alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2(j) ECHELON CORPORATION STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHT AGREEMENT


    
       

      EXHIBIT
        23.1

       

      


      


       

      CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

       

      The
        Board
        of Directors 

      Echelon
        Corporation: 

       

      We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
        on Form
        S-8 (Nos. 333-125395, 333-110679, 333-62045, 333-44198, and 333-88880) of
        Echelon Corporation of our reports dated March 15, 2007, with respect to
        the
        consolidated balance sheets of Echelon Corporation and subsidiaries as of
        December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements
        of operations, stockholders’ equity, comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows
        for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, and
        the
        related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the
        effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December
        31,
        2006, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
        as of
        December 31, 2006, which reports appear in the December 31, 2006 annual report
        on Form 10-K of Echelon Corporation. 

       

      Our
        report on the consolidated financial statements refers to Echelon Corporation’s
        adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised
        2004), Share-Based
        Payment,
        on
        January 1, 2006.

      


      /s/
        KPMG
        LLP 

       

      Mountain
        View, California 

      March
        15,
        2007
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 151 (Monday, August 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44664-44667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6733]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 06-30]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 06-30 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: August 1, 2006.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 44665]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU06.047


[[Page 44666]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU06.048


[[Page 44667]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU06.049

[FR Doc. 06-6733 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
Deny, Strike, Moot and Opinion Filed September 13 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05

- 21

- 00735

- CV
IN RE ADRIAN BOOKER , Relator Original Proceeding from the 302nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 15

- 18807
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Osborne In its August 26 , 2021 petition for writ of mandamus, relator challenges several orders entered by the trial court as void and attaches a few documents

. Based on our review of the petition and attached documents, we conclude that

relato r ha s fail ed to comply with several requirements set forth in Rule 52 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure , as well as Rule 9.9 requiring redaction of

sensitive information. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus , strike the petition, and deny the motion to stay as moot

. 210735f.p05 /s/ LESLIE OSBORNE LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-W0796Identifying and Preventing Gender Bias in Law Enforcement Response to Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence: A Roundtable DiscussionWomen and LGBT individuals are disproportionately victimized by sexual assault and domestic violence, and underenforcement of such offenses can reflect bias on the part of law enforcement. This publication summarizes the August 4, 2015 roundtable discussion of the guidance provided in a draft version of the U.S. Department of Justice's Identifying and Preventing Gender Bias in Law Enforcement Response to Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence. This summary of the roundtable reflects the opinions and recommendations of the law enforcement officials, victim advocates, and subject matter experts who attended.By Police Executive Research ForumCategories: Police Operations • Violent CrimeLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-w0796Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • Mar 2016Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 04:35 (UTC-5) in 0.88 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
No. 11-5550.

#### Morris *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5060 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5060

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To provide for the continuation of certain fee collections for the 
  expenses of the Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year 
                                 1995.

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

SECTION 1. CONTINUED COLLECTION OF REVENUES AUTHORIZED.

    During fiscal year 1995, the rate of fees under section 6(b) of the 
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f(b)) shall remain at \1/29\ of 1 
percent.

SEC. 2. DEPOSIT OF COLLECTIONS.

    The fees collected under section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 
(to the extent attributable to a rate in excess of \1/50\ of 1 percent 
by reason of section 1 of this Act) shall be deposited as an offsetting 
collection to the amounts appropriated to the Securities and Exchange 
Commission for fiscal year 1995, to remain available until expended.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 1994.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5060

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To provide for the continuation of certain fee collections for the 
  expenses of the Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year 
                                 1995.
```
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
 
 **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 Interactive Intelligence, Inc. (the “Registrant”)
        on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2007 as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
        Stephen R. Head, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Finance and
        Administration, Secretary and Treasurer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant
        to
        18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
              The
                  Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2,
                  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 operations of the
                  Registrant.
 
 
 /s/
        Stephen R. Head
 Stephen
        R. Head
 Chief
        Financial Officer, Vice President of Finance and Administration,
 Secretary
        and Treasurer
 (Principal
        Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
 November
        2, 2007
#### § 87.73 Transmitter adjustments and tests.

A general radiotelephone operator must directly supervise and be responsible for all transmitter adjustments or tests during installation, servicing or maintenance of a radio station. A general radiotelephone operator must be responsible for the proper functioning of the station equipment.
§ 76.921 Buy-through of other tiers prohibited. ( a ) No cable system operator, other than an operator subject to effective competition, may require the subscription to any tier other than the basic service tier as a condition of subscription to video programming offered on a per channel or per program charge basis. A cable operator may, however, require the subscription to one or more tiers of cable programming services as a condition of access to one or more tiers of cable programming services.
( b ) A cable operator not subject to effective competition may not discriminate between subscribers to the basic service tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged for video programming offered on a per-channel or per-program charge basis.
( c ) With respect to cable systems not subject to effective competition, prior to October 5, 2002, the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to any cable system that lacks the capacity to offer basic service and all programming distributed on a per channel or per program basis without also providing other intermediate tiers of service: ( 1 ) By controlling subscriber access to nonbasic channels of service through addressable equipment electronically controlled from a central control point; or
( 2 ) Through the installation, noninstallation, or removal of frequency filters (traps) at the premises of subscribers without other alteration in system configuration or design and without causing degradation in the technical quality of service provided.
( d ) With respect to cable systems not subject to effective competition, any retiering of channels or services that is not undertaken in order to accomplish legitimate regulatory, technical, or customer service objectives and that is intended to frustrate or has the effect of frustrating compliance with paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section is prohibited.
[62 FR 6495, Feb. 12, 1997]
#### Vida Blanche Cole, *Appellant,*vs. Melvin Victor Cole, individually and as executor and trustee of the estate of William V. Cole, *Appellee.*

143 So. 235.

Division B.

Opinion filed July 19, 1932.

*227
      *Zeivadski & Pierce,*for Appellant;

*Robert Brodie,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

A will of William V. Cole was construed in Cole v. Cole, 88 Fla. 347, 103 So. 78. Melvin Victor Cole and Vida Blanche Cole, son and daughter of the testator, are the beneficiaries under the will, the son being -the executor. The daughter brought suit for the appointment of a receiver in lieu of the executor and for other appropriate relief. There is evidence that the executor was not properly conserving the property of the estate; but in view of the rights of the executor in the property under the will, the chancellor will not be held in. error for decreeing “that the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed,” particularly as1 the decree contains the following provisions designed to safeguard the rights of the complainant, the court having power to make necessary orders and decrees for the preservation and conservation of the property:

> “It is further Ordered that the Defendant, Melvin V. Cole, be directed by this Court to present a report upon the condition of the estate involved in this suit, showing the financial condition of the estate, and an account of the income, expenditure, liabilities and assets, said report to cover half-yearly accounts, and to be presented on or before the 31st day of July and the 31st day of January in each year, showing the financial status of the estate from the first day of January to the 30th day of June, and from the first day - of July to the 31st day of December in each year, first report to be presented to the Court on or before Janury 31, A. D. 1931, and said reports to be submitted as hereinabove described until the further orders of this Co'urt.” Dated June 30, 1930.

The decree brought here on appeal is affirmed.

Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.

Buford, C.J., and Brown, J., concur in'the opinion and judgment.

*228Ellis, J.,

dissenting: In view of the interest of Vida Blanche Cole in the corpus of the estate, and the indisputably inexpert and extravagant administration of the estate and management of the properties by the executor and trustee, I think that the complainant is entitled to such remedy or relief as she sought as would more effectually secure a conservation of it.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4796 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4796

         For the relief of the estate of Wallace B. Sawyer, Jr.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 1994

  Mr. Dickey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         For the relief of the estate of Wallace B. Sawyer, Jr.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF CLAIM.

    The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Wallace B. 
Sawyer, Jr., the sum of $608,715.40. The payment required by this 
section shall be in full satisfaction of all claims that the estate or 
family of Wallace B. Sawyer, Jr., may have against the United States 
arising from the death of Wallace B. Sawyer, Jr., following an October 
5, 1986, missile attack on the airplane in which he was a crewmember 
performing services for and at the direction of the United States.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.

    It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 percent of the 
payment required by section 1 to be paid to or received by any agent or 
attorney for any service rendered in connection with the payment. Any 
person or estate violating this section shall be guilty of an 
infraction, and shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided in 
title 18, United States Code.

                                 <all>
```
No. 11-1309.

#### Richards *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### § 90.765 Licenses term for Phase II licenses.

Nationwide licenses authorized pursuant to § 90.717(a), EA and Regional licenses authorized pursuant to § 90.761, and non-nationwide licenses authorized pursuant to §§ 90.720 and 90.719(c) will be issued for a term not to exceed ten years.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA - 2014 - 0171 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM038AD

8 - 32 - 173 --- 10/28/11 8 - 32 - 176 --- 2/ 11 /13 8 - 33 - 56 --- 2/11/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
#### § 73.881 Equal employment opportunities.

*General EEO policy.* Equal employment opportunity shall be afforded by all LPFM licensees and permittees to all qualified persons, and no person shall be discriminated against because of race, color , religion, national origin, or sex.
#### Emily A. MOODY et al., Appellants v. Jo V. MORGAN, Appellee.

Nos. 10534, 10567.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Jan. 26, 1951.

Decided Feb. 8, 1951.

Mr. Russell Hardy, Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Mr. Jaquelin A. Marshall, Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, CLARK, and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the record. The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed.
Argued and submitted January 28,

remanded in part with instructions; otherwise affirmed April 27, 1994

#### In the Matter of the Marriage of Mary SHELLEY, *Appellant, and*Ronald Dean SHELLEY, *Respondent.*

(92-04-24, 789-E; CA A79125)

873 P2d 464

Mike Kilpatrick argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Kilpatricks.

Max S. Taggart, II, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*617PER CURIAM

Wife appeals from a dissolution judgment. She contends that the trial court erred in its division of the property.1 On *de novo*review, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to make an adjustment to the division based on a $37,5002 payment that husband made to his brother shortly before trial.

Husband gave the money to his brother, allegedly in payment of several overdue installments on a note. The trial court found, and we agree, that the payment was a sham designed to reduce assets for the purpose of this dissolution. The fact that the money was income from separate property does not change the fact that it was marital income and, therefore, marital property. *Stice and Stice,*308 Or 316, 325, 779 P2d 1020 (1989). As a result, the money paid to husband’s brother should have been included in the property distribution. *Howard and Howard,*103 Or App 342, 349, 798 P2d 683 (1990). Under the circumstances, we conclude that wife should receive one-half of the $37,500.3

Remanded with instructions to enter modified judgment awarding wife an additional judgment against husband for $18,750; otherwise affirmed. Costs to wife.

1

 Wife’s arguments challenging the amount and duration of spousal support awarded and the failure to order husband to carry life insurance with her as a beneficiary do not require discussion.

2

 The trial court stated this amount as $35,000 in its written opinion. However, husband indicated that that figure was only an estimate, and later read the $37,500 amount into the record from the cancelled check.

3

 Husband does not argue that the money came from a nonmarital source, nor does he argue that he rebutted the equal contribution presumption as to it.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         1,776,392
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    106,020
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,154,693
<PP&E>                                         2,395,050
<DEPRECIATION>                                   442,457
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,140,136
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            752,477
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           4,730
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,369,823
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,140,136
<SALES>                                          130,830
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 130,830
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,991,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               116,137
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (3,753,173)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (3,753,173)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (3,753,173)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.80)



</TABLE>
#### §§ 90.802-90.803 [Reserved]
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00559-CR

Paul Barton Steen II

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 396th District Court

of Tarrant County (1149522D)

August 28, 2014

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel____________________

 Justice Lee Gabriel