alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 23** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration    Statement Nos.    333-35887,333-42182,333-43081,333-65327,333-65329,333-98811,333-111076    and    333-111077    on    Form S-8    and Registration Statement    No. 333-140778    on    Form S-3    of our reports dated February 29, 2008, relating to the    consolidated financial statements and financial statement    schedule of Mylan Inc. and subsidiaries (the    “Company”)(which report expresses an unqualified    opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the    Company’s adoption of FASB Statement No. 123R,    *Share-Based Payment,*the adoption of FASB Interpretation    No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income    Taxes — an Interpretation of FASB Statement    No. 109*and the Company’s change in its fiscal    year to begin on January 1 and end on December 31), and the    effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over    financial reporting, appearing in this Transition Report on    Form 10-K    of Mylan Inc. for the nine months ended December 31, 2007. /s/  Deloitte &    Touche LLP    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania    February 29, 2008
<PAGE>   1



                                Exhibit No. 11.1
                                ----------------


                        Statement of Computation of Net
                        -------------------------------
                         Investment Income Per Limited
                         -----------------------------
                                Partnership Unit
                                ----------------





<PAGE>   2




                    FIDUCIARY CAPITAL PENSION PARTNERS, L.P.


                        STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET
                         INVESTMENT INCOME PER LIMITED
                                PARTNERSHIP UNIT
               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND 1998

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                          1999                  1998
                                                          ----                  ----

<S>                                                   <C>                 <C>       
 Net Investment (Loss) Income                         $  (38,334)         $   14,465

 Percentage Allocable to Limited Partners                    108%                 99%
                                                      ----------          ----------

 Net Investment (Loss) Income Allocable
    to Limited Partners                               $  (41,401)         $   14,320
                                                      ==========          ==========

 Weighted Average Number of Limited
    Partnership Units Outstanding                        940,336           1,020,142
                                                      ==========          ==========

 Net Investment (Loss) Income Per Limited
    Partnership Unit                                  $     (.04)        $     . 01
                                                      ==========         ==========
</TABLE>
### NUM BER 13-0 9-00 003- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _______ _ CLYDE N UB INE, A pp ellan t,
v . KA R EN M. S T R OL EN Y, E TA L ., A p p el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ On ap pe al f rom th e 1 56t h Dist rict C ou rt o f B ee Co un ty , T exas .

____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ch ief Ju stice Va lde z, an d Ju stice s Y añ ezan d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t, Cl y de N ubi ne, a ttempt ed to per fect an appeal from a jud g ment ent ered byt h e 1 5 6 t h D i s t r i c tC o u rto f B e e C o u n ty , T e x a s , i n c a u s e n u mb e r B
- 0 8
- 1 3 4 5 -C V- B. Judg ment i n thi s c ause w as si g ned on Nov ember 10, 2008. Pursuantto T e xas R ule of Appel lat e Procedu re 26.1 , app ell ant’ s n oti ce of appeal w as due on Dec ember 10, 2008, but was not fil ed unt il Ja nuar y 5, 2009.2

A mo tion for extension o f time is nece ssarily

implied w hen an ap p e ll a n t , a cting in g ood fait h, f ile s a n oti ce of appeal bey ond t he ti me al lowed by r ule 26.1 , butw it hin the fifteen-da y

grace per iod prov ide d byRule 26.3 for f il ing a motion for extens ion of ti me. Se e Ver bur gt v . D or ner , 959 S.W .2d 6 15, 617- 18, 6 19 ( 1997) ( cons tr uin g the predece ss or to Rule 26 ). H owev er, app ellantmust provide a reaso nab le explanat ion for the lat e f iling: it is not enoug h to si mply fil e a n oti ce of appeal

. Id. ; W oodar d v . H iggins , 140 S.W .3d 4 62, 462 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2004, no pet .) ; In r e B. G. , 104 S.W .3d 565 , 567 (Tex. App. –W aco 200 2, no pet. ). On J anuar

y 6, 2009, the Cl er k of this C our t not ified appel lan t of thi s d efect s o tha t ste ps coul d be tak en to co rrect the defect, if itco uld be d one. Appel lan t was adv is ed th at, if the de fect w as no t corrected w ithin te n da y s f rom th e da te of rece ipt of

this Court’s letter, the app eal w ould b e dism issed. A ppe llant f iled a respo nse, howev er, it doe s not est ablish that the n oti ce of appeal and a moti on req uest ing an e xtens ion of time w as filed w it hin the fifteen-da y

g ra ce per iod

. Th e C o u rt , h a v i n g e x a mi n e d a n d fu l l y c o n s i d e re d t h e d o c u me n ts on fil e, an d appel lan t’ s fai lure to ti mely per fect hi s appeal , is of the opini on that t he appe al shoul d be dism iss ed for w ant o f jur is dicti on. A cc ordin g ly , t he appe al is hereby D ISM ISSE D FO R W AN T OF JU RI SD IC TION

. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42 .3(a)(c).
PERC UR IAM
Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 26th day

of Febr uar

y , 200 9.
#### Dennis Allen *v.*Wallan Smith.

Real Estate — Title Bond — Occupancy.

A person seeking to recover real estate must do so, if at all, upon the strength of his own title.

Possession.

Where a title bond was issued 88 years before any real claim is made under it, and where the holder is not in possession and has not been, his claim is too uncertain to recover the land from a descendant of the owner who has been holding the land adversely to all the world for a great period of time.

APPEAL PROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 26, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

It is not pretended that the appellee is invested with the legal *85title to the land in controversy; and his equitable right is based alone upon the bond for title executed by the patentee, William Allen, to Owings, in the year 1780, upon which the legal title could not be obtained at this late day, if the heirs of Allen were before the court. Nearly a century has elapsed since its execution, and the only actual possession of any part of this land ever held by the appellee or those under whom he claims, was about forty years prior to the institution of this action; and from the evidence it is doubtful whether this possession was that of the appellee and those under whom he claims, or the possession of those claiming under David Allen. This possession .was. only for a short period, as when Allen left the cabin or premises they seem to have been occupied as much by the one party as the other. In fact, there has been no entry or occupancy of this land by the appellee, his assignors or tenants, for near half a century; and as before stated, the proof makes it doubtful whether this occupancy was under appellee’s claim or under those hostile to- it. John Allen, a grandson of David Allen, erected a house on this land and lived in it. His claim was hostile to appellee.

*N. R. Grigsby, for appellant.*

*Muir & Wickliife, for appellee.*

The title exhibited is worthless; and the chancellor is asked to turn one out of possession for another demanding it, who has neither the right of possession nor any greater or better title. The appellant, it is true, relies on his possession alone for his title; but this possession is superior to the claim of one who has neither the possession nor the right of possession, and is in no condition, either in a court of law or equity, to invest himself with title. The appellee must also recover upon his own title, although his adversary may exhibit no evidence of title. This bond for title 88 years old could give no right of entry to the appellee even against the original patentee or his heirs, and creates no equitable right as against those-hostile to the claim under it. The judgment is *reversed*and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the appellee’s petition.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 12, 2013

NO. 03-12-00701-CV

R. I., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PUIRYEAR, PEMBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the district court’s 

order: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the order of the district court 

is in all things affirmed. It FURTHER appearing that the appellant is indigent and unable to pay 

costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

Notice is hereby given that RLJ Credit Opportunity Fund I, L.P., 3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 1000, Bethesda, MD 20814, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (the “Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). RLJ Credit Opportunity Fund I, L.P. has provided debt financing to Naylor, LLC, 5950 NW 1st Place, Gainesville, FL 32607. The proceeds were used to finance the acquisition of Boxwood Technology, Inc.

The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because RLJ Equity Partners Fund I, L.P., an Associate of RLJ Credit Opportunity Fund I, L.P., owns more than ten percent of Naylor, LLC, and therefore this transaction is considered a financing to an Associate requiring SBA prior written exemption.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for the Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

Dated: December 10, 2014.

Javier E. Saade,

Associate Administrator for Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2014-29518 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### Joseph STILWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONCECO, Medical Contractor; Doctor Wray; Doctor Stern, a/k/a F.C. Sturmer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-6339.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2001.

Decided June 5, 2001.

Joseph Stilwell, pro se. Frank Fletcher Rennie, IV, Cowan & Owen, P.C., Richmond, VA, for appellees.

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Stilwell appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Appellees and dismissing his civil rights complaint alleging that the Appellees were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Stilwell v. Conceco,*No. CA-99-1094-AM (E.D.Va. Feb. 16, 2001). 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.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, 

BUREAU OF LIQUOR CONTROL 

ENFORCEMENT,

Petitioner

v.

JET-SET RESTAURANT, LLC,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 327 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. The issue, restated for 

clarity is:

Does the definition of “frequenting” set forth in Appeal of Speranza, 206 A.2d 292 

(Pa. 1965) still apply to Section 4-493(14) of the Liquor Code, or do the 2003 

Amendments to the Code demonstrate the General Assembly’s intent that a 

minor may not be inside a licensed premises even a single time unless one of the 

exceptions enumerated in Section 4-493(14) applies?

Allowance of appeal is DENIED as to all remaining issues.
EXHIBIT 32
----------

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

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  First   Litchfield   Financial
Corporation  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  we, Joseph J. Greco,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  and Carroll A. Pereira,  Principal  Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

         (1)      The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  as
                  amended; and

         (2)      The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ Joseph J. Greco                             /s/ Carroll A. Pereira
-------------------                             ----------------------
Joseph J. Greco                                 Carroll A. Pereira
President and Chief Executive Officer           Principal Financial Officer
August 19, 2009                                 August 19, 2009



The foregoing  certificate  is furnished  solely for purposes of complying  with
Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  and  for  no  other  purpose
whatsoever.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in any
of the Company's  previous filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
or the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  that might incorporate the
Company's  future  filings,  including  this Report on Form 10-Q, in whole or in
part,  this  Certificate  shall not be  incorporated  by reference into any such
filings.


                                       54
<PAGE>
                                                              EXHIBIT 11.00

                                NETEGRITY, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)
                     (In thousands, except per share data)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                               MARCH 31,
                                                           1997            1996
                                                           ----            ----
<S>                                                        <C>             <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding....................   9,262           8,354
 
Net effect of dilutive stock options and
  warrants--based on the treasury stock
  method using the average market price................     --              481
                                                          ------         ------
    Total..............................................    9,262          8,835
                                                          ------         ------
                                                          ------         ------
  Net income (loss) from continuing
    operations.........................................  $  (648)         $ 181

  Net loss from discontinued operations................     --            (214)
                                                          ------         ------
 
Net loss for EPS computation...........................    $(648)        $ (33)
                                                          ------         ------
                                                          ------         ------
Per share amounts:
 
  (Loss) income from continuing operations.............  $ (0.07)        $ 0.02
  Loss from discontinued operations....................     --            (0.02)
                                                          ------         ------
NET LOSS PER SHARE...................................... $ (0.07)        $ 0.00
                                                          ------         ------
                                                          ------         ------
</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARY A. LASKEY )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00097-CG-B

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

)

)

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there 

having been no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 

made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated December 29, 2014, is 

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of January, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00097-CG-B Document 21 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1750 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1750

 To modify the minimum required weight of orange juice soluble solids.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2023

 Mr. C. Scott Franklin of Florida (for himself, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 
 Mr. Waltz, Ms. Salazar, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. 
Rutherford, Mr. Posey, Mr. Steube, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Soto, Mr. 
 Bilirakis, Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick, Mrs. Cammack, Mr. Moskowitz, Mr. 
 Gimenez, Mrs. Luna, and Mr. Buchanan) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To modify the minimum required weight of orange juice soluble solids.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defending Domestic Orange Juice 
Production Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF PASTEURIZED ORANGE JUICE STANDARDS.

    (a) In General.--Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, 
the standard of identity for ``pasteurized orange juice'', established 
in section 146.140 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, shall be 
deemed to require finished pasteurized orange juice to contain not less 
than 10.0 percent by weight of orange juice soluble solids, exclusive 
of the solids of any added optional sweetening ingredients.
    (b) Regulation Authority.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to promulgate regulations to amend the standard of identity 
for pasteurized orange juice.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

I N THE MATT ER OF A.R.M., A J UVENI L E § § § § § § No. 08-10-00135- CV

Appea l from the 65th J udicial District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC#07-00286)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION This is an appea l from a disposition order plac ing A .R.M. in the Challenge Boot Camp Prog ram. Af

firmed. Appellant’s a

ppointed counsel ha s filed a br ief in which she conclude s that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. Althoug h counsel pre sents a potential appe llate issue, af ter a thoroug h analy sis, she conclude s there w as no abuse of discre tion, and no err or that would require reve rsal. The State has filed a response to the Anders brief, a lso concludingthat there are no bases f

or re versa l of the trial cour t’s order
. Appointed counse l’s brief me ets the re quirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct . 1396, 18 L .Ed.2d 493, reh. denie d , 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.C t. 2094, 18 L .Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by

prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord, and de monstrating why , in effe ct, there are no arg

uable g rounds to be adva

nced. See H

igh v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). A copy of counse l’s brief ha s been de livered to Appe llant, and Appellant has bee n advised of his rig ht to ex amine the a ppellate r ecor d and file a pro se brief. A ppellanthas not exercised his rig ht to file a pro se brief.

Although a

potential appellate issue has bee n raised, this Court may not conduct a r eview of the mer its of that issue in the Anders context. See B ledsoe v . State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Our re view is limit ed to: (1) whe ther the a ppeal is wholly

frivolous, and issue an opinion explaining that we ha ve re viewed the rec ord and f ound no reve rsible er

ror; or (2) whe ther a

rguable g rounds for a

ppeal e x ist, and if so, remand the case to the trial court so that
new c ounsel may

be appointed to a ddress those issues. Bledsoe , 178 S.W .3d at 826-27. Havingcar efully

revie wed the e ntire re cord, w e agree with appointed counse l’s assessment that the a

ppeal is wholly

frivolous and without merit. See B ledsoe , 178 S.W .3d at 826-27. F urther, w e find nothingin the rec ord that may arguably support the appe al. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the tria l court’s judg ment.

Fe bruar y 28, 2011 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ
.

-2-