alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 for the
Dividend Reinvestment and Share Purchase Plan of American Industrial Properties
REIT of our reports: (i) dated March 11, 1998 with respect to the  Consolidated
Financial Statements of American Industrial Properties REIT as of December 31,
1997 and 1996 and for  the three years in the period ended December 31, 1997;
(ii) dated September 16, 1997 with respect to the Combined Historical Summary
of Gross Income and Direct Operating Expenses of Merit Texas Properties
Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 1996; (iii) dated March 4, 1998 with
respect to the Combined Historical Summary of Gross Income and Direct Operating
Expenses of Skyway and Central Park Industrial Properties for the year ended
December 31, 1996; (iv) dated January 15, 1998 with respect to the Historical
Summary of Gross Income and Direct Operating Expenses of Inverness Industrial
Property for the year ended December 31, 1996; (v) dated February 28, 1998 with
respect to the Historical Summary of Gross Income and Direct Operating Expenses
of Avion Industrial Property for the year ended December 31, 1996; and (vi)
dated February 13, 1998 with respect to the Historical Summary of Gross Income
and Direct Operating Expenses of Spring Valley #6 Industrial Property for the
years ended December 31, 1997 and 1996.




                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP 
                                        Ernst & Young LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 20, 1998
#### THE STATE ex rel. WENNEKER, Collector, Appellant, v. GAVIN.

Division One,

May 25, 1904.

■NO BILL OF EXCEPTIONS: Affirmance. It being admitted that there are no errors on the face of tbe record proper, and there being no bill of exceptions, the judgment will be affirmed.

Appeal from St. Lonis City Circuit Court. — How. *Jno. A. Talty,*Judge.

Aeeirmed.

*E. G. Slevin*for appellant.

*Virgil Rule*for respondent.

VALLIANT, J.

This is a suit of the same nature as that in the case of this plaintiff against W. F. Boyle, just decided, except that in this case the record shows that there was a trial on the merits, and a finding and judgment for the defendant. The record shows that there was a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and an appeal taken, but there is no bill of exceptions in the case. Appellant does not claim that on the face of the record proper there is any error, but he asks to have the judgment reversed on grounds that can be brought to our notice only by a bill of exceptions. For the reason given in affirming the judgment in the Boyle case the judgment in this case is affirmed.

All concur, except *Robinson, J.,*absent.
NIST Mobile ID 

Sgt. TJ Smith 

September 19, 2007 
Livescan History 

1991 1995 1997 
wow 

Mobile endeavor • Year 2000 • CDPD Still in use, but not

with CDPD 
• 2000-2004 

• GPRS / 1XRTT • Edge / EVDO • E-ticket 

– Not searchable 
2003 AFIS Procurem

• 6 card sets (primarily for latent print

– 2 most recent arrests Rolled images – 2 most recent arrests Flat images – 1 composite Roll Images – 1 composite Flat 

• Aids in 2 finger searches 

– 2 finger against 2 fingers in a composi

• Now 2 fingers up to 1:6 each 

• Also added an additional matching • 2006 Added the Imigration Violator 

– 130,000 of your favorite criminal aliens 
Field Booking Pilot w/ C

2004-2005 

4 finger flat capture inserted into roll posWith photo Using current livescan Criminal TOT 

Pro 

Had prints on cite outs Created Criminal history record Id returned to the officer w/photo 

Con 

No tenprint fingerprint set Loss of images Bulky devices Additional data service costs 
2006-2007 




LAPD 

• Facial Recognition 

– Neven Vision – Gang members – Database resides on the PDA
Officer needs 

• Accurate ID (<3 minutes) • With Photo (if not a hit, provide 

high canidates. 

• Warrant / Want response 

– Parole / Probation status – Restraining orders – Terrorist – Imigration 

• Easy Authentication (or none) 
Agency / Law Enforceme

• Fingerprint based contact 

– Field interview – Citation / Notice to Appear 

• Single data entry 

– Ties to local RMS 

• Single user Authentication • Encryption? 
AFIS / System / Ve

• Sequence checking 

– Accurate finger identification 

• No human delays 
Recommendation

• TOT 

– CAR / CRM – TPIS / IDN – ID2 (1-x) – ID4 (4-4-2) 

• SRE 

– Type – Type 

• Incl

war(prithe 

– Type – Type – Type 
Discussions 

• ID 

– Respond with canidates vs Hit / 

• Allows local system to determine hi

on local systems thresholds 

– Respond with photos (if available

• Local systems can parse based 

Agency Policy / Network / Syst

– Anyone wishing to play needs a
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8(No. 333-120320) and From S-3 (No. 333-127730) ofTower Group, Inc. of our reports dated March 5, 2007 with respect tothe consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedules,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingof Tower Group, Inc. and subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/ JOHNSON LAMBERT & CO. LLP

Falls Church, VirginiaMarch 5, 2007

 

----
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOSEPH DUPEROUX

, Appellant,

v.

J&M SALES AND ENTERPRISES, INC.

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2631

[ March 22, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Jeffrey R. Levenson , Judge; L.T. Case No. CASE15005141

.

Joseph Duperoux, Lauderdale Lakes, pro se.

Leslie Ci medevilla of the CMO Law Group, LLC, Fort Lauderdale, for

appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, C ONNER , JJ., and R OBERTS

, K ATHLEEN

, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
H. Res. 317

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

November 9, 1997.

Resolved, That, upon the adoption of this resolution, the

bill H.R. 2472, to extend certain programs under the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act, be, and the same is hereby,

taken from the Speaker’s table to the end that the Senate

amendment to the text of the bill be, and the same is hereby,

agreed to with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, insert the following:

SECTION 1. ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT AMENDMENTS.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended—

(1) in section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246) by striking

‘‘1997’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘1998’’;

(2) in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251) by striking

‘‘September 30, 1997’’ both places it appears and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘September 1, 1998’’; and
2

•HRES 317 EH

(3) in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285) by striking

‘‘September 30, 1997’’ both places it appears and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘September 1, 1998’’.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### J. R. Allen *v.*Charles D. Jacob.

Appeal — Review—Findings of Court.

Tlie findings of the court on questions of fact without the intervention of a jury will not be disturbed on appeal, unless there is a decided preponderance of the evidence against them.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 22, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

It is alleged in the fourth paragraph of the answer to the amended petition, and the allegation is sustained by the evidence, that the co-partnership of W. E. Bogle & Co. was dissolved about the 30th of *145March, 1864; and the further fact is alleged, and the evidence conduces to prove it, that immediately after the dissolution and before the delivery of any more lumber by the appellant under his contract with the firm, he was notified that the partnership was dissolved.

*Mix, Muir & Byer, for appellant.*

*T. W. Gibson, for appellee.*

It appears that the appellant was fully paid for all the lumber delivered by him' before the dissolution; and among other issues presented by the defense is the question whether the appellant did or not thereafter treat the contract as ended and sell and deliver the lumber, the price of which is in controversy, to Bogle alone, upon his individual account and responsibility. As the judge in trying the issues of fact acted in the place of a jury, his decision of those issues, according to a well settled rule of practice, ought not to be disturbed, ás not sustained by the evidence, unless there is a decided preponderance of the evidence against it.

The record certainly discloses facts conducing strongly to support the affirmative side of the question we have mentioned. That the appellant failed to exact payment for the lumber as delivered, as he had a right to do under the original contract; and continued to furnish lumber to Bogle after the expiration of the time for delivering it under that contract; and finally on the 25th of August, 1864, made a settlement with Whitman, the agent of Bogle alone, and-took from, him1 in the individual name of Bogle, an acknowledgment of the price of the lumber importing a debt as due from Bogle individually, and not from the late firm of Bogle & Co., might have led a jury to find that Bogle individually owed the balance due the appellant, and not the late partnership; and we do not think that such a vedrict should have been set aside, on a motion for a new trial, as not sustained by the evidence.

However, if the somewhat difficult and perplexing questions of law, raised by the argument, should be determined, were it necessary to decide them, we are constrained by the evidence on the issue of fact we have stated, to conclude that the judgment ought not to be reversed.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
#### James Donovan *v.*L. J. Bradford.

Compromise and Settlement — Matters Included In Settlement — Presumption. '

Where the claim might have been included in a settlement between the parties', made several years prior to its assertion, and it was not asserted until after a judgment had been rendered against the guardian on the settlement note,, it will be presumed that all matters between the parties were included in the settlement.

APPEAL PROM BRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

March 5, 1873.

*Willis, Rodmcm, for appellant.*

*Doniphan, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The injunction was properly dissolved as to the .claim.' for usury. This defense should have been made at law. *Chinn v. Mitchell, 2*Met. 92. As to the alleged claim for one hundred dollars, the value of tobacco sold and delivered the appellee and his partner in the year 1859, we have only to say that it is, rather remarkable that in a settlement made between these parties in the year 1867, this claim was not there included and particularly as the appellant then executed his note to the appellee for upwards of eight hundred dollars. This was eight years after the tobacco was delivered, and in the year 1868 a suit was instituted on this note and judgment rendered without the presentation of any such claim on the part of the appellant. He is concluded by laches on his part and the presumption must be indulged in that all of the matters between these parties were included in the settlement of 1867.

Judgment is *affirmed.*
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION TO BE
PROVIDED BY THE SERVICER WITH FORM 10-K

Re:  Lehman Home Equity Loan Trust 2004-3, Home Equity Loan
Asset-backed Certificates, Series 2004-3

I, John M. Murphy, President, of Ocean Bank F.S.B. (formerly known
as Home Loan and Investment Bank, F.S.B.)(the "Servicer") in charge
of servicing, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in respect
of periods included in the year covered by this annual report of 2004;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution information and the servicing
information required to be provided to the Trustee by the Servicer
under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement is included in these reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and based upon the
review required under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and except as
disclosed in the report, the Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and

5. I have disclosed to the Servicer's certified public accountants all
significant deficiencies relating to the Servicer's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards in accordance with a review conducted in
compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers or similar standard as set forth in the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement.


Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed
to them in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated May 1, 2004 (the
"Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), among Lehman ABS Corporation as
depositor, Home Loan and Investment Bank, F.S.B. (now known as Ocean
Bank, F.S.B.) as seller and servicer and Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company as trustee.


Ocean Bank F.S.B, (formerly known as
HOME LOAN AND INVESTMENT BANK, F.S.B.)


By: /s/ John M. Murphy
Name:  John M. Murphy
Title:  President
Date:  March 15, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND FOR THE
PERIOD FROM INCEPTION (APRIL 22, 1997) TO DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-22-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       5,726,359
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,975,821
<PP&E>                                      23,912,659
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,047,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,929,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       33,409,404
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,292,090)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,047,014
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   403
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,639
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,671,704)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,671,704)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,671,704)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (7,485,894)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (7,485,894)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
23.1
   
   CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-54479 on Form S-8 of our reports dated April 28, 2008, relating to the
financial statements of MAXXAM Inc. (which report includes an explanatory
paragraph regarding the ability of MAXXAM Inc. and subsidiaries to continue as a
going concern), and the effectiveness of MAXXAM Inc.'s internal control over
financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of MAXXAM
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.
   DELOITTE
& TOUCHE LLP
   Houston,
Texas
   April 30,
2008
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel, are you 

a 

 Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 4 Filed: 09/02/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:58
#### J. H. Rappell v. J. Rebham.

Joint Adventures — Recovery.

Where property is sold to a firm engaged in buying live stock, and they are all charged with having purchased the stock, a joint recovery may foe had without an allegation that they were partners.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 13, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The evidence in this case conduces to show a partnership between the defendant to the action in the purchase of hogs. They are *312declared against as joint .purchasers of the hogs alleged to- have been sold them by the appellee, and although the proof may disclose the existence of a partnership, still it does not defeat the right of recovery because they are declared against as jointly liable.

*T. B. Fairleigh, appellant.*

*Gazlay, Yeaman & Reinecke, appellee.*

If the hogs were sold to- them jointly the proof that they were partners only shows their joint liability. If property is sold to a firm engaged in buying stock or in other business pursuits, if they are all declared against as having purchased it, we see no reason why a recovery cannot be had in the absence of any allegation that they were partners. That they are jointly' liable is unquestioned, and they are presumed to know whether this joint liability arises from a contract of partnership or otherwise, and not the party instituting the action. If one of the parties should be omitted the only mode of taking advantage of it under the ruling in Chitty was by plea in abatement. The weight of the testimony shows a joint liability.

Judgment *affirmed.*
#### Hanks & Porter *v.*W. A. Stewart, etc.

Attachment — Money Due School Teacher from State.

Money due a teacher in the common schools from a state can not he attached in the hands of the school commissioners.

APPEAL FROM OWEN' CIRRCUIT ¡COURT.

March 21, 1873.

*579*Craddock & Roberts, for appellants.*

*J. W. Green, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor.:

This court, in the case of *Tracy & Lloyd v. Hornbuckle and Wife,*8 Bush 336, decided the identical question involved in this case.

Money due a teacher of a common school from the state can not be, attached in the hands- of the school commissioner.

Judgment is *affirmed.*
United States Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Colorado

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully 

completed training and proficiency tests, documented calibration intervals, submitted a quality management system, and 

demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate.

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope

(Rev.: September 2021)

Mass Echelon I

1 kg to 1 mg

Mass Echelon II

20 kg to 1 mg

Mass Echelon III

50 kg to 1 mg

2500 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Weight Carts

5000 lb to 2000 lb

Volume Transfer, II

100 gal to 5 gal

Volume Transfer, II LPG

100 gal to 25 gal 

Frequency

Tuning Forks  80 mph

2022 to 2023

____________________________________

Katrice Lippa, Chief

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Effective Dates: 2022-02-01 to 2024-02-01
Exhibit 32.1

Exhibit 38                       CERTIFICATION

                            Certification Pursuant to
                               Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      The undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his
capacity as an officer of Mediscience Technology Corp. (the "Company"), that, to
his knowledge, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal
year ended February 29, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 7, 2004


                                          Name: ss Peter Katevatis
                                          Title: Peter Katevatis Chairman, CEO


                                                                              63