alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23

P & F INDUSTRIES, INC.        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

P &
F Industries, Inc.
Farmingdale, New York

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of P & F Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form S-8 filed on
February 18, 1997 and June 14, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, of our report dated March 5, 2004 on the consolidated financial statements and schedule
of the Company appearing in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

New York, New York
March 25, 2004

---

QuickLinks
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARK LOUIS NEBEL; AMY LEE 

NEBEL, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

LAWRENCE J. WARFIELD, Chapter 7 

Trustee, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-16350 

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-08240-GMS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

G. Murray Snow, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 4, 2019**

Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Before filing a Chapter 7 petition, Mark and Amy Nebel paid the fees for their 

daughter to attend an out-of-state ballet camp and bought airline tickets for her. The 

daughter attended the camp post-filing. The bankruptcy court ordered the Nebels to

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 5 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

reimburse the estate the amount paid for the camp tuition and tickets. The court also 

ordered turnover of 25% of any salary subsequently received by the Nebels from 

their employer for paid time off (“PTO”) accrued as of the date of filing. The district 

court affirmed the turnover order. We have jurisdiction of the Nebels’ appeal of the 

district court order under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) and affirm.

1. The Nebels do not dispute on appeal that their contractual interests in the 

tuition for the camp and airline tickets are property of the Chapter 7 estate. They 

argue instead that because the tuition payment and airline tickets are non-refundable 

and cannot be liquidated, they are of inconsequential value to the estate. But, the 

absence of a third-party buyer for an estate asset does not establish that it has no 

value. See Nichols v. Birdsell, 491 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2007) (involving nontransferable tax credits). Because the assets at issue in this case were in fact used by 

the Nebels post-petition, the bankruptcy court did not err in treating their value as 

the amount the Nebels paid for them. See Stoumbos v. Kilimnik, 988 F.2d 949, 956–

57 (9th Cir. 1993).

2. The Nebels do not dispute that the accrued PTO payments are assets of the 

estate. See In re Reyerson, 739 F.2d 1423, 1425–426 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that 

pre-petition employment benefits are property of the estate). Instead, they argue that 

the bankruptcy court should have ordered abandonment of these assets because their 

maximum value was $2,297. But, the Nebels did not seek abandonment below. Nor 
3 

is abandonment mandated because collection of the assets might involve reopening 

of the estate. The decision whether to order abandonment is left to the sound 

discretion of the bankruptcy court. See Johnston v. Webster, 49 F.3d 538, 540 (9th 

Cir. 1995). The court did not abuse that discretion here, as collection of the PTO, if 

received, would impose minimal costs on the estate.

AFFIRMED.
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 19, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. 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 3, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 286 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-604, CP2024-612.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-21299 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Petition for exemption under section 333

I am writing to petition for exemption of Section 333 regarding Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). I am 

the owner of Bongo Ray Productions. I am an event, concert, sports and wedding photographer and 

videographer. I would like exemption from Section 333 to use my UAS for commercial use. My intent is 

to utilize my DJI Phantom 2 UAS for commercial use for videography and photography for, but not 

limited to; concerts, events, weddings, commercials, etc.

Proposed Safe Operation

I currently have 1.5 years of safe UAS flight experience with zero incidents. A preflight safety checklist is 

performed before every take off. I ensure proper compass calibration, GPS signal acquisition and test 

verification of each flight control before flight. This minimizes risk to persons or property on the ground 

and ensures the UAS is in condition for safe flight.

UAS Technical Information

DJI Phantom 2 General Features

 Multifunctional Quad-rotor System

 Precision Flight and Stable Hovering

 Auto Return-to-Home & Landing

 Self-tightening Propellers

Aircraft Technical Specs

Weight (Battery & Propellers Included) 1000g (2.2 lbs)

Hover Accuracy (Ready To Fly) Vertical: 2.62 ft

Horizontal: 8.2 ft

Max Ascent / Descent Speed Ascent: 13.4 mph; Descent: 4.47 mph

Max Flight Speed 15m/s (33 mph)

Diagonal Length 13.78 in

Flight Time 25mins

Take-Off Weight ≤1300g (2.87 lbs)

Operating Temperature -10°C ~ 50°C

Remote Control Specs

Operating Frequency 2.4GHz ISM

Communication Distance (Open Area) 1000m (3280 ft)

Receiver Sensitivity (1%PER) -97dBm

Working Current/Voltage 120 mA@3.7V

Built-In LiPo Battery Working Current/Capacity 3.7V, 2000mAh

Go Pro Hero 4 Video Camera 

Weight: 2.93 oz (

Media Type: Flash Card

All equipment complies with FCC requirements

Intended UAS use:
Petition for exemption under section 333

As previously stated the UAS will be utilized to carry a Go Pro Hero 4 camera to capture video and 

photographs intended for sale by Bongo Ray Productions. The video and photos will be used in wedding, 

concert and promotional media. This media will be provided to clients for their use. 

The UAS will NOT be flown in the following conditions:

 Near manned aircraft

 Flown beyond line of sight of the operator

 Flown contrary to aeromodeling community-based safety guidelines

 Flown within 5 miles of an airport

Sincerely,

Raymond Jones

Owner

Bongo Ray Productions
| INDIANA                                        |   0-17071      | 35-1544218                        |
|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (Commission File Number) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

----

| Item 2.03. | Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant. |
|------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

| (d)    | (4.1) Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, dated as of June 30, 2010;             |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (4.2) Indenture, dated as of June 30, 2010;                                             |
|   | (4.3) First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 30, 2010                           |
|   | (4.4) Guarantee Agreement, dated as of June 30, 2010;                                   |
|   | (4.5) Form of Capital Securities Certificate of First Merchants Capital Trust III; |
|   | (10.1) Exchange Agreement, dated as of June 30, 2010;                                   |
|   | (99.1) Press Release, dated July 2, 2010                                                |

----

----

| 4.1 Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, dated as of June 30, 2010;             |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 4.2 Indenture, dated as of June 30, 2010;                                             |
| 4.3 First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 30, 2010                           |
| 4.4 Guarantee Agreement, dated as of June 30, 2010;                                   |
| 4.5 Form of Capital Securities Certificate of First Merchants Capital Trust III; |
| 10.1 Exchange Agreement, dated as of June 30, 2010;                                   |
| 99.1 Press Release, dated July 2, 2010                                                |

----
# C_2022145EN.01000201.xml

| 1.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10644 – TOWERBROOK CAPITAL PARTNERS / NEW MOUNTAIN CAPITAL / CLOUDMED SOLUTIONS / R1 RCM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 145/02)

On 29 March 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10644. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10644. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CAFETERIA OPERATORS, L.P. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED JULY 1, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-1997
<CASH>                                           4,457
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      501
<ALLOWANCES>                                        23
<INVENTORY>                                      5,771
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,977
<PP&E>                                         105,888
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,527
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,990
<BONDS>                                         66,401
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,075)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,262
<SALES>                                         97,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,140
<CGS>                                           29,344
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,344
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                67,770
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (108)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (108)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Roosevelt J. Jones, Appellant

No. 06

- 16

- 00037

- CV v.

Plains Pipeline, L.P., a Texas Limited Partnership, Appellee Appeal from the 402nd District Court of Wood County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 20 15

- 687 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed

for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, we dismiss the appe al.

We further order that the appellant, Roosevelt J. Jones, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JANUARY 5, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autr ey, Clerk
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: August 7, 2014 518139

________________________________ In the Matter of the Claim of WORRELL BAILEY, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BEN CICCONE, INC., et al., Appellants. WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: May 28, 2014 Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________ Hamberger & Weiss, Rochester (Ronald E. Weiss of counsel), for appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Segall of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.

__________ Rose, J. Appeals from a decision and an amended decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed October 25, 2012 and March 21, 2013, which, among other things, directed the employer's workers' compensation carrier to make a deposit into the aggregate trust fund pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 27 (2). In a prior decision, this Court affirmed an award of benefits to claimant, who developed consequential neuromuscular disease and an anxiety disorder after contracting Lyme disease-2- 518139

during the course of his employment (104 AD3d 1017, 1017-1018 [2013]). The Workers' Compensation Board has since classifiedclaimant as permanently totally disabled as a result of his workrelated injury and directed the employer's workers' compensation carrier to deposit the present value of unpaid benefits, $341,123.64, into the aggregate trust fund. The employer and carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the employer) appeal. We affirm. The employer argues that the Board erred by imposing a mandatory, rather than discretionary, deposit into the aggregate trust fund because claimant was not classified with a statutory permanent total disability under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (1). The employer concedes, however, that it did not raise this issue either before the Workers' Compensation Law Judge or in its initial application for review by the Board panel, and the Board did not address it. While the employer did raise the issue in an application for rehearing and/or full Board review, a party's arguments addressed to full Board review are not preserved by its appeal from a Board panel decision (see Matter of Rogers v Community Health Ctr., 299 AD2d 604, 605 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 508 [2003]). Nor does the appeal from the amended decision bring the issue up for review. Rather, our review of that decision is limited to determining whether the denial of full Board review was arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Barone v Interstate Maintenance Corp., 73 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2010]; Matter of D'Errico v New York City Dept. of Corrections, 65 AD3d 795, 795-796 [2009], appeal dismissed 13 NY3d 899 [2009]), an issue that has not been addressed in the employer's briefs. Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Devine, JJ., concur.-3- 518139

ORDERED that the decision and amended decision are affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 1719

BINIAM OKBATSEN HABTEMICHAEL , Petitioner ,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : January 28, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022

Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Michael G. Andegeorgis, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL G. ANDEGEORGIS, Washington, D

. C

. , for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Deputy Director, Nancy N. Safavi, Summer G. Zofrea, Office of Immigration Litigation , Civil Division , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Biniam Okbatsen Habtemichael , a native and citizen of Eritrea , petitions for review

of an order of the Bo ard of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition for review.

We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evid ence. Diaz de Gomez v.
Wilkinson , 987 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir. 2021). Factual findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)

. Legal issues are reviewed de novo. Diaz de Gomez , 987 F.3d at 363. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Habtemichael was not persecuted on account of an imputed political opinion. We further conclude that the Board did not legally err in its analysis of whether an imputed political opinion was one central reason for Habtemichael’s past persecution and fear of future persecution. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequ ately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 August 3, 2004 
  
 A. Catherine Lawler 
 229 Fairfield Drive 
 Winchester, VA 22602 
  

	 	Re:	Addendum to Release and Severance Agreement between A. Catherine Lawler and Trex Company, Inc. dated July 15, 2004 (the “Agreement”) 

  
 Dear Cathy, 
  
 We have received your proposed Addendum to the Agreement dated July 30, 2004. We are generally in agreement with it subject to a few minor
modifications. We would propose that Section 2 of the Agreement be relabeled as Section 2(a), and a new Section 2(b) be added to the Agreement as follows, to provide the following potential additional severance pay: 
  
 2. (b) In the event that the Employee has not obtained new employment as of
the end of the 26 week period described in Section 2(a) above, Employee’s salary shall be extended on a 2-week by 2-week basis for a maximum 26 additional weeks. If the Employee has not secured employment prior to the expiration of the initial
26-week period, she will notify Trex in writing and this addendum subsection will become effective. During such extended period, within 2 days after the end of each 2-week period, Employee shall send a notice to Colleen Combs, Trex’s Director
of Human Resources, verifying that Employee has continued to use best efforts to actively seek employment during such 2-week period. Upon confirmation by Trex, in its sole discretion, that Employee has continued to use best efforts to actively seek
employment during such period, Employee shall receive salary due hereunder for such period. The Employee shall immediately notify Trex in writing as soon as she has accepted an offer for employment. As of the date of such acceptance, the extended
salary will terminate. All salary will terminate at the end of the extended 26-week period described herein regardless of whether Employee has secured employment or not. For purposes of clarification, only salary shall be potentially extended
pursuant to this Section 2(b), and no other severance benefit, including health insurance, shall be extended. At the Company’s sole discretion, it may extend out-placement services for an additional period of time. 
  









 For purposes of clarification, we agree that the 26 week period described in Section 2(a) of the Agreement shall begin on
August 9, 2004. Any salary received by Employee during the period of July 15, 2004 and August 9, 2004 will be considered an additional severance benefit. 
  
 If you are in agreement with this amendment, please sign on the next page where indicated, and return one copy of this letter to me. 
  

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	 TREX COMPANY, INC.

	
	 /s/ Robert G. Matheny

	 Robert G. Matheny

	 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



  

	
	 AGREED

	
	 /s/ A. Catherine Lawler

	 A. Catherine Lawler