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

Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm

TheBoard of Directors

MississippiChemical Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements(No. 333-38619) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-36998 and 333-56726) on Form S-8 ofMississippi Chemical Corporation of our report dated September 3, 2004, withrespect to the consolidated balance sheets of Mississippi Chemical Corporationand subsidiaries as of June 30, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, shareholders' (deficit) equity, and cash flows foreach of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2004, which reportappears in the June 30, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of MississippiChemical Corporation.

Our report dated September 3, 2004, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company'srecurring losses and insufficient liquidity has resulted in MississippiChemical Corporation and nine of its subsidiaries filing voluntary petitions toreorganize under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on May 15, 2003.  On July 1, 2004, the Company obtained replacement debtor-in-possessionfinancing (see note 7 of the 2004 consolidated financial statements), and onSeptember 2, 2004, the Company filed an amended plan of reorganization with theU. S. Bankruptcy Court; however, there can be no assurance that thisreplacement debtor-in-possession financing will be adequate to meet theCompany's cash flow requirements or that the Company's plan of reorganizationwill be approved or confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court or other interestedparties. These matters raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability tocontinue as a going concern.  The consolidated financial statements do notinclude any adjustments that might result from the outcome of theseuncertainties.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Jackson, Mississippi

September 27, 2004
#### Richard TRICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-5026.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: May 10, 2001.

ORDER

Appellant having paid the required filing fee for one appeal, it is ORDERED that the order of dismissal and the mandate be, and the same hereby are, VACATED and RECALLED, and the notice of appeal for 01-5026 is REINSTATED.

Appeals 01-5026 and 01-5060 are hereby deconsolidated.

Appellee should compute the due date for filing its brief from the date of filing of this order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                         
<ARTICLE>                     5
                               
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                244,054
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          75,548
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                         3,163,229
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            0
<PP&E>                                 73,767
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      4,227,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       0
<BONDS>                             2,399,759
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 696,774
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                            1,011,899
<OTHER-SE>                           (850,915)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        4,227,129
<SALES>                             6,389,071
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    6,954,730
<CGS>                               5,768,374
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       5,976,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    150,644
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       173,069
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   173,069
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          173,069
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.04
        

</TABLE>
#### Frank Elstan *v.*Susan Roberts.

Pleading — Lost Pleading — Substitution—Waiver.

Where the court allowed plaintiff to substitute new pleadings for ones which had been lost, defendant waived the error, if any, in allowing the substitution, by failing to make it a ground for a new trial.

Appeal — Presumption—Evidence Not in Record.

Where the evidence is not in the record the Court of Appeals must presume that it was such as to authorize the finding of the jury.

*17APPEAL PROM HENRY CIRCUIT COURT.'

June 20, 1873.

*Webb &*Barbour, *for appellant.*

*Drone, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

We perceive no substantial or available error in the action of the court in causing new pleadings- to be substituted for the original ones which were lost; but if in this action of the court there was any error, the defendant waived it by failing to make it a ground for a new trial.

The evidence adduced on the trial not being in the record, we must presume it was such as to authorize the finding of the jury, and we cannot say that the verdict is excessive, or not sustained by sufficient -evidence.

The judgment is *affirmed.*
No. 87-6022.

#### Foret et al. *v.*Town of Grand Isle et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: Karen Clark 

Sent: 2/23/2022, 8:38 AM

To: standardsinfo@nist.gov

Subject: Updating the NIST cybersecurity framework for healthcare

Sirs,

I read with interest this morning the update about your work in updating the cybersecurity 

framework for the supply chain.

My organization is part of a healthcare industry group called The Ortho Forum. With 146 

orthopaedic physician practices in 47 States, the OrthoForum is a national physician specialty 

organization whose membership includes many of the largest independently-owned orthopaedic 

practices in the United States. It is a best-practices organization that disseminates the lessons learned 

from the successes of orthopaedic physicians. OrthoForum practices employ approximately 4,000 

physicians, 450 nurse practitioners, 2,300 physician assistants, 650 occupational therapists, and 2,500 

physical therapists. Independent orthopaedic practices spend $1.7 billion per year on wages and 

salaries. The OrthoForum was established to meet the unique challenges that integrated orthopaedic 

group practices face in today’s healthcare environment.

We all know that the cybersecurity landscape has changed dramatically since the HITECH Act was 

passed, and healthcare has been a specific target of threat actors.

If you plan to update the framework as it relates to HIPAA-covered entities, The Ortho Forum 

would welcome the opportunity to participate on a committee or advisory board as an industry 

expert.

Thank you for your time.
##### 



Exhibit 24 MERCANTILE BANKSHARES CORPORATIONPOWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE
PRESENTS, that each person
whose signature appears below
constitutes and appoints
Edward J. Kelly, III and John
L. Unger, and each of them,
his or her true and lawful
attorney(s)-in-fact and
agent(s), with full power of
substitution and
resubstitution, to sign for
the undersigned and in the
undersigneds name as a
director of Mercantile
Bankshares Corporation the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Mercantile Bankshares
Corporation for the year
ended December 31, 2003, to
be filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and
to file the same with the
Securities and Exchange
Commission, with all exhibits
and schedules thereto, and
other documents in connection
therewith, and any and all
further amendments to said
report, granting unto said
attorney(s)-in-fact and
agent(s) full power and
authority to do and perform
each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be
done in and about the
premises, as fully to all
intents and purposes as he or
she might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said
attorney(s)-in-fact and
agent(s), or their
substitute(s), may lawfully
do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof. This Power of
Attorney may be executed in
one or more counterparts. /s/ Cynthia A. Archer
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004Cynthia A. Archer/s/ R. Carl Benna
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004R. Carl Benna/s/ Richard O. Berndt
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004Richard O. Berndt/s/ Howard B. Bowen
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004Howard B. Bowen/s/ William R. Brody
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004William R. Brody/s/ Eddie C. Brown
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004Eddie C. Brown/s/ George L. Bunting
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004George L. Bunting/s/ Anthony W. Deering
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004Anthony W. Deering/s/ Darrell D. Friedman
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004Darrell D. Friedman/s/ Freeman A. Hrabowski
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004Freeman A. Hrabowski/s/ Robert A. Kinsley
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004Robert A. Kinsley




---



##### 



/s/ Morton B. Plant
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004Morton B. Plant/s/ Christian H. Poindexter
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004Christian H. Poindexter/s/ Clayton S. Rose
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004Clayton S. Rose/s/ James L. Shea
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004James L. Shea/s/ Donald L. Shepard
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2004Donald L. Shepard
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S MARCH 31, 1998 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                     221,678,116
<SECURITIES>                                35,916,586
<RECEIVABLES>                                  307,430
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           258,298,592
<PP&E>                                      32,890,448
<DEPRECIATION>                                 221,063
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             300,227,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,682,638
<BONDS>                                    247,329,420
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       58,931,139
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (19,973,047)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               300,227,692
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               202,925
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  234,831
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               208,424
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,669,079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,395,214)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,395,214)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,395,214)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (13,659,898)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (13,659,898)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7256

JEROME ANDERSON,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

A. K. PRUITT, Captain; SUSAN HORAN,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-00553-NCT-PTS)

Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: November 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert T. Numbers, II, 

WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Anderson appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Anderson v. Pruitt, No. 1:10-cv-00553-NCT-PTS (M.D.N.C. 

Sept. 12, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, James W. Bernau,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of WillametteValley Vineyards, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such 10-QSBfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc.

 
| Date: November 14, 2007 |
|-------------------------|
| By:                     | /s/  James W. Bernau |   |
| Name:                   | James W. Bernau |   |
| Title:                  | Chief Executive Officer |
|                         |  |  |  |  |  |

 

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              91
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,352
<ALLOWANCES>                                       685
<INVENTORY>                                      8,176
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,647
<PP&E>                                         629,560
<DEPRECIATION>                                 323,120
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 417,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,863
<BONDS>                                        137,313
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     156,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   417,791
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               301,880
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  228,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,904
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,715
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,163
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,566
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,597
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,597
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 10 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
LEMAN L. HUTCHINSON, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 97-3170
v. (D.C. No. 94-3274-RDR) WILLIE SCOTT, Warden; U. S. PAROLE COMMISSION, (D. Kansas)

Respondents-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BALDOCK, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining Petitioner-Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Petitioner is a military inmate now incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri. Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claiming that the2

United States Parole Commission abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily and capriciously at hearings conducted in February 1994 and February 1996 by denying him release on parole. He appeals the order of the United Stated District Court for the District of Kansas denying his section 2241 habeas corpus petition and dismissing the action. Although not clearly required to appeal a denial of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, we grant Petitioner a certificate of appealability. However, we affirm on the merits for the reasons given by the district court in its Memorandum and Order filed May 20, 1997.

AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
#### Jno. W. Shelby *v.*Lewis Mock.

New Trial — Taking Unread Depositions to Jury Room.

Where counsel for one of the parties knew that the jury had taken to the jury room certain depositions which were not read on the trial, it is not sufficient alone to object to the irregularity, since the attention of the court should have been called to it in order to- make it a ground for a new trial.

APPEAL PROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT.

November 15, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

P. B. Thompson, Sr., filed- with the motion for a new trial, an affidavit showing that of his own personal knowledge, the jury took with them to their room certain depositions, not read on the trial of the action.

Upon the trial of the motion, T. C. Bell stated that he understood that it was consented “that all the depositions should be taken by the jury.” J. B. Thompson, Jr., stated that he or one *311of Shelby’s attorneys objected to the jury taking with them depositions that had not been read. P. B. Thompson, Sr., states that he objected to the deposition of F. M. Young and O’Rear being taken; but he does not state anything inconsistent with, or explanatory of the statements made in the affidavit filed with the motion, which showed that, notwithstanding objections made by himself and co-counsel, he knew that the jury were taking the deposition with them. It was not enough that he should object to an irregularity about to be committed, and then see it done without calling the attention of the court to it. There is nothing in the record, to show that the court or the counsel for Mock knew that the jury had in their possession these depositions, and if Shelby was prejudiced thereby, it is because his counsel did not take the necessary steps to prevent the injury, although aware of the damage. Whether this was “sharp practice” or conduct unbecoming an officer of the court, are questions not before this court for adjudication.

/. *B. and P. B. Thompson, for appellant.*

*McKee, Bell, Harding, for appellee.*

It does, however, in our opinion, preclude Shelby from asking a new trial on this ground.

Petition overruled.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

HAROLD HUNT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-1621

[March 4, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barbara R. Duffy, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 11-007506CF10A.

Harold Hunt, Monticello, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
10825.

#### Paceley *v.*The State.

Decided November 4, 1919.

, Indictment for manufacture of intoxicating liquor; from Dooly superior court—Judge Gower. July 19, 1919.

*Powell & Lumsden,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. B. Wall, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. “Under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, a ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete in itself. When it is so incomplete as to require this court to refer to the pleadings or to the brief of evidence, it will not be considered. *Bridges*v. *Griffin,*20 *Ga. App.*598 (2), 599 (93 S. E. 170). See also *Copeland*v. *Ruff,*20 *Ga. App.*217 (2) (92 S. E. 955); *Head*v. *State,*144 *Ga.*383 (87 S. E. 273); *Smiley*v. *Smiley,*144 *Ga.*546 (2) (87 S. E. 668).” *Cæsar*v. *State,*22 *Ga. App.*796 (97 S. E. 255). Under the rulings in the cases cited, neither of the two special grounds of the motion for new trial in this case can be considered by this court.

2. There is ample evidence to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

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