alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 15

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

We are aware that our report dated December 12, 1997 on our reviews of interim
financial information of HEI, Inc. (the Company) for the three-month periods
ended November 29, 1997 and November 30, 1996, and included in the Company's
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended November 29, 1997, is incorporated by
reference in the Company's registration statements on Form S-8 (Registration
Nos. 33-33322, 33-46928 and 33-46929).  Pursuant to Rule 436 (c), under the
Securities Act of 1993, this report should not be considered a part of the
registration statements prepared or certified by us within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.




/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
January 12, 1998
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

ROBERT WILLIAMS, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 118 EM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2014, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Brown Lab Investments, LLC, Joel Katz and Andrea Katz v. Lane 

Moesser

Appellate case number: 01-21-00668-CV

Trial court case number: 2016-35154

Trial court: 190th District Court of Harris County

Appellee has filed an unopposed motion to supplement volume 22 of the reporter’s record

with portions of an omitted transcript from a March 5, 2021 arbitration hearing. Appellee relies 

on Rule 34.6(e) to permit the supplementation without the court reporter’s certification because 

volume 22 is inaccurate. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(e). 

Because appellee seeks to supplement the reporter’s record with omitted materials, 

appellee must follow Rule 34.6(d), which states, “If anything relevant is omitted from the 

reporter’s record . . . the appellate court, or any party may by letter direct the official court reporter 

to prepare, certify, and file in the appellate court a supplemental reporter’s record containing the 

omitted items.” TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(d). Accordingly, we deny appellee’s motion. Appellee may 

request the court reporter to file the supplemental reporter’s record in compliance with Rule 

34.6(d).

 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Sherry Radack________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___July 21, 2022_______
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
       SUBSIDIARY NAME                        STATE OF INCORPORATION   % OWNED
       ---------------                        ----------------------   -------
<S>                                           <C>                      <C>
Associated Pharmacies, Inc. (inactive)             Arkansas              100%

VC Services, Inc.                                  Minnesota             100%

Pharmaceutical Buyers, Inc.                        Arkansas              70%

Jaron, Inc.                                        Florida               100%

D & K Receivables Corporation                      Delaware              100%

Jewett Drug Co.                                    South Dakota          100%

Tykon, Inc.                                        Wisconsin             100%

Southwest Computer Systems, Inc. (inactive)        Arkansas              100%

U.P.C., Inc. (inactive)                            Minnesota             100%

Diversified Healthcare, LLC                        Kentucky              100%
</TABLE>

                                       48
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Form S-3No. 333-52820 dated December 27, 2000, Form S-8 No. 333-40674 dated June 30,2000, and Form S-8 No. 333-92607 dated December 10, 1999, of Online ResourcesCorporation and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated February 11, 2003,except for Note 15, as to which the date is February 26, 2003, with respect to thefinancial statements and of our report dated February 11, 2003 with respect to theschedule of Online Resources Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended December 31, 2002.
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
McLean, Virginia
**Exhibit 10.7**

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (the“Amendment”) is made this 31st day of December 2008 between BIOMET, INC., an Indiana corporation (“Biomet”), and Roger P. Van Broeck (“Executive”). All capitalized terms used herein shall have themeanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement (defined below), unless otherwise defined herein. 

WHEREAS, Biomet and Executiveentered into that certain Employment Agreement dated as of February 1, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, Biomet and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein; 

NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Biomet and Executive hereby agree as follows: 

1. Section 9(e):****Termination by the Company Other Than For Cause, Death or Disability, or by the Executive for Good Reason, Following aChange of Control. Section 9(e)(i) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to delete the final sentence of Section 9(e)(i) in its entirety and replace it with the following: 

“The total amount of the Change of Control Severance Benefit will be paid: (1) if the Change in Control constitutes a change in control eventwithin the meaning of Treasury Regulation 1.409A-3(i)(5), in a lump sum as soon as administratively practicable (but in no event later than 30 days) following the Date of Termination or (2) if the Change of Control does not constitute a changein control event within the meaning of Treasury Regulation 1.409A-3(i)(5), in equal, ratable installments in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll policies over the course of the Non-Compete Period.” 

2. Miscellaneous. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendmentmay be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

*    *    *    *    * 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this First Amendment to Employment Agreement on thedate first set forth above. 

 
BIOMET, INC.By: 
/s/ Bradley J. Tandy
Name: Bradley J. TandyTitle: Senior Vice President, General Counsel & SecretaryEXECUTIVE
/s/ Roger P. Van Broeck
Name: Roger P. Van Broeck
_... ......... ----------~-

REF ID:A99780 

2 JAN 1959 

1. I ~er to., '111' to JOU date4 5 Decmber 1958 no•neAdta,e that 9ecurlty,, 

w:eomj,ie.n:led w a~-~ the ottlce or ~t1w lerrit:el\ "flsit Mr. 

W1.l.lim PrJ.edman. ~bl pl.'rllO&e wou14 be to Jl'ft:>CUl'e t'.rom h1• ;posseaa1on. a-taU ehl e 

Jeea:i claaaitied m.te:rta1 -4. otber llC)19l'WAt ;publle&t1ona lJealSag VS.th eJ7,Pf'.ognt;!by mw C·:>Mic1eredl CCRF'll:a'l'IAL *1.eh lae mu.14 agree coul4 'be helc1 at RSA 4\lriag 

ld8 a'baence .trm tm· countey. I: 'Yi.tted. JllL. fz1.edmaa at Jd.• hclme, &ee3J11>8DSed _. 11r. GUlla oi' la u.d. Mr. Cook of rq offlce on tM aftemoon o~ 30 Pacember 1958. 

llr'. PrleZDn a4"f:l.ae4. that all elwlt1e4 ~l -ter:IAJ. 111 ht.ti JIOIJ&eGS10D Jiu been 

ftturllec! to the Apaey aa4 18 'bl!1l8 he.14 in • •l)e01al -.ta at the 9"9l!Ll 9eeur1V 

atat1011. Jle -..le &'trd.lele Dl.IDm'Qua p.tbllcationa cleaJ.in6 ..S.th C1"1P~ 1a hia 

JOSBess!OD 11hieh ... mow be CODS1dere4 cl.u.attied COIFill&:ifi'IAL. Dd.• materiel :f.• ~ tn"Ventor1ed. .. a 1.mber ot tbe Ill -4 leeur1t7 a4 an eppa.'Opriate rece.l,pt at 

the irlw:itoey vlll ba- torwa:rdct\ t.o ... P.rie4ma::l. '1'be a.ter1&l. v1ll 'be belc\ ._. tbe 

/ID tor Mr .. Pr.ledman, a.toaa 'Id.th the other •tei-1al. *1.cb :be ball ret\ll'Zlle.1 to the 

~I· 

2. 11r. Prle"8ma 101ce<l :ao obJections to 111" takfac thi• •te:r1al, .bo•r'le1", tt 

ma q"'1te oln1oua tblit be felt deepl,y Jwrt llD4 tbat 'the .te1al ._. 'be.11'3 taJr..en 

ror rea.eou other tb.r:!Zl 81cur1tJ". Be stated tho.t tb1e material det\la v:lth tbe 

ld.at.or;r ~ CZ'J'Pt.0#8&"1' tm4. 8bouJ.4 belong to the 1'11er1caa peop.J..e.. Be rwk.ed 

tba't. the .D1rector a'bc1ul4 =v that be 'S)U].d mt publ tab wq ~ tb1.& Sntormat:lon 

1t ttmt 1118 tbe llitld.le ot tbo DI.rector· Jffo .. l"r.l.edmrm ;poillted out tbat a.rt 6 

ot Daplrt.:aent ot Dlt:tenae llU'ectlve S2<)0.1 dated 8 ~ l.957 Clea.ta with the •cv1ty ~ claasitied cammm1cat1ona. JJe teela tbat this :reten a,pec.tticaJ.:cy' to cl'7,Pt.o 

~or tbl tl11te4 lltatea, :aot tbe crnto qaatems ~ otJ:ae:r •tiom. Be stated 

ttlat 

~ 

~~as 'tib.1• D1reet1w to old ld.atoric Signal ecrpa mte:d.e.l h'Uns With 

oi- Cl"¥,Pt:> 81'ltems of! other •t1QD8 1• a a11u\P.pl1caUan. or t.be atrect1ve .. .. t'eel.11 tberetore, -t:bat the ..ter1a1 la Ida :cioueea1on '\\hf.ch bas pro'9'10ua:l1' hem 

dlclN1ltled abould. l'l!llldls tbat. ~ an4 abcul.4 ao1t JIOW be eom1den4 clUsU't.ed. 

OOIPI.11&'ft'i'lAL- lie .. ~Weal.q' Mke4 tbat I briDB hi.II f'eel 1 ""9 11114 canec:ru to ,JOur 

attention. 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 05-13-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-8 No. 333-36867) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1994 Equity 
Incentive Plan of Transcend Therapeutics, Inc. of our report dated March 4, 
1999, with respect to the financial statements of Transcend Therapeutics, Inc. 
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.

                                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 29, 1999
# The Attorney General ofTexas August 11, 1978 JOHN L.HILL Attorney General
Honorable Neal Pfeiffer Criminal District Attorney P.0. Box753 Bastrop, Texas 78602 Opinion No.H- 1228 Re: Whether it is aviolation of article 15.71 of the Election Code to offer to hire a vehicle or person to operate a vehicle for the purpose of conveying voters to apolling place. Dear Mr.Pfeiffer: You have requested an opinion regarding article 15.71of the Election Code which provides:

Whoever hires any vehicle or hires any person to operate a vehicle for the purpose of conveying voters to the polling place, or rewards any person in money or other thing ofvalue for procuring avehicle or adriver for such purpose, shall be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars. This article shall not be construed to prohibit a voter from paying for the services of a vehicle oradriver for the purpose of conveying him to the polling place ortoprevent him from allowing other voters to ride inthe vehicle with him while he isgoing to the polling place in order to vote or returning therefrom after having voted. You ask whether an attempt or offer to pay someone to drive voters to the polls is unlawful. An attempt to commit an offense must be specifically made unlawful. Blanchette v. State, 125 S.W. 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1910). There is no provision in Texas statutes which provides that an attempt to violate article 15.71of the Election Code is unlawful. Section 15.01of the Penal Code, which defines and makes punishable criminal attempts, does not apply to offenses outside ofthe Penal Code by reason of section 1.03(b). The criminal attempt provision appears inTitle 4ofthe Penal Code and therefore does not extend to article 15.71of the Election Code.

p. 4907Honorable Neal Pfeiffer - Page 2 (H-1228)

SUMMARY The Legislature has not established anoffense ofattempt to violate article 15.71 of the Election Code, concerning transporting voters topolls.

Attorney General ofTexas APPROVED:

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee jsn

p. 4908
cc: DIR ·· 

NJ 

REF ID:A44622 

• 

Serial: 

SUBJECT: Security Clusit1cat1cm of' the Dllfen• laticm.al 

Caw>mjcaticm• Ccm.tro.l CeAter (t1) 

2 l. ·.~~50 

1. Deference 1• ~ to your Mmor1111dum, 'tt6e5/310/st•, 

subJect u abaft, 4ate4 5 1'19caber l9(i0. 

2. 'lhia vill caaf'im that a claaa1ficat1cn of fCP SICDT, 

With limited acc:eaa cmtrol, will be required tor the Interia 

Iatenae Jlatianal. C~icationa Control Oater. 

Copy 1\uuiahed: 

L. ll. PID3'1' 

Yice Admiral, lJS1I 

Director 

General G. B. Bnld.De, USIC-ftet, 

Asat to Sec.Dtt, Sp OJm.• 

OPS 

CSIC 

SEC 

'reCM (3) 

Reacling File 

K/R: 'lhe reference requested that llSA confim. the necessity for a class1:t1cat1on ot 

'l'OP SECRIT vith 11.mited acce&a control tor the Interill Iletense Bational Cawnun1cations 

Control Center (IIllCCC). Based on the proposed design of the Intelligence Betvork 

Display Board at that Center, and the types of 1nf'om.ation that would be stored in the 

ccmputer thereat, the claasi.t1cat1on and. security requirements indicated herein were 

stated by RSA representatives (Carptain ED.dltrlln, DJ.R./_T.Cf:IA and Col. Willard, NJ) at a 

conference vith ICA repreHntatiTes on 7 llovember 1960. 'lbis correspondence vas 

coordinated vith Mr. Arnold, AG by Mr. Daviban, '!'COM. 

H. P. P'anke, 'l'CC»l-1, 32956, lit- December 6o, vad 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 10-25-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
Unassociated Document


Exhibit 10.13







TERMINATION AGREEMENT ON CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT







THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT ON CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Termination Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the 10th day of October, 2010, by and between Dynamic Ally Limited (“Party A”) and NingguoTaiyang Incubation Plant Co., Ltd. (“Party B”) Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in that certain Consulting Services Agreement (defined in the Recitals below).







R E C I T A L S:


 


WHEREAS, reference is made to that certain Consulting ServicesAgreement dated as of May 26, 2010(the “Consulting ServicesAgreement”), by and between Party A and Party B;







WHEREAS, Party A and Party B desire to terminate theConsulting Services Agreement;







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:







A.           TERMINATION.  Effective on November 10, 2010, the Consulting Services Agreement shall be terminated in its entirety and shall be of no further force or effect.







B.    RELEASE. Each Party agrees to release and further indemnify the other Party from all past, presentand future obligations or claims related to the Consulting Services Agreement.  Each Party hereby waives any other future right that it otherwise may have under the Consulting Services Agreement.







C.           FURTHER  ASSURANCES.  Each Party shall cooperate with, and take such action as may be reasonably requested by, the other Party in order tocarry out the provisions and purposes of this Termination Agreement.







D.           HEADINGS.  The headings in this Termination Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall not constitute a part of this Termination Agreement, nor shall they affect its meaning, construction or effect.







E.           GOVERNING LAW.  This Amendment shall be governed and construed under the laws of the People’s Republic of China, and shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns.







F.           COUNTERPARTS.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. A facsimile or other electronic transmission of this signed Termination Agreement  shall be legal and binding on all parties hereto.


 


[Remainder of page left blank intentionally.]


 




  





  











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Termination Agreementas of the date first set forth above.


 


PARTY A:


Dynamic Ally Limited


 


Legal/Authorized Representative: /s/ WU Qiyou


Name: WU Qiyou


Title: Executive Director







PARTY B:


NingguoTaiyang Incubation Plant Co., Ltd.


 


Legal/Authorized Representative: /s/ WU Qiyou


Name: WU Qiyou


Title: Executive Director
-~= 

--

.:7:""' 

r 

~­

II!!== 

2 July 1952 

Dear Kaya 

Thank you !or your note dated 5 June 1952, am eapeoiall,y :tor 

tho data re;;artling Mary Stuart. 

Since you were kind enough to volunteer to be of ass13tance 

in conooction with obtaining book:J, etc., and sinco I am catching 

up on my history work, having reached the period of the American 

Revolution, you could be or service in my efforts to locate a copy 

. o! eacli o! th.Q fgJ,l.owi.Pg two bcok$t 

l) En tick• s "1l0il Spelling Dictionary" 

:Edi ti.on a before 1782. 

2) Sla tier's •tTelegraphic Codo to Ensure seereoy in the 

'transmio.sion ot Tele81"ams." 

F.di t1on:;1 before 1880 .. 

What I would like to have you do is to consult Brl tish MuseUlll 

Catalog to sea what they have ani let ma know the dates 0£ the edition& before tho da.tea ird.icated above. Upon reoeipt or the informa t.ton I will tall you wh.'l t next I would like to do about those 

books. 

Cordial greettngs t.o you and to Sue. 

Sincerely, 

@'pp roved for Release bv NSA on 06-13-2014 pursuant to E .0. 1352\3 

- ~ ·~ __ ... -:.. . ... _ l°'" ~ -:r.'"'J.o..:j,• .. L.:!!!'.r-6 _,,.. ~-

.:;.......t: • -

......... f. ·~ •.:J...:. ., ... ~~~\, - ,..- ... -"i ~,.~i:.w ,_-:'.'.;,.-::';&..~--- .... z ..... _._t: "'.!\? ... 1~ $'" .. 

----- --- - --- ------- -------~--------
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 2, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-20387 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PEDRO MADRIGAL-FERREIRA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CR-669-ALL

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Pedro Madrigal-Ferreira appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry. Madrigal first argues that the district court erred in considering higher offense levels, as opposed to higher criminal history categories, when it departed upward based upon a dismissed count pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.21. This court has not addressed the issue whether a sentencing court must depart horizontally when departing pursuantNo. 03-20387 -2- to § 5K2.21; thus, Madrigal has not shown that the district court plainly erred in so doing. See United States v. Hull , 160 F.3d 265, 271-72 (5th Cir. 1998). Second, Madrigal asserts that, because the written judgment does not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence, this case must be remanded to the district court for it to amend the written judgment by striking the condition of release that Madrigal not possess any other dangerous weapon. This court recently addressed this same issue and rejected it.
See United States v. Torres-Aguilar , ___ F.3d ___, No. 03-40055, 2003 WL 22853762 (5th Cir. Dec. 3, 2003). Accordingly, the issue is foreclosed.
AFFIRMED.
[J-114-2016] [MO:Dougherty, J.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

GARY H. POWELL

v.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

BOARD OF REVIEW 

JOE KRENTZMAN & SONS, INC.,

Intervenor

APPEAL OF: UNEMPLOYMENT 

COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 38 MAP 2016

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 1704 CD 

2014 dated November 6, 2015 Vacating 

& Remanding the Order of the UCBR at 

No. B-13-09-D-B064 dated August 13, 

2014.

SUBMITTED: September 14, 2016

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

JUSTICE BAER DECIDED: March 28, 2017

I join the majority to the extent it holds that Appellee does not have the right to be 

represented by a suspended attorney in an unemployment compensation hearing. 

However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to remand this matter for 

further proceedings. 

Appellee was informed that Disciplinary Enforcement Rule 217 precluded a 

suspended attorney from representing him at his unemployment compensation hearing. 

With no serious question that he understood the basis for disqualification of his 

representative, and with ample time to seek a new and proper counsellor, Appellee 

retained yet another suspended attorney, who, consistently, was disqualified from 

representing him. Ultimately, Appellee proceeded pro se. 
[J-114-2016] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 2

In my view, Appellee had every opportunity to obtain appropriate representation 

in this matter. Moreover, as was recognized by the Unemployment Compensation 

Board of Review (“UCBR”), Appellee received a full and fair hearing before the referee, 

in which he had the opportunity to testify, submit evidence, and cross examine his 

employer’s witnesses. UCBR Op. at 3. Under these facts, I would not give Appellee a 

third hearing and a third opportunity to obtain representation. 

Accordingly, I would vacate the order of the Commonwealth Court and reinstate 

the UCBR’s order affirming the denial of unemployment compensation benefits.