alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exhibit_10-1.htm










Exhibit 10.1


 


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


 



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-54356, 333-117849, 333-136633, 333-158983, 333-164064, 333-173480 and 333-187953) pertaining to the Ceragon Networks Ltd. (“Ceragon”) Amended and Restated Share Option and RSU Plan of our reports dated April 3, 2014, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Ceragon and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Ceragon, included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014.


 





	  	  	  	  	  	
/s/

	  	  	 	  
	
Tel-Aviv, Israel

	  	  	  	  	
KOST FORER GABBAY and KASIERER

	  	  	  	  
	
April 2, 2015

	  	  	  	  	
A Member of Ernst & Young Global
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

233 South 13th Street, Suite 1600
Lincoln, NE 68508-2041

Two Central Park Plaza
Suite 1501
Omaha, NE 68102

                            ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Aliant Communications Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
on Forms S-3 and S-8 of Aliant Communications Inc. of our report dated
February 6, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Aliant
Communications Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and
the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
31, 1997, and all related schedules, which report appears in the December
31, 1997, annual report on Form 10-K of Aliant Communications Inc.

/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Lincoln, Nebraska
March 24, 1998
#### EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSUR CORP v SCOTT

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10168.

Decided December 3, 1929

Mr._ J. R Kistner, Cleveland, for Assurance Corp.

Messrs. Vickery & Vickery, Cleveland, for Scott.

MIDDLETON, PJ., and MAUCK, J., (4th Dist) sitting.

BY THE COURT:

The gist of the motion in this case is to dismiss the petition in error because plaintiff in error has not made his co-defendant below a party to the proceedings in error. If Smetters vs Raney, 14 OS. 287, were in full force and effect the motion would have to be sustained. The Supreme Court however, in Sniders Executors vs Young, 72 OS. 494, has expressly overruled the second and third paragraphs of the syllabus in the Smetters case, and in Clark *62vs Clark, 110 OS. 644, on page 658, has reiterated its position. In the Snider case it was held that where such a defect as that now complained of, appears, the proceedings in error may be amended and the omitted defendant in error be brought into the record.

To the end that the case may not be disposed of upon a technicality and without a hearing, leave is given to the plaintiff in error to file an amendment to its petition in error by December 15. If this is done and service is had upon Kohlman an entry may be placed on record showing that the motion to dismiss the petition in error is overruled. If the required amendment is not made as above suggested within the time prescribed the motion will be sustained.

Middleton, PJ., and Mauck, J., concur.
#### § 4000.12 What definitions do I need to know for these rules?

You need to know two definitions from § 4001.2 of this chapter: PBGC and person. You also need to know the following definitions:

*Filing* means any notice, information, or payment that you submit to us under our regulations.

*Issuance* means any notice or other information you provide to any person other than us under our regulations.

*We* means the PBGC.

*You* means the person providing the issuance to a third party.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.0



                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated February 6, 1996 (except with respect to the matter discussed in
Note 17 to the consolidated financial statements as to which the date is
February 21, 1996) on the consolidated financial statements of Kuhlman
Corporation as of December 31, 1995, included in the Company's 1995 Annual
Report to Shareholders incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K and of our
report dated February 6, 1996 (except with respect to the matter discussed in
Note 17 to the consolidated financial statements as to which the date is
February 21, 1996) on the schedule included in this Form 10-K, into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statement File Nos. 2-77396, 33-20184,
33-64544, 33-82718, 33-58133 and 33-61255.




                                                  ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


March 27, 1996
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 867 

To adjust the boundary of Lowell National Historical Park, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2007 

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To adjust the boundary of Lowell National Historical Park, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lowell National His5 torical Park Boundary Adjustment Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LOWELL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK. 

7 (a) BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.—Section 101(a) of 

8 Public Law 95–290 (16 U.S.C. 410cc–11(a)) is amended 

9 by adding at the end the following: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 867 IS

1 ‘‘(3) ADDITIONAL LAND.—The boundaries of 

2 the park are modified to include the 5 parcels of 

3 land identified on the map entitled ‘Boundary Ad4 justment, Lowell National Historical Park’, num5 bered 475/81,424B, and dated September 2004, and 

6 more particularly described in section 

7 202(a)(2)(G).’’. 

8 (b) ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.—Section 202(a)(2) 

9 of Public Law 95–290 (16 U.S.C. 410cc–22(a)(2)) is 

10 amended by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(G) The following parcels of land, as 

12 identified on the map entitled ‘Boundary Ad13 justment, Lowell National Historical Park’, 

14 numbered 475/81,424B, and dated September 

15 2004: 

16 ‘‘(i) 91 Pevey Street. 

17 ‘‘(ii) The portion of 607 Middlesex 

18 Place. 

19 ‘‘(iii) Eagle Court. 

20 ‘‘(iv) The portion of 50 Payne Street. 

21 ‘‘(v) 726 Broadway.’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### Peter Smith, Resp’t, *v.*John O’Brien, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term. Second Department,*

*Filed June*28, *1889.)*

1. Criminal conversation—Action for—When judgment not disturbed.

In an action to recover damages for criminal conversation for seducing-plaintiff’s wife: *Held,*that where, beyond other evidence, there was the most direct proof of guilt given by plaintiff, the judgment in his favor-will not be disturbed.

2. Evidence—Code Crv. Pro., § 831.

Section 831, Code of Civil Procedure, does not apply to actions where a. husband seeks to recover damages for alienation of a wife’s affection.

Appeal by the appellant from the judgment and order-denying a new trial thereon, on a verdict of the jury at the Westchester circuit court, December, 1888, in favor of plaintiff, for $1,000 damages, in an action for criminal conversation. This appeal is taken on the ground that the evidence of the alleged criminal act of defendant with plaintiff’s wife is insufficient, and the verdict is against the weight of evidence in the case.

*Francis Larkin,*for resp’t; *John Qibney,*for app’lt.

Barnard, P. J.

The proof is sufficient to support the verdict. The plaintiff’s business called him away from home every other night, and the defendant was a regular visitor of his wife on the occasion of the absence of the husband.

O’Brien is proven to have ridden out with his wife *709and was seen with her in the stone yard near her residence in company with the defendant, quite late at night. There is, beyond this, the most direct proof of guilt given by the plaintiff.

Section 831 of the Code does not apply to actions where the husband seeks to recover damages for alienation of a wife’s affection.

The wife is not a party, and the evidence is not strictly against her.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.
§ 4000.13 What methods of issuance may I use? ( a ) *In general.* You may use any method of issuance, provided you use measures reasonably calculated to ensure actual receipt of the material by the intended recipient. Posting is not a permissible method of issuance under the rules of this part.
( b ) *Electronic safe-harbor method.* Section 4000.14 provides a safe-harbor method for meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section when providing an issuance using electronic media.
#### SMITH Exrx etc v STEVENSON Admr etc

Ohio Appeals, 3rd Dist, Hardin Co

No 222.

Decided March 25, 1930

Stickle & Cessna, Kenton, for Smith.

John H. Smick, Kenton, for Stevenson.

*312HUGHES, J.

By the terms of his will, it is made very clear that this expense was to be made a charge against his estate, and we entertain no doubt but that she is entitled to at least a judgment against his administrator requiring the allowance of this claim as a valid one against his estate.

The manner in which this claim will be paid and the property out of which the same shall be realized, is a matter to be worked out in the probate court by the administrator of his estate.

For these reasons, the demurrer should be overruled.

Before Judgese Hughes, Justice and Crow.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lite King Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date: March 9, 2006                    By:
                                                -----------------------
                                       Name:    David L.Norris
                                       Title:   President and
                                                Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lite King Corporation
and will be retained by Lite King Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 1954.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) Section 18(f) of the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides that “the Secretary shall, on the basis of reports submitted by the State agency and his own inspections make a continuing evaluation of the manner in which each State having a plan approved * * * is carrying out such plan.”
( b ) This part 1954 applies to the provisions of section 18(f) of the Act relating to the evaluation of approved plans for the development and enforcement of State occupational safety and health standards. The provisions of this part 1954 set forth the policies and procedures by which the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Secretary) under a delegation of authority from the Secretary of Labor (Secretary's Order 12-71, 36 FR 8754, May 12, 1971) will continually monitor and evaluate the operation and administration of approved State plans.
( c ) Following approval of a State plan under section 18(c) of the Act, workplaces in the State are subject to a period of concurrent Federal and State authority. The period of concurrent enforcement authority must last for at least three years. Before ending Federal enforcement authority, the Assistant Secretary is required to make a determination as to whether the State plan, in actual operation, is meeting the criteria in section 18(c) of the Act including the requirements in part 1902 of this chapter and the assurances in the approval plan itself. After an affirmative determination has been made, the provisions of sections 5(a)(2), 8 (except for the purpose of carrying out section 18(f) of the Act), 9, 10, 13, and 17 of the Act shall not apply with respect to any occupational safety or health issues covered under the plan. The Assistant Secretary may, however, retain jurisdiction under the above provisions in any proceeding commenced under section 9 or 10 of the Act before the date of the determination under section 18(e) of the Act.
( d ) During this period of concurrent Federal and State authority, the operation and administration of the plan will be continually evaluated under section 18(f) of the Act. This evaluation will continue even after an affirmative determination has been made under section 18(e) of the Act.
§ 1980.106 Objections to the findings and the preliminary order and request for a hearing. ( a ) Any party who desires review, including judicial review, of the findings and preliminary order, or a respondent alleging that the complaint was frivolous or brought in bad faith who seeks an award of attorney fees under the Act, must file any objections and/or a request for a hearing on the record within 30 days of receipt of the findings and preliminary order pursuant to § 1980.105(b). The objections and/or request for a hearing must be in writing and state whether the objections are to the findings and/or the preliminary order, and/or whether there should be an award of attorney fees. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or electronic transmittal is considered the date of filing; if the objection is filed in person, by hand-delivery or other means, the objection is filed upon receipt. Objections must be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, in accordance with 29 CFR part 18, and copies of the objections must be served at the same time on the other parties of record, the OSHA official who issued the findings and order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.
( b ) If a timely objection is filed, all provisions of the preliminary order will be stayed, except for the portion requiring preliminary reinstatement, which will not be automatically stayed. The portion of the preliminary order requiring reinstatement will be effective immediately upon the respondent's receipt of the findings and preliminary order, regardless of any objections to the order. The respondent may file a motion with the Office of Administrative Law Judges for a stay of the Assistant Secretary's preliminary order of reinstatement, which shall be granted only based on exceptional circumstances. If no timely objection is filed with respect to either the findings or the preliminary order, the findings and/or preliminary order will become the final decision of the Secretary, not subject to judicial review.
[80 FR 11880, Mar. 5, 2015, as amended at 86 FR 1789, Jan. 11, 2021]
|  
EXHIBIT 23
 
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC			ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
We consent to the			incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8			No. 33-46722-01) pertaining to the Kentucky Investors, Inc. and			Affiliated Companies 401(k) Savings Plan of our report dated March			15, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of			Kentucky Investors, Inc. incorporated by reference in the Annual			Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.
 
Our audits also			included the financial statement schedules of Kentucky Investors,			Inc. listed in Item 15(a)2. These schedules are the responsibility			of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an			opinion based on our audits.  In our opinion, as to which the date			is March 15, 2007, the financial statement schedules referred to			above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements			taken as a whole, present fairly in all material respects the			information set forth therein.
 
 
 
 
/s/Ernst & Young LLP
Cincinnati, Ohio 
 
March 15, 2007 
 
 
  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
§ 2580.412-26 Conditions of exemption. ( a ) This exemption obtains only with respect to the requirements of section 13(a) of the Act that all bonds required thereunder shall have as surety thereon, a corporate surety company, which is an acceptable surety on Federal bonds under authority granted by the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to the Act of July 30, 1947 (6 U.S.C. 6-13).
( b ) This exemption is granted on the following conditions: ( 1 ) Underwriters at Lloyds, London shall continue to be licensed in a state of the United States to enter into bonding arrangements of the type required by the Act.
( 2 ) Underwriters at Lloyds, London, shall file with the Office of Pension and Welfare Benefit Programs two (2) copies of each annual statement required to be made to the Commissioner of Insurance of those states in which Underwriters at Lloyds, London are licensed. Copies of annual statements shall be filed with the Office of Pension and Welfare Benefit Programs within the same period required by the respective states.
( 3 ) All bonding arrangements entered into by Underwriters at Lloyds, London under section 13 of the Act shall contain a “Service of Suit Clause” in substantial conformity with that set forth in the petition for exemption.
#### KONTUR, et v BILLINGS, et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10794.

Decided Sept 29, 1930

J. P. Mooney, Cleveland, for Kontur, et.

Alfred L. Steuer, Cleveland, for Billings, et.

*721LEVINE, J.

We are of the opinion that the allegations of the petition and the prayer thereof are broad enough to cover the decree made by the common pleas court. There is no bill of exceptions filed in this case and it is to be presumed that the trial court had before it evidence which sustained the allegations of the petition.

The judgment .of the common pleas court will therefore be affirmed.

Vickery, PJ, and Cline, J, concur. .
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 19, 2018

No. 04-17-00858-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF RAYMOND OATMAN WHIPPLE, JR., DECEASED,

From the County Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-PC-0273

Honorable Robin V. Dwyer, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record and reporter’s record were due to be filed in this appeal on January 15, 

2018. Both the trial court clerk and the court reporter have filed notifications of late record 

stating that the records have not been filed because appellant has failed to pay or make 

arrangements to pay the fees for preparing the records and that appellant is not entitled to appeal 

without paying the fees. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this 

court within ten (10) days of the date of this order that either (1) the fees have been paid or 

arrangements have been made to pay the fees for preparing the clerk’s record and reporter’s 

record; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the fees. If appellant fails to respond 

within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of January, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit
32.2





STATEMENT
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Kathleen M. Jepson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company
      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements
      included in such Report.





/s/Kathleen
M. Jepson


Acting
Chief Financial Officer


November 22,
2010