alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT
 
 
We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
333-6886) on Form S-8 of Gemstar International Group Limited ("Gemstar") of
our report dated March 7, 1997, relating to the balance sheets of StarSight
Telecast, Inc. ("StarSight")  as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the
related statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the
twelve months ended December 31, 1996 and 1995, not presented separately
therein, prior to restatement to conform StarSight's accounting policies and
fiscal year to those of Gemstar, which report appears in this March 31, 1998
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gemstar.
 
Deloitte & Touche LLP
 
San Francisco, California
June 29, 1998
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 15, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40251 Summary Calendar

DAVID GREGORY SURASKY, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JONATHON DOBRE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:02-CV-126

-------------------- Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * David Gregory Surasky, federal inmate # 52646-080, appeals the denial of his petition for habeas relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Surasky argues that the district court erred when it determined that he was not entitled to presentence credit toward his federal sentence for time he spent in official detention before the commencement of the sentence for which he is currently incarcerated. Under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.No. 03-40251 -2- § 3585(b), the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was not required to give Surasky the credit he sought because he had already received the credit against his state sentence. See United States v. Wilson , 503 U.S. 329. 334 (1992). Surasky’s argument that the most recent decision of the BOP denying him credit toward his federal sentence is barred by the equitable principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel because the issue was decided in the first administrative hearing on his request for credit fails because Surasky presents no final judgment from that hearing. See Vasquez v. Bridgestone/Firestone,
Inc. , 325 F.3d 665, 675 (5th Cir. 2003). The judgment of the district court denying Surasky relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is
AFFIRMED. Surasky’s motion to expedite the instant appeal is DENIED.
#### Jacob Morse *v.*Robert C. Boyd et al.

Evidence — Facts de Hors an Entry Under a Patent.

Where it appears upon the face of a patent that it is illegal, it may be considered null and void, but evidence of a fact de hors the patent is inadmissible in a collateral proceeding to avoid or defeat it.

APPEAL PROM CALDWELL CIRCUIT COURT.

May 11, 1871.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams :

This action of ejectment was brought to recover the possession of certain lands claimed to be covered by a patent issued to William Leavis on the 11th day of June, 1807, upon a certificate of entry bearing date of-day of February, 1802. The appellant claimed under a patent issued to Cornelius Merry on the 25th of August, 1806, on a certificate of entry bearing date the -day of November, 1804. The agreed facts in the record show that both patents aver the land in controversy. Upon their faces, both patents seem to have been issued under the provisions of “an act for settling and improving the vacant lands of this Commonwealth,” approved December 2Qth, 1800. There can be no doubt but that the title of the Commonwealth to the land covered by the same passed to the patentee by the patent issued to Merry, and that under the same he and his vendees can hold as against the world so long as the patent remains in full force, unless it is void.

Upon its fact it does not appear to be void, and in a contest between those holding under Merry, and those claiming under a junior patent its validity cannot be questioned. In the case of *Bledsoe's Devisees v. Wells, 4th Bibb, 330,*this court held that when it appears upon the face of a patent that it is illegal, it may be considered void and treated as a nullity, but that evidence of a fact *de hors*the patent was inadmissible in a collateral proceeding. to avoid or defeat it. The fact appears from the face of the Travis patent that his, which was the older entry, covers a portion of the land patented to Merry. This fact in a direct proceeding to vacate Merry’s patent to the extent of the land so averred might *36be sufficient to entitle those who claim under him to relief, but according to tbe doctrine in case of *Bledsoe's Devisees v. Wells,*which has been frequently referred to in terms of approval by this court in subsequent cases, such a fact was inadmissible to impeach it in this proceeding.

*Marble, for appellant.*

*Hewlett, for appellee.*

The judgment against .appellant, Morse, must therefore be reversed. The cause is remanded, with instructions to dismiss appellees’ petition as to him.
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street
Washington, DC 20543

Dear Sir or Madam:

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K of
our report dated April 2, 1996, related to the consolidated financial statements
of Silver Diner, Inc. and Subsidiaries (formerly Silver Diner Development, Inc.,
Silver Diner Limited Partnership and Silver Diner Potomac Mills, Inc.) for the
year ended December 31, 1995.


/s/ Reznick Fedder & Silverman
____________________________________
REZNICK FEDDER & SILVERMAN

Bethesda, Maryland
March 28, 1998
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marlena E. Jones-Butler,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04421-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: February 1, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9899 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Ana Guzman","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/ana-d-guzmannasa-gov\/","title":"Station Science 101: Plant Research","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Bfn8ZZOgPU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/ways-the-international-space-station-helps-us-study-plant-growth-in-space\/\">Station Science 101: Plant Research<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/ways-the-international-space-station-helps-us-study-plant-growth-in-space\/embed\/#?secret=Bfn8ZZOgPU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Station Science 101: Plant Research” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Bfn8ZZOgPU\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/iss064e027748.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Sandra May","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/sandra-b-maynasa-gov\/","title":"What Is the Space Launch System? (Grades K-4)","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"lMgeEZ6meC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/learning-resources\/for-kids-and-students\/what-is-the-space-launch-system-grades-k-4\/\">What Is the Space Launch System? (Grades K-4)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/learning-resources\/for-kids-and-students\/what-is-the-space-launch-system-grades-k-4\/embed\/#?secret=lMgeEZ6meC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“What Is the Space Launch System? (Grades K-4)” — NASA\" data-secret=\"lMgeEZ6meC\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/edu_nasa_knows_sls_graphic_crew_carge_k4-weight-a.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":543}
EXHIBIT 13.1
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  The undersigned, Stewart Wallis, Chief Executive Officer of Crosshair Exploration & Mining Corp. (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 annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended April 30, 2011 (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.
  Date:  July 29, 2011
  /s/ Stewart Wallis
  Stewart Wallis
  Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 21  SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
 Company
    
    StateRoyal Bank America
    
    PennsylvaniaRoyal Asian Bank
    
    PennsylvaniaRoyal Investments of Delaware, Inc.
    
    DelawareRoyal Real Estate of Pennsylvania, Inc.
    
    PennsylvaniaCrusader Servicing Corporation
    
    PennsylvaniaRoyal Investments America, LLC
    
    PennsylvaniaRoyal Bancshares Capital Trust I
    
    DelawareRoyal Bancshares Capital Trust II
    
    DelawareRoyal Bank America Leasing, LP
    
    PennsylvaniaRBA ABL Group, LP
    
    PennsylvaniaRBA Capital, LP
    
    PennsylvaniaRoyal Tax Lien Services, LLC
    
    PennsylvaniaRoyal Preferred, LLC
    
    DelawareRoyal Captive Insurance Company
    
    DelawareRBA Property LLC
    
    PennsylvaniaNarberth Property Acquisition LLC
    
    Pennsylvania
 129
Exhibit
13.1








PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350





In
connection with this Annual Report of CalPetro Tankers (Bahamas I) Limited. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Tor Olav Troim, Principal 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 results of operations of the Company.




A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.





Date:
April 29, 2010





/s/ Tor Olav Troim


Tor Olav
Troim


Principal
Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32(b)

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 United Rentals, Inc. and United Rentals (North America),
Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Martin E. Welch III, Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ MARTIN E. WELCH IIIMartin E. Welch IIIChief Financial Officer


August 1, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.1




ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT




The undersigned, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), with respect to CorTSTrust II For Goldman Sachs Capital I, on whose behalf  Structured Products Corp. has prepared this annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Annual Report”), certifies as follows:




1.           The Trustee is the trustee under the trust agreement.




2.           Based on my knowledge, for the periods included in the year covered by the Annual Report, the Trustee has fulfilled its obligations, including any servicing obligations, under the trust agreement.






/s/
Janet P. O'HaraName:
Janet P. O’HaraTitle:
Vice PresidentDate:
March 6, 2013
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Christine Giraldo","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/cegirald\/","title":"NASA: Let\u2019s Ketchup on International Space Station Tomato Research","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"NEUEHBT8Jx\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/iss-research\/nasa-lets-ketchup-on-international-space-station-tomato-research\/\">NASA: Let\u2019s Ketchup on International Space Station Tomato Research<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/iss-research\/nasa-lets-ketchup-on-international-space-station-tomato-research\/embed\/#?secret=NEUEHBT8Jx\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA: Let\u2019s Ketchup on International Space Station Tomato Research” — NASA\" data-secret=\"NEUEHBT8Jx\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/iss068e015480.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### Geo. A. Thomas & Wife *v.*Margaret Naylor’s Admr.

Gifts — Acquisition by Donee.

A deed of gift, duly recorded, held to be a binding contract of conveyance, in the absence of undue influence or improper constraint.

Wills — Undue Influence.

A contract of conveyance, held to be valid, where the donor was not *325improperly influenced, but acted from motive of kindness and attention from the donee, before death of donor.

APPEAL PROM ADAIR CIRCUIT COURT.

October 18, 1870.

*Winfrey, for appellant.*

*Baker, Garnett, for appellees.*

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin :

Although the death of Mrs. Margaret A. Naylor probably occurred much sooner than either she or the appellants contemplated when the contract of March 19th, 1868, was executed, and the contingent and uncertain consideration therein expressed was therefore of less pecuniary value than they expected, yet we do not perceive any sufficient grounds for setting this contract aside. Though in reduced and declining health, Mrs. Naylor appears to have possessed ample capacity to exercise the right of disposing of her property as she pleased; and there is not sufficient evidence of constraint or improper influence or fraud on the part of the appellants to induce her to dispose of it as she did. The proof is is conclusive of her attachment for her step-daughter, Mrs. Thomas, whose kindness and attention to her seems to have been very commendable, and it is fair to presume that affection and gratitude to her, as well as a sense of justice, or purpose of remuneration, prompted the fixed purpose which she certainly entertained of bestowing her small estate, in some form, on the appellants. And although in consequence of some dissatisfaction of her step-son, Parker Naylor, she at one time assented to the suggestion of Mrs. Garrett to cancel the contract, and the appellant, George A. Thomas, seems to have gone in good faith to procure the deed for that purpose, when she was informed it had already been recorded, she expressed her satisfaction that it had, and elected to continue the contract in force, as with the assent of the appellant, she had a perfect right to do.

It seems to us, therefore, that the court erred in its judgment setting the deed aside, and for the recovery of the property against its provisions.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
#### James M. Littell, &c. *v.*Meliah J. Redd, &c.

Deeds — Execution—Acceptance.

Where a deed is duly and legally executed, the law presumes that th* beneficiary therein will accept it.

APPEAL PROM GRANT CIRCUIT COURT.

May 26, 1871.

*327Drane, *for appellant.*

OPINION, op the Court by

Judge Peters :

We are assured by tbe allegations in tbe petition, and tbe admissions in tbe answer of tbe existence of tbe material facts that a deed was executed by appellant to bis daughter tbe appellee M.' J". Eedd for 110 acres of land in Grant county, and that it was-acknowledged by bim before tbe proper officer. But perplexed by tbe great uncertainty in wbicb other material facts are shrouded by tbe conflict in tbe evidence and we may add by tbe unsatisfactory manner in wbicb tbe witnesses depose, we do, not feel, authorized to reverse tbe judgment.

Where a deed is executed tbe law raises a presumption that' the party benefited by it will accept it, on this case tbe appelleeMrs. Eedd was tbe beneficiary in tbe deed, and tbe evidence is-not sufficient to overcome that legal presumption.

Wherefore tbe judgment, is *affirmed.*