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

                                   EXHIBIT 23
                                   ----------

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Nos. 33-19180, 33-89896, 33-25244 and 33-87626 of Analysts International
Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated February 26, 2001 (March 30, 2001
as to note E of the consolidated financial statements), included in this
Transitional Report on Form 10-KT of Analysts International Corporation for
the transition period ended December 31, 2000.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 30, 2001



                                       46
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MARSHALL D. LAPIER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-30401

D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00002-SEH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 24, 2013** 

Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Marshall D. Lapier appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 29. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

FILED

AUG 01 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-30401

district court’s denial of a motion for acquittal, see United States v. GonzalezTorres, 309 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

Lapier contends that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates his

right to due process because section 922 does not require that he be provided

notice that he was prohibited from possessing a firearm. As Lapier acknowledges,

this court has previously rejected such arguments. See, e.g., United States v.

Hancock, 231 F.3d 557, 563-65 (9th Cir. 2000) (rejecting notice-based due process

challenge to statute prohibiting domestic violence misdemeanants from possessing

firearms); United States v. Allen, 699 F.2d 453, 458 (9th Cir. 1982) (rejecting same

challenge to felon-in-possession statute). Lapier’s contention that recent Supreme

Court decisions undermine this precedent is unpersuasive. See Dist. of Columbia

v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008) (“[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to

cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by

felons . . . .”). 

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**TYREEK DENMARK,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 157 EAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 22nd day of August, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**

**Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration o r decision of this matter.**
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH 

NO. 02-16-00308-CR 

Pamela Sue Wolfe 

v. 

The State of Texas 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

From the 271st District Court 

of Wise County (CR17723) 

March 1, 2018 

Opinion by Justice Pittman 

(nfp)

JUDGMENT 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Mark T. Pittman_________________ 

 Justice Mark T. Pittman
***NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION***

***MICS AUDIT CHECKLIST***

***TIER B-DROP AND COUNT (BDC)***

Page 32 of 36
**Training OfficerChecklist #07**

**Training OfficerChecklist #07**

For the National Preparedness Review you will need to have the following items available for review.

**7-1Revised 2014**

**7-2Revised 2014**
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit 10.25


                            ANGELICA CORPORATION
                            EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                               FIRST AMENDMENT
                               ---------------

         This Amendment ("Amendment") has been entered into as of the 1st
day of March, 2004, by and between Angelica Corporation, a Missouri
Corporation ("Angelica") and Steven L. Frey, an individual ("Employee").

         WHEREAS, Angelica currently employs Employee as Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary of Angelica pursuant to that certain
Employment Agreement, dated the 1st day of March, 2003 (the "Agreement");
and

         WHEREAS, Angelica and Employee wish to continue the employment
relationship between them and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this
Amendment.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein
contained, the parties hereto agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

         1.       Section 2.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as
                  follows:

                  2.1 INITIAL TERM OF AGREEMENT; RENEWAL TERMS. The initial
                  Term of this Agreement shall be for one year commencing on
                  the Effective Date, subject to automatic renewal for one
                  or more additional Terms of one year each commencing
                  immediately upon the end of the initial Term or the
                  then-current renewal Term, as the case may be, unless
                  either party to this Agreement gives a Notice of
                  Non-Renewal to the other party not later than 90 days
                  prior to the end of the initial Term or the then-current
                  renewal Term, as the case may be. In the event that such a
                  Notice of Non-Renewal is given as set forth in this
                  Section 2.1, the Date of Termination will be the last day
                  of the initial Term or the then-current Term, as the case
                  may be.

         2.       Except as otherwise expressly amended by this Amendment, all
                  other terms, conditions and covenants of the Agreement shall
                  remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employee and Angelica, pursuant to the
authorization from its Board, have caused this Amendment to be executed in
its name on its behalf, all as of the day and year first above written.

                                                  /s/ Steven L. Frey
                                                  --------------------------
                                                  Steven L. Frey


                                                  ANGELICA CORPORATION

                                                  By:  /s/ Stephen M. O'Hara
                                                       ---------------------
                                                  Name: Stephen M. O'Hara
                                                  Title: President & CEO
Document

Exhibit 10.1

WAIVER


            Reference is hereby made to the Certificate of Designation of Preferences, Rights and Limitations of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Certificate of Designation”), filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on April 27, 2017, by Avalo Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly known as Cerecor Inc.), a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and the Securities Purchase Agreement, between the Company and Armistice Capital Master Fund Ltd. (the “Master Fund”), dated April 27, 2017 (together with the Certificate of Designation, the “Agreement”). 


WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the Master Fund was entitled to appoint up to two (2) directors to the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Designee Directors”) and replace the Designee Directors in certain circumstances, including upon any resignation or removal of the Designee Directors (the “Appointment Right”); 


WHEREAS, in connection with the Appointment Right, the Master Fund previously designated Steven Boyd and Keith Maher as its Designee Directors, and each Designee Director recently was reelected to the Board to serve a one-year term expiring in 2023; and 


WHEREAS, on August 8, 2022, both Steven Boyd and Keith Maher resigned from the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”), effective immediately.


 NOW THEREFORE, the Master Fund hereby completely and irrevocably waives the Appointment Right, and agrees that as of the date this Waiver is executed, the Master Fund no longer has any right to appoint any replacement or other Designee Director to the Board, whether pursuant to the Agreement or otherwise.  


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]




1









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this Waiver as of August 11, 2022.


									
			
	ARMISTICE CAPITAL MASTER FUND LTD.	
	By:	/s/ Brian Kohn	
	Name: 	Brian Kohn	
	Title:	General Counsel of Armistice Capital, LLC, the Investment Manager	






									
			
	AVALO THERAPEUTICS, INC.	
	By:	/s/ Garry Neil, M.D.	
	Name: 	Garry Neil, M.D.	
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer	












[SIGNATURE PAGE TO WAIVER]
2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          54,991                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,991                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,137                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          649,609                       0
<BONDS>                                        131,289                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          1                       0
<COMMON>                                       220,044                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,236,035                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,137                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  629,438                 499,411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,289                   3,125
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (635,727)               (502,536)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (635,727)               (502,536)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (635,727)               (502,536)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)                  (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)                  (0.02)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stuart R. COLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10782.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided July 18, 2006.

Susan B. Cowger, Jeffrey J. Ansley, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William M. Ravkind, Ravkind & Associates, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

*540PER CURIAM: *

After reviewing the record in this case and considering the briefs of the parties and argument of counsel, we are satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict rendered by the jury.

Cole argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the fraud element of the various counts on which he was convicted. In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, our task is to determine from the record whether a reasonable jury could find that the evidence establishes the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. *U.S. v. Menesses,*962 F.2d 420, 426 (5th Cir.l992)(citing *United States v. Gonzales,*866 F.2d 781, 783 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*490 U.S. 1093, 109 S.Ct. 2438, 104 L.Ed.2d 994 (1989)). Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the record amply supports the jury’s implicit finding that Cole made fraudulent misrepresentations in a number of respects. These include the following:

1. Attaching a map to the private placement memorandum distributed to potential investors showing the positions of existing “producing” wells when, in fact, none of the wells were producing either gas or oil.

2. After representing to investors in joint ventures B and C that he would invest their funds to drill gas wells, he used the money to pay off disgruntled investors who had invested in earlier prospects.

3. After representing that funds from investors would be used for the purpose of drilling gas wells, he used portions of those funds to purchase personal luxury items for himself.

4. He persuaded one investor to invest an additional $300,000 to “complete” wells that had never been drilled.

Although Cole testified that any misrepresentations he made to investors were made in the good-faith belief that they were true, the jury obviously rejected that testimony, which it was entitled to do.

The judgment of conviction is therefore

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2872 Mission Drive, Slreltlyville, Ml 49344 | {p}269.397.1780 | gunlaketribe-nsn.g0v

September 9,2022

Via Electronic Mail Only

Mr. E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, Chair

National Indian Gaming Commission

1849 C Street, N.W.

Mail Stop # 1621

Washington, D.C. 20040

Email : NlGC.Outreach@nigc.gov

Re: Comments on the NIGC Proposed Regulatory Revisions

Dear Chairman Simermeyer:

Thank you for providing the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, also known as the Gun

Lake Tribe (Tribe), an opportunity to provide comments to the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC)

with respect to the proposed rule changes to 25 CFR Parts 502,556 and 558, as published in the Federal

Register on August 10,2022.

The Tribe sincerely appreciates the NIGC's recent efforts to create a meaningful and respectful consultation

program through the implementation of the NIGC Consultation Policy (NIGC). The Tribe believes effective

government-to-govemment relationships between tribes and the NIGC is best fostered through deliberate,

meaningful, and respectful communication which appears to be the goal of the NIGC Consultation Policy.

However, here, having the NIGC conduct just two (2) back-to-back virtual consultations in July of 202Iduring a global COVID-19 pandemic-is far less than what should be provided to tribes on such an important

and complex matter. The limited tribal responses received by the NIGC to date on these matters is further

evidence that most tribes have not yet had the ability to fully participate in meaningful consultation with the

NIGC on the proposed rule changes. Additionally, the present 30-day comment period, without further

meaningful in-person or virtual consultation opportunities, does not equate to sufficient tribal consultation on

such significant rule changes.

With more than a year having passed since the publication of the original proposed changes to the regulations,

and with no consultations held on the new revised language, it would be more prudent and beneficial for tribes

and the NIGC to fully discuss the questions and concerns raised by the proposed rule. For these reasons, the

Tribe respectfully urges the NIGC to consider conducting further meaningful in person tribal consultations on

the proposed changes to 25 CFR Parts 502, 556 and 558 prior to publishing a final rule. The Tribe is hopeful

BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS I GUN IAKI TRIBE
2872 Mission Drive, Shelbyville, M149344 | {p}269.397.17B0 | gunlaketribe-nsn.g0v

Mr. E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, NIGC Chair

September 9,2022

Page2

that further consultations, which will allow tribes to be better informed on the NIGC's intentions and to prepare

more substantive comments, will occur prior to issuance of a final rule.

Please contact me if you have any further questions related to this matter

Sincerely,

SS"er,^'",J

J G. Palmer, Tribal Council Vice-Chairwoman

Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians

Gun Lake Tribe

BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS I GUN TAKE TRIBT
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Auditors
The Board of Directors
COMFORCE Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-3 (Registration Nos. 033-60403, 333-31167, 333-43321, 333-44351, 333-47941,
333-61789, 333-74689, 333-82201 and 333-52356) and Form S-8 (Registration Nos.
333-32271, 333-46787, 333-82199 and 333-56962) of COMFORCE Corporation and
subsidiaries of our report dated March 1, 2002, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of COMFORCE Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 30, 2001
and December 31, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, cash flows and the related
financial statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 30, 2001, which report appears in the December 30, 2001 annual
report on Form 10-K of COMFORCE Corporation.

                                             /s/ KPMG LLP
                                             KPMG LLP
Melville, New York
March 28, 2002
#### Daniel Marks Cohen et al., Appellants, v Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 14, 2012;

decided May 31, 2012

Motion by H. William Van Allen for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein dismissed as academic.
Escenario: Contratistas con Mal Comportamiento

Janice, una miembra femenina del equipo de helitack, se queja con su compañero de 

trabajo, Bob, sobre un incidente que ocurrió la noche anterior. Ella tuvo una discusión 

con un empleado de una companía de helicópteros contratada porque él le estaba 

pidiendo que fuera al bar con él. Parecía que el mecánico había estado bebiendo; 

aunque no estaba borracho. Esta no era la primera vez que él le pedía salir y Janice le 

había dicho repetidamente que no estaba interesada.

Preguntas para la Discusión:

Pregunta #1: ¿Qué debe hacer Bob?

• Recordarle a Janice que tiene derecho a un lugar de trabajo libre de discriminación y acoso.

• Aconsejar a Janice que hable con alguien en su cadena de mando, un oficial de adquisiciones 

o un oficial de contrataciones, o un profesional de EEO o HR en la oficina.

• Sería entonces responsabilidad del supervisor discutir el comportamiento del contratista con el 

oficial de contrataciones.

Pregunta #2: ¿Se requiere que nuestros contratistas sigan los mismos estándares de conducta 

que los empleados del BLM?

• Sí. Los contratistas tienen los mismos requisitos de comportamiento que los empleados 

federales. El incumplimiento de un empleado de contrato de cumplir con los estándares 

establecidos en el contrato puede ser la base para anular el contrato.

Puntos de Conversación para la Conversación de Cierre

NOTA PARA EL FACILITADOR: Asegúrese de cubrir estos al final de la discusión.

• Todos tienen derecho a un lugar de trabajo libre de acoso y discriminación.

• La mayoría de los contratos federales ahora incluyen cláusulas que requieren que los 

empleados de contrato se adhieran a estándares mínimos de comportamiento y completen una 

formación similar a la que se requiere para los empleados federales. Si los empleados son 

acosados por contratistas, deben informar el problema a alguien en su cadena de mando, a un 

oficial de contrataciones/representante del oficial de contrataciones (el Jefe de Finanzas en 

incendios incidentales), o a un profesional de HR o EEO.
AP9 R04-30-92 S:\FormsLib\Civil Bureau\Civil Courts & Post Judgment\Post Trial\Appeal Status Card Revised 01-18-2013

RDATE 6/12/2015

 NOTICE OF APPEALS

ASSIGNMENT OF COURT OF APPEALS

TO: 1ST COURT OF APPEALS 

From: Deputy Clerk: MICHELLE LOPEZ

 Chris Daniel, District Clerk

Harris County, T E X A S

CAUSE: 2014-50657 

VOLUME PAGE OR IMAGE # 65759003

DUE 8/9/2015 ATTORNEY 20981000

NOTICE OF APPEAL HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE 1ST

DATE JUDGMENT SIGNED: 6/10/2015 

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL DATE FILED N/A

REQUEST TRANSCRIPT DATE FILED N/A

NOTICE OF APPEAL DATE FILED 6/10/2015

NUMBER OF DAYS: ( CLERKS RECORD ) 60

FILE ORDERED: YES NO IMAGED FILED: YES NO 

CODES FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL: BC, C, OA

CHRIS DANIEL 

Harris County, District Clerk

By: /s/MICHELLE LOPEZ 

 MICHELLE LOPEZ, Deputy

BC NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED

BG NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED – GOVERNMENT

C JUDGMENT BEING APPEALED

D - ACCELERATED APPEAL

OA NO CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED

O CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED (W/NOTICE OF APPEAL)

NA AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/12/2015 2:20:29 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk



JUC8H (NR4#) JUSTICE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM JUN 12, 2015(C1) 

INT6510 CIVIL CASE INTAKE OPT: _____ - INT

 GENERAL PARTY INQUIRY PAGE: 1 - 1

 

CASE NUM: 201450657__ PJN> __ TRANS NUM: _________ CURRENT COURT: 11 PUB? _

CASE TYPE: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CASE STATUS: DISPOSED (FINAL) 

STYLE: RODRIGUEZ, ELSA VS MARTIN, DISIERE, JEFFERSON & WISD

=============================================================================

 **** INACTIVE PARTIES **** 

 PJN PER/CONN COC BAR PERSON NAME PTY ASSOC. ATTY 

 NUM NUMBER STAT 

 _ 00003-0001 AGT MARTIN, DISIERE, JEFFERSON, AN 

 _ 00002-0001 DEF 14497750 MARTIN, DISIERE, JEFFERSON & W MORRIS, RICHA

 _ 00001-0001 PLT 20981000 RODRIGUEZ, ELSA WATTS, LAUREN

 

 

 

 

 

 

==> (3) CONNECTION(S) FOUND 

1=ACTIVE 2=ATY. INQ. 3=ACT.ENTRY 4=ISS. SERV. 5=DOC. INQ. 

6=CASE INQ. 7=BACKWARD 8=FORWARD 9=PTY. ADDR. 10=REFRESH 11=HELP