. Butterfield (for himself, Mr. Coble, Mr. Price of North Carolina, 
Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Watt, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. 
   Hayes, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Ms. Foxx, Mr. 
   McHenry, and Mr. Shuler) introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                             March 26, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, as the ``J. 
   Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 306 
East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, shall be known and 
designated as the ``J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
                                                  House Calendar No. 31

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1138

                          [Report No. 110-71]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, as the ``J. 
   Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 26, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
583 A.2d 350

#### INGRID K. SCIPIO v. TOWNSHIP OF FAIRFIELD.

March 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
583 A.2d 306

#### JOSEPH FALCHETTA v. BERTRAM LEVINSTONE, M.D.

January 23, 1990.

Cross-petition for certification dismissed as moot.