alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-11249) pertaining to the First USA Paymentech, Inc.
Retirement Savings Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-06979)
pertaining to the First USA, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-02786) pertaining to the First USA Paymentech,
Inc. Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Option Plan and the First USA Paymentech
Inc. Amended and Restated 1996 Restricted Stock Plan, the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-17645) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase
Plan of First USA Paymentech, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-4 No.
333-24859) and related Prospectus of First USA Paymentech, Inc. for the
registration of 4,000,000 shares of its common stock, the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-32697) and related Prospectus of First USA
Paymentech, Inc. for the registration of 360,000 shares of its common stock,
the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-60349) and related Prospectus of
Paymentech, Inc. for the registration of 67,289 shares of its common stock,
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-49519) pertaining to the
Paymentech, Inc. 1996 Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan, and the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-57817) pertaining to the Employee
Stock Purchase Plan of Paymentech, Inc. of our report dated July 23, 1998,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Paymentech, Inc.
incorporated by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
June 30, 1998.
 
                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
 
Dallas, Texas
September 23, 1998
§ 136.240 Permit to proceed. Permission to proceed to another port for repairs (Form CG-948) may be required for a towing vessel that is no longer in compliance with its COI. This permission may be necessary in certain situations, including damage to the vessel, failure of an essential system, or failure to comply with a regulation, including failure to comply with the TSMS requirements, if appropriate. ( a ) *What a vessel with a TSMS must do before proceeding to another port for repairs.* A vessel with a TSMS may proceed to another port for repair, if: ( 1 ) In the judgment of the owner, managing operator, or master, the trip can be completed safely;
( 2 ) The TSMS addresses the condition of the vessel that has resulted in non-compliance and the necessary conditions under which the vessel may safely proceed to another port for repair;
( 3 ) The vessel proceeds as provided in the TSMS and does not tow while proceeding, unless the owner or managing operator determines that it is safe to do so; and
( 4 ) The owner or managing operator notifies the cognizant OCMI in whose zone the non-compliance occurred or is discovered, before the vessel proceeds. The owner or operator must also notify the cognizant OCMI in any other OCMI zones through which the vessel will transit.
( b ) *What another vessel must do before proceeding to another port for repairs.* If a vessel does not have a TSMS, or a vessel has one but it does not address the condition of the vessel that has resulted in non-compliance or the necessary conditions under which the vessel may safely proceed to another port for repair, the owner, managing operator, or master must request permission to proceed from the cognizant OCMI in whose zone the non-compliance occurs or is discovered. This permission operates as follows: ( 1 ) The request for permission to proceed may be made electronically, in writing, or orally. The cognizant OCMI may require a written description, a damage survey, or other documentation to assist in determining the nature and seriousness of the non-compliance.
( 2 ) The vessel will not engage in towing, unless the cognizant OCMI determines it is safe to do so.
( 3 ) The Coast Guard may issue the permit either on Form CG-948, “Permit to Proceed to Another Port for Repairs,” or in letter form, and will state the conditions under which the vessel may proceed to another port for repair.
( c ) *Inspection or examination.* The cognizant OCMI may require an inspection of the vessel by a Coast Guard Marine Inspector or an examination by a surveyor from a TPO prior to the vessel proceeding.
# C_2008124EN.01000401.xml

| 21.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 124/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 124/4

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2008/C 124/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 25.1.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 39/07 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | Calabria, Campania, Puglia, Sicilia, Basilicata, Sardegna, Abruzzo, Molise |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Credito d'imposta per nuovi investimenti nelle aree svantaggiate |
| Legal basis | L. 27-12-2006, n. 298, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (Legge finanziaria 2007), articolo 1, commi da 271 a 279 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Regional development |
| Form of aid | Tax advantage |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 750 million
  Overall budget: EUR 4 500 million |
| Intensity | 40 % |
| Duration | 1.1.2007-31.12.2013 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministero dell'Economia e delle finanze |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

25.1.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 39/07

Member State

Italy

Region

Calabria, Campania, Puglia, Sicilia, Basilicata, Sardegna, Abruzzo, Molise

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Credito d'imposta per nuovi investimenti nelle aree svantaggiate

Legal basis

L. 27-12-2006, n. 298, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (Legge finanziaria 2007), articolo 1, commi da 271 a 279

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Regional development

Form of aid

Tax advantage

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 750 million

Overall budget: EUR 4 500 million

Intensity

40 %

Duration

1.1.2007-31.12.2013

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministero dell'Economia e delle finanze

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
§ 132.340 Equipment installed although not required. ( a ) A vessel may install fire extinguishing equipment beyond that required by this subchapter, unless the excess equipment in any way endangers the vessel or the persons aboard. This equipment must be listed and labeled by an independent, nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL) as that term is defined in 46 CFR 161.002-2, and must be designed, installed, tested, and maintained in accordance with an appropriate industry standard and the manufacturer's specific guidance.
( b ) Use of non-approved fire detection systems may be acceptable as excess equipment, provided that: ( 1 ) Components are listed and labeled by an NRTL as that term is defined in 46 CFR 161.002-2, and are designed, installed, tested, and maintained in accordance with an appropriate industry standard and the manufacturer's specific guidance;
( 2 ) Installation conforms to the requirements of 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter J (Electrical Engineering), especially the hazardous location electrical installation regulations in 46 CFR 111.105; and
( 3 ) Coast Guard plan review is completed for wiring plans.
[USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48272, July 22, 2016]
#### § 673.2 Scope.

The requirements in this part apply to non-governmental expeditions to or within Antarctica for which the United States is required to give advance notice under Paragraph (5) of Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty.
#### Isaac McDougall, *Appellant, v.*Edmund P. Wait, Respondent.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. *Held,*that'the agreement is not within'the statute of frauds, as it was fully executed on the part of the plaintiff at the time when it was made; that if the agreement were void by the statute, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover back the money paid by him to the defendant, and that as to all other questions the case is controlled by that of *Grover*v. *Wait*(59 N. *Y.,*156).
Exhibit 10.1


 


		 	P.O. Box 76, Building 37
	 	1st Avenue,
    North of Cermak Road, Hines, IL 60141
	 	www.fss.va.gov
	 	 
	 	In Reply Refer To: 003B6B


 


06/01/2020


 


Conrad Mir, President & CEO


Calmare Therapeutics Incorporated


1375 Kings Hwy, STE 400


Fairfield, CT, 06824 -5380


 


RE: Department of Veterans Affairs - Federal Supply Schedule:
Contract Award


 


Dear Mr. Mir:


 


Congratulations! Enclosed is your Federal Supply Schedule (FSS)
Contract 36F79720D01181, effective 06/15/2020 through 06/14/2025. The items are awarded under
Schedule 65 II A - Medical Equipment and Supplies under Federal Supply Schedule Solicitation RFP-797-FSS-99 -0025-R9.
This letter outlines the initial requirements of your newly awarded contract and also provides information on several clauses
that you should be aware of for future contract actions.


 


For reference, much of the information in this letter including
the documents referenced in the attached Contract Requirements and Reminders section are available via the Federal Supply Schedule
Web Portal: www.fss.va.gov.


 


	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 






  


Sincerely,


 


	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 





 


Contract Specialist


Federal Supply Schedule Service


http://www.fss.va.gov


 


	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 


 


 


 





 






1 The use of this Government contract to solicit Government
business for non-contract products/services is fraudulent and subject to prosecution.


 


	Rev: Sep 2018	Visit VA FSS Online: www.fss.va.gov
Methyl Bromide Pre-phaseoutInventory16,422 MT12,994 MT9,974 MT7,941 MT6,458 MT4,271 MT3,064 MT1,803 MT1,249 MT627 MT357 MT158 MT02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,0002003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Methyl Bromide (MT)End of Year InventoryValues are for the amount of methyl bromide producedusingproduction allowances prior to 2005 and remaining in inventoryat the end of that year.
----

| (1)    | the      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended      December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| (2)    | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company.                                                                                                                   |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

| Dated:      February 23, 2010 | /s/  Patrick J.      Goodman                 |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Patrick      J. Goodman                                |
|                          | Senior      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                          | (principal      financial officer)                     |

----
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of January 1, 2007: 

A closed meeting will be held on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 2 p.m. 

Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. 

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (4), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a) (3), (4), (5), (7), (8), (9)(ii), and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. 

Commissioner Campos, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session. 

The subject matters of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 4, 2007 will be: 

Formal orders of investigation; 

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; 

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; 

An adjudicatory matter; 

Regulatory matters regarding financial institutions; and 

Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings. 

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

Dated: December 28, 2006. 

Jill M. Peterson, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 06-9968 Filed 12-28-06; 10:58 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7917

MICHAEL ANTHONY EPPS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

DOCTOR STAMPLER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

District Judge. (5:06-ct-03076-D)

Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: May 16, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Epps, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Epps appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Epps v. North Carolina Dep’t of Corr., No.

5:06-ct-03076-D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 31, 2006). We deny Epps’ motion to

remand to file an amended complaint. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 96.53 Length of withholding.

Under the low-income home energy assistance program and community services block grant, the Department may withhold funds until the Department finds that the reason for the withholding has been removed.

[64 FR 55857, Oct. 15, 1999]
FILED: February 23, 2016

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 15-1455

(1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD)

___________________

STOP RECKLESS ECONOMIC INSTABILITY CAUSED BY DEMOCRATS, 

("Stop Reid"); TEA PARTY LEADERSHIP FUND; ALEXANDRIA 

REPUBLICAN CITY COMMITTEE

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

AMERICAN FUTURE PAC

 Intervenor/Plaintiff - Appellant

and

NIGER INNIS; NIGER INNIS FOR CONGRESS

 Plaintiffs

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

 Defendant - Appellee

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Appeal: 15-1455 Doc: 33-2 Filed: 02/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 Total Pages:(3 of 4)
In accordance with the decision of this court, the judgment of the district 

court is affirmed in part and vacated in part. This case is remanded to the district 

court for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

This judgment shall take effect upon issuance of this court's mandate in 

accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 41. 

/s/ PATRICIA S. CONNOR, CLERK

Appeal: 15-1455 Doc: 33-2 Filed: 02/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 Total Pages:(4 of 4)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DAWN MAY JACKSON, 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 14-CV-13323 

 

v. Honorable Patrick J. Duggan 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and REMANDING FOR FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 

 On August 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit challenging the final decision 

of the Commissioner denying her application for supplemental security income. 

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which were referred to 

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. 

 On June 19, 2015, Magistrate Judge Whalen issued a Report and 

Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the Court (1) grant Plaintiff’s motion 

for summary judgment to the extent it seeks remand, (2) deny Defendant’s motion 

for summary judgment, and (3) remand the case for further proceedings pursuant to 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate 

2:14-cv-13323-PJD-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 07/13/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 580
2

Judge Whalen advised the parties that they may object and seek review of the R&R 

within fourteen days. R&R at 19 (ECF No. 17). He further specifically advised 

the parties that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any 

further right of appeal.” Id. Neither party has filed objections to the R&R, and the 

time to do so has expired. 

 The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions 

reached by the Magistrate Judge. The Court therefore adopts the Magistrate 

Judge’s R&R. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is 

GRANTED to the extent it seeks a remand; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter is remanded for further 

proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN 

Dated: July 13, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to: 

John I. Tsiros, Esq. 

Derri T. Thomas, Esq. 

Lucy A. Bezdek, Esq. 

2:14-cv-13323-PJD-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 07/13/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 581
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1



RESONANT INC. 
AMENDMENT NO. 4 
TO 
AMENDED AND RESTATED 
2014 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN
This Amendment No. 4 (this “Amendment”) to the Resonant Inc. Amended and Restated 2014 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is effective as of June 9, 2020, by action of the Board of Directors of Resonant Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).
1.    Section 3.1(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:
“(a) Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 12.2, a total of 14,950,000 Shares shall be authorized for grant under the Plan (the “Maximum Plan Shares”). Any Shares that are subject to Awards shall be counted against this limit as one (1) Share for every one (1) Share granted.”
I hereby certify that the foregoing Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on March 10, 2020, and approved by the stockholders of the Company at a meeting held on June 9, 2020.
Executed as of June 9, 2020    RESONANT INC.
By:    /s/ Martin S. McDermut     
    Name:    Martin S. McDermut 
    Its:    Chief Financial Officer
#### Smith v. Sergent.

*Evidence—personal transactions with deceased person*— *supposition of witness*— *admissions of privy.*

In an action by an executor upon a note given by defendant to testator, the defense was that,the note had been given by the testator before death to defendant’s wife, and a new note had, at testator’s request, been given therefor by defendant to his wife. At the trial defendant testified that he had seen the note in his wife’s possession. *Held,*not a personal transaction between defendant and testator, and not inadmissible under Code, § 399,

A witness for defendant who had drawn up an assignment of the note from the testator to defendant’s wife, which was not executed, was asked, “ Did you suppose it (the assignment) was signed by C. (the testator) at the time ?” To which he answered “Yes.” *Held,*inadmissible. The supposition of the witness was not a fact by which the rights of the testator or his representatives should be affected.

Admissions of defendant’s wife that she did noi, own the note *held*competent as against defendant. *Waring*v. *Warren,*i Johns. 340; *Smith*v. *Webb,*1 Barb. 230 ; *Paige*v. *Oagwin,*7 Hill, 361; *Booth*v. *Swezey,*8 N. Y. 279, 280 ; *Poster*v. *Beals,*21 id. *247-249; Johnson*v. *Hicks,*1 Lans. 158.

Motion for a new trial upon a ease, and exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance at general term. The action was brought by Charles S. Smith as executor of the last will and testar ment of Henry J. Corbin, deceased, against Alvin D. Sergent, upon a note given by defendant to *plaintiff’s*testator. The case was tried at the Chenango circuit and a verdict rendered for defendant.

*H. G. Prindle,*for plaintiff.

*Isaac 8. Newton,*for defendant.

Boches, J.

The opinion is devoted to a review of the evidence. The only points of any importance passed upon are fully noticed in the head-note.

*New trial granted.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_______________________________

Plaintiff

vs. Civil Action No.___________

____________________________________

Defendant

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given this day of , 20 , that

hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from

the judgment of this Court entered on the day of , 20 

in favor of

against said

__________________________________________

 Attorney or Pro Se Litigant

(Pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure a notice of appeal in a civil

action must be filed within 30 days after the date of entry of judgment or 60 days if the United

States or officer or agency is a party)

CLERK Please mail copies of the above Notice of Appeal to the following at the addresses

indicated:

Independence Institute

Federal Election Commission

14-1500-CKK

8th October 14

6th October 14

Federal Election Commission

Plaintiff.

Federal Election Commission

ATTN: Erin R. Chlopak, Acting Assistant General Counsel

ATTN: Michael A. Columbo, Attorney

999 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20436

Plaintiff Independence Institute

s/ Allen Dickerson

Case 1:14-cv-01500-CKK Document 25 Filed 10/08/14 Page 1 of 1