alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.2



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of our report
dated February 4, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
InteliData Technologies Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 1997,
whihc report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of
InteliData Technologies Corp. which is included in and incorporated by reference
in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of WorldCorp, Inc.





DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP



Hartford, Connecticut
April 20, 1998
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 22, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-880

Lower Tribunal No. 12-35583 

________________

Three Lions Construction, Inc.,

Appellant,

vs.

The Namm Group, Inc., etc.,

Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rosa I.

Rodriguez, Judge.

Marisa Pia Capua, for appellant. 

Smith, Currie & Hancock and Brian A. Wolf and Daniel M. Carrico (Ft.

Lauderdale), for appellee. 

Before SUAREZ, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ. 

SUAREZ, C.J.

Appellant Three Lions Construction, Inc. (“Three Lions”) challenges the

denial of its motion for attorney’s fees, based on a proposal for settlement, after
dismissal of the underlying action by Appellee The Namm Group, Inc. (“Namm”). 

We reverse.

During the pendency of the underlying litigation, Three Lions served on

Namm a Proposal for Settlement pursuant to Section 768.69, Florida Statutes

(2012) and Rule 1.442, of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure on Namm. Prior to

the expiration of the time within which it could properly accept the Proposal,

Namm filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Accept Settlement Proposal. 

However, Three Lions did not agree to the extension of time and Namm took no

steps to have the motion heard. 

More than 90 days later, Namm served a Notice of Acceptance of the

Settlement Proposal. After being notified by Three Lions that the purported

acceptance was untimely, Namm filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Within 30

days after the voluntary dismissal, Three Lions filed a Motion for Fees and Costs,

pursuant to the Proposal for Settlement. Following other proceedings not relevant

here, and a hearing, the trial court denied the motion without explanation.

We reverse because Namm’s Motion for Extension of Time to Accept

Settlement Proposal was ineffective to toll the time for acceptance of the proposal,

where Three Lions did not agree to the extension and Namm did not obtain a

hearing on the motion prior to the expiration of the time for acceptance of the

Proposal. Donohoe v. Starmed Staffing, Inc., 743 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999);

5 Fla. Prac., Civil Procedure §11:5 n.22. Because Three Lions’ Proposal for

2
Settlement was otherwise proper, it was entitled to attorney’s fees based on that

Proposal. We reject Appellee’s claim that the Proposal did not satisfy the

requirements of Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362,

377 (Fla. 2013). 

Reversed and remanded for determination of the amount of Three Lions’

fees by the trial court.

3
# covid_table36_c46_size_class
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-15-00233-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF K.N.M.M., A CHILD 

 

On Appeal from the 100th District Court 

Donley County, Texas 

Trial Court No. DCPS-14-7079, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding 

 

July 13, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant, B.D.M., the father of K.N.M.M. appeals the trial court’s judgment 

terminating his parental rights to K.N.M.M. B.D.M.’s appointed counsel has filed a brief 

in conformity with Anders v. California rendering his professional opinion that any issue 

that could be raised on appeal is frivolous and without legal merit. See 386 U.S. 738, 

87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). B.D.M.’s counsel avers that he has zealously 

reviewed the record in this matter and can find no arguable points of appeal. Counsel 

has filed a motion to withdraw and provided B.D.M. with a copy of the brief. Further, 

counsel has advised B.D.M. that he has the right to file a pro se response to the Anders

brief. The Court has likewise advised B.D.M. of this right. Additionally, B.D.M.’s 
2

counsel has certified that he has provided appellant with a copy of the record to use in 

preparation of a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321-22 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2014). B.D.M. has not favored the Court with a response.

This Court has long held that an appointed attorney in a termination case might 

discharge his professional duty to his client by filing a brief in conformity with the Anders

process. See In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 87, 88-89 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.). 

Likewise, other intermediate appellate courts have so held. See Sanchez v. Tex. Dep’t 

of Family and Protective Servs., No. 03-10-00249-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2162, at 

*1 (Tex. App.—Austin March 24, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re L.K.H, No. 11-10-

00080-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1706, at *2-4 (Tex. App—Eastland March 10, 2011, 

no pet.) (mem. op.); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 849-50 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. 

denied); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 326-27 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, 

no pet.).

We have conducted our own review of the record in this matter and have come to 

the conclusion that there are no arguable points of appeal. See In re A.W.T., 61 S.W.3d 

at 89. We, therefore, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. We remind counsel that 

B.D.M. has the right to file a pro se petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. 

Finally, having found no arguable points of appeal requiring reversal, we affirm the 

judgment of the trial court.

Mackey K. Hancock

Justice
SCPR-24-0000400

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

IN RE RICHARD C. WOOTTON, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN IN GOOD STANDING

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition to resign from the 

practice of law in the State of Hawaiʻi, filed by attorney 

Richard C. Wootton (Petitioner), pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the 

Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi (RSCH), which 

the court construes as also seeking to retain the paper license 

as a memento, as authorized by RSCH Rule 1.10(b), and the 

declarations submitted in support thereof, we conclude that 

Petitioner has complied with the requirements of RSCH Rule 1.10. 

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition to resign is 

granted. Petitioner may retain the paper license as a memento.

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPR-24-0000400

18-JUN-2024

01:05 PM

Dkt. 6 OGP
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g) that 

Petitioner shall comply with the notice, declaration, and record 

requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16(a), (b), (d) and (g).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the name 

of Petitioner, attorney number 6815, from the roll of attorneys of the 

State of Hawaiʻi, effective with the filing of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 18, 2024.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ Vladimir P. Devens
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed the Quarterly Report of CastlePoint Holdings, Ltd. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by the Report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
the Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report;4.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a  15(e) and 15d -
15(e)) for the Company and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which the Report is being
prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in the Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by the Report based on such evaluation;
andc)
    
    disclosed in the Report any change in the Companys internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the Companys third quarter of 2008 that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and to the
audit committee of the board of directors:
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.
 Date:  November 14, 2008
    /s/ Michael H. LeeMichael H. LeeChairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 11.1
ATLANTIS PLASTICS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CALCULATION OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, 1995, AND 1994

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

PRIMARY                                                    1996            1995         1994
                                                           ----            ----         ----
<S>                                                    <C>            <C>             <C>    
Shares outstanding:
   Weighted average outstanding                         7,133,067        7,089,467     7,066,511
   Share equivalents                                      391,225          118,706       443,468
                                                        ---------        ---------     ---------
      Adjusted outstanding                              7,524,292        7,208,173     7,509,979
                                                        =========        =========     =========

Net income (loss) available to common shareholders:
   Net income (loss)                                   $8,096,895     $(13,072,150)   $6,366,130
   Less - preferred stock dividend                       (108,748)        (145,000)     (145,000)
                                                       ----------     ------------    ----------
Net income (loss) available to common shareh           $7,988,147     $(13,217,150)   $6,221,130
                                                       ==========     ============    ==========
Income (loss) per common share                              $1.06     $      (1.83)   $     0.83
                                                       ==========     ============    ==========

FULLY DILUTED                                              1996             1995          1994
                                                           ----             ----          ----
<S>                                                   <C>                 <C>           <C>    
Shares outstanding:
   Weighted average outstanding                       7,133,067
   Share equivalents                                  1,068,850
                                                      ---------
      Adjusted outstanding                            8,201,917
                                                      =========

Net income (loss) available to common shareholders:
   Net income (loss)                                 $8,096,895

Income (loss) per common share                            $0.99           (1), (2)     (1), (2)
                                                     ==========
</TABLE>

(1) The difference between primary and fully dilutive earnings per share is 
    not material.

(2) The Company's convertible preferred stock was determined not to be a 
    common stock  equivalent in computing primary earnings per share.  
    In computing fully diluted income per share, the dilutive effect was not 
    material.
-1-

(More)

No. 19-8 For Immediate Release

October 2019

RRB Names Chief Information Officer

The U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has named Terryne Murphy as its Chief 

Information Officer (CIO).

As CIO, Ms. Murphy will head the RRB’s Bureau of Information Services and its staff of 

about 150 employees and contractors. In addition, she will be responsible for planning, directing and 

coordinating the agency’s information technology program, including a comprehensive initiative 

undertaken by the RRB to modernize and re-engineer the agency’s business processes, along with 

related computer and network resources.

Ms. Murphy will also serve as a member of the RRB’s Executive Committee, which is 

responsible for day-to-day operations of the agency and for making recommendations to the threemember Board on policy issues.

Before joining the RRB, Ms. Murphy had been at the Department of Commerce in 

Washington, D.C. since April 2018, where she served as Deputy CIO for Solutions & Service Delivery 

and Acting CIO since February 2019. Prior to her tenure at Commerce, she served as Executive 

Director for Headquarters Services in the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the CIO for 19 

months, which represented her initial appointment to the Senior Executive Service.

Ms. Murphy also served two tours at the Executive Office for Immigration Review at the 

Department of Justice, as Chief Information Officer from May 2013 to October 2016, and as Deputy 

CIO for Systems Engineering from December 2005 to October 2009. Between those positions, she was 

a Division Chief at the U.S. Census Bureau, responsible for developing the annual operating and 

capital budget for the Information Technology Directorate.

Prior to entering federal service, Ms. Murphy worked for six years in the private sector as an IT 

project manager at consulting firm CSC, following almost 12 years as a telecommunications officer in 

the U.S. Army.

RRB News

844 North Rush Street Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092

U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

www.rrb.gov

877-772-5772 general information

Public Affairs

312-751-4777 media inquiries
-2-

Ms. Murphy received a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from North Carolina State 

University (1987), and is currently working on a master’s degree in information technology from 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. She also has master’s certificates in project 

management from Villanova University and in conflict analysis and resolution from George Mason 

University.

A resident of Centreville, Virginia, at the time of her appointment, she is originally from 

Fayetteville, North Carolina. She started her new position on September 2.

She replaces Ram Murthy, who had been the RRB’s CIO since August 2013. He left the 

agency with more than 15 years of federal service.

# # #

An independent federal agency headquartered in Chicago, the RRB pays almost $12.8 billion a 

year in benefits under the federal Railroad Retirement and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts 

covering the nation’s railroad workers and their families.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 27, 2021

No. 04-21-00149-CV

Nasser NAKISSA,

Appellant

v.

Sarah E. MENCHACA,

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-19593

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

On June 23, 2021, we issued an opinion and judgment dismissing this appeal for failure 

to pay the $205 notice of appeal filing fee. On July 6, 2021, appellant Nasser Nakissa filed a 

letter we construed as a motion for rehearing, in which he explained that he had mailed a money 

order in the amount of the filing fee to this court. On July 13, 2021, the clerk of this court 

informed appellant by letter that we had not received his money order and notified him that if he 

wished to reinstate the appeal, he needed to pay the notice of appeal and motion for rehearing 

filing fees and provide a written explanation for his failure to timely pay the notice of appeal 

filing fee. 

On September 1, 2021, appellant paid the required fees and offered an explanation for his 

failure to timely pay the notice of appeal filing fee. Because it appeared that appellant had 

complied with the directives in our July 13, 2021 letter, we invited appellee Sara E. Menchaca to 

file a response to appellant’s motion for rehearing by September 20, 2021. See Tex. R. App. P. 

49.2. Appellee did not file a response to the motion for rehearing.

After consideration, appellant’s motion for rehearing is GRANTED. See id. R. 49.3. We 

WITHDRAW our June 23, 2021 opinion and judgment dismissing this appeal and reinstate the 

appeal to the docket.
 

The clerk’s record was originally due May 17, 2021, but has not been filed. On May 20, 

2021, the district clerk filed a notification of late record, stating the clerk’s record was not filed 

because appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the 

record and appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. We therefore ORDER

appellant Nasser Nakissa to provide written proof to this court that either (1) the clerk’s fee has 

been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to 

appeal without paying the clerk’s fee by October 12, 2021. If appellant fails to respond within 

the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

37.3(b).

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of September, 2021.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 824 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 824

 Expressing support for designation of the week beginning February 2, 
      2020, as ``National Tribal Colleges and Universities Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 2020

   Mr. O'Halleran (for himself, Mr. Cole, Mr. Young, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. 
 Armstrong, Mr. Lujan, Ms. Haaland, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. 
Johnson of South Dakota) submitted the following resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for designation of the week beginning February 2, 
      2020, as ``National Tribal Colleges and Universities Week''.

Whereas there are 37 Tribal Colleges and Universities operating on more than 75 
        campuses in 16 States;
Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities are tribally chartered or federally 
        chartered institutions of higher education and therefore have a unique 
        relationship with the Federal Government;
Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities serve students from more than 230 
        federally recognized Indian Tribes;
Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities offer students access to knowledge and 
        skills grounded in cultural traditions and values, including indigenous 
        languages, which--

    (1) enhances Indian communities; and

    (2) enriches the United States as a Nation;

Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities provide access to high-quality 
        postsecondary educational opportunities for--

    (1) American Indians;

    (2) Alaska Natives; and

    (3) other individuals that live in some of the most isolated and 
economically depressed areas in the United States;

Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities are accredited institutions of higher 
        education that prepare students to succeed in the global and highly 
        competitive workforce;
Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities have open enrollment policies, and 
        approximately 15 percent of the students at Tribal Colleges and 
        Universities are non-Indian individuals; and
Whereas the collective mission and the considerable achievements of Tribal 
        Colleges and Universities deserve national recognition: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of ``National Tribal Colleges 
        and Universities Week''; and
            (2) calls on the people of the United States and interested 
        groups to observe National Tribal Colleges and Universities 
        Week with appropriate activities and programs to demonstrate 
        support for Tribal Colleges and Universities.
                                 <all>
```
IMMUCELL CORPORATION

EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF BAKER NEWMAN & NOYES, LLC

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors

ImmuCell Corporation

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-2631 and No. 333-65514 of ImmuCell Corporation on Form S-8 of our report, dated March 12, 2007, relating to our audit of the financial statements which appear
in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of ImmuCell Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2006.



|                |  |  |  |                          
|--------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------
|Portland, Maine |  |  |  | /s/ Baker Newman & Noyes 
|March 23, 2007  |  |  |  | Baker Newman & Noyes, LLC