alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

[KPMG LOGO]

                  KPMG
                  CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
                  1 Stokes Place
                  St. Stephen's Green
                  Dublin 2
                  Ireland




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Form
S-8, Nos. 33-17196, 33-44822, 33-44877, 33-44876, 33-22459, 33-38491, 33-54075,
33-54079, 33-54077, 333-47833, 333-28273, 333-38752, 333-62568, 333-62572 and
333-117017) pertaining to various stock option, employee savings, deferred
compensation and restricted stock plans and in Registration Statements (Form
S-3, Nos. 33-36001, 333-60175 and 333-121743) pertaining to a universal shelf
registration statement and registration of preferred stock and common stock
warrants of Wellman, Inc. of our report dated 3 March 2006 with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Wellman International Limited as of 31 December
2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and other comprehensive (loss)/income, and cash flows, for
each of the years in the three year period ended 31 December 2005, which report
appears in the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Wellman, Inc. except for changes described in Note 1 - Other Assets
which is dated 21 November 2006 and our report dated 3 March 2006 with respect
to Wellman International Limited management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of 31 December 2005, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of 31 December
2005, which reports appear in the 31 December 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A
of Wellman, Inc.


/s/ KPMG

Chartered Accountants
Registered Auditors
21 November, 2006
#### In the Matter of Huntington Hills Associates, LLC, Petitioner, v Town of Huntington et al., Respondents.

[852 NYS2d 786]

*648The Supreme Court should have determined that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the proceeding *(see*CPLR 7804 [f], [g]). Moreover, the Supreme Court erroneously transferred the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g) *(see Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle,*24 AD3d 768, 769-770 [2005]). However, the record is sufficient to facilitate review and disposition of that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the proceeding *(see*CPLR 7804 [g]; *Matter of 125 Bar Corp. v State Liq. Auth. of State of N.Y.,*24 NY2d 174, 180 [1969]). A declaratory judgment action, and not a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, is the proper vehicle by which to challenge the determination of the Town Board of the Town of Huntington to classify the subject property as a “golf course property” *(see generally P & N Tiffany Props., Inc. v Village of Tuckahoe,*33 AD3d 61, 64 [2006]). Accordingly, the proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 must be dismissed.

To the extent that relief in addition to that sought pursuant to CPLR article 78 is requested, any issues pertaining to such relief must be determined by the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, in the first instance, as transfer to this Court is not authorized *(see Matter of Herman v Incorporated Vil. of Tivoli, 45*AD3d 767, 769 [2007]). Spolzino, J.P., Fisher, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
Case 3:11-cv-01086-FLW-DEA Document 98 Filed 07/06/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 1916
Case 3:11-cv-01086-FLW-DEA Document 98 Filed 07/06/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 1917
Case 3:11-cv-01086-FLW-DEA Document 98 Filed 07/06/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 1918
Case 3:11-cv-01086-FLW-DEA Document 98 Filed 07/06/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 1919
Case 3:11-cv-01086-FLW-DEA Document 98 Filed 07/06/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 1920
S05A1870.

#### NORTHSIDE HOSPITAL-CHEROKEE, INC. v. MAYES et al.

(627 SE2d 2)

Decided February 27, 2006.

*Sommers, Scrudder & Bass, Susan V. Sommers, Jane C. Taylor, Michelle R. Kraynak,*for appellant.

*Jeffrey H. Dover, Hall, Booth, Smith & Slover, Timothy H. Ben-din, John D. Rogers, Jr., Paul E. Weathington,*for appellees.

SEARS, Chief Justice.

As the issue in this case is controlled by our recent decision in *EPICA Cartersville v. Turner,*
      *1*
      **the decision below is hereby affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hunstein, P. J., Benham, Car ley, Thompson, Hines, JJ., and Judge Daniel M. Coursey, Jr., concur. Melton, J., not participating.*

280 Ga. 333 (626 SE2d 482) (2006).
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Monarch Financial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on their
knowledge and belief:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ William F. Rountree, Jr.                        
|William F. Rountree, Jr.,                           
|President & Chief Executive Officer                 
|                                                    
|/s/ Brad E. Schwartz.                               
|Brad E. Schwartz                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 14, 2008



33
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAROLYN BETHEA, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

ISRAEL ROIZMAN, et al.,

 Defendants.

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Civil No. 11-254 (JBS/JS)

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court upon the

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket Item 123], the

City Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket Item

166] and the Roizman Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary

Judgment [Docket Item 180]; the Court having considered the

submissions of the parties; for the reasons explained in the

Opinion of today’s date; and for good cause shown;

IT IS this 27th day of September, 2012 hereby

ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

[Docket Item 123] is DENIED; and it is 

ORDERED that the City Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary

Judgment [Docket Item 166] is GRANTED; and it is

ORDERED that the Roizman Defendants' Cross Motion for

Summary Judgment [Docket Item 180] is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the clerk shall cause this case to be closed

upon the docket.

s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Chief U.S. District Judge
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL**

**OFFICEROF HILAND HOLDINGS GP, LP**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection withthe accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three and six monthsended June 30, 2007 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ken Maples, Chief Financial Officer, VicePresident-Finance and Secretary of Hiland Partners GP Holdings, LLC, thegeneral partner of Hiland Holdings GP, LP (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.     The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        | Date: August 9, 2007 | /s/ Ken Maples                                                        |
|--------|----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                 | Ken Maples                                                            |
|   |                 | Chief Financial Officer, Vice  President-Finance   and Secretary |

 

1

----
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENRRAL OF ‘I’EICAS 

AUSTIN 

lionorable Carlo8 C. AuUer 

District Attorney 

Llam, Texa* 
Our reacds rereal theit in rsgard to the bonQ 

issue mentioned in your letter the CoaarLsslonors* Court 

paased an order on Noranbor 18, lw8, oalling an aleotio4 

to be held on the BZnd day of.Deoember, 1938, at whfah the 

iollowiag proposlt$on was l ubmittedto the voters of Llano 

County: 

*sH&L the CommI.8alomm* Court 0r Llano County, 

T.exa8, be authorired to lsmm bond6 of seld aounty, 

to the amount 0r $75,000 bearing intemst not ii0 

exosed S$ per annum, nu+turing in seriel:$4a~lmmtr 

to be dcelgnated by oaid aout, the Last lnatallmaat 

to mture not later than twenty year8 after date ti 

aaid borda, far the ~purpose ti aoaetru@tion, mainto-' 

nanoe and operatlon~ot zu+oadamked, grerel.eb or pred 

road8 and turnpikes, or ip aid'thereot, tithia #mid 

oounty, am3 apeolfla8lly POP the purpoee Of aogniring 

right of way lmldent to the aonatruotlon of the iollowing highways: ,j 

*(a) Braay tb LZaan to.Rowd lbouotaln Highnag, 

ia Llano County; 

. 

f(b) Highway No;, a@,.$hrougb Llano Couatr, aad 

to levy an ad ralorek l&z! on &lXCax~~blo roperty 

within a6i.a 00utg atiitioiwi to pay the ! ntwm 

art said bonds and $hc pi5~1olpkl theriof at maturity; 

oaid bonds to be Laaued,&q the mnner provided b 

the lawa of'the State of Texas, an& aa authoris ei 

by Seation SE of A:itiole $ of the Cond!tftution Or 

the State.R 

We fiti tkmt pr,r20~ t4 the eleotion the Oamnf8aionet8* 

Court paesmd another order on Deoomber 1%‘ 1958, pror%3.i~, 

in part, as followat 

* * * * Now, Thererote, be lt resol+sd by the 

CtJ~su~oneE6' eoutt~or Llrno county, TexaII, ~antl 

I: it, is hereby adopted aa ths pofiop aad plWp oi 

this COWQ to use the proceeds OS the above omen- 

.,.~' tioard b o nid setl xelanl+Q a ipr a fdllQUi@X 

pulTmB.r, to-rrlt : 
=m 

to the 

or LlAno RlVcPX. 

SOUth 

"Aclcpted la open Court on thin the 18th day Or 

Dauember, 1938." (Undsreool4Jlg ouro) . 

ROVEDAUG 11, 1941 

. 

ATTORNEY GkXUSRAL OF TEXAS 

0oB-u 

Asaiatant 

/6&h
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16192]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-150066-08]
RIN 1545-BI45


Guidance Regarding Foreign Base Company Sales Income

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary 
regulations and notice of public hearing; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed 
rulemaking and notice of public hearing that was published in the 
Federal Register on Monday, December 29, 2008 (73 FR 79421), relating 
to foreign base company sales income.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ethan Atticks, (202) 622-3840 (not a 
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that 
is subject to these corrections are under section 954 of the Internal 
Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of 
public hearing contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are 
in need of correction.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking 
and notice of public hearing (REG-150066-08), which was the subject of 
FR Doc. E8-30729, is corrected as follows:
    1. On page 79422, column 1, in the preamble under the heading 
Background and Explanation of Provision, the last sentence, the 
language ``The preamble to the temporary regulations explains these 
proposed regulations.'' is corrected to read ``The preamble to the 
temporary regulations explains the amendments.''
    2. On page 79422, column 2, in the preamble under the heading 
Comments and Public Hearing, the first paragraph, line 3 the language 
``consideration will be give to any written'' is corrected to read 
``consideration will be given to any written''.
    3. On page 79422, column 3, in the preamble under the heading Part 
1--Income Taxes, instructional paragraph 2, lines 5 and 6, the language 
``(b)(2)(ii)(e), (b)(4) Example (3), (c), and (d), and adding Examples 
8 and 9 to'' is corrected to read ``(b)(2)(ii)(e) and (b)(4) Example 
(3), and adding Examples (8) and (9) to''.
    4. On page 79423, column 1, Sec.  1.954-3, the third line of 
Example (8), the language ``(8) is the same as the text of Sec.  1.954-
3T'' is corrected to read ``(8) is the same as the text of Sec.  1.954-
3T(b)(4)''.
    5. On page 79423, column 1, Sec.  1.954-3, the third line of 
Example (9), the language ``(9) is the same as the text of Sec.  1.954-
3T(b)(4)''.

Guy R. Traynor,
Federal Register Liaison, Procedure & Administration, Associate Chief 
Counsel, Publications & Regulations.
[FR Doc. E9-16192 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v. NOAH BENITEZ JOHNSON , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 22

- 0465 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2017

- 144975

- 001 The Honorable Sam J. Myers , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Krista Wood Counsel for Respondent
Noah Benitez Johnson , Florence Petitioner FILED 3-21-2023STATE v. JOHNSON Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma , Judge Randall M. Howe , and Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Noah Benitez Johnson seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Proce dure 32.1. This is Johnson ’s first petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or legal error, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- co nviction relief. S ee S tate v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). Petitioner has the burden to show that the superior court erred in denying the petition for post

conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ari z. 537, 538 ¶ 1 (App. 2011)

. ¶3 This cour t has reviewed the record in this matter, the order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief and the petition for review. This court finds t he petitioner has not established error

. ¶4 This court grants review but den ies relief.
Case 2:10-cv-06368-DMC-JAD Document 2 Filed 01/05/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 13
Case 2:10-cv-06368-DMC-JAD Document 2 Filed 01/05/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 14
Case 2:10-cv-06368-DMC-JAD Document 2 Filed 01/05/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 15
Case 2:10-cv-06368-DMC-JAD Document 2 Filed 01/05/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 16
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 33268)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; LRP Application.                    

*Date:*                         July 10, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         9 a.m. to 10 a.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6101 Executive Blvd, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lyle Furr, Contract Review Specialist, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 220, MSC 8401, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-8401, (301) 435-1439,                         *lf33c.nih.gov*.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 1, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-16066 Filed 7-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Strang *against*Ferguson.

Under a generel submission, in whit h there is no mention of the costs of thcs arbitration, th® arbitrators mayp notwithstanding award as those ecifit

THIS was an action of debt on an arbitration bond, containing a general submission “ of all and all manner of action and actions, cause and causes of action, &c« quarrels, controversies, &c. at any time heretofore had, &c. or depending by and between the said parties.’’. The arbitrators awarded the costs of two suits between the parties, to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, and “also, that the said, *Ferguson*pay to the said *Strang*all the legal costs of the arbitration between the said parties, in-elusive of the charges of the arbitrators for their services.’5 The defendant admitted his liability for the costs of suit mentioned in the award, but contended that he was not liable for the-expenses of the arbitration, that being a matter not submitted to the arbitrators.

The case was submitted to the court without argument.

*Per Curiam.*

The only question in this case is, whether the-arbitrators had any authority to award concerning the costs, of the arbitration. The submission is general; no express authority is given on the subject of costs. It is said by *Kyd,*in his *Treatise on Azoards,*(p. 100,) that an opinion long prevailed* that, *162under a submission in the common form, arbitrators had no power with respect to the costs of the arbitration, because they were something that had arisen since the time of the submission; and many old cases are referred to in support of that principle. It seems, however, to be now det~rmined, that the power of awarding the costs of the arbitration, is necessarily incident to the authority contained in the general submission of the matters in dispute. (~ Term Rep. 644.) The plaintiIfls, therefore, entitled to judgment for 71 dollars and 20 cents, pursuant to the stipulation in the case.

Judgment for the plaintiff.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16286]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. 
L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the 
question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the 
purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, 
are being manufactured in the United States.
Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations 
and be postmarked on or before July 29, 2009. Address written comments 
to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. Applications may be examined between 
8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 
3720.
    Docket Number: 09-038. Applicant: University of Texas at Austin, 
10100 Burnet Rd., Bldg. 131, Austin, TX 78758. Instrument: Electron 
Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: 
The instrument will be used for high resolution cathodoluminescence 
imaging of quartz and carbonate cements in sandstones and carbonate 
rocks. The instrument will allow the highest spatial imaging 
resolutions with X-ray spectroscopy and CL. Justification for Duty-Free 
Entry: No instruments of same general category are manufactured in the 
United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: June 
17, 2009.
    Docket Number: 09-039. Applicant: National Institutes of Health, 
903 S. 4\th\ St., Hamilton, MT 59840. Instrument: Electron Microscope. 
Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument 
will be used to study protein complexes on viral surfaces, internal 
core structures, viral docking sites on host cells or tissues, 3-
dimentional structures of intact viruses and high-containment bacteria, 
intracellular relationships between viruses and bacteria as they enter, 
replicate and exit cells. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: No 
instruments of same general category are manufactured in the United 
States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: June 17, 2009.
    Docket Number: 09-040. Applicant: Stanford University, 450 Serra 
mall, Stanford, CA 94305. Instrument: Electron Microscope. 
Manufacturer: FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: The 
instrument will be used to study the nanostructure of materials. 
Justification for Duty-Free Entry: No instruments of same general 
category are manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by 
Commissioner of Customs: June 18, 2009.

    Dated: July 1, 2009.
Christopher Cassel,
Acting Director, IA Subsidies Enforcement Office.
[FR Doc. E9-16286 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S