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

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

      As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our reports included in this Form 10-Q into Industries'
previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-30619; Form S-8
Registration Statement No. 33-30621; Form S-8 Registration Statement 
No. 333-08263;Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-19981; Form S-8
Registration Statement No. 333-19983; Form S-8 Registration Statement 
No. 333-19985; and Form S-3 Registration Statement No. 333-22347.

                                   /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Chicago, Illinois

May 13, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         390,043
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,365,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,576,486
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,107,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,860
<COMMON>                                         5,895
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,242,964
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,107,782
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,249,661
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,855,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                71,745
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             516,605
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (194,165)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   340,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (534,165)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (534,165)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7490

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MOHAMMED ASAD SAID,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:03-cr-00556-TSE; 1:05-cv-1248)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mohammed Asad Said, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mohammed Asad Said seeks to appeal the district court’s

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid

v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Said has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

Additionally, we construe Said’s notice of appeal and informal

brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208

(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
- 3 -

either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Said’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion.

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.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Michael R. Kramer, Acting Chief Financial Officer of ATS Medical, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2008(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and ExchangeAct of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); andThe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.          Date: May 7, 2008         /s/ Michael R. Kramer       Name: Michael R. Kramer  Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### Harold SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward F. REILLY, Jr.; Sandra Hilton; Jeffrey S. Kostbar; Charles Lyons; Alberto R. Gonzales; Harley G. Lappin; Richard Holt; John J. Lamanna, Defendants-Appellees. Harold Smith, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward F. Reilly, Jr.; Sandra Hilton; Jeffrey S. Kostbar; Charles Lyons; Alberto R. Gonzales; Harley G. Lappin; Richard Holt; John J. Lamanna, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 06-6225, 06-6315.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 3, 2006.

Harold Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Harold Smith, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and denying Smith’s motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Smith v. Reilly,*No. 6:05-cv-03426-HFF (D.S.C. Jan. 9, 2006 *&*Feb. 1, 2006). 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.*
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0001115 22-APR-2014 09:10 AM
#### Office of Disciplinary Counsel et al. *v.*Gatwood.

[Cite as *Disciplinary Counsel v. Gatwood*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 304.]

(No. 96-2480

Submitted January 22, 1997

Decided April 30, 1997.)

*306
      *Geoffrey Stem,*Disciplinary Counsel, and *Sally Ann Steuk,*Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

*George Gemot III*and *W. David Arnold,*for relator Toledo Bar Association. *David W. Gatwood, pro se.*

*Per Curiam.*

Upon review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the board. Respondent is suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio. As a condition of any possible reinstatement to the practice of law, respondent must make restitution and must demonstrate that he is continuing his treatment for depression or that treatment is no longer necessary. Costs are taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, J., not participating.
- 3360_001
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 28109 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

Advisory Committee on Disability 

Compensation; Notice of Meeting 

The Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) gives notice under Public Law 92– 

463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) 

that the Advisory Committee on 

Disability Compensation will meet on 

July 7–8, 2009, in the Chandelier Room 

at the St. Regis Washington DC, 923 

16th and K Streets, NW., from 8:30 a.m. 

to 5 p.m. each day. The meeting is open 

to the public. 

The purpose of the Committee is to 

advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

on the maintenance and periodic 

readjustment of the VA Schedule for 

Rating Disabilities. The Committee is to 

assemble and review relevant 

information relating to the nature and 

character of disabilities arising from 

service in the Armed Forces, provide an 

ongoing assessment of the effectiveness 

of the rating schedule and give advice 

on the most appropriate means of 

responding to the needs of veterans 

relating to disability compensation. 

On July 7, the Committee will receive 

briefings about studies on compensation 

for Veterans with service-connected 

disabilities and other Veteran benefits 

programs. On July 8, the Committee will 

break into subcommittees to prepare 

draft recommendations which will be 

subsequently considered by the full 

Committee. In the afternoon of July 8, 

time will be allocated for receiving 

public comments. Public comments will 

be limited to three minutes each. 

Individuals wishing to make oral 

statements before the Committee will be 

accommodated on a first-come, firstserved basis. Individuals who speak are 

invited to submit 1–2 page summaries of 

their comments at the time of the 

meeting for inclusion in the official 

meeting record. 

The public may submit written 

statements for the Committee’s review 

to Ms. Ersie Farber, Designated Federal 

Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Veterans Benefits Administration 

(211A), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20420. Any member of 

the public wishing to attend the meeting 

or seeking additional information 

should contact Ms. Farber at (202) 461– 

9728 or Ersie.farber@va.gov. 

Dated: June 9, 2009. 

By direction of the Secretary. 

E. Philip Riggin, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–13927 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
#### BONNIE J. LAREAU *v.*WAYNE M. BURROWS

(AC 25342)

Flynn, McLachlan and West, Js.

Argued June 1

officially released August 16, 2005

*Bonnie J. Lareau,*pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

*John Kardaras,*for the appellee (defendant).

*780
      *Opinion*

FLYNN, J.

The pro se plaintiff, Bonnie J. Lareau, appeals from the judgment of the trial court accepting the fact finder’s recommendation. The plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she loaned the defendant, Wayne M. Burrows, moneys for several items, including $5000 so that he could purchase a Friehoffer delivery route. In her prayer for relief, the plaintiff sought more than $15,000 in damages. On December 15,2003, and January 12.2004, the case was heard by Harold M. Levy, attorney trial referee, who, after finding the defendant more credible, recommended judgment in his favor. On March 18.2004, the court rendered judgment in the defendant’s favor in accordance with the findings of fact. The plaintiff makes various claims on appeal, none of which is supported by legal analysis or citation to legal authority.

Although we are solicitous of the fact that the plaintiff is a pro se litigant, “the statutes and rules of practice cannot be ignored completely.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) *Bennings*v. *Dept. of Correction,*59 Conn. App. 83, 84, 756 A.2d 289 (2000). “We are not required to review issues that have been improperly presented to this court through an inadequate brief. . . . Analysis, rather than abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) *In re Haley B.,*81 Conn. App. 62, 67-68, 838 A.2d 1006 (2004). “Where a claim is asserted in the statement of issues but thereafter receives only cursory attention in the brief without substantive discussion or citation of authorities, it is deemed to be abandoned.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) *Cummings*v. *Twin Tool Mfg. Co.,*40 Conn. App. 36, 45, 668 A.2d 1346 (1996). Because the plaintiffs claims are inadequately briefed, we cannot review them.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                           5,902
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (154)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,763
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,098
<PP&E>                                           7,682
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (203)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,165
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,886
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,764
<SALES>                                         13,898
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,898
<CGS>                                           10,941
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,726
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (260)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 412
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (980)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        31
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,011)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,011)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13915]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,876]


Magneti Marelli Powertrain USA, LLC, Sanford, NC; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 4, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Magneti Marelli 
Powertrain USA, LLC, Sanford, North Carolina.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13915 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### The Woven Wire Mattress Co. *v.*Palmer.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

May 27, 1880.)

1. Woven Wire Mattress Co. v. Wire Web Bed Co., 1 Fed. Rep. 222, followed in. this case.

In Equity.

*C. E. Perkins,*for plaintiff.

*G. Goeller,*for defendant.

Blatchford, C. J.

Within the rulings made by Judge Blodgett and Judge Shipman, on the plaintiff’s patent, I am of opinion that the frame purchased by Roberts from the defendant infringes claims 1 and 3 of the plaintiff’s patent. It has, substantially, the inclined end rail of the patent, made in two parts, for the purpose of clamping the fabric and holding it suspended by means of the inclination between the points of attachment. In it the end rails are raised above the side rails and held in place by corner irons, or standards, which perform the same function as the plaintiff’s standard. There are no inclined recesses in its standards, to hold the ends of the end rails in an inclined position, but the end rails are evidently purposely inclined, and held so by a screw bolt passing through a part of the standard and into the lower end rail. So, too, the end rail is double. The ends of the fabric are bent over the upper edge of the lower end rail, and the bolts, or nails, or screws, which go through the upper end rail and through the fabric and into the lower end rail, aid in holding the fabric to the frame. The side rails, standards, and end rails on such frame are the manifest equivalent of those in the plaintiff’s patent.

I do not consider claims 2 and *Í,*and do not decide anything as to their construction, or as to the infringement, but grant the injunction asked for on claims 1 and 3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Thompson, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 451]

Appeals by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), rendered December 10, 2003, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see*Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]; *People v Castillo,*47 NY2d 270, 274-277 [1979]; *People v Mitteager,*44 NY2d 927, 928 [1978]).

The defendant’s contention that his adjudication as a persistent violent felony offender violated his right to a jury trial is unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, is without merit *(see People v Rosen,*96 NY2d 329 [2001], *cert denied*534 US 899 [2001]; *see also People v Rivera,*5 NY3d 61, 67 [2005]).

The defendant’s contentions raised in his supplemental pro se brief are without merit. Miller, J.E, Goldstein, Mastro and Dillon, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 11

                   Computation of Net Income Per Common Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Three Months Ended   Nine Months Ended
                                                         June 30,            June 30,
                                                     ----------------   ------------------
                                                      1998      1997      1998      1997
                                                     ------    ------   -------    -------
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
<S>                                                   <C>       <C>      <C>       <C>

BASIC:

Weighted average shares outstanding                   7,822     4,418     6,842     4,320
                                                     ------    ------    ------    ------

Total                                                 7,822     4,418     6,842     4,320
                                                     ======    ======    ======    ======
Net income                                           $  847    $1,315    $1,131    $1,760
                                                     ======    ======    ======    ======
Net income per share                                 $ 0.11    $ 0.30    $ 0.17    $ 0.41
                                                     ======    ======    ======    ======

DILUTED:

Weighted average shares outstanding                   7,822     4,418     6,842     4,320

Conversion of 1,703 shares of preferred stock
  into 1,023 shares of common stock                    --       1,023      --       1,023

Assuming exercise of options and warrants reduced
  by the number of shares which could have been
  purchased with the proceeds from such exercise        587       479       603       478
                                                     ------    ------    ------    ------

Total                                                 8,409     5,920     7,445     5,821
                                                     ======    ======    ======    ======
Net income                                           $  847    $1,315    $1,131    $1,760
                                                     ======    ======    ======    ======
Net income per share                                 $ 0.10    $ 0.22    $ 0.15    $ 0.30
                                                     ======    ======    ======    ======
</TABLE>