alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Moore Products Co. of our report dated February 2, 1996, included in the 1995
Annual Report to Shareholders of Moore Products Co.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-82948) pertaining to the Incentive Stock Option and Non-Qualified
Stock Option Plan of Moore Products Co. of our report dated February 2, 1996,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Moore Products Co.
incorporated by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1995.




                                                     \S\Ernst & Young LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 26, 1996
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24
 
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY
 
    KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
 
    WHEREAS, U S WEST Communications, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the
"Company"), proposes to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under
the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an annual
report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998; and
 
    WHEREAS, each of the undersigned is an Officer, Director, or both, of the
Company and holds the office or offices indicated below his or her name;
 
    NOW THEREFORE, each of the undersigned constitutes and appoints ALLAN R.
SPIES, THOMAS O. MCGIMPSEY, and JILL A. GILPIN and each of them, as attorney for
him or her and in his or her name, place, and stead, and in his or her capacity
as an Officer or Director of the Company, to execute and file such annual
report, and thereafter to execute and file any amendment or amendments thereto
on Form 10-K, hereby giving and granting to said attorneys full power and
authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully, to all intents and
purposes, as he might or could do if personally present at the doing thereof,
hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys may or shall lawfully
do, or cause to be done, by virtue hereof.
 
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Power of
Attorney respectively on February 10, 1999 and March 22, 1999.
 
                                /s/ SOLOMON D. TRUJILLO
                                ------------------------------------------
                                Solomon D. Trujillo
                                PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                                DIRECTOR
 
                                /s/ ALLAN R. SPIES
                                ------------------------------------------
                                Allan R. Spies
                                VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                AND DIRECTOR
 
                                /s/ JANET K. COOPER
                                ------------------------------------------
                                Janet K. Cooper
                                VICE PRESIDENT-TREASURER, CONTROLLER AND
                                DIRECTOR
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ricardo AGUIRRE-TELLO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-2128.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

June 8, 2001.

*795Before MURPHY, JOHN C. PORFILIO, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

PER CURIAM.

After examining the briefs and 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)(2); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

The government appeals from the district court’s order releasing defendant from custody pending trial on an unsecured $10,000 bond and subject to certain conditions. Defendant has not responded to the government’s appeal brief. This court’s jurisdiction arises from 18 U.S.C. § 3145 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the district court’s release order “is plenary as to mixed questions of law and fact and independent, with due deference to the district court’s purely factual findings.” *United States v. Stricklin,*932 F.2d 1353, 1355 (10th Cir.1991).

On appeal, the government argues that the district court failed to properly find defendant a flight risk in light of 1) substantial evidence of defendant’s guilt on charges of illegal reentry following commission of an aggravated felony and subsequent deportation, 2) the likelihood that the INS will again remove him from the country, 3) the fact that his ties to family and community were a result of his illegal reentry into this country, and 4) the severity of the penalty defendant faces for illegal reentry. The government contends that defendant has no incentive to appear at trial and that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure his appearance.

Our review of the district court’s ruling at a hearing on March 28, 2001, demonstrates that the court considered all of the factors relevant to pretrial release decisions listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), received evidence as to those factors listed in § 3142(g)(3)(A), and appropriately weighed them against the remaining factors in favor of defendant’s release, subject to various conditions and an unsecured bond of $10,000. The government’s arguments do not acknowledge the relevance of the factors listed in § 1342(g)(3)(A) or dispute the facts supporting the district court’s ruling. On plenary review, we find no fault with *796the district court’s ruling and AFFIRM. The government’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is GRANTED.

*

 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.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ronald Mustari, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) of Whitehall Limited, Inc. certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Whitehall Limited,
Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report 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 with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.     The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to
be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period
covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change
in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the
registrant's control over financial reporting; and

5.     The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 15, 2004

| |  |                                                      
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Ronald Mustari                                   
| |  |                                                      
| |  | Ronald Mustari, President and
Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited financial statements of the Company as at and for the nine months
ended September 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         252,504
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,325
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               257,829
<PP&E>                                           7,863
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 265,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          851,986
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,755
<OTHER-SE>                                    (620,049)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   265,692
<SALES>                                        136,427
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               136,427
<CGS>                                          102,217
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,217
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,316,866
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,282,656)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,282,656)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 22,769
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,259,887)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.04)
        

</TABLE>
FILECOPY
RE: Case No. 15-0037 DATE: 1/15/2015 COA #: 12-13-00344-CV TC#: CV-01271-12-3 STYLE: LOUIE LAWSON, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CAROLYN BURNS v. CITY OF DIBOLL, TEXAS Apetition for review was filed today in the above-styled case. Respondentmay file eithera response, or a waiver of response. Ifyou file a waiver, the Courtwill not grant the petition without first requesting a response. (Tex. R. App. P. 53.3) There is no fee for a response or a waiver.

MS. CATHY S. LUSK 

### CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS 

### 1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 354 

### TYLER, TX 75702 -n o



# LEU 12th >



# COSJ 

# urtcf ^-S £3
>•_r^- 

### %o C3 o -n in CO J> 

### r~\, f7>' "O -a m o > — " 

# 7sf ** r-
#### Robert F. KERR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. T.A. MCMULLEN CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-2370.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2001.

Decided May 30, 2001.

*191Robert L. Duecaster, Manassas, VA, for appellant.

Paul V. Waters, Conrad Christopher Ledoux, Spriggs & Hollingsworth, Washington, DC, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Robert F. Kerr and T.A. McMullen Consultants, Inc. [TAMCI] entered into an agreement terminating an employment contract under which Kerr, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Manager for TAMCI, released all claims except those for payments due from open invoices. This appeal follows the award by the district court of “direct fees” and “consultant commissions” under the terms of the employment contract. We affirm.

TAMCI alleges that a misreading of a sentence in the dissolution agreement by the district court led to a misinterpretation of the terms of that agreement. This court reviews the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal principles of contract interpretation de novo. *Hendricks v. Central Reserve Life Ins. Co.,*39 F.3d 507, 512 (4th Cir.1994). The parties agree that the dissolution agreement preserved Kerr’s right to seek payment for “open Invoices.” Because the dissolution agreement did not define the “open Invoices” for which Kerr’s right to payment was preserved, the court concluded that the dissolution agreement incorporated by reference the compensation structure set forth in the employment contract. The employment contract addressed the calculation of Kerr’s compensation for fees and commissions and was never modified by agreement of the parties during the life of that contract. We conclude that the district court reasonably interpreted the dissolution agreement in conjunction with the earlier employment contract in determining the amount of compensation due Kerr for “open Invoices.” *First American Bank of Virginia v. J.S.C. Concrete Const, Inc.,*259 Va. 60, 66, 523 S.E.2d 496, 500 (2000) *(citing Doswell Ltd. Partnership v. Virginia Elec. and Power Co.,*251 Va. 215, 222, 468 S.E.2d 84, 88 (1996)).

The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed. 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.*
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 72680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28653]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FARM CREDIT SYSTEM INSURANCE CORPORATION


Regular Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the regular meeting of the Farm 
Credit System Insurance Corporation Board (Board).

DATE AND TIME: The meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of 
the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on December 11, 
2014, from 1:00 p.m. until such time as the Board concludes its 
business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm 
Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 
883-4056.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm Credit 
Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102. Submit attendance requests via email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8eed1cbd1ccd7caeaddc9cdddcbccf8fefbf996dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="03556a706a776c7151667276667077434540422d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further 
information about attendance requests.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be 
open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed 
to the public. Please send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#baecd3c9d3ced5c8e8dfcbcfdfc9cefafcf9fb94ddd5cc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fdab948e9489928faf988c88988e89bdbbbebcd39a928b">[email protected]</span></a> at least 
24 hours before the meeting. In your email include: Name, postal 
address, entity you are representing (if applicable), and telephone 
number. You will receive an email confirmation from us. Please be 
prepared to show a photo identification when you arrive. If you need 
assistance for accessibility reasons, or if you have any questions, 
contact Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit System Insurance 
Corporation Board, at (703) 883-4009. The matters to be considered at 
the meeting are:

Open Session

A. Approval of Minutes

<bullet> September 11, 2014

B. Business Reports

<bullet> September 30, 2014 Financial Reports
<bullet> Report on Insured and Other Obligations
<bullet> Quarterly Report on Annual Performance Plan

Closed Session

New Business

<bullet> Confidential Report on System Performance
<bullet> Audit Plan for the Year Ended December 31, 2014

Executive Session

<bullet> Executive Session of the Audit Committee with the Auditor

    Dated: December 2, 2014.
Dale L. Aultman,
Secretary, Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-28653 Filed 12-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6710-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Matter of Proving the Last Will and Testament of Rosetta L. Hodgman, Deceased.*

(Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

April, 1919.)

Deposition — application for examination of proponent of a will before trial denied.

An application for an examination of the proponent of a will for the purpose of preparing for the trial of a contested probate, will be denied.

Proceeding upon the probate of a will.

Evarts, Choate & Sherman, for petitioner.

Horwitz & Bosston, for contestant Herbert D. Leyds.

*

See *People ex rel. Lewis*v. *Fowler, post,*253.

Fowler, S.

TMs is an application for an examination of a proponent of a will before trial of a contested probate, for the alleged purpose of preparing for trial. It is claimed to be justified under section 2770 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sections 870, 872 and 873 of the Code of Civil Procedure.' I am not satisfied that there is such a right to examine *71proponent before trial. The proceeding for probate is one *in rent,*and is a special proceeding. It is not an action at law. On the trial every opportunity is afforded of eliciting all the facts in an orderly way. I so held in *Matter of Goodheart,*Sur. Decis. 1916, p. 1133. The modern tendency to make probate of wills difficult and more technical than the tradition and custom of a thousand years warrants does not appeal to me. In a proceeding *in rem*the procedure is usually deliberate and adjourned from time to time as justice requires. There ought to be no room for surprise or trickery. The main party concerned in such proceedings is the state, which superintends and directs the inquisition for probate. This principle is being gradually lost sight of in probate courts in this state.

Application denied.
#### John Abbott *v.*Mary Lewis.

Breach of Marriage Promise — Excessive Damages — Passion or Prejudice of Jury — Remittitur Damnum.

The amount of damages assessed clearly indicates that the jury must have acted under the influence of passion or prejudice. Such fact was recognized by the appellee, and upon the suggestion of the court, consented that á judgment should be entered for two-fifths of the damages assessed.

Held, that when it appears that the jury were influenced by passion or prejudice in the assessment of damages, it may readily be concluded that the same cause influenced them in determining whether or not the appellee was entitled to recover at all.

APPEAL PROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

June 14, 1871.

*231
      *Ducker, Baker, for appellant.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Avoiding any expression of opinion as to the preponderance of the evidence presented by the record, we are satisfied that the same does not preponderate upon either side to such an extent as would warrant the interference of this court upon that ground alone, had the jury returned a reasonable verdict for the appellee, or had they found for the appellant.

■Considering all the testimony and bearing in mind the circumstances attending. the refusal of appellant to perform his agreement to marry the appellee (if in point of fact any such agreement ever existed) we are forced to the -conclusion that the damages assessed, $5,000, are so excessive as to clearly indicate that the jury must have acted under the influence of passion or prejudice.

Such fact was recognized by the appellee herself, and without being put upon terms, she voluntarily proposed to remit two-fifths of the amount of the verdict, and upon the suggestion of the court, and without then being required to do so, consented that judgment should be entered for two-fifths of the damages assessed.

If thus appearing that the jury were influenced by passion or prejudice in the assessment of damages, it may readily be con-, eluded that the same cause influenced them in determining whether or not the appellee was entitled to recover at all.

We are of opinion that the court erred in overruling the motion of the appellant for a new trial, and feel assured that the ends of justice will be promoted by a retrial of the cause.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARRELL WILLIAMS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-697-KD-N

 )

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and a de novo determination

of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and dated February 9, 2010

is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 3), Motion

to Amend Complaint (Doc. 4), Motion to Amend/Clarify (Doc. 6), and Amended Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 8) are hereby DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this the 22nd day of February 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00697-KD-N Document 13 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in 1994 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan Registration Statement No. 33-79014 as amended by Post-Effective Amendment
No.5, 1997 Special Stock Option Plan Registration Statement No. 333-33439 as
amended by Post-Effective Amendment No.1, 1997 Incentive Stock Option Plan
Registration Statement No. 333-32455 as amended by Post-Effective Amendment
No.1, 1987 Special Stock Option Plan Registration Statement No. 333-29111, and
1987 Incentive Stock Option Plan Registration Statement No. 33-15017 as amended
by Post-Effective Amendment No.11, each on Form S-8, of our report dated April
26, 2002 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pierre Foods, Inc. for
the fiscal year ended March 2, 2002.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
May 29, 2002