alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                EXHIBIT (10)(a)

                              CONSENT OF AUDITORS
<PAGE>



                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Auditors"
in the Statement of Additional Information and to the use of our reports (1)
dated January 28, 2000 with respect to the financial statements of certain
subaccounts of PFL Endeavor VA Separate Account, which are available for
investment by contract owners of The Endeavor Platinum Variable Annuity, (2)
dated February 4, 2000 with respect to the financial statements of the
subaccounts of the PFL Endeavor Target Account, and (3) dated February 18, 2000
with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of PFL
Life Insurance Company, included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 12 to the
Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 33-56908) and related Prospectus of The
Endeavor Platinum Variable Annuity.


                                             /s/  Ernst & Young, LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
April 24, 2000
#### 1422.404 Davis-Bacon Act wage determinations.
19.502-8 Rejecting Small Business Administration recommendations. ( a ) If the contracting officer rejects a recommendation of the SBA, written notice shall be furnished to the appropriate SBA representative within 5 working days of the contracting officer's receipt of the recommendation.
( b ) The SBA PCR (or, if a PCR is not assigned, see 19.402(a)) may appeal the contracting officer's rejection to the head of the contracting activity within 2 working days after receiving the notice (except see 19.1305(d), 19.1405(e), and 19.1505(i)). The head of the contracting activity shall render a decision in writing, and provide it to the SBA representative within 7 working days. Pending issuance of a decision to the SBA representative, the contracting officer shall suspend action on the acquisition.
( c ) If the head of the contracting activity agrees that the contracting officer's rejection was appropriate— ( 1 ) Within 2 working days, the SBA procurement center representative (or, if a procurement center representative is not assigned, see 19.402(a)) may request the contracting officer to suspend action on the acquisition until the SBA Administrator appeals to the agency head (see paragraph (f) of this section); and
( 2 ) The SBA must be allowed 15 working days after making such a written request, within which the Administrator of SBA— ( i ) May appeal to the Secretary of the Department concerned; and
( ii ) Must notify the contracting officer whether the further appeal has, in fact, been taken. If notification is not received by the contracting officer within the 15-day period, it is deemed that the SBA request to suspend the contract action has been withdrawn and that an appeal to the Secretary was not taken.
( d ) When the contracting officer has been notified within the 15-day period that the SBA has appealed to the agency head, the head of the contracting activity (or designee) shall forward justification for its decision to the agency head. The contracting officer shall suspend contract action until notification is received that the SBA appeal has been settled.
( e ) The agency head shall reply to the SBA within 30 working days after receiving the appeal. The decision of the agency head shall be final.
( f ) A request to suspend action on an acquisition need not be honored if the contracting officer determines that proceeding to contract award and performance is in the public interest. The contracting officer shall include in the contract file a statement of the facts justifying the determination, and shall promptly notify the SBA representative of the determination and provide a copy of the justification.
[60 FR 48261, Sept. 18, 1995, as amended at 67 FR 13054, Mar. 20, 2002; 71 FR 36926, June 28, 2006. Redesignated and amended at 85 FR 11762, Feb. 27, 2020; 86 FR 44248, Aug. 11, 2021; 87 FR 58241, Sept. 23, 2022; 89 FR 13957, Feb. 23, 2024]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Hawks
Industries, Inc. 3rd Quarter 1998 10Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          32,000
<SECURITIES>                                   202,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  557,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     34,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               888,000
<PP&E>                                       3,942,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,200,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,222,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          696,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,149,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,222,000
<SALES>                                      1,856,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,859,000
<CGS>                                        1,419,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,727,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                150,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            150,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   150,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
----

----

Exhibit 32.2 

| 1)     |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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/ Greggory Schneider                  |   |   |
| Greggory Schneider                                                                                                           |   |   |
| Chief Financial and Principal Financial Officer                                                                              |   |   |

----

----
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Rose Greenfield, Deceased. Charles Greenfield, as Administrator of the Estate of Rose Greenfield, Deceased, Appellant; Clarence A. Baracks et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act, to fix the compensation *808of petitioner, an attorney, for legal services rendered by him to the decedent’s estate, the administrator appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Rockland County, rendered August 30, 1963 upon the Acting Surrogate’s decision after trial, which fixed such compensation at $1,512.50. Decree modified on the facts by reducing the allowance to $762.50; and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact implicit in the decision of the Acting Surrogate which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion, the sum of $750 (excluding the disbursements of $12.50), is fair and reasonable compensation for the work performed by petitioner in this estate. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 1452.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes Department of the Interior provisions and clauses for use in acquisition.
### §7811. Rules of construction

#### (a) Termination or suspension not an order

The termination or suspension of an order, or a provision of an order, shall not be considered an order under the meaning of this chapter.

#### (b) Rights

This chapter—

(1) may not be construed to provide for control of production or otherwise limit the right of individual Hass avocado growers, handlers and importers to produce, handle, or import Hass avocados; and

(2) shall be construed to treat all persons producing, handling, and importing Hass avocados fairly and to implement any order in an equitable manner.

#### (c) Other programs

Nothing in this chapter may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to Hass avocado promotion, research, industry information, and consumer information organized and operated under the laws of the United States or of a State.

(Pub. L. 106–387, §1(a) [title XII, §1212], Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–96.)
Exhibit 10.7

                            Thorn Tree Resources LLC
                         888 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1608
                            New York, New York 10106

                                                  April 22, 2002

Emex Corporation
115 East 57th Street, Suite 1540
New York, New York  10022
Attention: Walter W. Tyler, CEO & President

Dear Walter:

      Thorn Tree Resources LLC ("Thorn Tree") agrees to amend the (i) Secured
Grid Note in the principal amount of $628,000, dated January 23, 2002 (the
"January Note"), issued by Emex Corporation (the "Company") in favor of Thorn
Tree and (ii) the Secured Grid Note in the principal amount of $2,034,100, dated
February 11, 2002 (the "February Note," and together with the January Note, the
"Notes"), issued by the Company to Thorn Tree in order to extend the term of the
Notes and amend the definition of Maturity Date, as defined in the January Note
and the February Note, respectively. Thorn Tree agrees that the definition of
the term Maturity Date shall be amended to December 31, 2002 in each of the
January Note and the February Note. Except as amended hereby, all terms of the
Notes shall remain in full force and effect.

      If the foregoing amendments are acceptable to the Company, please sign
below in the space provided to acknowledge the Company's acceptance of the
amendments and return this letter agreement to my attention at the address
above.

                                              Very truly yours,

                                              Thorn Tree Resources LLC


                                              _________________________________
                                              David H. Peipers
                                              Manager

ACCEPTED:

Emex Corporation


By: ___________________________________
    Walter W. Tyler
    Chief Executive Officer & President
(October 24, 1963)

#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Herbert Shafer, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There was an insufficient factual showing in the application for the search warrant to justify its issuance. *(People*v. *Politano,*17 A D 2d 503, affd. 13 N Y 2d 852; see, also, *People*v. *Marshall,*13 N Y 2d 28, 34, 35.) We pass on no other issue. (Appeal by People from order of Erie County Court granting defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman and McClusky, JJ.
#### Smith *v.*The State.

January 14, 1913.

.. Indictment for murder. Before Judge Meadow. Madison superior court. October 26, 1912.

*John F. Gordon,*for plaintiff in .error. *Thomas 8. Felder, attorney-general,*'and *Thomas J. Brown, solicitor-general,*contra.

Beck, J.

1. Where it was sought to prove by a witness for the State that the defendant, had made a confession, and the witness referred to testified that the confession was made freely and voluntarily, not under the influence of any threat or promise, under the rule of law that confessions are to be passed upon by the jui'y in all respects the court did not err in admitting the evidence of confession, over objection made by counsel for the defendant on the ground that “the statement was made by the defendant after he had been run down by a posse and caught by dogs, and that he was in the possession of the coroner.” *Price*v. *State,*114 *Ga.*855 (40 S. E. 1015); *Holsenbake*v. *State,*45 *Ga.*43.

2. Failure of the court to charge the jury on the law of confessions is not ground for a new trial, where there was no written request for a charge on that subject.

3. There was ample evidence to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmpd.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### (A) The People of the State of New York v. Bennie McMullen. (B) The People of the State of New York v. William Howell.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Bastow, JJ. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.— [In each action] Motion for leave to reargue denied.
#### In the Matter of Jan Gonciarz et al., Appellants.

Application granted to the extent that appeal may be prosecuted on four typewritten copies of the transcript of the testimony and an original and four typewritten copies of the other papers constituting the record on appeal.
19.1408 Contract clauses. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.219-27, Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole-Source Award to, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Concerns Eligible Under the SDVOSB Program, in solicitations and contracts for acquisitions that are set aside or awarded on a sole-source basis to, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns under 19.1405 and 19.1406. This includes multiple-award contracts when orders may be set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns as described in 8.405-5 and 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F) or when orders may be issued directly to one service-disabled veteran-owned small business contractor in accordance with 19.504(c)(1)(ii).
( b ) For use of clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, see the prescription at 19.507(e).
( c ) For use of clause 52.219-33, Nonmanufacturer Rule, see the prescription at 19.507(h).
[86 FR 44243, Aug. 11, 2021, as amended at 89 FR 13958, Feb. 23, 2024]
#### Croce Di Donato, Respondent, v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Appellant.

Determination of the Appellate Term, reversing the judgment of Municipal Court and remanding case for a new, trial unless plaintiff stipulated to reduce the verdict to $1,864.20, unanimously modified on the facts and the law to strike out the provision for affirmance in the event plaintiff stipulated to reduce the verdict and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to abide the event. Plaintiff sued for sickness allowances and vacation pay under a collective bargaining agreement. The agreement, made between a labor union and defendant, referred to the “ present system and provisions for the welfare of employees, including * * * sickness allowances”. This is the only provision in the agreement under which plaintiff could recover. It was therefore incumbent on plaintiff to establish what the “system” was that existed at the time of the making of the collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiff attempted to make such proof, but his evidence in that respect did not establish the terms. Furthermore, efforts of the defendant to establish the provisions of the unwritten “ system ” were met with objections improperly sustained. A further error, in itself sufficient to invalidate any verdict, occurred on the trial. Plaintiff’s counsel, without sound basis and without any relevancy to the issues, sought to inject a question of racial discrimination into the case. He also sought to discredit the very contract under which he was suing by a claim that the other contracting parity, the union, was company dominated. We are confident that on the new trial ordered these tactics will not be repeated but, if attempted, will meet proper disposition. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the 

Constituent Inquiry Log (CIL) and Database 

This PIA was approved on and reviewed on by the system owner 

08/24/2015 

Sept. 24, 2015 Oct. 15, 2018 

certifying the information contained here is current and up to date. 

Contact Point 

Contact Person/Title: 

Contact Email: 

Isadora Binder 

Isadora.Binder@ed.gov 

System Owner 

Program Office: 

Name/Title: 

Office of Innovation & Improvement (OII) 

Maureen Dowling 

For any questions regarding this certification please contact the Privacy Safeguards 

Division at privacysafeguards@ed.gov.
#### Sam Kassover, Respondent, v. Vim Electric Co., Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order, entered on February 5, 1963, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion granted, with $10 costs, with leave to plaintiff-respondent to replead, in the exercise of discretion. The action is for the breach of an alleged agreement made by plaintiff and his three brothers, who are defendants, under which plaintiff transferred to each of the brothers shares of stock in defendant corporation equal in amount to that he retained, with the result that each held one fourth of the shares. Plaintiff alleges that the agreement provided that the business of the corporation and the corporation itself were to be owned, controlled, managed and directed by the four brothers “as equal partners” during their lifetime, that none could be ousted therefrom, and that each would receive equal compensation and equal shares of the assets and profits. Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to this agreement, and in furtherance of the purposes of the “ partnership venture ”, the four, over a period of 36 years, formed about 60 corporations and acquired substantial assets. Plaintiff alleges that the agreement has been breached in that he has been ousted from his position as director and president of defendant corporation, defendant Smith having replaced him, and in other respects. The facts as alleged closely parallel those in the ease of *Manacher*v. *Central Coal Co.*(284 App. Div. 380, 385, affd. 308 N. Y. 784) in which it was stated: “ When * * * relief is sought upon the ground that the corporation has become a mere agency or instrumentality for the performance of an independent agreement of joint adventurers or partners the aggrieved party is relegated to his rights as a stockholder and may not sue in his individual capacity.” For that reason, the complaint here, as in the *Manacher*case, alleges an agreement which is against public policy, and therefore is insufficient. Plaintiff argues that there is alleged merely an agreement regulating the manner in which the brothers, as shareholders and directors, will exercise their control of the corporation (see *Clark*v. *Dodge,*269 N. Y. 410), but the present allegations go well beyond that. However, it may be that plaintiff is in a position to replead a better complaint. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.
**Issue Paper 5**

**Session 1:  November 13-15, 2017**

**Issue:**	Closed School Discharge

**Statutory cites:**§437(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended

**Regulatory cites:**34 CFR 674.33(g), 682.402(d), and 685.214 

**Summary of issue:**

Current regulations generally require a borrower to submit a written request for a closed school discharge.  That request generally must be in the form of a sworn statement that states the borrower (or student on whose behalf a parent borrowed):  

1. Received the proceeds of a loan, in whole or in part, to attend an eligible institution; 

1. Did not complete the program of study at that institution because it closed while the student was enrolled or the student withdrew from the school not more than 120 days before the school closed; and 

1. Did not complete the program of study through a teach-out at another school or by transferring academic credits or hours earned at the closed school to another school.  

However, the regulations also give the Secretary the authority to discharge a loan without an application from the borrower. Under 34 CFR 685.214(c)(2), “[t]he Secretary may discharge a [Direct Loan] under this section without an application from the borrower if the Secretary determines, based on information in the Secretary's possession, that the borrower qualifies for the discharge.”  Similar provisions exist for Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program loans and Perkins loans.  

Question for consideration by the committee:

· Should the Department extend the eligibility period for seeking a closed school discharge to a period other than the current 120 days before the school closed? 

· What documentation, when necessary in support of a sworn statement, must the borrower provide to demonstrate to the Secretary’s satisfaction that a borrower is eligible for a closed school discharge?

· Should the Department expand upon the Secretary’s existing authority to issue a closed school discharge without an application? What information must the Secretary possess before making a determination to permit a discharge without an application?

1
#### 1632.172 Clause—experience-rated contracts.

The clause at 1652.232-71 shall be inserted in all experience-rated FEHBP contracts.

[57 FR 14360, Apr. 20, 1992]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

SIDNEY D. REYNOLDS, DOC # T40873 )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4632

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed June 20, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Christopher V Langone

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−02073

Honorable John A. Nordberg

Patrick Kaiser

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, April 23, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable John A. Nordberg: Status hearing set for

5/30/2012 at 2:30 PM.Mailed notice(tlp, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-02073 Document #: 4 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:25
1832.1110 Solicitation provision and contract clauses. (NASA supplements paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)). ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) In accordance with FAR 32.1106(b), the use of a nondomestic EFT mechanism is authorized. When a nondomestic EFT mechanism is used, the contracting officer shall replace the paragraph at FAR 52.232-34(c) with a description of the EFT mechanism that will be used for the contract.
[64 FR 18373, Apr. 14, 1999, as amended at 69 FR 35271, June 24, 2004; 80 FR 12944, Mar. 12, 2015]