alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 91.44 Investigation. ( a ) *Informal investigation.* ( 1 ) HHS will investigate complaints that are unresolved after mediation or are reopened because of a violation of a mediation agreement.
( 2 ) As part of the initial investigation HHS will use informal fact finding methods, including joint or separate discussions with the complainant and recipient, to establish the fact and, if possible, settle the complaint on terms that are mutually agreeable to the parties. HHS may seek the assistance of any involved State agency.
( 3 ) HHS will put any agreement in writing and have it signed by the parties and an authorized official at HHS.
( 4 ) The settlement shall not affect the operation of any other enforcement effort of HHS, including compliance reviews and investigation of other complaints which may involve the recipient.
( 5 ) The settlement is not a finding of discrimination against a recipient.
( b ) *Formal investigation.* If HHS cannot resolve the complaint through informal investigation, it will begin to develop formal findings through further investigation of the complaint. If the investigation indicates a violation of these regulations HHS will attempt to obtain voluntary compliance. If HHS cannot obtain voluntary compliance it will begin enforcement as described in § 91.46.
[47 FR 57858, Dec. 28, 1982, as amended at 70 FR 24322, May 9, 2005]
---

---

# Exhibit 10.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
hereby consent to the  incorporation by reference in the previously filed  Registration  Statements
on Form F-3 (No 333-130048) and Form S-8 (No 333-136957,  333-110696,  333-100971 and 333-11650) of B.O.S.
Better  Online  Solutions  Ltd.  of our  report  dated  March 25,  2005,  with  respect  to the  financial
statements of Odem  Electronic  Technologies  1992 Ltd.  included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for
the year ended December 31, 2005.

|                   |                                                         
|------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------
|                   | /S/ Kesselman & Kesselman                               
|                  
|Jerusalem, Israel  | Kesselman & Kesselman                                   
|September 7 , 2006 | Certified Public Accountants (Israel)                   
|                   | A member of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited



---

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JACK MANN,

Plaintiff, No. 14-13439

v. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to bring new case law [Doc. #57] is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s motion for update on motion to amend [Doc. #64] is DENIED AS

MOOT. I entered an order denying the motion to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Date: January 27, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on

January 27, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/C. Ciesla 

Case Manager 

-1-

2:14-cv-13439-AJT-RSW Doc # 72 Filed 01/27/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 921
##### 



EXHIBIT 31
 CERTIFICATION OF SENIOR OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE SERVICING FUNCTION OF THE SERVICER
PURSUANT TO Rule 15d-14(d)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be
filed in respect of period covered by this report on Form 10-K, of Volkswagen Auto Lease
Trust 2006-A (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included
in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report
under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic
reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all
material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance
with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included
as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on
Form 10-K.
   /s/ Bruce HarrisName:
    
    Bruce HarrisTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer(senior officer in charge of the
servicing function)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INFINITE
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,094
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,094
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,094
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,555
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,668
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3,129)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,094
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.010)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.010)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL GRESHAM,

Plaintiff, Case Nos. 14-13806

 13-10189

Hon. Gershwin A. Drain

v.

DAN HEYNS, et. al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER [#4, #5], DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL [#6], GRANTING MOTION TO RELATE CASE [#7]

AND CONSOLIDATING CASES

Plaintiff initiated a suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 that was docketed as Case No.

13-10189. On August 27, 2014, this Court entered an order which in part denied

Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint without prejudice. On October 3, 2014,

Plaintiff filed a complaint that was docketed as a new case as Case No. 14-13806. The

complaint makes reference to the previous case and the Court’s order. The Court will

construe Plaintiff’s latest complaint as an amended complaint in Case No. 13-10189.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides as follows: 

(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or

fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of

any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions

1

2:14-cv-13806-GAD-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 03/23/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 479
consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings

therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). 

It is within the discretion of the district court to determine whether cases

involving the same factual and legal questions should be consolidated. Stemler v.

Burke, 344 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1965). In the instant case, Plaintiff intended to

pursue a single action against the defendants, the Court will therefore consolidate the

two cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Temporary

Restraining Order [#4 and #5] are DENIED. Plaintiff has not demonstrated he is

entitled to injunctive relief. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 88 (2008) (holding

that injunctive relief seeks to address the possibility of irreparable harm where an

inadequacy of legal relief exists).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [#6]

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Relate Case,

construed as a Motion to Consolidate, [#7] is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that case numbers 13-10189 and 14-13806 are hereby

CONSOLIDATED. The Clerk of the Court shall docket a copy of this order in both

2

2:14-cv-13806-GAD-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 03/23/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 480
cases.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket Plaintiff’s Complaint

filed in case 14-13806 in case 13-10189 as an Amended Complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that case 14-13806 is DISMISSED. All future

documents shall be filed under case 13-10189.

/s/ Gershwin A Drain

Gershwin A. Drain

United States District Judge

Dated: March 23, 2015 

3

2:14-cv-13806-GAD-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 03/23/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 481
### MANDATE



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 15

- 00489

- CV

In t he Interest of O.D.H., a Child Appealed from the 315th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2012

- 05226J). Opinion delivered by Justice Busby. Justices Boyce and Brown also participating

.

TO THE 315TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on November 10, 2015 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment was determined. Our Court of Appeals made its
order in these words:

This cause, an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights signed May 11, 2015, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below
AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.
WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WI TNESS , the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost , Chief Justice of our Fourteenth Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houston, November 13, 2015.
#### Bray v. Poillon.

*Undertaking—upon injunction—defense of fraud in, can only he set up in action on—Damages—measure of.*

B. in an action against defendant procured an injunction therein, V. becoming security upon the undertaking given thereupon. The injunction was set aside and damages on account thereof assessed against plaintiff. *Held,*that V. could only in an action upon the undertaking set up fraud in its execution. He could not do so on a motion to open the assessment of damages.

The inj unction was to prevent the dispossession of plaintiff for non-payment of rent. *Held,*that the amount of rent at the rate reserved in the lease while plaintiff kept possession was a fair measure of damages.

Appeal from an order denying a motion made by Henry Volkening to open the assessment of damages upon an undertaking executed on obtaining an injunction. The action was brought by Joseph W. Bray against Cornelius Poillon and another, to restrain certain summary proceedings instituted to dispossess plaintiff of premises occupied by him. An injunction was issued in such action and Volkening became security upon the undertaking executed to obtain the same. .

The injunction vwas afterward set aside and a reference ordered to assess the damages, which were assessed at a sum equal to the rent of the premises during the time defendants were kept from possession. Volkening moved to open this assessment.

*Nelson Smith,*for appellant.

*George E. Forster,*for respondents.

Lawrehce, J.

The head-note fully states the only points that are material for publication in the opinion.

*Order*affirmed.
#### § 108.650 EPIRBs and SARTs.

Emergency position indicating radiobeacons and search and rescue transponders. Each EPIRB and SART should have the name of the unit plainly marked or painted on its label, except for EPIRBs or SARTs in an inflatable liferaft or permanently installed in a survival craft.

[CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25299, May 20, 1996]
§ 11.821 High-speed craft type-rating. ( a ) This section is only applicable to those persons who will be serving or have served upon those vessels built and operated in accordance with the International Code of Safety for High Speed Craft (HSC Code).
( b ) To qualify for a high-speed craft type-rating endorsement (TRE) for operating vessels to which the HSC Code applies, an applicant must— ( 1 ) Hold a valid officer endorsement for vessels of commensurate grade, tonnage, route, and/or horsepower; and
( 2 ) Present evidence of successful completion of a Coast Guard-approved type rating training program.
( c ) A separate TRE will be issued for each type and class of high speed craft. The original route will be as specified in the approved type rating program. Additional routes may be added to an existing TRE by completing at least 12 roundtrips over each route under the supervision of a type-rated master on the class of high speed craft the TRE will be valid for. Six of the trips must be made during the hours of darkness or a “daylight only” restriction will be imposed.
( d ) A TRE will be valid for 2 years. The expiration date of a TRE will not be changed due to the addition of additional routes.
( e ) To renew a TRE, an applicant must provide evidence of— ( 1 ) At least 6 months of service in the appropriate position on the type crafts to which the TRE applies during the preceding 2 years, including at least 12 roundtrips over each route, together with evidence of a completed revalidation assessment; or
( 2 ) Completion of an approved revalidation training program.
[USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77909, Dec. 24, 2013, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58277, Sept. 29, 2014]
Exhibit 32.1

        CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       ----------------------------------

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
International Imaging Systems, Inc. for the three month period ended June 30,
2004, I, C. Leo Smith, President and Chief Executive and Chief Financial
Officer, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, that:

1.       Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June
         30, 2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
         the three months ended June 30, 2004, fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         International Imaging Systems, Inc.


                                       INTERNATIONAL IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC.


                                       By: /s/ C. LEO SMITH
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           C. Leo Smith
                                           President and Chief Executive and
                                           Chief Financial Officer

December 6, 2004

                                     - 20 -
Slip Op. 07-34

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

____________________________________

:

SLATER STEELS CORPORATION, et al., :

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

UNITED STATES, :

:

Defendant. : Before: Judith M. Barzilay, Judge

____________________________________: Consol Ct. No. 02-00551

____________________________________

:

VIRAJ GROUP, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

UNITED STATES, :

:

Defendant, :

:

and :

:

SLATER STEELS CORPORATION, et al., :

:

Defendant-Intervenors. :

___________________________________ :

JUDGMENT ORDER

[Commerce’s Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand II reinstated.]

Dated: March 12, 2007

Collier, Shannon, Scott, PLLC (Robin H. Gilbert), for Plaintiffs and DefendantIntervenors Slater Steels Corp., Carpenter Technology Corporation, Electralloy Corp., and

Crucible Specialty Metals Division, Crucible Materials Corp.
Consol Ct. No. 02-00551 Page 2

Miller & Chevalier Chartered (Peter J. Koenig), for Plaintiff Viraj Group.

(Jeanne E. Davidson), Director; (Stephen C. Tosini), Attorney, Commercial Litigation

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; (Matthew D. Walden), Office of

Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, of counsel,

for Defendant.

Pursuant to the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Viraj Group v.

United States, Slip Op. 2006-1158 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2007), it is hereby 

ORDERED that the Department of Commerce’s Final Results of Determination Pursuant

to Remand (Dep’t Commerce May 7, 2004) (“Remand Results II”), produced in response to this

court’s decision in Slater Steels Corp. v. United States, 28 CIT __, 316 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (2004),

is reinstated; and it is further 

ORDERED that this case is dismissed. 

March 12, 2007 /s/ Judith M. Barzilay

Dated:________________________ __________________________

New York, NY Judge
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 61 (Friday, March 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1580]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially 
Closed Meeting

    The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on April 19, 
2007, 10:30 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 6087B, 14th Street 
between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The 
Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export 
Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the 
level of export controls applicable to materials and related 
technology.

Agenda

Public Session

    1. Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) Review and Suspense 
dates.
    2. Composite Working Group Update.
    3. Emerging Technologies for Commerce Review.

Closed Session

    4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the 
provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 
10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
    A limited number of seats will be available during the public 
session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent 
time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the 
Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or 
after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public 
presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be 
forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Yvette Springer at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3b62484b4952555c5e497b595248155f5458155c544d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="356c4645475c5b52504775575c461b515a561b525a43">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of 
the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on March 15, 
2007, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
as amended, that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the 
premature disclosure of which would likely frustrate the implementation 
of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) 
shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found 
in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the 
meeting will be open to the public.
    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: March 26, 2007.
Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-1580 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
U. S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

06/17/2015 

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11240 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform 

Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. FAA2014-0894

Dear Sir or Madam;

Aerius Flight LLC, was issued an Exemption numbered 11240 (hereinafter the 

Exemption) for the purpose of commercial aerial survey and photography operations. 

Aerius Flight LLC, herby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow an additional 

type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions of the 

Exemption. 

In addition to the DYS D800-X8 and Phantom 3 Aircraft Aerius Flight LLC has 

requested to operate in the letter dated June 8, 2015 (Docket FAA-2014-0894-0009) 

under the same terms and conditions contained in the exemption, Aerius Flight LLC also 

wishes to add the 3DR Solo and DJI Inspire. Attached hereto, and submitted as a 

confidential document, is the Flight Operations Manual (FOM) for the additional UASs. 

All operations of the additional UASs will be in full compliance with the terms of the 

exemption. 

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition of another 

type of unmanned aerial vehicle, Aerius Flight LLC respectfully submits that good cause 

exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the 

requested amendment. Please contact the undersigned should you have any question 

concerning this request for an amendment to the Exemption. 

Regards,

Kenneth Beason, CEO

Aerius Flight LLC 

kbeason@aeriusflight.com

(248) 667-8577
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
Form S-8 (File Nos. 2-0-27648, 333-100120, 333-10648, 333-106400) pertaining
to the 1996 Stock Option Plan and Incentive Plan, 1997 Stock Option and
Incentive Plan, 1998 and 1999 Stock Option Plan and Incentive Plan and 2003
Master Stock Option Plan of VocalTec Communications Ltd. of our report dated
January 29, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of VocalTec Communications Ltd. included in this Annual Report (Form
20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2003.







Tel-Aviv, Israel                        /s/  KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER
March 31, 2004                               A Member of Ernst & Young Global