alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-58570) pertaining to the 1983
Incentive Stock Option Plan of Intrusion Inc. and the 1987 Incentive Stock Option Plan of Intrusion Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8,
No. 333-60928) and the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-57948) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan of Intrusion Inc., as
amended, the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-34484) and the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-90408)
pertaining to the 1995 Non-employee Director Stock Option Plan of Intrusion Inc., as amended, the Registration Statement (Form S-8,
No. 33-42927) pertaining to the 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Intrusion Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-80898)
pertaining to the 401(k) Savings Plan of Intrusion Inc. and the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-53813) pertaining to the Essential Communication
Corporation 1996 Stock Option Plan of our report dated January 30, 2004, except for Note 13 for which the date is March 25, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Intrusion Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/
KBA Group LLP KBA Group LLPDallas, Texas
August 6, 2004

---



QuickLinks
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- 

### 2011-0478 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2010-NM-138 -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here Work-hours

(include

access, testing,

and close-up) Labor

cost

(@$85/h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### 6.0 $ 510.00 

### $0 $ 510.00 

### 3 $1,530.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,530



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work-hours

(include access,

testing, and closeup) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### 6.0 $ 510.00 

### $0 $ 510.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO

*Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES* NO

*Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a s ubstantial number of small entities? Explain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO



### * Explanation 

### :
From: redcrane1@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:45:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Wlburn Crane

Mc Calla, AL 35111
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

            We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement [Form S-3 No. 333-68899] and in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement [Form S-3 No. 333-6131] and related Prospectus of Cover-All
Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries for the registration of 2,500,000 and of
6,591,528 shares, respectively, of its common stock of our report dated March
20, 2000, with respect to the 1999, 1998 and 1997 consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Cover-All Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries
included in its Annual Report [Form 10-K/A] for the year ended December 31,
1999.

            We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement [Form S-8 No. 333-44119] pertaining to the 1995 Employee
Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement [Form S-8 No. 33-18243]
pertaining to the 1982 Incentive Stock Option Plan and in the Registration
Statement [Form S-8 No. 33-44270] pertaining to the 1991 Key Employee Stock
Option Plan, the 1988 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan and certain
Non-Qualified Stock Option Contracts, and in the related Prospectus of Cover-All
Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated March 20, 2000, with
respect to the 1999, 1998 and 1997 consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Cover-All Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries included in its Annual
Report [Form 10-K/A] for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                        MOORE STEPHENS, P. C.
                                        Certified Public Accountants.

Cranford, New Jersey
May 1, 2000
DISCLAIMER The full text of certain NPDES perm its and the asso ciated fact sheets has been m a de available to provide online access to this public inform ation. EPA is m aking perm its and fact sheets available electronically to provide convenient access for inte rested public parties and as a reference for perm it writers. The ownership of these docum ents lies with the perm itting authority , typically a State with an authorized NPDES program

. While EPA m akes every effort to ensure that this web site rem a ins current and contains the final version of the active perm it, we cannot guarantee it is so. For exam ple, there m ay be som e delay in posting m odifications m a de after a perm it is i ssued. Also note that not all active perm its are currently available electronically

. Only perm its and fact sheets for which the full text has been provided to Headquarters by the perm itting authoritym ay be m a de available. Headquarters has requested the full text only for perm its as they are issued or reissued, beginning Novem b er 1, 2002. Please contact the appropriate perm itting authority (either a State or EPA Regional office) prior to acting on this inform ation to ensure y ou have th e m o st up-to-date perm it and/or fact sheet. EPA recognizes the official version of a perm it or fact sheet to be the version designated as such and appropriately stored by the respective perm itting authority

. The docum ents are gathered from all perm itting authorities, and all docum ents thus obtained are m a de available electronically , with no screening for com p leteness or quality

. Thus, availability on the website does not constitute endorsem ent by EPA.
Before the Second Division,

November 23, 1965

No. 69622.

#### J. C. De Jong & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/23837, etc. (New York).

*480Opinion by

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pole ends similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. C. De Jong & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 26, C.A.D. 852), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: kjackson@ahphealthcare.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:50:38 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kristen Jackson

Winder, GA 30680
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

▲★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/07

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL
(R.D. 11423)

#### Parsons & Whittemore, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 12, 1967)

*Sharp, Solter & Hutchison*for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

3. ■ That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.'

*8046. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

*7.*That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         September 21, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 15, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 54 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2023-269, CP2023-272.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-20412 Filed 9-20-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Rodriguez, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 649]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), rendered November 29, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the second degree (four counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenges to various remarks made by the prosecutor during trial and summation are unpreserved for appellate review inasmuch as no objections were raised to any of the comments in question *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Bynum,*
      *70070 NY2d 858; *People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818; *People v Haramura,*186 AD2d 676; *People v Sansevero,*185 AD2d 256; *People v Okon,*184 AD2d 664).

Moreover, the trial court did not err in limiting the defendant’s cross-examination of the People’s witness regarding the physical appearance of the defendant’s brother. Even though a defendant has a right to introduce evidence that a person other than himself committed the crime *(see, Chambers v Mississippi,*410 US 284), the evidence must do more than raise a mere suspicion that another person committed the crime. There must be a clear link between the third party and the crime *(see, People v Austin,*112 AD2d 242; *People v Aulet,*111 AD2d 822; *see also, Greenfield v People,*85 NY 75, 90; *People v Brown,*133 AD2d 773, 774). Since the defense counsel failed to discharge his burden of making a specific offer of proof as to the admissibility of the testimony after the People’s objections thereto, the court’s ruling was proper *(see,*Fisch, New York Evidence § 22, at 14 [2d ed]; *People v Zambrano,*114 AD2d 872; *People v Austin, supra,*at 243).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.
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 annual report of UCI Medical Affiliates, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, D. Michael Stout, M.D., President
and Chief Executive Officer of the UCI Medical Affiliates, Inc., certify to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

     1. The  above-listed  Form 10-K 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 above-listed Form 10-K fairly presents, in
     all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
     the Company.

Date: November 30, 2004                      /s/ D. Michael Stout, M.D.
                                             D. Michael Stout, M.D.
                                             President & Chief Executive Officer
From: Hedda Smithson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Institute of Medicine recommendations

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:23:21 PM

Hello,

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you 

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to 

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any 

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical 

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to 

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women 

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all 

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even 

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to 

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be 

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all 

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to 

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption 

provisions.

To follow the same logic, I might refuse to pay for insurance to help people who

have chosen life styles of which I disapprove - for example, eating too much, not

exercising, driving unsafely, etc.

Hedda Smithson

"If you get a chance, take it. If it changes your life, let it."
Exhibit 10

[PNC Bank Letterhead]



October 17, 2002



inTEST Corporation et al.
7 Esterbrook Lane
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Attention: Hugh T. Regan, Jr.Re:	Renewal of Expiration Date for Committed Line of Credit
Dear Hugh:
We are pleased to inform you that your committed line of credit has been renewed. The Expiration Date, as set forth in that certain Letter Agreement dated May 29, 2002, and in the Amended and Restated Committed Line of Credit Note executed and delivered pursuant to that Letter Agreement, has been extended from February 28, 2004 to September 30, 2004. All other terms and conditions of the Amended and Restated Committed Line of Credit Note and the Letter Agreement remain in full force and effect.
It has been a pleasure working with you and I look forward to a continued successful relationship. Thank you again for your business.
Very truly yours,
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
By: /s/ Gary R. Martz       Gary R. Martz
       Assistant Vice President
No. 207.

#### Arlene Coats *v.*United States.

*Edwin J. McDermott*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Guiljoyle*and *Morton Hollander*for the United States.

Court of Claims. Certiorari denied.