alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 18(c)

| | PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
Two Commerce Square, Suite 1700
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA  19103-7042
Telephone (267) 330 3000
Facsimile (267) 330 3300
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 4, 2002

Board of Directors
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
Two North Ninth Street
Allentown, PA 18101-1179

Dear Directors:

We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form 10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, includedin the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001and issued our report thereon datedFebruary 4, 2002.  Note 9to the financial statements describes a change in accounting principle related to the method of amortization of unrecognized gains and losses in the annual pension expense/income determined under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 87, "Employers' Accounting for Pensions" ("SFAS 87").  Under the prior method, unrecognized gains and losses in excess of ten percent were amortized on a straight line basis over the estimated average future service period of plan participants.  Under the current method, a second corridor will be utilized for unrecognized gains and losses in excess of thirty percent of the plan's projected benefit obligation. Unrecognized gains and losses on the second corridor will be amortized on a straight-line method over a period equal to one-half of the average future service period of the active plan participants who are expected to receive plan benefits.  It should be understood that the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another for the amortization of unrecognized gains or losses calculated in the annual pension expense/income determined under SFAS 87has not been addressed in any authoritative accounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence below we have relied on management's determination that this change in accounting principle is preferable.  Based on our reading of management's stated reasons and justification for this change in accounting principle in the Form 10-K, and our discussions with management as to their judgment about the relevant business planning factors relating to the change, we concur with management that such change represents, in the Company's circumstances, the adoption of a preferable accounting principle in conformity
with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 20.

Very truly yours,

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 23 - 00395 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF J.T.E., A CHILD On Appeal from the 433rd District Court Comal County, Texas Trial Court No . C20 20 - 0254D , Honorable Deborah Wigington , Presiding



### November 30 , 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant, John Wyatt Holliday, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s Order Holding Respondent in Contempt for Failure to Pay Child Support Order, Granting Judgment for Arrearages without paying the requisite filing fee. 1 By letter of October 3 0 , 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified Holliday that the filing fee was overdue and that unless he was excused from paying court costs under Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1, failure to pay the filing fee by November 9 would result in dismissal of

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.2

the appeal. To date, Holliday has neither paid the filing fee nor sought leave to proceed without payment of court costs. Because Holliday has failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules and a notice from the Clerk requiring action within a specified time, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 25.1(b), 42.3(c). Per Curiam
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 26291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10997]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R07-SFUND-2011-0339 FRL-9302-2]

Proposed CERCLA Administrative ``Cost Recovery'' Settlement; the 
Doe Run Resources Corporation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs 
concerning the Big River Mine Tailings Superfund Site, St. Francois 
Mining Area, St. Francois County, Missouri with the following settling 
party: The Doe Run Resources Corporation. The settlement requires the 
settling party to pay $208,990, to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. 
The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling party 
pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). For thirty 
(30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency 
will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency 
will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its 
consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or 
considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, 
improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received 
will be available for public inspection at: Desloge Public Library, 209 
North Desloge Drive, Desloge, Missouri 63601; and St. Francois County 
Health Department, 1025 West Main, Park Hills, Missouri 63601; and 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII Docket Room, 901 North 
Fifth Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection 
at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII Docket Room, 901 
North Fifth Street, Kansas City, KS 66101. A copy of the proposed 
settlement may be obtained from Kathy Robinson, Regional Hearing Clerk, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, 901 North Fifth Street, 
Kansas City, KS 66101, 913-551-7567. Comments should reference the Big 
River Mine Tailings Superfund Site, St. Francois County, Missouri, and 
EPA Docket No. CERCLA-07-2011-0003, and should be addressed to Kathy 
Robinson, Regional Hearing Clerk, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region VII, 901 North Fifth Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Gunter, Remedial Project 
Manager, Superfund Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
VII, 901 North Fifth Street, Kansas City, KS 66101, 
gunter.jason@epa.gov or at 913-551-7358.

    Dated: April 21, 2011.
Cecilia Tapia,
Director, Superfund Division, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011-10997 Filed 5-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
### §3222e. New beginning for tribal students

#### (a) Definitions

In this section:

#### (1) Indian tribe

The term "Indian tribe" has the meaning given such term in section 5304 of title 25).1

#### (2) Land-grant college or university

The term "land-grant college or university" includes a 1994 Institution (as defined in section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–382; 7 U.S.C. 301 note)).

#### (3) Tribal student

The term "Tribal student" means a student at a land-grant college or university that is a member of an Indian tribe.

#### (b) New beginning initiative

#### (1) Authorization

The Secretary may make competitive grants to land-grant colleges and universities to provide identifiable support specifically targeted for Tribal students.

#### (2) Application

A land-grant college or university that desires to receive a grant under this section shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may require.

#### (3) Use of funds

A land-grant college or university that receives a grant under this section shall use the grant funds to support Tribal students through—

(A) recruiting;

(B) tuition and related fees;

(C) experiential learning; and

(D) student services, including—

(i) tutoring;

(ii) counseling;

(iii) academic advising; and

(iv) other student services that would increase the retention and graduation rate of Tribal students enrolled at the land-grant college or university, as determined by the Secretary.

#### (4) Matching funds

A land-grant college or university that receives a grant under this section shall provide matching funds toward the cost of carrying out the activities described in this section in an amount equal to not less than 100 percent of the grant award.

#### (5) Maximum amount per state

No State shall receive, through grants made under this section to land-grant colleges and universities located in the State, more than $500,000 per year.

#### (c) Report

Not later than 3 years after December 20, 2018, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate a report that includes an itemized list of grant funds distributed under this section, including the specific form of assistance provided under subsection (b)(3), and the number of Tribal students assisted and the graduation rate of Tribal students at land-grant colleges and universities receiving grants under this section.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriation

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023.

(Pub. L. 95–113, title XIV, §1450, as added Pub. L. 115–334, title VII, §7120, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4791.)

1 So in original. The closing parenthesis probably should not appear.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FORM

NOTE: In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good

standing of this Court¶s general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for

by Local Rules 83.12 through 83.14.

In the Matter of Case Number:

AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:

NAME (Type or print)

SIGNATURE (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically)

 s/

FIRM

STREET ADDRESS

CITY/STATE/ZIP

ID NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) TELEPHONE NUMBER

ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES NO 

ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES NO 

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT¶S TRIAL BAR? YES NO 

IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES NO 

IF THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, CHECK THE BOX BELOW THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS.

RETAINED COUNSEL APPOINTED COUNSEL 

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent Litigation

1:11-cv-09308

Please see attached list.

Adam R. Alper

Adam R. Alper

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

555 California Street

San Francisco, CA 94109

415.439.1400

✔

✔

✔

✔

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 271 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:7128
1 

PARTY TYPE PARTIES 

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC v. Wingate By Wyndham Schaumburg, et al., 

N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:11-cv-06479 

Defendant Super 8 Chicago/Morton Grove 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 271 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:7129
REGARDING THE PETITI ON TO REQUEST AMENDMENT TO GRANTED FAA 333 EXEMPTION REQUEST FROM: Above It All

– UAS Services, LLC & Above It All

– UAS Surveys, LLC

1 United States Department of Transportation Docket Management Sy stem West Building Ground Floor Room W12 - 140 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590
REGARDING THE PETITION FROM: Above It All

– UAS S ervices , LL C and Above ItAll

– UAS Survey s, LLC FOR AN AMENDMANT TO BOTH GRANTED 333 EXEMPTION S THAT ARE SEEKING TO ADD ADDITIONAL SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ( SUAS ) TO TH O SE SUAS ’ ALREADY GRANTED BY EXEMPTION, PURSUANT TO SECTI ON 333 OF THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 Exemption N o. 13023 Regulatory

Docket No. FAA−2015−2882 AND Exemption No. 13078 Regulatory

Docket No. FAA−2015−2883 Submitted Electronically October 19, 2015 Above It All

– UAS S ervices , LL C & Above It All

– UAS Survey s, LLC Thomas E. Dolan Founder & Operations Officer 30 Industrial Drive, Suite 1B Lo uisa , V irginia 23093REGARDING THE PETITI ON TO REQUEST AMENDMENT TO GRANTED FAA 333 EXEMPTION REQUEST FROM: Above It All

– UAS Services, LLC & Above It All

– UAS Surveys, LLC

2 October 19, 2015 United States Department of Transportation Docket Management Sy stem West Building Ground Floor Room W12 - 140 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Amendment to Granted Exemption under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations to add four ( 4 ) additional Small Unmanned Aircraft Sy stems (“SUAS”) to exemption. Dear Sir or Madam: Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 14 CFR Part 11, Above It All

– UAS S ervices , LL C and Above It All

– UAS Survey s, LLC , the Applicant seeks to amend both granted Section 333 Exemptions to add the following four (4) s UAS : 2 - DJ I Phantom 3 (PHANTOM 3 ) , DJI Inspire ( INSPIRE ) and DJIS - 9 00 (“ S - 9 00 ”) to the two already granted exemptions. The requested amendment to the exemption s would allow commercial operation of Applicants PHANTOM 3 , INSPIRE and S - 9 00 SUAS’ of which all weigh under 25 lbs . (based on variable installed sensors) to perfor m the same missions , conditions and limitations that have been specified and has already have been granted in each of both exemptions. The PHANTOM 3 ’s , IN SPIRE and S - 9 00 SUAS’ , will be used in addition to previous granted SUAS’ confidence that the operations will achieve at least an equivalent level or greater level of safety. Ap proval of this petition for amendment to granted exemption would continue the stated safety in exemption and fulfill the Secretary of Transportation’s (the FAA Administrator’s) responsibilities under Section 333(c) of the Reform Act to establish requirements for the continued safe operation of such aircraft sy stems in the NAS. Thomas E. Dolan Founder & Operations O fficer Above It All

– UAS Services , LL C & Above It All

– UAS Survey s, LLC 30 Industrial Drive, Suite 1B Louisa , V irginia 2 3093 Cell Ph one: 631 - 495 - 2947 Office: 434 - 374 - 1866 Email: Tom.Dolan@aboveitall - uas - services.com or thomasedolan@gmail.com
## NUMBER 13
- 1 4 - 00 59 8 - CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ AGUA SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT , A ppellant ,

v.
FELIX HERNANDEZ AND GUADALUPE HERNANDEZ , A ppellee s .

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 8

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No.
8 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CCD

- 0130

- H . Appellant has filed a n
amended motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds it no longer wishes to pursue the appeal

. The certificate of conference reflects that appellant was unable to confer with2

appellee s because appellant does not have a valid phone number or electronic mail
address or facsim ile number for appellee s

. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant ’ s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby
DISMISSED. There being no agreement in the motion regarding costs, pursuant to Rule 42.1(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, all costs are taxed against appellant.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM
D elivered a nd filed the 12th day of February , 20 1 5

.
#### 14.408-8 Protests against award.

See subpart 33.1, Protests.

[50 FR 23606, June 4, 1985. Redesignated at 60 FR 34738, July 3, 1995]
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm




We consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statement Statements (No. 333-151510, 333-141526,
333-121922, 333-112679, 333-83504) on Form S-8 of Composite Technology
Corporation of our
reportdated December 22,
2008(updated March 6, 2009
as to the effects of the restatements discussed in Note 4),relating to our audits of the
consolidated financial statements (which includes an emphasis paragraph relating
to an uncertainty as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going
concernandan
explanatory paragraph related to the restatement discussed in Note 4), the financial statement schedule andour report dated March 6,
2009 related to our audit ofinternal control over financial
reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/Aof Composite Technology Corporation for
the year ended September 30, 2008.





Our report datedMarch 6,
2009, on the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2008, expressed an
opinion that Composite Technology Corporation had not maintained effective
internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2008, based oncriteria established in
Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).





/s/SINGERLEWAK LLP





SingerLewak LLP





Irvine, California


March 6, 2009
#### 1332.202 General.
```

                                                     EXHIBIT 32.1

                   Section 1350 Certification
                 By Principal Executive Officer

     I,  Daniel  Greenberg, certify that the periodic report,  to
which  this  Statement  is  attached,  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of  the  Securities  and
Exchange  Act  of  1934,  and the information  contained  in  the
periodic  report  to  which this Statement  is  attached,  fairly
present,  in  all material respects, the financial condition  and
results of operations of the registrant.

     A  signed  original  of  this  written  statement  has  been
provided  to the Company and will be retained by the Company  and
furnished to the SEC upon request.

     Dated December 16, 2004

                              /s/ Daniel Greenberg
                              Daniel Greenberg
                              Chief Executive Officer
```
### §9206. Effect on other authorities

Nothing in this chapter affects the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of Homeland Security under any other provision of law or program relating to the protection of food supplies, agriculture, or public health.

(Pub. L. 116–260, div. P, §7, Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2162.)
#### In the Matter of the Claim of the Estate of Charles Rollo, Deceased, Respondent, v. Geneva Forge, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision and award of death benefits on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence of accidental injury or that death was causally related to any unusual strain or incident of employment. The majority of the board has found as follows: “A majority of the Panel finds that in the presence of the underlying atherosclerotic heart disease here, the increased physical effort required of decedent (who was regularly previously employed as a warehouse foreman) in carrying out his assigned duties during the period from February 16, 1962 to March 22, 1962 in connection with the dismantling of the employer’s Geneva plant, the activities of which involved tearing down partitions, handling steel, hauling lumber, packing boxes and loading trucks, and particularly the extra effort he. was required to expend on the morning of March 22, 1962 in knocking down a partition which had to be pried apart at the ceiling level with a pinch bar, which particular effort was followed by complaints of chest pain, aggravated the already poorly nourished and diminished coronary circulation to the point that the arteries could no longer supply the needed oxygen and thus was a definite contributing factor in the death on the afternoon of March 22, 1962.” This finding is legally insufficient and the case must be reversed and remitted. Had the board found that on March 22, 1962 decedent was tearing down a partition at ceiling level with a .bar and that such work activity constituted arduous work for the ordinary man which was properly connected by medical evidence of causal relationship we would have affirmed. An award would be proper if there is a finding of unusual strain *(Matter of Masse*v. *Robinson,*301 N. Y. 34) or that the ordinary course of decedent’s labors was “sufficiently strenuous to require more than normal exertion” *(Matter of Burris*v. *Lewis,*2 N Y 2d 323, 326); but only if in so finding the work involved is evaluated from the viewpoint of ,the ordinary man and not in light of decedent’s particular condition (e.g., *Matter of Traversone*v. *Lee Bros. Stor*
      *72717 A D 2d 175; *Matter of Bloom*v. *Cohen & Son,*16 A D 2d 841). Here as in *Matter of Bosted*v. *Larsen Baking Co.*(19 A D 2d 924) the issues are not so limited as to remove all doubt as to the basis of the board’s determination, nor is the decision itself sufficiently definite to exclude the possibility that the board considered that the work was excessive only in light of decedent’s diseased condition, i.e., “for him” *(Matter of Bosted*v. *Larsen Baking Co., supra,*p. 925; *Matter of Cliff*v. *Dover Motors,*11 A D 2d 883, affd. 9 N Y 2d 891). Remittal is thus required. Decision reversed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s 'Compensation Board, and matter remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Gibson, P. J., Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
#### 1301.603-1 General.

The Department's procurement career management program and system for the selection, appointment, and termination of appointment of contracting officers are described in CAM 1301.6.
#### Mark T. Welch, administrator of the estate of Susie C. Dunn, deceased, appellee, v. Public Service Company of Northern Illinois, appellant.

Gen. No. 7,276.

Action to recover for wrongful death. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Grundy county; the Hon. Joe A. Davis, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 27, 1925.

Rehearing denied April 28, 1925.

Edgar B. Elder and H. B. Smith, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §398. Purchase and testing of serums or analogous products; dissemination of test results

The Secretary of Agriculture may purchase in the open market from applicable appropriations samples of all tuberculin, serums, antitoxins, or analogous products, of foreign or domestic manufacture, which are sold in the United States, for the detection, prevention, treatment, or cure of diseases of domestic animals, test the same, and disseminate the results of said tests in such manner as he may deem best.

(Sept. 21, 1944, ch. 412, title I, §101(d), 58 Stat. 734.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 430 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Authorization of Appropriation

Authorization of appropriation of sums necessary for the purposes of this section, see note under section 395 of this title.