alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Research Frontiers Incorporated

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-53030, 33-86910, 333-08623 and 333-34163) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-40369)
on Form S-3 of Research Frontiers Incorporated of our report dated February 26,
1998, relating to the balance sheets of Research Frontiers Incorporated as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996 and the related statements of operations, 
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year 
period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1997
annual report on Form 10-K of Research Frontiers Incorporated.



                            /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Jericho, New York
March 26, 1998
CERTIFICATION

I, Larry Mosley, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Data Call Technologies,Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the  issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The  issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as 4efined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the  issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the  issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the  issuer's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the  issuer's internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the  issuer's most recentfiscal quarter (the  issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the  issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The  issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the  issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the  issuer's board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the  issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether r not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the  issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2009

/s/ Larry MosleyCFO and Director
| **Consolidated Statements of Shareholders' Equity (unaudited) (Parenthetical) (USD $)** | 6 Months Ended |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Statement of Stockholders' Equity [Abstract]**                                        |           |   |
| Common Stock, Dividends, Per Share, Cash Paid                                           | $ 0.27         | $ 0.22 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Aggregate dividends paid during the period for each share of common stock outstanding.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Regulation S-X (SX) -Number 210 -Section 04 -Article 3Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 505 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.3-04) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6959260&loc=d3e187085-122770
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_CommonStockDividendsPerShareCashPaid**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**num:perShareItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                         |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_StatementOfStockholdersEquityAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
Order entered May 21, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01496-CR

ZACHERY LEATCH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-51448-R

ORDER

The record before this Court does not contain a copy of the trial court’s order appointing 

counsel. On March 11, 2015, this Court ordered appellate counsel Kathleen Walsh, who fled a 

motion to withdraw as counsel and an Anders brief, to ensure that the Dallas County District 

Clerk has a copy of the order appointing counsel. We further ordered Dallas County District 

Clerk Felicia Pitre to file a supplemental record containing the order appointing counsel within 

fifteen days. To date, we have not received the supplemental record nor any correspondence 

from either Ms. Walsh or Ms. Pitre regarding the status of the record.

Accordingly, we ORDER Kathleen Walsh to ensure the Dallas County District Clerk has 

a copy of the order appointing the Dallas County Public Defender’s Office as counsel. We 

ORDER Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk, to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of 
this order, a supplemental record containing the order appointing the Dallas County Public 

Defender’s Office as counsel for appellant on this appeal.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Jennifer Bennett, Presiding Judge, 265th Judicial District Court; Kathleen Walsh, 

Dallas County Public Defender’s Office; Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk; and the 

Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
#### § 1753.4 Major and minor construction.

RUS's general requirements for construction are set forth in this subpart A. Additional requirements and procedures for different types of major construction are presented in subparts D, E, F, G, and H (OMB control number 0572-0062). The requirements and procedures for minor construction are presented in subpart I. Borrowers may, at their option, follow the procedures in subparts D, E, F, G, and H for any minor construction.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Docket ID: DOD-2010-OS-0034]

# AGENCY:

United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), DoD.

# ACTION:

Response to comments received.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of Defense has issued an interim response and disposition of comments received in connection with the Defense Personal Property Program (DP3), Phase III Final-Draft Business Rules. The notice was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         April 1, 2010 (75 FR 16445-16446). The interim response and disposition of comments can be viewed on the USTRANSCOM Web site (under misc) at                         *http://www.transcom.mil/​dtr/​part-iv/​misc.cfm*.                    

                        Additional review of remaining comments received is on-going. Any subsequent changes will be published in a                         **Federal Register**                         Announcement and incorporated into the Defense Transportation Regulation (DTR) Part IV (DTR 4500.9R).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jim Teague, United States Transportation Command, TCJ5/4-PI, 508 Scott Drive, Scott Air Force Base, IL 62225-5357; (618) 229-1985.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    A complete version of the DTR is available via the Internet on the USTRANSCOM homepage at                     *http://www.transcom.mil/​j5/​pt/​dtr_​part_​iv.cfm.*

Dated: November 10, 2010.

Morgan F. Park,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2010-28927 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```

[109th Congress Public Law 204]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ204.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 312]]

Public Law 109-204
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To make available funds included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 
for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for fiscal year 2006, 
      and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Mar. 20, 2006 -  [S. 2320]>> 

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

SECTION 1. FUNDS FOR LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

    Section 9001 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 <<NOTE: Ante, p. 
183.>> is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``for a 1-time only obligation and 
                expenditure'';
                    (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$250,000,000 for 
                fiscal year 2007'' and inserting ``$500,000,000 for 
                fiscal year 2006''; and
                    (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$750,000,000 for 
                fiscal year 2007'' and inserting ``$500,000,000 for 
                fiscal year 2006'';
            (2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
            (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:

    ``(b) Limitation.--None of the funds made available under this 
section may be used for the planning and administering described in 
section 2605(b)(9) of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 
(42 U.S.C. 8624(b)(9)).''; and
            (4) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by 
        striking ``September 30, 2007'' and inserting ``September 30, 
        2006''.

    Approved March 20, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2320:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Mar. 2, 3, 6, 7, considered and passed Senate.
            Mar. 15, 16, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
2005-2160.

#### State v. Byrd.

Defiance App. No. 4-05-19, 2005-Ohio-5612. Reported at 108 Ohio St.3d 1487, 2006-Ohio-962, 843 N.E.2d 793. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
§ 1900.55 Adverse action procedures. ( a ) If an applicant, guaranteed lender, a holder, borrower or grantee is adversely affected by a decision covered by this subpart, the decision maker will inform the participant of the adverse decision and whether the adverse decision is appealable. A participant has the right to request the Director of NAD to review the agency's finding of nonappealability in accordance with 7 CFR 11.6(a). In cases where the adverse decision is based on both appealable and nonappealable actions, the adverse action is not appealable.
( b ) A participant affected by an adverse decision of an agency is entitled under section 275 of the Act to an opportunity for a separate informal meeting with the agency before commencing an appeal to NAD under 7 CFR part 11.
( c ) Participants also have the right under section 275 of the Act to seek mediation involving any adverse decision appealable under this subpart if the mediation program of the State in which the participant's farming operation giving rise to the decision is located has been certified by the Secretary for the program involved in the decision. An agency shall cooperate in such mediation. Any time limitation for appeal will be stayed pending completion of the mediation process (7 CFR 11.5(c)).
Editorial Note on Part 1956
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1956.105 Definitions. ( a ) *Settlement.* The compromise, adjustment, cancellation, or chargeoff of a debt owed to Rural Development. The term “settlement” is used for convenience in referring to compromise, adjustment, cancellation, or chargeoff actions, individually or collectively.
( b ) *Compromise.* The satisfaction of a debt, including a release of liability, by the acceptance of a lump-sum payment of less than the total amount owed on the debt.
( c ) *Adjustment.* The satisfaction of a debt, including a release of liability, when acceptance is conditioned upon completion of payment of the adjusted amount at a specific future time or times, with or without the payment of any consideration when the adjustment offer is approved. An adjustment is not a final settlement until all payments under the adjustment agreement have been made.
( d ) *Cancellation.* The final discharge of a debt with a release of liability.
( e ) *Chargeoff.* To write off a debt and terminate all servicing activity *without* a release of liability. This is not a final discharge of the debt, but rather a decision upon the part of the agency to remove the debt from agency receivables.
( f ) *Debtor.* The borrower of loan funds under any of Rural Development programs specified in § 1956.101.
( g ) *Security.* All that serves as collateral for Rural Development loan(s), including, but not limited to, revenues, tax levies, municipal bonds, and real and chattel property.
( h ) *Servicing official.* The Rural Development official who is primarily responsible for servicing the account.
( i ) *United States Attorney.* An attorney for the United States Department of Justice.
( j ) *Independent Qualified Fee Appraiser.* An individual who is a designated member of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, Society of Real Estate Appraisers, or an equivalent organization, requiring appraisal education, testing, and experience.
[53 FR 13100, Apr. 21, 1988, as amended at 54 FR 47510, Nov. 15, 1989; 66 FR 1569, Jan. 9, 2001; 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015]
§ 1717.600 General. ( a ) *General.* The loan contract and mortgage between the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and electric borrowers imposes certain restrictions and controls on the borrowers and gives RUS (and other co-mortgagees in the case of the mortgage) the right to approve or disapprove certain actions contemplated by the borrowers. Certain of these controls and approval rights are referred to informally as “operational controls” because they pertain to decisions or actions with respect to the operation of the borrowers' electric systems. The approval authority granted to RUS by the loan contract or mortgage regarding each decision or action subject to controls is often stated in broad, unlimited terms. This subpart lists the main operational controls affecting borrowers and establishes for each area of control the circumstances under which RUS approval of a decision or action by a borrower is either required or not required. In some cases, only the general principles or general circumstances pertaining to RUS approval or control are presented in this subpart, while the details regarding the circumstances and requirements of RUS approval or control are set forth in other RUS regulations. Since this subpart addresses only the main operational controls, failure to address a control or approval right in this subpart in no way invalidates such controls or rights established by the loan contract, mortgage, other agreements between a borrower and RUS, and RUS regulations.
( b ) *Case by case amendments.* Upon written notice to a borrower, RUS may amend or annul the approvals and exceptions to controls set forth in this subpart or other RUS regulations if the borrower is in violation of any provision of its loan documents or any other agreement with RUS, or if RUS determines that loan security and/or repayment is threatened. Such amendment or annulment will apply to decisions and actions of the borrower after said written notice has been provided by RUS.
( c ) *Generic notices.* By written notice to all borrowers or a group of borrowers, RUS may grant or waive approval of decisions and actions by the borrowers that are controlled under the loan documents and RUS regulations. RUS may also by written notice withdraw or cut back its grant or waiver of approval of said decisions and actions made by previous written notice, but may not by such notice extend its authority to approve decisions and actions by borrowers beyond the authority granted by the loan documents and RUS regulations.
# C_2014071EN.01002201.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/22

---

Order of the General Court of 14 January 2014 — Miettinen v Council

(Case T-303/13) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service - Refusal of access - Disclosure after the action was brought - Action becoming devoid of purpose - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2014/C 71/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Samuli Miettinen (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts, lawyers, and A. Villette, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pellinghelli and É. Sitbon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Council’s decision of 25 March 2013 refusing to grant the applicant access to the full text of the opinion of the Council’s Legal Service, reference 15309/12.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

| 3. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Finland. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Finland.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.

---
#### John Wise, Appellant-Respondent, v Transco, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, and Howard S. Gross et al., as Trustees under Transco, Inc., Salaried Employees’ Profit Sharing Trust, Respondent.

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We agree with Special Term that the issues pertaining to the validity of the restrictive covenant contained in paragraph 9 of the employment contract may not be summarily decided on motion. As stated in *Matter of Sprinzen (Nomberg)*(46 NY2d 623, 632): "Each case turns upon its own distinct facts. If the restrictive covenant is found, under all the circumstances, to be 'reasonable in time and area, necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, not harmful to the general public and not unreasonably .burdensome to the employee’, it will be subject to specific enforcement.” We are mindful of the decision in *Post v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith*(48 NY2d 84), holding that the "employee choice” doctrine enunciated in *Kristt v Whelan*(4 AD2d 195, affd 5 NY2d 807) does not apply when an employee is involuntarily discharged without cause. *Post v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (supra),*however, involved forfeiture of rights under a company-funded pension plan. The court noted the "strong public policy against forfeiture of employee benefits manifested by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act * * * [and that] had the relevant provisions of ERISA been in effect at the time of termination of these appellants’ employment, its mandatory provisions might well have been dispositive in this case and have precluded the forfeiture countenanced by the court below.” *(Post v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, supra,*p 88.) While plaintiff was involuntarily discharged, this restrictive covenant does not involve a forfeiture of rights under an "employee pension benefit plan” that would be covered by ERISA. We do not think, therefore, that under *Post v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (supra),*the forfeiture was unreasonable as a matter of law solely because the discharge was involuntary. Special Term did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees in connection with its order granting summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff’s second cause of action which alleged that the Transco profit-sharing plan was not in compliance with ERISA (see US Code, tit 29, § 1132, subd [g]). (Appeals from order of Erie Supreme Court — summary judgment.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Moule, JJ.