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





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements:


(1)
              Registration
      Statement (Form S-1 No. 333-151028) of Derma Sciences,
    Inc.,
 (2)
              Registration
      Statement (Form S-3 Nos. 333-135038, 333-138303 and 333-128332) of Derma
      Sciences, Inc., and
 (3)
              Registration
      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-127527) of Derma Sciences,
    Inc.;
 
 of our
report dated March 31, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Derma Sciences, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Derma Sciences, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009.
  /s/ Ernst &
      Young LLP
  Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
 March 31,
2010
EXHIBIT 11.2
                 COMPUTATION OF FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)

                                                   Years Ended September 30,
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                 1997         1996         1995
                                               -------      -------      -------
Shares:
Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding ....................       14,047       11,789        9,087
Additional shares assuming conversion of:
   Stock options ........................          624          573          601
   Warrants .............................         --             40          598
   Convertible debentures ...............         --           --            784
   Preferred stock ......................         --            667          500
                                               -------      -------      -------

Weighted average shares outstanding .....       14,671       13,069       11,570

Net income ..............................      $10,146      $ 5,953      $ 2,770
                                               =======      =======      =======
Add:
Interest expense on convertible
  debentures (assuming conversion) ......         --           --            101
                                               -------      -------      -------
Net income attributable to fully
  diluted weighted average shares
  outstanding ...........................      $10,146      $ 5,953      $ 2,871
                                               -------      -------      -------

Fully diluted earnings per share ........      $  0.69      $  0.46      $  0.25
                                               =======      =======      =======

     All share amounts and per share data have been restated to reflect the
      two-for-one stock split effected as a stock dividend on May 28, 1996.
#### In the Matter of Village of Chestnut Ridge et al., Respondents, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v Town of Ramapo et al., Appellants, and Scenic Development, LLC, Respondent.

Submitted June 7, 2010;

decided September 2, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that it does not lie, movants previously having moved for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the August 2007 Appellate Division order from which leave to appeal is currently sought (12 NY3d 793 [2009]). Moreover, no motion for leave to appeal would lie to the Court of Appeals from the March 2010 Supreme Court judgment to bring up for review the August 2007 Appellate Division order as movants have appealed that judgment to the Appellate Division and simultaneous appeals do not lie to both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals (see *Parker v Rogerson,*35 NY2d 751, 753 [1974]).
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

No. 7 

The People &c.,

 Respondent,

 v.

Zachary T. Guerin,

 Appellant.

Submitted by appellant, pro se.

Submitted by William Preston Marshall, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant Zachary T. Guerin challenges his conviction

for trespassing on private property in violation of Environmental

Conservation Law § 11-2113 (1). The law requires that the

property be posted with warning signs bearing the name and

address of the property owner (ECL § 11-2111 [2]). Since

- 1 -
- 2 - No. 7

defendant did not raise below his specific challenge that the

People's evidence of the location of 32 compliant signs is

deficient, this claim is unpreserved and beyond our review (see

People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 62 [2001]). To the extent defendant

argues that evidence of one noncompliant sign undermined the

People's case, the claim is similarly not within our powers of

review (CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349

[2007]).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges

Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur. Judge

Wilson took no part.

Decided February 9, 2017

- 2 -
No. 868.

#### Black et al. *v.*California.

March 2, 1942.
#### Sierra Holdings, LLC, et al., Appellants, v Phillips, Weiner, Quinn, Artura & Cox, et al., Respondents.

[977 NYS2d 751]

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered May 14, 2012, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

*910Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this action, the plaintiffs, as holders of a second mortgage on the subject property, alleged that the defendants were negligent in failing to notify them of a scheduled foreclosure sale in an action commenced by the first mortgagee, and that, if they had been notified, they would have appeared in the sale, purchased the property, and resold the property in an amount which would have enabled them to recoup some or all of the amount of their second mortgage, which was extinguished as a result of the sale which took place without them. The property was purchased by the first mortgagee, and resold six months later for an amount which was less than the amount owed on the first mortgage at the time of the foreclosure sale.

In determining a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court must “accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” *(Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). The elements of a cause of action sounding in legal malpractice are that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages *(see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer,*8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]). The plaintiff must plead actual ascertainable damages resulting from the attorney’s negligence *(see Dempster v Liotti,*86 AD3d 169, 177 [2011]).

Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the complaint failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice. The plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the consequences and damages flowing from the defendant’s alleged failure to notify them of the scheduled foreclosure sale were too speculative to permit a trier of fact to find that such failure caused actual and ascertainable damages *(see Hashmi v Messiha,*65 AD3d 1193 [2009]; *Wald v Berwitz,*62 AD3d 786 [2009]).

The causes of action sounding in breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract also were properly dismissed, as they were based on the same facts underlying the legal malpractice cause of action and did not allege distinct damages *(see Town of N. Hempstead v Winston & Strawn, LLP,*28 AD3d 746 [2006]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Lott, Austin and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

      CONSENT OF MOSS ADAMS LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-18945) pertaining to the 1992 Stock Incentive Plan, as
amended, and the Amended and Restated Directors Stock Option Plan, and the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-90524) pertaining to the 2002 Stock
Option Plan of Redhook Ale Brewery, Incorporated of our report dated February
11, 2005 with respect to the financial statements of Redhook Ale Brewery,
Incorporated included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2004.

                                                                  MOSS ADAMS LLP


Seattle, Washington
March 29, 2005
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 A1 82 0

. J ENNI FER SCOTT v

. T H E C OMMUNI TI ES AT PRI NCETON

LAKES HOMEOW NERS ASSOCI A TI ON, I NC.

Th i s cas e was do ck et ed b y t h i s co u rt o n J u l y 1 2

, 2 02 4

, an d Ap p el l an t ’ s b ri ef

an d en u m erat i o n o f erro rs w ere d u e Au g u s t 1

, 2 0 2 4

. A s o f th e d at e o f t h i s o rd er,

Ap p el l an t s t i l l h as n o t fi l ed a b ri ef an d en u m erat i o n o f erro rs an d h as n o t req u es t ed

an ex t en s i on o f t i m e i n wh i ch t o d o s o

. Acco rd i n g l y, t h i s ap p eal i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED as ab an d on ed p u rs u an t t o Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru les 1 3 an d 2 3

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O ffic e

, A t la n t a

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e

x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

.

W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t

h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. August 15, 2024

08/15/2024
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 51125 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , P laintiff

–

Appell ee ,

v.
CAROL JOHNENE MORRIS , Defendant

– Appell ant

.
Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:97

- CR

- 10

- 1

Before CLEMENT, OWEN, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carol Johnene Morris, former federal prisoner # 76547

- 080 and current Texas prisoner # 1681899, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in her appeal from the district court’s order denying her a motion for free transcripts to file a third motion for coram nobis relie f. Morris’s brief focuses on appealing the denial of coram nobis relief in the district court’s order of August 8, 2016 , which was the subject of a prior appeal

. She has not addressed her eligibility

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 11, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-51125 Document: 00514637275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2018No. 17

- 51125

2 for a transcript nor has she addressed this court’s sanc tion order , which resulted from the prior appeal. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief argume nts in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Morris has abandoned all nonfrivolo us issues for appeal

. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Morris has not shown that her appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits, leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See B augh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197 , 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-51125 Document: 00514637275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2018
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00142-CV

RONALD LEE FINN,

Appellant

v.

THE CITY OF WACO AND/OR WACO 

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Appellees

From the 170th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-976-4

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A notice of appeal by Ronald Lee Finn was filed on April 12, 2010. Finn has not 

filed a docketing statement. Twice, the Clerk of this Court notified Finn by letter of the 

need to file a docketing statement. With the second notification, the Clerk warned Finn 

that if the docketing statement was not filed within 21 days from the date of the letter, 

the appeal would be dismissed without further notification. More than 21 days have 

passed and Finn has not filed a docketing statement. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
Finn v. City of Waco Page 2

Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the 

time a document is presented for filing. TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to TEX. R. APP.

P., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). See also TEX. R.

APP. P. 5; 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 5; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207(b); § 

51.941(a) (Vernon 2005); and § 51.208 (Vernon Supp. 2009). Under the circumstances, 

we use Rule 2 to suspend this requirement and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid 

fees in this proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Further, the write-off of the fees from the 

accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates or reduces the fees owed by the 

person against whom they are assessed. 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed July 28, 2010

[CV06]
#### POULSON et al. v. LOUISIANA, ARKANSAS & TEXAS TRANSP. CO. et al. LEA v. SAME.

Civ. Nos. 1963, 1964.

District Court, W. D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division.

July 1, 1947.

Neckley M. Ferris, of Shreveport, La., and Clay & Kohlman, of New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs.

Blanchard, Goldstein, Walker & O’Quin, of Shreveport, La., for defendants.

PORTERIE, District Judge.

We have read attentively the briefs filed by each side on the question of whether or not the above two cases should be consolidated.

Damages are sought in each case against the same defendant. There was only one accident, the collision of a four-passenger automobile with the freight truck and trailer of defendant. All legal relations between any and all parties arose at this one time of collision. The issues of fact and the applicable principles of law are the same — except the added principle of law that under certain conditions the negligence of the driver of a car is not imputed to the guest. A comparison of the two answers (by the same counsel) and a comparison of the two complaints (by the same counsel) disclose similarity of suits.

As against the mere addition as to one complainant that the driver’s negligence is not imputed to the guest and the other point *485made by movants that the one and the same jury will have so many awards to make that it would be prone to reduce them all around, there are these points, among others, favoring consolidation: (a) the suits are practically the same, growing out of the same occurrence, with the same counsel on both sides; (b) no conflict of interest between the complainants; (c) a great saving of time and costs to both sides; (d) the actions involve a common question of law and fact; etc.

Therefore, under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, and the following cases: Western States Machine Company v. S. S. Hepworth Company, D.C.N.Y.1941, 37 F.Supp. 377; National Nut Company of California v. Susu Nut Company, D.C.Ill. 1944, 61 F.Supp. 86; Polito v. Molasky, 8 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 258; Cecil v. Missouri Public Service Corporation, D.C.Mo.1939, 28 F.Supp. 649; Woodstock Operating Corporation v. Young, 5 Cir., 268 F. 278; Mankin v. Bartley, 4 Cir., 266 F. 466; American Window Glass Co. v. Noe, 7 Cir., 158 F. 777; Diggs v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 6 Cir., 156 F. 564, 14 L.R.A.,N.S., 1029; Denver City Tramway Co. v. Norton, 8 Cir., 141. F. 599; the motion by the defendant to consolidate must be granted. Accordingly:

It is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed, that the two above-numbered and -styled cases are, hereby and herewith, consolidated for trial.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2528 

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on certain women’s 

footwear, valued over $23/pair, not covering the ankle, with a coated 

or laminated textile fabric. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 30, 2009 

Ms. CANTWELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty 

on certain women’s footwear, valued over $23/pair, not 

covering the ankle, with a coated or laminated textile 

fabric. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN’S FOOTWEAR, VALUED OVER 

4 $23/PAIR, NOT COVERING THE ANKLE, WITH A 

5 COATED OR LAMINATED TEXTILE FABRIC. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.83 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 certain women’s footwear, valued over $23/pair, not covVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:51 Nov 03, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2528.IS S2528

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2528 IS

1 ering the ankle, with a coated or laminated textile fabric) 

2 is amended— 

3 (1) by striking ‘‘$20/pair’’ and inserting ‘‘$23/ 

4 pair’’; and 

5 (2) by striking the date in the effective column 

6 period and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

9 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

10 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 23.1
                                 ------------

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-54990 and Form S-8 No.33-73550) pertaining to the 1992 Stock
Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.33-54986) pertaining to the
1992 Director Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-
54988) pertaining to the 1992 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-22423) pertaining to the 1992 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, the 1992 Stock Option Plan, and the 1994 Stock Incentive Plan of
our report dated September 25, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-k) for the
year ended June 30, 1998.

Ernst & Young LLP
Tampa, Florida
September 25, 1998

                                     -11-
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2548 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2548

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Bromoxynil Octonoate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

  Mr. Burris introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Bromoxynil Octonoate.

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

SECTION 1. BROMOXYNIL OCTONOATE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.97 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Bromoxynil Octonoate) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      12,517,036
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,709,761
<ALLOWANCES>                                   132,276
<INVENTORY>                                  2,205,355
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,682,477
<PP&E>                                       3,449,866
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,808,952
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,575,754
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,483,439
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         25
<COMMON>                                       286,847
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,686,816
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,575,754
<SALES>                                      2,271,985
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,271,985
<CGS>                                        1,405,984
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,405,984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,005,428
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,259
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,197,425)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,197,425)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,197,425)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered August 30, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00527
- CV RODNEY ALSUP, Appellant

V. HICKORY TRAIL HOSPIT AL AND ANGELA J. DEV INNEY, LPC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 15
- 04020



### O RDER The Court has been notified that a petition for bankruptcy has been filed in United States Bankruptcy Court concerning appellant Rodney Alsup. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, further action in this cause is automatically stayed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 8.2. Accordingly, for administrative purposes, this cause is ABATED and will be treated as a closed case. It may be reinstated on prompt motion by an y party showing that the stay has been lifted and specifying what further action, if any, is required from this Court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 8.3.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
cc: Hon. Lidia Stiglich, District Judge 

Washoe County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

Canine Lee Moore 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A