alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 8.02


                    [LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL LETTERHEAD]



                                June 29, 1998



Crescent Real Estate Equities Company
777 Main Street, Suite 2100
Fort Worth, Texas  76102

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     On June 29, 1997, Crescent Real Estate Equities Company ("Crescent 
Equities") filed a registration statement on Form S-4 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, (the "Registration Statement"). We have acted as special
tax counsel to Crescent Equities in connection with the Registration Statement.
Capitalized terms used hereunder but not defined have the meaning ascribed to
them in the Registration Statement. 

     In rendering this opinion we have examined such documents as we have 
deemed relevant or necessary, including the Registration Statement, and our
conclusions are based upon the facts contained in the Registration Statement.
The initial and continuing accuracy of these facts constitutes an integral
basis for the opinion expressed herein.

     In our opinion, the discussion contained in the Registration Statement in
the subsection entitled "Tax Considerations - Taxation of Crescent Entities -
State and Local Taxes" accurately summarizes the Texas franchise tax matters
that are likely to be material to a holder of preferred shares or common shares
of Crescent Equities as of the date of the Registration Statement. The
foregoing opinion is limited to the specific matter covered hereby and does not
apply to any other matters discussed under the heading "Tax Considerations."
This opinion is based upon existing State of Texas statutes and regulations and
positions of the Texas State Comptroller of Public Accounts as of the date
hereof, all of which are subject to change, both retroactively or
prospectively.

     This opinion is furnished to you solely for use in connection with the
Registration Statement. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of
this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration Statement and to the reference 
to our Firm in the Registration Statement
<PAGE>   2
Crescent Real Estate Equities Company
June 29, 1998
Page 2


under the caption "Tax Considerations - Taxation of Crescent Entities - State
and Local Taxes."  In giving this consent we do not thereby admit that we come
within the category of persons whose consent is required under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the rules and regulations of the Securities and
Exchange Commission promulgated thereunder.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL
                                        (A Professional Corporation)



                                        By: /s/ C. RONALD KALTEYER
                                            ----------------------------
                                                C. Ronald Kalteyer
Article Reference: I-005

Measurement Matters, Vol. 11, Issue 3 July 2021 Page 1

The International Organization of Legal Metrology Adopts a New 

Recommendation for Arched Chute Type - Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems

Byline: Kenneth Butcher

The International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) has published a new international recommendation for 

automatic bulk weighing systems that use the arched chute type design weighing element. 

The recommendation, titled R 150-1, Continuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments of The Arched Chute 

Type, is available for free download on OIML’s website. 

Designed for use in continuous weighing applications such as filling trucks, unit-trains, barges, and ships with coal, 

grain, ores, or any other flowable materials, these devices can be adapted for a wide range of applications including 

in-line production processes.

An arched chute type weighing device is designed so the vertical flow of the product affects centripetal force (not the 

impact of the product particles) proportionally to the weight of the product, passing along the circular arched surface 

of the force receptor. This concept is illustrated in the following graphic, used with permission from Eastern 

Instruments of Wilmington, North Carolina. 

Credit: International Organization of Legal 

Metrology. 
Article Reference: I-005

Measurement Matters, Vol. 11, Issue 3 July 2021 Page 2

Additional information about these devices can be found in the July 2016 edition of the OIML Bulletin which is 

available for free download on OIML’s website. The article, Continuous Totalizing Weighing Instruments of the 

Arched Chute Type by Vincent Van Der Wel, Vice President, CECIP (an association of European manufacturers of 

weighing devices), begins on page 9. 

One of the leading developers and manufacturers of these devices in the U.S. is Eastern Instruments, located in 

Wilmington, North Carolina. On Eastern Instruments website, the company provides additional technical and 

operational information, along with videos illustrating the arched chute devices in operation, weighing everything 

from soy beans to ores, and even crushed aluminum cans. At the present time, these devices are primarily used in 

production processes, but their use is expanding internationally into legal for trade applications, which was one reason 

for OIML’s decision to develop R 150-1. 

For more information or questions, please contact Kenneth Butcher at kenneth.butcher@nist.gov or 301-975-4859.
July 18, 2019

Correction to: NIST Handbook 130 (2019), Uniform Laws and Regulations in the Areas of Legal Metrology and 

Fuel Quality

Section: Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities

Paragraph: 2.37. Pet Treats or Chews

(Updated language appears in bold underscored text)

Location: Page 144

2.37. Pet Treats or Chews – Digestible chews, rawhides, bones, biscuits, antlers or similar type 

products shall be sold by weight.

(Added 2018)

(Effective July 18, 2019. Enforceable January 1, 2022)
Exhibit 23.2

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


                                        July 23, 2002

We hereby consent to the use in this Form 10-K of our report dated June 14, 2000
(except Note O, which is July 13, 2000, Note E, which is July 19, 2000, and Note
13, which is July 5, 2001) relating to the audit of the consolidated financial
statements of Cox Technologies, Inc., and to the references to our firm under
the captions "Selected Financial Data" and "Experts" as of April 30, 2000 and
for the year ended April 30, 2000.

                                        /s/ Bedinger & Company

                                        Bedinger & Company
                                        Certified Public Accountants
                                        Walnut Creek, California
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4360

To provide for continuing Federal reimbursement of emergency health services 

furnished to illegal aliens through foreign aid funds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2004

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To provide for continuing Federal reimbursement of emergency health services furnished to illegal aliens through 

foreign aid funds.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Country of Origin 

5 Healthcare Accountability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 
2

•HR 4360 IH 

1 (1) The Census Bureau estimates that some 8 

2 million illegal aliens reside in the United States, and 

3 health care treatment of illegal aliens imposes a sub4 stantial cost on medical providers and hospitals in 

5 numerous communities across America. 

6 (2) American citizens should not be forced to 

7 pay for the treatment of illegal aliens, particularly 

8 when many Americans already struggle to pay their 

9 own medical expenses. Consequently, the cost of 

10 treatment of illegal aliens should be borne as a re11 duction in assistance provided to foreign countries. 

12 SEC. 3. FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT OF EMERGENCY 

13 HEALTH SERVICES FURNISHED TO ILLEGAL 

14 ALIENS THROUGH FOREIGN AID FUNDS. 

15 (a) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Of the amounts ap16 propriated for any fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 

17 2009) to carry out the provisions of sections 103, 105, 

18 106, and 131, and chapter 10 of part I of the Foreign 

19 Assistance Act of 1961, $250,000,000 shall be available 

20 to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the 

21 purpose of making allotments under the provisions re22 ferred to in subsection (b) for payments to eligible pro23 viders in States. Funds made available under the previous 

24 sentence for a fiscal year shall remain available until ex25 pended. 
3

•HR 4360 IH 

1 (b) USE OF FUNDS.—The provisions of subsections 

2 (b) through (e) of section 1011 of the Medicare Prescrip3 tion Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 

4 (Public Law 108–173) shall apply to amounts made avail5 able for a fiscal year under subsection (a) in the same 

6 manner as they apply to amounts appropriated for a fiscal 

7 year under subsection (a) of such section.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

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

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

 June 27, 2017

p0619

Order 

Clerk

June 27, 2017

154520

JAMES E. PEASE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 154520

COA: 332282

Wayne CC: 97-731630-DO

MARY JANE PEASE,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 31, 2016 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

WILDER, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Board of Directors

of Mellon
Financial Corporation:



We consent to incorporation by reference in:



| |  |  | Registration Statement Nos. 33-34430 (Form S-8), 33-41796 (Form S-8), 33-65824 (Form S-8), 33-65826 (Form S-8), 333-16743 (Form S-8), 333-38213 (Form S-3), 333-65275 (Form S-8),
333-75601 (Form S-8), 333-87961 (Form S-8), 333-54050 (Form S-8), 333-54054 (Form S-8), 333-60460 (Form S-8), 333-60464 (Form S-8), 333-105695 (Form S-8), 333-107400 (Form S-3), 333-108697 (Form S-3), and 333-109193 (Form S-8) of Mellon Financial
Corporation;
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-107400-01 (Form S-3) of Mellon Funding Corporation;
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-107400-02 (Form S-3) of Mellon Capital V;
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-107400-03 (Form S-3) of Mellon Capital IV; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-107400-04 (Form S-3) of Mellon Capital III
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------



of our reports dated February 18, 2005 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Mellon Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and
2003 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reports are incorporated by reference in the December 31, 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Mellon Financial Corporation. Our report with respect to the aforementioned consolidated financial statements refers to a change, in 2002, in Mellon Financial Corporations method of accounting for goodwill and other intangibles resulting from
business combinations in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/s/ KPMG LLP                              
|Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania February 25, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,087
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     81,920
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               271,667
<PP&E>                                       3,824,353
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,537,769)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,945,548
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,653,492
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    460,815
<COMMON>                                         2,458
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,263,426
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,945,548
<SALES>                                      1,886,746
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,886,746
<CGS>                                          514,953
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  514,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,883,190
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (536,656)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,258
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (536,656)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (536,656)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)


</TABLE>
#### Frank H. Addison, adm’r for John Frasier v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company.

*Pleading*— Deda/ration *for injury*— Donmrrability.

A declaration in case for a fatal railway injury is demurrable if it does-not so state tbe cause of action that tbe defendant can, with reasonable certainty, ascertain in what respect it is charged with negligence, or if.it does not count.BPecificallv upon some particular duty *156and breach thereof as causing the injury: itia not enough to refer to mailers in an uncertain, doubtful and amhigmma..manner *fifí*a kmcl of general drag io~meet whatever evidence may be presented.

Error to Wayne.

Submitted Apr. 4.

Decided April 19.

Case. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*James H. Pound*for appellant.

*Wm. H. Wells*and *AsJdey Pond*for appellee.

Marston, J.

Tbe defendant demurred to tbe plaintiff’s declaration, and the demurrer was sustained.

The objection to the declaration was not because of a want of words, but because of the arrangement thereof. There was not a clear and concise statement of the plaintiff’s cause of action, from which the defendant could with reasonable certainty ascertain wherein it had been guilty of negligence, and prepare to meet the charge. Many things were referred to in an uncertain, doubtful and ambiguous manner as a kind of general drag to meet the evidence, whatever it might be; but no particular duty, and breach thereof as causing the injury, was specifically counted upon. We do not deem it necessary to point out the objectionable features in some of the general counts.

The judgment will be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
|     |                                                                                                               |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-170959) pertaining to the Methode Electronics, Inc. 2010 Stock Plan, |

|        |                                                                                                               |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)(3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-146709) pertaining to the Methode Electronics, Inc. 2007 Stock Plan, |

|     |                                                                                                               |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-121090) pertaining to the Methode Electronics, Inc. 2004 Stock Plan, |

|     |                                                                                                              |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (4) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-71042) pertaining to the Methode Electronics, Inc. 2000 Stock Plan, |

|     |                                                                                                                  |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (5) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-48356) pertaining to the Methode Electronics, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan, |

|     |                                                                               |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (6) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-123806) of Methode Electronics, Inc. |
10913.

#### Bridges *v.*The State.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Indictment for manufacture of intoxicating liquor; from Terrell superior court—Judge Worrill. August 18, 1919.

The charge complained of was as follows: “Where an alibi is set up as a defense, which is not established, the jury have the right to take it into consideration in connection with the other evidence, and if they have a reasonable doubt about his guilt upon the whole of the evidence, including such attempted alibi, where not established, they ought to acquit.” It was contended that this “was contrary to law and not authorized by the evidence,” and that “it carried an expression of opinion by the court, or tended to give the jury the impression of a belief by the court, that the *362alibi set up had not in fact been established, or was merely an attempted alibi.”

*361Bloodworth, J.

1. The excerpt from the charge of which complaint is made in the special ground of the motion for a new trial does not express or intimate the opinion of the presiding judge “as to what has or has not been proved or as to the guilt of the accused,” and, when read in connection with the entire charge, contains no error which requires this court to reverse the judgment of the trial court.

2. The verdict rendered is approved by the trial judge, and there is ample evidence to support it.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.*

*362
      *C. W. Worrill, W. B. Parks,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. T. Castellow, solicitor-general, R. R. Arnold,*contra.
#### Elberton & Eastern Railroad Co. *v.*Quin *et al.; et vice versa.*

Nos. 6252, 6253.

September 18, 1928.

Atkinson, J.

1. This case coming on for a hearing before a full bench of six Justices, and one of the questions for decision being whether the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to the portion of the petition which sought specific performance as relating to terminal ' facilities as alleged in the petition, or for the recovery of damages in lieu thereof, and. the court being equally divided in opinion on this question, Russell, C. J., Beck, P. J., and Hines, J., being of the opinion that the court erred in this ruling, and Atkinson, Hill, and Gilbert, JJ., being of the opinion that the court did not so err, the judgment of the court below on this point stands affirmed by operation of law.

2. Though the evidence was conflicting on the questions of the existence and amount of market value of the bonds of the railroad company* it was sufficient to support the special verdict returned by the jury. The foregoing deals with the only assignment of error upon the judgment refusing a new trial that was argued in the briefs of the attorneys for the plaintiff in error.

3. The judge did not err in denying the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed on the main hill of exceptions. Cross-bill dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur, except as stated above.*

*94*W. A. Slaton*and *Parle & Strozier,*for plaintiff.

*B. G. Norman, B. W.*Portsoyand *Hall, Grice & Bloch,,*for defendants.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4398

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to provide 

that the calculation of the duty imposed on imported cherries that are 

provisionally preserved does not include the weight of the preservative 

materials of the cherries. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2004

Mr. HONDA (for himself, Ms. ESHOO, and Mr. CARDOZA) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States to provide that the calculation of the duty imposed 

on imported cherries that are provisionally preserved does 

not include the weight of the preservative materials of 

the cherries.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4398 IH 

1 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF CALCULATION OF DUTY IM2 POSED ON IMPORTED CHERRIES THAT ARE 

3 PROVISIONALLY PRESERVED. 

4 (a) AMENDMENTS.—Subheading 0812.10.00 of the 

5 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended—

7 (1) in the general subcolumn of the column 1 

8 rate of duty, by inserting ‘‘on drained weight’’ after 

9 ‘‘13.4¢/kg’’; and 

10 (2) in the special subcolumn of the column 1 

11 rate of duty, by inserting ‘‘on drained weight’’ after 

12 ‘‘2.6¢/kg’’ and ‘‘11.7¢/kg’’ . 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 subsection (a) shall be effective for the period beginning 

15 on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on 

16 the date on which the specific rate of duty involved is re17 duced to free.

Æ