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

EXHIBIT 23.1






                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS'





The Board of Directors and Shareholders
FiberChem, Inc.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
No. 33-61479 and 33-82330 on Form S-8 of our report dated November 16, 1999,
except for the third paragraph of Note 1 and Note 12, as to which the date is
December 6, 1999, related to the consolidated balance sheet of FiberChem, Inc.
and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then
ended, which report appears in the September 30, 1999 annual report on Form
10-KSB of FiberChem, Inc. and Subsidiaries.

GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York, New York

December 29, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         364
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  963
<ALLOWANCES>                                   20
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,312
<PP&E>                                         6,283
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,956
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,547
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,037
<BONDS>                                        7,829
<COMMON>                                       74
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,839)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,547
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,786
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               16
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             811
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                273
<INCOME-TAX>                                   28
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            245
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   245
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .02
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2844
JAMES P. MIXON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA VITAL RECORDS, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-870-N) Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 7, 1997 Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James P. Mixon, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Carol Smith Nance, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil suit for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mixon v. Virginia , No. CA-96-870-N (E.D. Va. Dec. 11, 1996). We deny Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 477 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 477

Requiring that the House authorize any judicial proceeding on behalf of 
                             any committee.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2019

Mr. Brady submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                           Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Requiring that the House authorize any judicial proceeding on behalf of 
                             any committee.

    Resolved, That the second resolving clause in House Resolution 430 
(116th Congress) is amended by striking ``Bipartisan Legal Advisory 
Group'' the first place it appears and inserting ``House of 
Representatives'' and by striking the second sentence.
                                 <all>
```
@article{1206856,
  author = {Joseph Iosue and Adam Ehrenberg and Dominik Hangleiter and Abhinav Deshpande and Alexey Gorshkov},
  title = {Page curves and typical entanglement in linear optics},
  year = {2023},
  number = {7},
  month = {2023-05-23 04:05:00},
  publisher = {Quantum},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935513},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-05-23-1017},
  language = {en},
}
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00124-CR

Elliot Vance Sirbaugh

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1379759D)

July 16, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
# FDA Guidance Documents

              - Emergency Preparedness and Response
              - Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMi)                  - What are Medical Countermeasures?
                - What is the Animal Rule?

##### Guidance for Industry

              - Product Development Under the Animal Rule  	This guidance provides information and recommendations on drug and biological product development when human efficacy studies are not ethical or feasible.
              - M3(R2) Nonclinical Safety Studies for the Conduct of Human Clinical Trials and Marketing Authorization for Pharmaceuticals  and the accompanying  Questions and Answers (R2)  	The FDA does not have a broad outline or specific list of required studies and/or data needed to review any particular product that is provided to the public since the nonclinical drug development process is product and indication specific. However, the two documents referenced above should be useful starting point towards addressing this topic.
              - Formal Meetings Between the FDA and Sponsors or Applicants                  - Pre-Investigational New Drug (pre-IND) meetings provide an opportunity to obtain important feedback from FDA on your development program. The process to request these meetings is outlined in the guidance document.
                - We recommend that before having an actual pre-IND meeting with the Review Division, a pre-preIND meeting with the  Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Coordination Staff (CTECS)  be held first. We can help facilitate these pre-preIND meetings between you and the FDA.
                - CounterACT grantees should alert and include their program official(s) in meetings with the FDA.
              - Estimating the Maximum Safe Starting Dose in Initial Clinical Trials for Therapeutics in Adult Healthy Volunteers  	Research efforts should always strive to use Animal Doses that are relevant to the Human Equivalent Doses (HED).
              - FDA Animal Model Quantification Program  within the  Drug Development Tools (DDT) Qualification Program                  - Animal Model FAQs
                - Animal Model Templates
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




Neoprobe Corporation


Dublin, Ohio





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-81410, 333-05143, 333-119219, 333-130636, 333-130640, 333-153110, and 333-158323) of Neoprobe Corporation of our reports dated March 16, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of Neoprobe Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K.





/s/ BDO USA, LLP





Chicago, Illinois


March 16, 2011
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Don Juan Britt, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 719]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated December 1, 1997 *(People v Britt,*260 AD2d 498 [1999]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 29, 1996.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, EJ., Florio, Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
#### ITT Sheraton Corporation et al., Appellants, v Travelers Casualty & Surety Company, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 729]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in an underlying action entitled *Freehill v ITT Sheraton,*pending in *965the Supreme Court, Queens County, under index No. 24232/97, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated January 24, 2005, which, among other things, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied their cross motion for summary judgment, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated February 28, 2005, entered upon the order, declaring that the defendant is not obligated to defend or indemnify them in the underlying action.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The defendant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify the plaintiffs in the underlying action *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Black Car & Livery Ins., Inc. v H&W Brokerage, Inc.,*28 AD3d 595 [2006]; *Crespo v Triad, Inc.,*294 AD2d 145 [2002]; *Blank v Noumair,*239 AD2d 534 [1997]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra).*Florio, J.E, Goldstein, Luciano and Lunn, JJ, concur.
#### In the Matter of John L. Weslowski, Respondent, v C. Scott Vanderhoef et al., Appellants.

Submitted November 19, 2012;

decided January 8, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution and is not an order of the type provided for in CPLR 5602 (a) (2).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 121 (Thursday, June 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15005]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 21, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Prairieland Bancorp Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, 
Bushnell, Illinois, to increase its ownership to at least 48.01 percent 
of Prairieland Bancorp, Inc., Bushnell, Illinois, and thereby 
indirectly increase its ownership of Merchants and Farmers State Bank 
of Bushnell, Bushnell, Illinois.
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 22, 2009.

Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-15005 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
97-187.

#### State ex rel. Strothers v. Wertheim.

Cuyahoga App. No. 71185. On request for oral argument. Request denied.
#### Centennial Elevator Industries, Inc., Respondent, v Ninety-Five Madison Corp., Defendant, and Rita Sklar, Appellant.

Submitted May 7, 2012;

decided June 27, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30644-30645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15119]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 63-001-HLW;ASLBP No. 09-892-HLW-CAB04]


Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; Department of 
Energy

    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972 
(37 FR 28,710), and the Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR 2.300 et 
seq., 2.1000 et seq., notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board (Board) is being established in the following case to 
preside over matters concerning discovery, Licensing Support Network 
compliance, new or amended contentions, grouping or consolidation of 
contentions, scheduling, case management matters relating to any of the 
foregoing, and all other matters the Chief Administrative Judge may 
assign: U.S Department of Energy, High Level Waste Repository, 
Construction Authorization Application.
    The Board, which shall also be referred to as a Construction 
Authorization Board 04 (CAB 04) is comprised of the following 
administrative judges:

Thomas S. Moore, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Paul S. Ryerson, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Richard E. Wardwell, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear

[[Page 30645]]

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    Until further order, all pleadings, correspondence, documents, and 
other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing 
rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 2007 (72 FR 49,139).

    Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of June 2009.
E. Roy Hawkens,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-15119 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

JULY 14, 2015

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 

84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).

1. ED101771 DARIUS SUMPTER, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

2. ED102398 DONALD ROSENFELD ET AL, APP V DEBORAH BONISKE, 

RES
#### PSAROUMBAS v. UNITED GREEK SHIPOWNERS CORPORATION et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

April 1, 1946.

Nathan Baker, of Hoboken, N. J., for plaintiff.

*399Reid, Cunningham & Freehill and Frederick H. Cunningham, all of New York City, for United Greek Shipowners Corp.

E. C. Sherwood, of New York City, and P. J. McCann, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for Nacirema Operating Co., Inc.

BONDY, District Judge.

The plaintiff has joined in one action causes of action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, against the owner or charterer of the ship on which he sustained personal injuries, and causes of action under the common law against the stevedoring company which employed him, all arising out of the same occurrence, to recover damages for injuries which he alleges were sustained through the negligence of one or both of these defendants.

It is my opinion that the trial judge in his charge to the jury can guard against the confusion which it is feared would arise because the causes of action and parties are joined. It does not appear that justice would be better served if the causes were severed and tried separately. In fact, if the causes are tried separately, the plaintiff may be deprived of a verdict though the jury in each action may believe he was injured through the negligence of one of the defendants but not of the defendant on trial.

The motion to sever the causes of action against the owner or charterer from those against the stevedoring company accordingly is denied. See Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.
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 Annual Report of Adal Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  each  of the
undersigned of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (i)   The  Report  fully  complies,  in all  material  respects,  with the
            requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities  Exchange
            Act of 1934; and

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


                                       /s/ Nicholas A. Shrager
                                       -----------------------
                                       Nicholas A. Shrager
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       May 19, 2006


                                       /s/ Stephen Goodacre
                                       --------------------
                                       Stephen Goodacre
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       May 19, 2006


This  Certification  is made  solely for  purposes  of 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  contained  therein,  and not for any other
purpose.

A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff
upon request.  This written  statement shall not be deemed to be "filed" as part
of the annual report on Form 10-KSB that it accompanies.
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax Credit Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax Credit Issue Committee will be held Wednesday, February 11, 2009, at 1 p.m. Eastern Time. For information, please contact Ms. Audrey Y. Jenkins. Ms. Jenkins may be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 488-2085. Send written comments to Audrey Y. Jenkins, TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made in advance.                

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: December 22, 2008.

Roy L. Block,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

 [FR Doc. E9-149 Filed 1-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P