alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.3

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To
the Board of Directors
NQA, Inc.

We
have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of NQA, Inc. (the "Company") as of January 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of
operations and retained earnings, and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
these financial statements based on our audits.

We
conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Company's internal control over financial
reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose
of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In
our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of NQA, Inc. as of
January 31, 2009 and 2008, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.

/s/ PKF, P.C.April 21, 2009


---



QuickLinks
#### REED v. SWIFT & CO.

No. 6771.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

May 6, 1953.

See also, 11 F.R.D. 273.

Marcy K. Brown, Jr., and Ben E. Pener, Kansas. City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Henry W. Buck, of Morrison, Hecker, Buck, Cozad & Rogers, Kansas City, Mo., for defendants

REEVES, Chief Judge.

Many motions have heretofore been filed in the above case and rulings made thereon. At one time a motion to dismiss on similar grounds to those alleged in the present motions was ruled adversely to the defendant. Very recently the Supreme Court of Kansas in Frier v. Proctor & Gamble Distributing Company, 173 Kan. 733, 252 P.2d 850, denied recovery in a similar case for the reason that the petition sounded in contract and not in tort as in this case. Counsel have therefore invoked the Kansas law for the reason that the claimed injuries resulting from the sale of detergent were suffered in Kansas.

The St. Louis Court of Appeals in a similar case, Worley v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co., 253 S.W.2d 532, ruled adversely to the plaintiff where the petition, as i,n this case, sounded in contract. As intimated by the Supreme Court of Kansas, in the Frier case, supra, if the plaintiff had elected to proceed in tort the result might have been different. The same is intimated in the Worley case, supra.

The Kansas Supreme Court said, in reference to plaintiff, “She elected to rely on ‘warranty, both express and implied.’ ” [173 Kan. 733, 252 PRd 851.]

Since plaintiff’s petition in this case sounds in contract and not in tort, the motion to dismiss should ordinarily be. sustained. However, since the decision cited by counsel was one where the plaintiff was given an opportunity to elect either to proceed on contract or tort, the same ruling should be made here.

Accordingly, plaintiff may be granted permission to amend her complaint so as to proceed in tort, if such be desirable. Otherwise, the petition should be dismissed. Such election by proper amendment to the complaint should be made within ten days. It will be so ordered.
----

|   |   |                                                         |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                         |   |
|   |   | /s/James. J. Cleary                                          |   |
|   |   | James J. Cleary                                              |   |
|   |   | President                                                    |   |
|   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)Colorado Interstate Gas Company |   |
|   |   |                                                         |   |
|   |   |                                                         |   |
|   |   |                                                         |   |
|   |   |                                                         |   |
|   |   |                                                         |   |
|   |   |  February 28, 2011                                      |   |

----
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in millions)
 Six FiscalMonthsEndedJune 29,
    
    
    Year Ended December 31,2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002EARNINGS, AS DEFINEDEarnings (loss) from operations before income
taxes and before adjustments for minority
interests in consolidated subsidiaries
and after eliminating undistributed
earnings of equity method investees
    
    $
    155.5
    
    
    $
    204.3
    
    
    $
    61.5
    
    
    $
    18.5
    
    
    $
    (1.2
    )
    
    $
    (27.6
    )Preferred stock dividend (pre-tax equivalent)
    
    
    (0.2
    )
    
    
    (0.5
    )
    
    
    (33.8
    )
    
    
    (9.2
    )
    
    
    (0.9
    )
    
    
    Fixed charges
    
    
    21.1
    
    
    
    43.3
    
    
    
    76.7
    
    
    
    49.4
    
    
    
    53.6
    
    
    
    47.5TOTAL EARNINGS, AS DEFINED
    
    $
    176.4
    
    
    $
    247.1
    
    
    $
    104.4
    
    
    $
    58.7
    
    
    $
    51.5
    
    
    $
    19.9FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINEDInterest expense
    
    $
    17.4
    
    
    $
    36.9
    
    
    $
    36.5
    
    
    $
    35.0
    
    
    $
    45.3
    
    
    $
    41.3Amortization of capitalized expenses related
to debt
    
    
    2.1
    
    
    
    3.1
    
    
    
    3.4
    
    
    
    2.7
    
    
    
    4.5
    
    
    
    3.7Preferred stock dividend (pre-tax equivalent)
    
    
    0.2
    
    
    
    0.5
    
    
    
    33.8
    
    
    
    9.2
    
    
    
    0.9
    
    
    
    Interest component of rent expense
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    2.8
    
    
    
    3.0
    
    
    
    2.5
    
    
    
    2.9
    
    
    
    2.5TOTAL FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINED
    
    $
    21.1
    
    
    $
    43.3
    
    
    $
    76.7
    
    
    $
    49.4
    
    
    $
    53.6
    
    
    $
    47.5RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
    
    
    8.4
    
    
    
    5.7
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.2
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
  57
Exhibit 13.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Graña y Montero S.A.A. (the Company) on Form
20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Luis Francisco Díaz Olivero, Chief
Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. 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.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 16, 2018



/s/ Luis Francisco Díaz Olivero
Name: Luis Francisco Díaz Olivero Title: Chief Executive
Officer
Submitted April 4,

reversed and remanded May 28, 2008

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*STEVEN WAYNE ADAMS, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Multnomah County Circuit Court

051137002; A132777

185 P3d 570

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Shawn Wiley, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Legal Services Division, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Anna M. Joyce, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Schuman, Judge, and Ortega, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*306PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance, *former*ORS 475.992(4) (2003), assigning error to (1) the denial of his motion to suppress evidence that police obtained after stopping him without reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime and (2) the admission of a crime laboratory report analyzing that evidence. Defendant was leaving a party when he was approached by a police officer. The officer noticed signs of intoxication and believed that defendant was under the legal drinking age. The officer asked for and received defendant’s identification. The identification showed that defendant was over 21 years of age. The officer retained the identification, however, and then asked for consent to search defendant. Defendant agreed, and the officer found evidence of drugs. Defendant contends that the officer unlawfully retained his identification after learning that defendant was, in fact, over 21 and that the officer exploited what was essentially an unlawful stop by asking for consent to search. Consequently, defendant contends, the trial court should have suppressed the evidence that was produced by that search.

The state concedes that, particularly in light of *State v. Hall,*339 Or 7, 115 P3d 908 (2005), the officer stopped defendant without reasonable suspicion by retaining the identification and, further, that the state failed to establish that the officer did not exploit that illegality in obtaining defendant’s consent to search.

We agree with defendant and the state that, in light of *Hall,*the officer unlawfully stopped defendant when she retained the identification without reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed a crime and that the state failed to establish that the officer did not exploit that illegality in obtaining defendant’s consent to search.

In light of our disposition of defendant’s first assignment of error, we need not address his second assignment.

Reversed and remanded.
**Exhibit      32.1**

|         |                                          |                                |
|--------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|         |                                          |
|    |                                     |                           |
|         |                                     | /s/              Stephen W. Everett |
|         |  STEPHEN W. EVERETT, President and Chief |
|         | Executive              Officer           |

|         |                                                                                                                                 |                             |
|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|         |                                                                                                                                 |
|    |                                                                                                                            |                        |
|         |                                                                                                                                 | /s/              Daniel R. Ouzts |
|         |  DANIEL                R. OUZTS, Vice President of Finance,Chief                Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and |
|         | Treasurer                                                                                                                       |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7139

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLOS MCCLAMMY, a/k/a Carlos T. McClammy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00004-HEH-DJN-1; 3:15-

cv-00277-HEH-DJN)

Submitted: March 16, 2020 Decided: April 16, 2020

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary K. Martin, MARY K. MARTIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Hopewell, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Aidan Taft Grano, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Erik 

Sean Siebert, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlos McClammy appeals the district court’s order denying as futile his motions 

to amend and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. We granted a 

certificate of appealability on the issue of whether, in light of United States v. Davis, 139 

S. Ct. 2319 (2019), the district court erred in denying the motions to amend by determining 

that McClammy’s challenge to his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2018) conviction in Count 4 was 

untimely. The Government now elects to waive its timeliness challenge to McClammy’s 

claim but suggests that we can affirm on the alternative ground that amendment would be 

futile because McClammy’s vagueness challenge to Count 4 is procedurally defaulted. 

McClammy disputes that his claim is futile and contends that remand to the district court 

is necessary for development of the record.

“[M]indful that we are a court of review, not of first view,” Lovelace v. Lee, 472 

F.3d 174, 203 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), we vacate the district 

court’s order and remand for further proceedings. We express no opinion on the ultimate 

resolution of McClammy’s Davis claims. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE DEVICOR MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC.

____________________

2011-1414 (R EEXAMINATION N O

. 90/008,824)

______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M ARK P. L EVY , Thompson Hine LLP, of Dayton, Ohio argued for appellant.

S YDNEY O. J OHNSON

, J R

., Associate Solicitor, United States Patent & Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were

R AYMOND T. C HEN , Solicitor and S COTT C. W EIDENFELLER

, Associate Solicitor.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN

, L OURIE , and P ROST

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 14, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
### Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Math Occupations Workers in this group use arithmetic and apply advanced techniques to make calculations, analyze data, and solve problems. Overall employment in math occupations is projected to grow much faster than the average for all occupations from 2022 to 2032. About 33,500 openings are projected each year, on average, in these occupations due to employment growth and the need to replace workers who leave the occupations permanently. The median annual wage for this group was $101,460 in May 2023, which was higher than the median annual wage for all occupations of $48,060. BLS employment projections, wage, and other data for related occupations not shown in the following table are available on the Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail page. Information highlighting physical demands, cognitive and mental requirements, and other qualifications for workers in this group are available in a BLS Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS) profile. **Occupation**
                **Job Summary**
                **Entry-Level Education**
                **2022     MEDIAN PAY****Actuaries**
            Actuaries use mathematics, statistics, and financial theory to analyze the economic costs of risk and uncertainty.
            Bachelor's degree
            $120,000**Data Scientists**
            Data scientists use analytical tools and techniques to extract meaningful insights from data.
            Bachelor's degree
            $108,020**Mathematicians and Statisticians**
            Mathematicians and statisticians analyze data and apply computational techniques to solve problems.
            Master's degree
            $104,860**Operations Research Analysts**
            Operations research analysts use mathematics and logic to help solve complex issues.
            Bachelor's degree
            $83,640 **Last Modified Date:**
                        Wednesday, April 17, 2024


**U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics**
Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections 
PSB Suite 2135 
2 Massachusetts Avenue NE  
Washington, DC 20212-0001 Telephone:1-202-691-5700 

www.bls.gov/ooh
Contact OOH
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 354 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 354

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 820 Elmwood Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island, as the ``Sister Ann 
                          Keefe Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 3, 2015

  Mr. Reed (for himself and Mr. Whitehouse) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 820 Elmwood Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island, as the ``Sister Ann 
                          Keefe Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SISTER ANN KEEFE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 820 Elmwood Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Sister Ann Keefe Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sister Ann 
Keefe Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
/s/ K. Whipple
    
    /s/ Philip R. Lochner, Jr.Kenneth Whipple
    
    Philip R. Lochner, Jr./s/ Merribel S. Ayres
    
    /s/ M. T. MonahanMerribel S. Ayres
    
    Michael T. Monahan/s/ Jon E. Barfield
    
    /s/ Joseph F. Paquette, Jr.Jon E. Barfield
    
    Joseph F. Paquette, Jr./s/ Richard M. Gabrys
    
    /s/ Percy A. PierreRichard M. Gabrys
    
    Percy A. Pierre/s/ D. W. Joos
    
    /s/ K. L. WayDavid W. Joos
    
    Kenneth L. Way
 /s/ John B. YasinskyJohn B. Yasinsky
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 05a0723n.06

Filed: August 18, 2005

No. 04-6095

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

GERALD E. THOMPSON, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

v. ) WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

)

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

)

Defendant-Appellee. )

Before: BATCHELDER, GIBBONS and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-appellant Gerald E. Thompson appeals from the summary

judgment order of the district court, awarding judgment to defendant-appellee Smith & Nephew, Inc.

Thompson had brought claims against his former employer under federal and state law, alleging that

his discharge from employment was motivated by race discrimination. The district court ruled as

a matter of law that the claims were barred by the release signed by Thompson on the last day of his

employment, despite his having appended the words “with reservations” to his signature. 

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on

appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court

erred in granting summary judgment to Smith & Nephew.

Because we conclude that the reasoning which supports award of judgment to Smith &

Nephew has been correctly articulated by the district court, issuance of a detailed written opinion

by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose.
2

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is, upon the reasoning employed in its opinion

dated August 12, 2004, hereby AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

ZENITH
NATIONAL INSURANCE CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
(As of December 31, 2008)

Zenith
National Insurance Corp. (a Delaware corporation)
                Zenith National Insurance Capital Trust I (a Delaware statutory trust)
                Zenith Development Corp. (a Nevada corporation)

Zenith
Insurance Company (a California corporation)

ZNAT
Insurance Company (a California corporation)
                                Zenith Insurance Management Services, Inc. (a Florida
corporation)
                                1390 Main Street LLC (a Delaware limited liability
company)
                                Zenith of Nevada, Inc. (a Nevada corporation)

Each
subsidiary shown is wholly-owned by the subsidiary shown in the tier above it.

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
§1350,


AS
      ADOPTED
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Hospital Services, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Rex T. Clevenger, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(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/
      Rex
      T. Clevenger


Rex
      T.
      Clevenger


Senior
      Vice President &


Chief
      Financial Officer


May
      8,
      2007





27