alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.1**



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3
(Nos. 333-118487 and 333-22419) and Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-27429 and 333-88430) of Associated
Estates Realty Corporation of our report dated February 28, 2007 relating to the financial
statements, financial statement schedules, management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Cleveland, Ohio

February 28, 2007
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

** United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 8, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41278

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERTO PEREZ-CANEDO, also known as Andres Perez-Paramo

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-1710-ALL

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Roberto Perez-Canedo

(Perez) seeks to preserve for further review his contention that his sentence is

unreasonable because this court’s post-Booker** rulings have effectively

reinstated the mandatory Sentencing Guideline regime condemned in Booker.

Perez concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mares, 402
No. 06-41278

2

F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005), and its progeny, which have outlined this court’s

methodology for reviewing sentences for reasonableness. In light of Rita v.

United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007), the issue remains foreclosed.

Perez also raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a

penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion

for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2036 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2036

             To cancel the F/A-18 aircraft upgrade program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 1993

 Mr. Santorum introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To cancel the F/A-18 aircraft upgrade program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of 
Defense shall cancel the F/A-18 aircraft upgrade program. Funds 
programmed or appropriated for such upgrade program for fiscal years 
after fiscal year 1992 shall be used to procure additional F/A-18 
aircraft configured in the C/D model.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1


        SCHEDULE OF SUBIDIARIES OF AVALON PROPERTIES, INC.


Avalon Chase Glen, Inc.
Avalon Chase Grove, Inc.
Avalon Chase Hampton II, Inc.
Avalon Chase Heritage, Inc.
Avalon Chase Lea, Inc.
Avalon Chase Ridge, Inc.
Avalon 4100 Massachusett Ave., Inc.
Avalon Town Green II, Inc.
Avalon Town Meadows, Inc.
Avalon Town View, Inc.
Avalon Transactions, Inc.
Lexington Ridge-Avalon, Inc.
Town Cove Jersey City Urban Renewal, Inc.
Avalon Decoverly, Inc.
Avalon Lake Arbor, Inc.
Avalon Commons, Inc.
Avalon Collateral, Inc.
Town Cove II Jersey City Urban Renewal, Inc.
Avalon Fairway II, Inc.
Avalon Ballston II, Inc.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-88,829-03
IN RE ROSCOE ROB ERT BURNS, Relator
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 1057553 IN THE 179 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus under this Court’s orig inal jurisdiction. He contends that he filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in Har ris County

and his applica tion has not been prope rly forwa rded to this Court. Respondent, the District Clerk of Har ris County , shall forwa

rd Relator’s habea s application to this Court, respond that Relator has not filed a habea s application in Ha rris County , or forward
a copy of an order desig nating issues toge ther with corr espondenc e documenting the date the State
rec eived Relator’s habea s application. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(c) and (d); T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 5). This motion for leave to file will be held. Respondent shall comply with this order within thirty

day s from the da

te of this order
.2

Filed: Apr il 21, 2021 Do not publish
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1917 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1917

 Directing the Secretary of Transportation to review commercial motor 
    vehicle weight limitations in the State of Ohio, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 1993

Mr. Traficant introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 Directing the Secretary of Transportation to review commercial motor 
    vehicle weight limitations in the State of Ohio, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. VEHICLE WEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN THE STATE OF OHIO.

    (a) Review.--The Secretary of Transportation shall review the 
Federal and State commercial motor vehicle weight limitations 
applicable to Federal-aid highways in the State of Ohio.
    (b) Waiver Authority.--If the Secretary of Transportation 
determines, on the basis of the review conducted under subsection (a), 
that it is in the public interest, the Secretary shall waive 
application of the vehicle weight limitations of section 127(a) of 
title 23, United States Code, in whole or in part, to highways on the 
Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways in the 
State of Ohio for short wheel-base vehicles for such period as the 
Secretary determines may be necessary to permit a reasonable period of 
depreciation for short wheel-base vehicles purchased before October 1, 
1991.
    (c) Moratorium on Withholding of Funds.--Until the Secretary of 
Transportation makes a determination relating to public interest under 
subsection (b), the Secretary shall not withhold funds under section 
127(a) of title 23, United States Code, from apportionment to the State 
of Ohio for failure to comply with such section.

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

    Section 127(d)(1)(E) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``July 5, 1991'' and inserting ``July 6, 1991''.

                                 <all>
```
#### EMCORE CORPORATION and JDS Uniphase Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. OPTIUM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2010-1258.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 26, 2011.

Rehearing Denied March 15, 2011.

Gregory A. Castanias, Jones Day, of Washington, DC argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief were Sheryl H. Love, Jones Day, of Cleveland, OH; and Israel Sasha Mayergoyz, of Chicago, IL; and Cecilia R. Dickson, of Pittsburgh, PA.

Douglas J. Kline, Goodwin Procter, LLP, of Boston, MA, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Don M. Kennedy, Robert D. Carroll, and Safraz W. Ishmael. Of counsel was Kirsten Valerie K. Robbins, Goodwin Procter, LLP, of Washington, DC.

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
EXHIBIT 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated February 18, 2005  accompanying the consolidated
financial  statements of Cadus Corporation and subsidiary included in the Annual
Report of Cadus  Corporation  of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.
We  hereby  consent  to  incorporation  by  reference  of  said  report  in  the
Registration  Statements of Cadus  Corporation on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-21871,
effective February 14, 1997 and File No. 333-58151, effective June 30, 1998).


/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

New York, New York
March 29, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7683

LARKIE LYNCH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHNNY H. WILLIAMS; JOYCE WILLIAMS; RICHARD E.

HUNTER, JR.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District

Judge. (CA-00-549-5-F)

Submitted: February 6, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larkie Lynch, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Larkie Lynch appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lynch v. Williams, No. CA-00-549-5-F (E.D.N.C. Oct.

20, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50871 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus OSCAR MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-95-CV-498

October 23, 1996 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Oscar Martinez appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Martinez argues that the district court erred by concluding that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel on appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for thereasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Martinez , No. SA-95-CA-498 (W.D.

Tex. Nov. 15, 1995). AFFIRMED.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1799

Making accession to the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

a condition for designation as a beneficiary developing country under

the Generalized System of Preferences.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 21, 1993

Mr. STARK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

Making accession to the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation

of Nuclear Weapons a condition for designation as a

beneficiary developing country under the Generalized

System of Preferences.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. BENEFICIARY DEVELOPING COUNTRY DES4 IGNATION.

5 Section 502(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

6 2462(b)) is amended—

7 (1) by striking out ‘‘and’’ at the end of para8 graph (6);
2

•HR 1799 IH

1 (2) by striking out the period at the end of

2 paragraph (7) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

3 (3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the follow4 ing:

5 ‘‘(8) if such country has not acceded to the

6 Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weap7 ons.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         148,272                 169,750
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,706                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,131,699               5,257,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,131,699               5,257,868
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,131,699               5,257,868
<SALES>                                          1,311                   3,176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,895                  15,276
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15,584)                (12,100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15,584)                (12,100)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15,584)                (12,100)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1953 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1953

To prohibit any type of class III gaming on Indian lands within a State 
 except for the type of class III gaming specifically allowed by that 
                                 State.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 1993

 Mr. Machtley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit any type of class III gaming on Indian lands within a State 
 except for the type of class III gaming specifically allowed by that 
                                 State.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CLASS III GAMING.

    (a) Prohibition.--
            (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 11(d) of the 
        Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710(d)) is amended in 
        the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking out ``Class 
        III gaming activities shall be lawful on Indian lands only if 
        such activities are--'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``All 
        types of class III gaming activity on Indian lands are 
        prohibited unless a particular type of class III gaming 
        activity is--''.
            (2) Referenda and charitable entities.--Section 11(d)(1)(B) 
        of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(1)(B)) 
        is amended to read as follows:
            ``(B) located in a State that permits (other than by State 
        or local referendum) such type of gaming activity for a purpose 
        other than a charitable purpose by any person, organization, or 
        entity, other than a charitable organization or entity, and''.
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) Retroactivity.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
        shall apply at the end of the 180-day period beginning on the 
        date of enactment of this Act to any class III gaming activity 
        occurring on Indian lands on or before the date of enactment of 
        this Act.
            (2) Tribal-state compact negotiations.--A Tribal-State 
        compact under section 11(d)(3) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
        Act not in effect on or before the date of enactment of this 
        Act shall be subject to the amendment made by subsection (a).
            (3) Definition.--For the purposes of this Act, the term 
        ``class III gaming'' has the same meaning given such term by 
        section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703).

                                 <all>
```
59%

41%

Purchase Refinance

January 2017

$39 $456

Billion Billion

2016

0.99%

3,105

January 2017 Highlights

SF delinquency rate is 90+ days; MF rate is 60+ days 

0.03%
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*MICHAEL CASTILLO

*Robert E. Byron,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Timothy J. Sugrue,*senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided July 22, 2010

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 121 Conn. App. 699 (AC 31086), is denied.
Smith Barney Futures Management LLC
                         388 Greenwich Street, 7th Floor
                          New York, New York 10013-2396

June 11, 2001


Stonebrook Capital Management, Inc.
17 State Street - 38th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10004

Attention:  Mr. Jerome Abernathy

         Re:      Management Agreement Renewals

Dear Mr. Abernathy:

We are  writing  with  respect  to your  management  agreements  concerning  the
commodity pools to which reference is made below (the "Management  Agreements").
We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2002 and
all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged.

o        Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
o        Smith Barney Diversified Futueres Fund L.P. II
o        Smith Barney Stonebrook FX Fund plc.

Please  acknowledge  receipt of this  modification  by signing  one copy of this
letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Daniel  McAuliffe at the address
above or fax to  212-723-8985.  If you have any  questions  I can be  reached at
212-723-5435.

Very truly yours,

SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT LLC


By:
      /s/Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.
         Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.
         Chief Financial Officer & Director

AGREED AND ACCEPTED
STONEBROOK CAPITAL MANAGMENT, INC.
Form 8288

(Rev. April 2018)

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Withholding Tax Return for Dispositions by Foreign 

Persons of U.S. Real Property Interests

▶ Go to www.irs.gov/Form8288 for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0902

If this is an amended return, check here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ▶

Complete Part I or Part II. Also complete and attach Copies A and B of Form(s) 8288-A. 

Attach additional sheets if you need more space.

Part I To Be Completed by the Buyer or Other Transferee Required To Withhold Under Section 1445(a)

1 Name of buyer or other transferee responsible for withholding. See instructions. Identifying number

Street address, apt. or suite no., or rural route. Do not use a P.O. box.

City or town, province or state, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code Phone number (optional)

2 Description and location of property acquired

3 Date of transfer 4 Number of Forms 8288-A attached

5 Complete all items that apply. Enter dollar amounts on applicable lines.

a Amount subject to withholding at 15% . . . . . . ▶

b Amount subject to withholding at 10% . . . . . . ▶

c Withholding is at a reduced rate. See instructions . . . . . . . . . . ▶

6 Total amount withheld

Part II To Be Completed by an Entity Subject to the Provisions of Section 1445(e)

1 Name of entity or fiduciary responsible for withholding. See instructions. Identifying number

Street address, apt. or suite no., or rural route. Do not use a P.O. box.

City or town, province or state, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code Phone number (optional)

2 Description of U.S. real property interest transferred or distributed

3 Date of transfer 4 Number of Forms 8288-A attached

5 Complete all items that apply. Enter dollar amounts on applicable lines.

a Amount subject to withholding at 15% . . . . . . ▶

b Amount subject to withholding at 10% . . . . . . ▶

c Amount subject to withholding at 21% . . . . . . ▶

d Withholding is at a reduced rate. See instructions . . . . . . . . . . ▶

e Large trust election to withhold at distribution . . . . . . . . . . . ▶

6 Total amount withheld

Sign 

Here

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge 

and belief, it is true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge.

▲

Signature of withholding agent, partner, fiduciary, or corporate officer Title (if applicable) Date

Paid 

Preparer 

Use Only 

Print/Type preparer’s name Preparer’s signature Date Check if 

self-employed

 PTIN

Firm’s name ▶

Firm’s address ▶

Firm’s EIN ▶

Phone no. 

For Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions. Cat. No. 62260A Form 8288 (Rev. 4-2018)