alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                      10,807,691
<SECURITIES>                                   101,507
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,818,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                   917,915
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,699,722
<PP&E>                                       8,935,279
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,999,654
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,750,738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,594,505
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       251,460
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,262,632
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,750,738
<SALES>                                     28,894,318
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,667,845
<CGS>                                        2,548,960
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,073,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            69,808,469
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,808
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (36,948,629)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   692,253
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (37,640,882)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (37,640,882)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  ($1.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($1.70)
<FN>
<F1>The Company issued a 2:1 stock split in the form
of a stock dividend on July 17, 1996. All amounts have
been retroactively adjusted for the earliest period
presented. 
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         386,718
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,848,330
<ALLOWANCES>                                   868,986
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,394,689
<PP&E>                                       5,596,921
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,819,916
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,584,871
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,842,182
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        764
<COMMON>                                        11,952
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,148,451
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,584,871
<SALES>                                     15,067,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,067,734
<CGS>                                        3,341,969
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,046,469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               298,769
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               158,721
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             276,960
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,619,473)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,619,473)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,619,473)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.35)
        

</TABLE>
IW, c. J. ~1na 

\klvon1t," ot ~;\ 

lu!J a.!ng 3t1 

ftQ:> IU'p.Td AYWnU& 

too ._.i. a.. eauto,..-.ua 

JMB:o D:r • ~Mt 

1 4 APR 1954 

11\ a pJ'fl'Vious let-Un- to 7ou., it vu stated tbtlt, srabnequ.,nt; to 

~ 

tho 20-21 April RM'tine at 'tb:i at.tioru\l SeC1J'.1"1t)" ~ fk:1entifie 

loard,, t.ba }'ll&Ue1 ~, vbe a. .ie.o an:tJc·a ct tbc 

h&t'd1 v.Ul l:le •:io tm eonte:r rit!i 10'1 cm attera at )WiDfll a:rgar.1-

ratinn and tutl.114Q .crtirl t !es .. 

Vie_..-... #ehe~ •Joint meting oE all threo pmol«S u4 

timir ~ cm f!O ... !!l IWy" 19.54.. IN1*.tns the llm'A.1JJ8 ot t» ts.rat 

flq1 aU tllG IWK!uaa.r;;r ~1strat1ve &rtM1e vill n ~ltshed. 

this ldlou14 roqtU.re ~a ooupl~ et bcm'o~ 1'le ~!.n&:ll~ Of tbs 

&at 4co" vU1 \ta &N'Qted te ~1nting you v1th ~ h1gb:l110lta flt~ Ol"pl11t.:l\t!'!:ln and. its n.at:f _. ZXl NCC!nit -,, al Ml9'. 11111 

1'J:t ditvote:d to a &ita1le4. prenntation ~ ~c:-~ion at 90t!E '1l 

en- Wchnieal ~lf!i:l> Qt\ 'tot> pl.us fw: arubscque!lt poo-lli?l u:tiv1· 

tin. 

Xt !1 •illeerol1' bo'.)ed that 7on V1ll lte •le to &t.t.tit'l the ~1.ngn OD lK>th thcGe dtqe. 

tt fCU vill lArt; • :toov th&t ,-au. plan to attend and the l!!O'!c 

of '1-'&ftl 70U prdw1 X vill be.Vu tbQ necess.:;;.7 t.t'uvel cr&t:n; lM.tit 

w ,.a'tll! 

VlLLIAM 1' .. tanta-:\lt 

laautiY<t iffn~.I 

IEA. Scientitic A4v18or,1 ioa.l.'d 

Mf..R: Announces joint meeting or Pa.nals of ~, and. invites 

attendance ot :me:i:Wcra. 

:tT Mclkinall/18ill, USAF/ .. Asst to S/J£ST/ero 

' I\'\ 

CCl All e's roved for Release b NSA on 07-23-2014 ursuantto E.O. 1352
LightPath Technologies 10-K




Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








LightPath Technologies, Inc.


Orlando, Florida





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-23515, 333-23511, 333-41705, 333-92017, 333-121389, 333-121385, 333-96083, 333-50976, 333-50974, 333-155044 and 333-153743) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 333-113814, 333-37443, 333-39641, 333-47905, 333-86185,  333-93179, 333-94303, 333-31104, 333-37622, 333-47992, 333-51474, 333-75528, 333-127053, 333-133772, 333-146550, 333-159603, 333-162342, 333-163416 and 333-166633) on Form S-3 of LightPath Technologies, Inc. of our report dated September 16, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements appearing in this Form 10-K.








/s/ Cross, Fernandez & Riley, LLP


Cross, Fernandez & Riley, LLP


Certified Public Accountants





Orlando, Florida


September 16, 2010
I , 

I 

i 

' I 

I 

; 

Mr.. F.. Rcmald Maubrid&• 

._,ger 

ca.hl:-.1.dp l.ttdverait,y Pre•• 

• IUt ~7th ftrfft. 

•v ton a&, ..._, York 

----

'• 

\ 

\ ' 

llfsar Mr. Mullbri4g•. -

1 .. aaudiQS you t.o4a.f via expreae a pac~ ~~-

I 

:\ 

,. 

.. 

·~ ... ,j ' '1 

m.u:~r.~ 

' 1 

' " 

\ 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-09-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

..,,._ \ 

" \ 

,, 

' 

\ 

\ 

--r· 

\
. . . __. ~ ID:A683ili ~· ~ • ---

Prote•sor Joaoph A. Wright 

Prote•aor of Journalima 

Indiana Unl-..rsity 

Dloomington. Indiana 

near ·Proreaaor ;fright 1 

,.._,_ .. 

January 17. lG<&a 

Reoeipt of your letter or January u. i• aokna.ledpd. 

An Bngliah tranal&tion o:t General ll&roel Givierp'a 

CouN !!., c9-ptofira~hi• •• •de under .,. direction .a nuab•r 

of ye&re ago and t e tra.nalat1on •• printed a.a a restricted 

dooument. It is, theretore, not available to the publ1o. I 

do not know whether •UT 1nchtpendent translation ha1 been made 

or published. 

!ran.8lationa or other publio&tiona in toreir;n lancuas•• 

have alao been made undeT '1111' direction but they tall in the 

1a."'ll9 oategoey. At th• preaent ti• we are juat aa happy that 

information ot thia sort 1• not available to the publio. 

Furthermore, I am inclined. to bel19Ye that the publloation ot 

tre.nalat1oru1 would represent a t1nanoial lCNta to a private 

publiaher, and for this reason probably none ha• been attempted. 

Ct oourse. if' the 1Jn1Teraity teli; that it had to CO into 

thia matter and waa willing to tinano. the publication it oould 

do ao, but •• I indicated before n •hotlld not be too happy 

about it. Thia 11 the aort ot thing that might .. 11 be po11tiponed until ..mi. after the nr. 

Cordially youra ~ 

William P. Fl'iedman 

Direotor, ec-mtoat1one 

Ile.-rob 

pproved for Release by NSA on 04-02-2014 pursuant to E.O. 

13526
I ,\ 

REF ID:A67792 

\ \ I\ 

\ ... • 

Ill RIPLY RBPlrR TO WAR DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SIGNAL OFFICER 

WASHINGTON 

Sub3ect: Patent Application, Ser. No. 361868 

Electrical Switching Mechanian. 

'lo: 

Mr. William F. Friedman and 

Mr. Frank B. Rowlett, 

Intelligence Section, 

War Plana and Training Division, 

Office of the Chief Signal otfioer. 

March 28, 1939. 

1. There is submitted tor your intomation copy ot a further 

official action :f'rom. the Patent Office in this case, tl:le El:eminer's letter 

being dated March 21, 1939. 

2. There are a total of sixteen claims remaining in the case, 

of which nine have been indicated as allo•ble. The remaining seven 

claims are now under final rejection. 

3. The final rejection means that the prosecution ot the case 

is normally closed as to the seven finally rejected claims, so that if 

desired to contest the final reject.ion an appeal would be necessary. Aa 

at present advised, an appeal seams unnecessary in this case since the 

claims allowed appear to adequately cover the invent:ion. It is suggested, 

howewr, that ;you carefully review the case and it for any reason you 

consider it desirable to make a further et:rort to secure :rawrable action 

on a!l1' of the finally rejected claims, your reasons in the natter will 

have full consideration on bearing from you in this regard. 

4. A response to the official action must be made within six 

months from its date, that is to say, by September 21, 1939 1 at the latest. 

This response would either take the form of an appeal if further contesting the final rejection or, in the alternative, allowance o:r the applica._ 

tion may be secured by directing the cancellation of the finally rejected 

claims. It it is desired to defer the issuance of the patent, the response 

to the outstanding action lll8l' be postponed until just before tbs expiration 

ot the time limit. 

Charles A. Rowe, 

Patents Section, Signal Corps 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 09-05-2013 pursuantto E.O. 1352e
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWIN F. LARA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74389

Agency No. A075-475-408

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Edwin F. Lara, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

FILED

SEP 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74389

the agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Canales-Vargas v.

Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739, 742 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Lara met his burden of

establishing continuous physical presence where he failed to provide sufficient

evidence supporting his presence from March 1995 to March 2005. See SinghKaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1999) (a contrary result is not

compelled where there is “[t]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions

from the evidence”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 5, 2022

No. 04-21-00526-CV

Brandon ROBERTS,

Appellant

v.

UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, Sarah Abang-Hayes, MD, Medical Center Pavilion 

Pharmacy, and Accord HealthCare Inc.,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-CI-00455

Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In his second amended petition, appellant Brandon Roberts brought various claims 

against Sarah Abang-Hayes, Accord Healthcare Inc. (“Accord”), and Bexar County Hospital 

District d/b/a University Health f/k/a University Health System (the “Hospital”). Accord filed a 

Rule 91a motion to dismiss the claims against it, which was granted by the trial court. See TEX.

R. CIV. P. 91a. The record before us does not contain an order disposing of the claims against 

Abang-Hayes or the Hospital. Roberts filed a notice of appeal, indicating he intends to appeal 

from the trial court’s order granting Accord’s Rule 91a motion to dismiss.

A judgment or order is final for purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all pending 

parties and claims before the court. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 

2001). Here, the trial court’s order granting Accord’s Rule 91a motion is interlocutory because it

does not dispose of all parties and claims. Further, the record before us does not include any 

motion severing claims or parties. Thus, the order is not final and appealable. Interlocutory 

orders may be appealed only if a specific statute authorizes such an interlocutory appeal. For 

example, section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code lists circumstances 

under which a party may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at 

law, or county court. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014. We cannot, however, 

find any statutory authority that allows a party to appeal from an interlocutory order granting a 

Rule 91a motion to dismiss such as the one contained in the record before us. See In re Farmers 

Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 604 S.W.3d 421, 429 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2019, orig. 
proceeding); Tamborello v. Town of Highland Park, No. 05-20-00755-CV, 2021 WL 1540653, 

at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2021, no pet.).

We, therefore, ORDER appellant to show cause in writing by January 19, 2022, why 

this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). We

suspend all appellate deadlines pending our determination of whether we have jurisdiction over 

this appeal.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of January, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
#### The State ex rel. Forsyth, Appellant, *v.*Brigner, Judge, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Forsyth v. Brigner*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 585.]

(No. 99-599

Submitted July 28, 1999

Decided September 22, 1999.)

*M. Wayne Forsyth, pro se.*

*Mathias H. Heck, Jr.,*Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and *John F. Krumholtz,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*586
      *Per Curiam.*

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals based on our decision in Forsyth’s appeal in a recent mandamus case in which he raised the same claims. *State ex rel. Forsyth v. Brigner*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 71, 711 N.E.2d 684.

We also agree that by filing numerous original actions to challenge the same rulings by Judge Brigner, Forsyth has abused his *in forma pauperis*status. As the United States Supreme Court observed in *In re Sindram*(1991), 498 U.S. 177, 179-180, 111 S.Ct. 596, 597-598, 112 L.Ed.2d 599, 604-605:

“[T]he Court waives filing fees and costs for indigent individuals in order to promote the interests of justice. The goal of fairly dispensing justice, however, is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests. *Pro se*petitioners have a greater capacity than most to disrupt the fair allocation of judicial resources because they are not subject to the financial considerations — filing fees and attorney’s fees — that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions. * * * The risks of abuse are particularly acute with respect to applications for extraordinary relief, since such petitions are not subject to any time limitations and, theoretically, could be filed at any time without limitation. In order to prevent frivolous petitions for extraordinary relief from unsettling the fair administration of justice, the Court has a duty to deny *in forma pauperis*status to those individuals who have abused the system. Under the circumstances *of*this case, we find it appropriate to deny *informa pauperis*status to petitioner in this and all future petitions for extraordinary relief.” (Citation omitted.) See, also, *State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Commrs.*(1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 592, 654 N.E.2d 443; *Karmasu v. Wilkinson*(1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 737, 686 N.E.2d 309.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. We also order that the Clerk of this court not accept for filing any additional appeals or original actions from Forsyth unless accompanied by the docket fee and security deposit required by S.Ct.Prac.R. XV. See *Smith v. Servar-Portion, Inc.*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 1504, 679 N.E.2d 5; *In re Guess*(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 1515, 665 N.E.2d 684; S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(5).1

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

. We deny Forsyth’s request for oral argument. He has not established any of the factors that might warrant oral argument *State ex rel. Lee v. Trumbull Cty. Probate Court*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 369, 371. 700 N.E.2d 4, 7.
Smart Growth &

The Social Pillar of Sustainability

Presentation to the National Advisory Council for

Environmental Policy and Technology

April 4, 2013

EPA/OSC – Ed Fendley

4/11/2013 1

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Take-home points

• Compact, mixed-use communities are 

inherently beneficial to social sustainability.

• EPA Smart Growth technical assistance 

contributes directly to participation and social 

cohesion in recipient communities.

4/11/2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2
Social pillar elements

• Awareness of sustainability

• Participation

• Equity 

• Social cohesiveness

Smart growth contributes to each of these!

4/11/2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3
Refresher: what is smart growth?

• Compact, mixed-use communities

• Walkable neighborhoods;

choices in housing & transportation

• Participation & equity

4/11/2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 4
Social pillar: Awareness

• How and where we live profoundly affects 

sustainability

• Compact, mixed use communities:

– Cleaner air & water

– Better human health

– Smaller carbon footprint

4/11/2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5
Social pillar: Participation

Old model:

“When the highway engineers have concluded 

that a highway should be built, then experts 

should be satisfied and permit the program to 

go ahead”.

4/11/2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 6
4/11/2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 7
4/11/2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 8
Participation models today

4/11/2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 9
4/11/2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 10
Social pillar: Equity

• Investing in existing communities

• Transportation choices

• Housing choices

4/11/2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 11
4/11/2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 12
Social pillar: Social cohesiveness

• “Infrastructure planning that supports social 

integration and environmental sustainability”

• This is smart growth in a nutshell

– Use of public and quasi-public spaces and places

– Promotion of incidental interactions

– This is good for economies & innovation, too.

4/11/2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 13
Southlake Town Square, Southlake, TX

This is Smart Growth, Smart Growth Network

4/11/2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 14
**EXHIBIT 23.2**





We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed by
CBCT Bancshares, Inc., pertaining to the 2001 Recognition and Retention Plan of our report
dated January 11, 2001, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB, as amended on Form
10-KSB/A, for the year ended December 31, 2000.
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (15-011)]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Applied Sciences Advisory Committee. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning. 

# DATES:

Monday, March 30, 2015, 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., EDT.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. Peter Meister, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1557, fax (202) 358-4118, or                         *peter.g.meister@nasa.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This meeting will be available telephonically and by WebEx. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference number 844-467-4685, pass code 635480, to participate in the meeting by telephone. The WebEx link is                     *https://nasa.webex.com,*                     meeting number 997 419 756, passcode @March30.                

The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

—Applied Sciences Program Update

—Applied Science Budget Briefing

—Missions and Applications

It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

Harmony R. Myers, 

Acting Advisory Committee Management Offcer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[FR Doc. 2015-05653 Filed 3-11-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7510-13-P