alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
  We hereby consent to the use of our report dated December 7, 1994, relating
to the financial statements of Recognition International Inc. and its
subsidiaries, which report appears on page 15 of this BancTec, Inc. Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the transition period March 27, 1995 to December 31,
1995, which Form 10-K we understand has in turn been incorporated by reference
into BancTec's previously filed Registration Statement Form S-3 (No. 33-
28942); Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 33-28939); Registration Statement
Form S-8 (No. 29163); Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 33-32824);
Registration Statement Form S-3 (No. 33-35988); Registration Statement Form S-
8 (No. 33-37377); Registration Statement Form S-3 (No. 33-49918); Registration
Statement Form S-8 (No. 33-71114); and Registration Statement Form S-8 (No.
33-58335). We also consent to the use of our report on the Financial Statement
Schedules, which report appears on page 46 of this Form 10-K.
 
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
 
Dallas, Texas
March 29, 1996
 
                                      51
#### In the Matter of Marlene Rosenbaum et al., Appellants, v. James M. Power et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, and Max M. Turshen, Respondent.

In a proceeding under section 330 of the Election Law: (1) to invalidate a petition designating certain persons as candidates of the Democratic party in the primary election to be held June 2, 1964 for certain public offices and party positions in the First Assembly District, Kings County; and (2) for other related relief, in which all objections other than the objection to the respondent Max M. Turshen’s candidacy for the office of Member of the Assembly from said district were withdrawn, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 21, 1964 after a hearing, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs. We find no deception, fraud or confusion in this case. Motion by appellants for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         491,641
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,007,466
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,789,032
<PP&E>                                     105,070,719
<DEPRECIATION>                              63,232,136
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,905,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,615,655
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,808,040
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,719,743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,905,725
<SALES>                                      6,118,585
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,208,976
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,482,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             592,634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (866,170)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (405,416)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (460,754)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (460,754)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.04)



</TABLE>
#### Fannie L. Adams, Appellant, v. Patricia M. Allen, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: Plaintiff’s proof made out a prima facie case and it was error to dismiss at the close of plaintiff’s case. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Trial Term dismissing the complaint on the merits on motion at the end of plaintiff’s ease, in an automobile negligence action.) Present—Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### Stanley B. Kaplan, Respondent-Appellant, v. Cott Beverage Corp. et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and on the facts to grant judgment to the defendants on the second cause of action and dismiss that cause of action, and, as so modified, judgment affirmed, with $50 costs to defendants. The documentary proof and testimony conclusively establish that the sum of $5,658.67 representing insurance premiums prepaid by plaintiff was one of several items in dispute between the parties. While the plaintiff by his unilateral act struck from the bill of sale the references to “ insurance policies ”, the proof is that they were delivered to defendants. Moreover, the general release executed by plaintiff contained no reservation or exception. The parties recognized that there were certain adjustments to be made that were not set forth in the written agreement of September 17, 1958. Defendants eventually fixed the amount due plaintiff in the sum of $2,625.90 and tendered such sum to the latter both at the time and in then-answer herein. Included in this amount was an item set forth as a credit to plaintiff of $3,763.42. The area of disagreement is shown in Exhibit 12 (for identification) wherein plaintiff claimed the balance due him of $1,895.25 representing the difference between the amount claimed by him ($5,658.67) and the figure credited by defendants ($3,763.42). Thus, it becomes clear that this was a disputed item embraced within the general release and its validity was destroyed by the execution of that instrument. It follows that the trial court erred in awarding judgment to plaintiff on the second cause of action (added during the trial) alleging that the sum of $5,658.67 was money had and received by defendants and their unjust enrichment by the receipt thereof. “A *quasi*or constructive contract rests upon the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of *683another. In truth it is not a contract or promise at all. * * * Duty, and not a promise or agreement or intention of the person sought to be charged, defines it. It is fictitiously deemed contractual, in order to fit the cause of action to the contractual remedy.” *(Miller*v. *Schloss,*218 N. Y. 400, 407.) There is no proof here to establish such a cause of action. (Cf. *Grombach Prods,*v. *Waring,*293 N. Y. 609.) Indeed, as heretofore stated, the proof is that the item of insurance premiums was part and parcel of the amount sought to be recovered by plaintiff in his first cause of action. The trial court correctly dismissed that portion of the complaint. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Babin, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ. [27 Misc 2d 655.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S 1996 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          17,103
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,044
<ALLOWANCES>                                       853
<INVENTORY>                                     23,868
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,619
<PP&E>                                          25,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,264
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,772
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           132
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,946
<SALES>                                        111,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               127,985
<CGS>                                           65,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,608
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,448
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,536
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,912
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,912
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01
<FN>
<F1> For Purposes of This Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### 1827.305-3 Securing invention rights acquired by the Government.

When the Government acquires the entire right to, title to, and interest in an invention under the clause at 1852.227-70, New Technology—Other than a Small Business Firm or Nonprofit Organization, a determination of title is to be made in accordance with section 20135(b) of the Act (51 U.S.C. 20135(b)), and reflected in appropriate instruments executed by NASA Administrator and forwarded to the contractor by the contracting officer.
#### 201.105 Issuance.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Peter Porath, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Federal Mortgage
Corporation of Puerto Rico, Inc.

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

          a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

          b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

          c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date.

     5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

          a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

          b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

    6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  November 9, 2005


 /s/ Peter Porath
Peter Porath
President, Chief Executive Officer
# 

# 

# 2016-2017 Federal Pell Grant Program End-of-Year Report

# U.S. Department of Education

# Office of Postsecondary Education
#### 1401.301-80 Policy.

Indian Affairs must use the negotiation authority of the Buy Indian Act, 25 U.S.C. 47 to give preference to Indians whenever using that authority is authorized and feasible. The Buy Indian Act requires that, so far as may be feasible, Indian labor must be employed, and purchases of the products of Indian industry may be made in open market at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior. This requirement applies notwithstanding any other law and applies to all products of industry, including printing.

[78 FR 34271, June 7, 2013]
#### In re BANKS. In the matter of the probate of the last will and testament of Leonora Post Banks, deceased.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

PER CURIAM.

Decree of Surrogate’s Court affirmed, with costs.

STOVER, J., not voting.
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 16, 2013

N o. 04

- 13

- 0 0553

- CR

Gilbert VILLAREAL

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR5696 Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The court reporter’s record was due Se ptember 12, 2013, but was not filed; however, on September 12, 2013, the reporter filed a notification of late record stating the record was not filed because appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee to prepare the

record and t hat appellant is not entitled to the record without paying the reporter’s fee for preparing the record.

We order appellant to provide written proof to this court on or before September 26,

2013 that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangem ents have been made to pay the reporter’s fee, or (2) appellant is entitled to have the reporter’s record furnished without charge.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.2. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief

will be due October 16 , 2013 and the court will only consider those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 37.3(c).

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel and the court

reporter.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixe d the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of September, 2013

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### 1335.017-4 Reviewing FFRDCs.

The designee authorized to approve the continuation or termination of the sponsorship of an FFRDC is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
### §1105a. Employment authorization for battered spouses of certain nonimmigrants

#### (a) In general

In the case of an alien spouse admitted under subparagraph (A), (E)(iii), (G), or (H) of section 1101(a)(15) of this title who is accompanying or following to join a principal alien admitted under subparagraph (A), (E)(iii), (G), or (H) of such section, respectively, the Secretary of Homeland Security may authorize the alien spouse to engage in employment in the United States and provide the spouse with an "employment authorized" endorsement or other appropriate work permit if the alien spouse demonstrates that during the marriage the alien spouse or a child of the alien spouse has been battered or has been the subject of extreme cruelty perpetrated by the spouse of the alien spouse. Requests for relief under this section shall be handled under the procedures that apply to aliens seeking relief under section 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii) of this title.

#### (b) Construction

The grant of employment authorization pursuant to this section shall not confer upon the alien any other form of relief.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title I, §106, as added Pub. L. 109–162, title VIII, §814(c), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3059.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1105a, act June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title I, §106, as added Sept. 26, 1961, Pub. L. 87–301, §5(a), 75 Stat. 651; amended Dec. 29, 1981, Pub. L. 97–116, §18(b), 95 Stat. 1620; Oct. 24, 1988, Pub. L. 100–525, §9(e), 102 Stat. 2620; Nov. 18, 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7347(b), 102 Stat. 4472; Nov. 29, 1990, Pub. L. 101–649, title V, §§502(a), 513(a), 545(b), 104 Stat. 5048, 5052, 5065; Dec. 12, 1991, Pub. L. 102–232, title III, §306(a)(2), 105 Stat. 1751; Sept. 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103–322, title XIII, §130004(b), 108 Stat. 2027; Oct. 25, 1994, Pub. L. 103–416, title II, §223(b), 108 Stat. 4322; Apr. 24, 1996, Pub. L. 104–132, title IV, §§401(b), (e), 423(a), 440(a), 442(b), 110 Stat. 1267, 1268, 1272, 1276, 1280; Sept. 30, 1996, Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, §§306(d), 308(g)(10)(H), 371(b)(1), title VI, §671(c)(3), (4), 110 Stat. 3009–612, 3009–625, 3009–645, 3009–722, related to judicial review of orders of deportation and exclusion, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, §§306(b), (c), 309, Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–612, 3009–625, effective, with certain transitional provisions, on the first day of the first month beginning more than 180 days after Sept. 30, 1996, but such repeal not to be considered to invalidate or to require the reconsideration of any judgment or order entered under this section. See section 1252 of this title.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
PNC Bank, National Association, successor in
interest via merger to National City Bank, successor
in interest via merger to Mid America Bank, FSB,

Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 12 cv 433

Carmar D. Wooten-Burroughs Trustee of Trust Assigned Judge: Matthew F. Kennelly
Agreement dated January 1, 1991, and known as The
Carmar D, Wooten-Burroughs Trust No. 1; Carmar Magistrate Judge: Sidney I. Schenkier
D. Wooten-Burroughs; City of Chicago,

Defendants. _|
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, PNC Bank, National Association, successor in interest via merger to

National City Bank, successor in interest via merger to Mid America Bank, FSB, by its attorneys Crowley
& Lamb, P.C., and moves the Court for the entry of a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale in its favor and

against the Defendant(s):

1 Carmar D, Wooten-Burroughs Trustee of Trust Agreement dated January 1, 1991, and
known as The Carmar D. Wooten-Burroughs Trust No. 1;

2. Carmar D. Wooten-Burroughs; and
3. City of Chicago
and as grounds thereof state:
As appears from the Affidavit of Plaintiff placed on file in support of this Motion attached hereto

as Exhibit "A", and from the pleadings and admissions on file, there is no genuine issue as to any material i

fact, and the Plaintiff is entitled to a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale in this case as a matter of law.

PNC Bank, National Association, successor in interest
via merger to National City Bank, successor in interest
via merger to Mid America Bank, FSB

By: __/s/ Francis J. Pendergast, HL
One of Its Attorneys

Patrick D. Lamb (ARDC #3128062)

Francis J. Pendergast, I (ARDC#3127593) |
CROWLEY & LAMB, P.C.
221 N, LaSalle Street, Suite 1550
Chicago, Iinois 60601
(312) 670-6900

plamb @crowleylamb.com

fpendergast@crowleylamb.com
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of K.D.R., Jr. and * From the 318th District

C.A.M.R., children, Court of Midland County,

Trial Court No. FM 48,337

.

No. 11

- 13

- 00023

- CV * July 18, 2013

* Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson , J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the

order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
II 

# .t'**~--~** \ 

# olocJc.e t**shee.~ 1~_:**  ··, p-. ; 

# l \.. /"

,r" 

### <" 

# 1\ ,I

# ·-~···**~:** , '-- '-tJ

.. 

### :1 4 '-**~..\o.o..** ,.. .... ... :t .• •.
PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT (TSD):

ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT: 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

March 30, 2011 

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Program 

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards 

Washington, DC 20585 
This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy

by staff members of

Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

and

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
# 2019 Congressional Action

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	August 17, 2015, 10:16 AM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	August 7, 2015, 6:40 AM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	September 3, 2015, 3:56 PM

&"-,Regular"&10DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2019 CONGRESSIONAL ACTION&8(in thousands of dollars)	

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&14 	&10&P
Exhibit
      23(f)














CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form **** S-3
      (Nos.
      333-132574, 333-132574-01, 333-132574-02, and 333-132574-03) **** of
      PPL
      Electric Utilities Corporation of our report dated February 24, 2006 relating
      to
      the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, which
      appears in this Form 10-K.









/s/
      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Philadelphia,
      Pennsylvania


February
      26, 2007