alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-45697) pertaining to the Equity Incentive Plan and the Employee
Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 and Form S-3 Nos.
33-20301 and 33-35198, respectively) pertaining to the 1982 and 1987 Employee
Stock Option Plans, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-30578)
pertaining to the 401(k) Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-37094) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-35129) pertaining to the 1990 Director Stock Option
Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-41880) pertaining to the March
1991 private placement of 1,250,000 units and the Registration Statement (Form
S-3) for the registration of 1,150,000 shares of convertible exchangeable
preferred stock, of our report dated January 28, 1998, with respect to the
financial statements included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of SEQUUS
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in Item 14(a)
of this Annual Report. This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.


                                                      ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 31, 1998
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 17 PageID: 61
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 2 of 17 PageID: 62
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 3 of 17 PageID: 63
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 4 of 17 PageID: 64
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 5 of 17 PageID: 65
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 6 of 17 PageID: 66
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 7 of 17 PageID: 67
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 8 of 17 PageID: 68
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 9 of 17 PageID: 69
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 10 of 17 PageID: 70
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 11 of 17 PageID: 71
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 12 of 17 PageID: 72
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 13 of 17 PageID: 73
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 14 of 17 PageID: 74
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 15 of 17 PageID: 75
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 16 of 17 PageID: 76
Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 13 Filed 03/25/11 Page 17 of 17 PageID: 77
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00347-CV

MARK MUSE, Appellant

V.

ZHENYU MAO, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

of Denton County (CV-2021-02902-JP)

March 10, 2022

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

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 as moot.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
# table138_q15.1_size
**EXHIBIT32**

 

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the following certifications are being made toaccompany the Registrant’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ended May 2, 2009:**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer(1)**

----

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Neiman Marcus, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies,to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended May 2,2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  June 10, 2009 | /s/ BURTON M.  TANSKY             |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                       | Burton M. Tansky                       |
|                       | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officer(1)**

----

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Neiman Marcus, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies,to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended May 2,2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  June 10, 2009 | /s/ JAMES E.  SKINNER                            |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | James E. Skinner                                      |
|                       | Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----

(1)A signed original forthis written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NeimanMarcus, Inc. and will be retained by Neiman Marcus, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
# brs2022_naics11-21
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION









EXHIBIT 10.80




 




 




 




 




MODIFICATION TO PROMISSORY NOTE




 




 




                WHEREAS,

on July 3, 1995, Lee Pharmaceuticals ("maker") and Sass DiSalvo

("Holder") entered into an agreement ("Note") whereby Lee

Pharmaceuticals was to pay to Sass DiSalvo the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars;

and




 




                WHEREAS,

on July 6, 1996, the parties thereto modified said Note to extend the maturity

date from July 6, 1996, until December 8, 1997, ( a copy of said Modification

to Promissory Note is attached for reference as Exhibit A); and




 




                WHEREAS,

on December 8, 1997, the parties thereto modified said Note to extend the

maturity date from December 8, 1997, until December 1, 1998, (a copy of said

Modification to Promissory Note is attached for reference as Exhibit B); and




 




                WHEREAS,

on December 1, 1998, the parties thereto modified said Note to extend the

maturity date from December 1, 1998, until June 30, 1999, (a copy of said

Modification to Promissory Note is attached for reference as Exhibit C); and




 




                WHEREAS,

on June 30, 1999, the parties thereto modified said Note to extend the maturity

date from June 30, 1999, until June 30, 2000, (a copy of said Modification to

Promissory Note is attached for reference as Exhibit D); and




 




                WHEREAS,

on June 30, 2000, the parties thereto modified said Note to extend the maturity

date from June 30, 2000, until December 1, 2001, (a copy of said Modification

to Promissory Note is attached for reference as Exhibit E); and




 




                WHEREAS,

the parties thereto now desire to further modify said Note and Modification;




 




                NOW,

THEREFORE, the parties modify said Note and Modification as follows:




 




                1.             The maturity date of the Note is

extended from December 1, 2001, until December 1, 2002.




 




                2.             All other terms and conditions of

the Note remain the same.




 




 




 




                Dated

this 14TH day of NOVEMBER, 

2001




 




 




 




 








	

   


  	

  RONALD G. LEE


  
	

   


  	

  Lee Pharmaceuticals


  
	

   


  	

  By:  Ronald G. Lee, President


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

  SASS DI SALVO


  
	

   


  	

  Sass DiSalvo
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-70,830]

Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on June 1, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Eclipse Manufacturing Company, Pikeville, Tennessee.

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition (TA-W-70,486) filed on May 22, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

      ( print page 31982)    
Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of June 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15763 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
September 25, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EMMANUEL VON ALLEN EVANS, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00476-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

Exhibit 11

                 SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              2004          2003        2002
                                                           -----------  -----------  -----------
<S>                                                        <C>          <C>          <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE
Net income                                                 $12,718,220  $15,307,893  $15,102,300
                                                           ===========  ===========  ===========

Divide by: Weighted average shares outstanding              13,481,397   13,438,007   13,547,299
                                                           ===========  ===========  ===========

Basic earnings per share                                   $      0.94  $      1.14  $      1.11
                                                           ===========  ===========  ===========

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
Net income                                                 $12,718,220  $15,307,893  $15,102,300
                                                           ===========  ===========  ===========

Divide by: Weighted average shares outstanding              13,481,397   13,438,007   13,547,299
            Potentially dilutive effect of stock options        49,827       78,693        5,270
                                                           -----------  -----------  -----------
           Weighted average shares outstanding, including
             potentially dilutive effect of stock options   13,531,224   13,516,700   13,552,569
                                                           ===========  ===========  ===========

Diluted earnings per share                                 $      0.94  $      1.13  $      1.11
                                                           ===========  ===========  ===========
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12

                   RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE HUMAN RESOURCES
                 AND ETHICS COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                            OF ESCO TECHNOLOGIES INC.

                                   ----------


                  WHEREAS, ESCO Technologies Inc. ("Company") adopted the ESCO
Electronics Corporation Performance Compensation Plan for Corporate, Subsidiary
and Division Officers and Key Managers ("Plan"); and

                  WHEREAS, the Human Resources and Ethics Committee of the Board
of Directors of the Company ("Committee") has been authorized to amend the Plan;
and

                  WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend the Plan effective as
of January 1, 2000:

                  NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT

                  RESOLVED, that the Plan is amended as follows:

                  1. The fifth sentence of Section V is amended to read as
                     follows:

                          "Performance Compensation Awards for some Participants
                  may be based upon predetermined Subsidiary, Division or
                  individual performance targets whereas Performance
                  Compensation Awards for other Participants may be totally
                  discretionary as determined by the Committee." and BE IT
                  FURTHER

                  RESOLVED, that the proper officers of the Company be, and they
                  hereby are, authorized and directed to take such further
                  action and execute such documents as they, with the advice of
                  counsel, deem necessary or desirable to carry out the intent
                  of the foregoing.

                  The foregoing Resolutions were adopted by the Committee this
9th day of November, 2000.
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Barzel Industries Inc., (the “Company”), does hereby
certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 28, 2009 (the “Form
10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:
      April 20, 2009
            
            /s/
      Corrado De
      GasperisCorrado
      De Gasperis
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)Dated:
      April 20, 2009
            
            /s/
      Corrado De GasperisCorrado
      De Gasperis
              (Principal
      Financial Officer)








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Andrew Eckert, Chief Executive Officer of CRC Health Corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: October 17, 2011       
|                             
|/s/    R. ANDREW
ECKERT      
|R. Andrew Eckert             
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CRC Health
Corporation and will be retained by CRC Health Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# covid_table27_c22_size_class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

______________________________

:

JOHN WALLER and WANDA : Civil Action

KELLY-WALLER, : No. 1:10-cv-06342 (NLH)

Plaintiffs, :

v. :

: ORDER

FOULKE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION :

 d/b/a CHERRY HILL DODGE AND: 

 CHERRY HILL TRIPLEX; :

 CHRYLSER FINANCIAL, :

Defendants. :

______________________________:

APPEARANCES:

Graham F. Baird, Esquire

Weisberg Law, P.C.

7 South Morton Ave.

Morton, PA 19070

Attorney for Plaintiffs John Waller and Wanda Kelly-Waller

Laura D. Ruccolo, Esquire

Capehart & Scatchard, PA

800 Midlantic Drive

Suite 300 S

Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054

Attorney for Defendant Foulke Management Corporation d/b/a Cherry

Hill Dodge and Cherry Hill Triplex

HILLMAN, District Judge

For the reasons explained in this Court’s Opinion

entered today, it is this 16th day of March, 2012, 

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration

[15] is DENIED.

 s/Noel L. Hillman 

NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

Case 1:10-cv-06342-NLH-AMD Document 31 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 208
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEIRON MARQUETT ELIAS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

A. LICHINOV, Correctional Officer, in

official and individual capacities,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 21

- 56103

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 07457

- MWF

- JC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 16, 2023 * *

Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Keiron Marquette Elias appeals pro se from the

district court ’s judgment dismissing hi s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

excessive use of force, deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and

violation of his right to free exercise of religion. We have jurisdiction under 28

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

MAY 19 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 56103

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter

, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th

Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes , 213

F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Elias’s action because Elias fa iled to

allege facts sufficient to show that defendant used force maliciously and

sadistically against him

, knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Elias’s

health, or substantially burdened Elias’s religious practic e. See Hebbe v. Pliler

,

627 F.3d 33 8, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (though pro se pleadings are to be liberally

construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible

claim for relief); see also Jones v. Williams

, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir.

2015) (“A person asserting a free exercise claim must show that the government

action in question substantially burdens the person ’ s practice of [his] religion.” );

Clement v. Gomez , 298 F.3d 898, 903

- 904 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)

(discussing Eighth Amendmen t excessive force and medical deliberate indifference

claims)

.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
#### Gregory J. Agati, Respondent, v Fredrika Wandel, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Fredrika Wandel, Plaintiff, v Gregory J. Agati, Defendant. (Action No. 2.)

[854 NYS2d 445]

The plaintiff in action No. 1 made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence which demonstrated that the sole proximate cause of the accident in question was the failure of the defendant in that action to yield the right-of-way as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 *(see e.g. Spivak v Erickson,*40 AD3d 962 [2007]; *Aristizabal v Aristizabal,*37 AD3d 503 [2007]). In opposition, that defendant failed to come forward with any evidence suf*573ficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see e.g. Almonte v Tobias,*36 AD3d 636 [2007]; *Berner v Koegel,*31 AD3d 591 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability in action No. 1. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.