alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT
      14.1**




**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**




The
      Board
      of Directors


RADCOM
      Ltd.


Tel
      Aviv


Israel




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (File
      No. 333-07964, No. 333-13244, No. 333-13246, No. 333-13248, No. 333-13250,
      No.
      333-13252, No. 333-13254, No. 333-14236, No. 333-111931 and No.333-123981)
      on
      Form S-8 and in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File No. 333-115475)
      of
      RADCOM Ltd. of our report dated June 25, 2007, with respect to the consolidated
      balance sheets of RADCOM Ltd. as of December 31, 2006 and 2005 and the related
      consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive
      income (loss) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
      ended December 31, 2006, which report appears in the December 31, 2006 Annual
      Report on Form 20-F of RADCOM Ltd.




Our
      report on the consolidated financial statements refers to the adoption by RADCOM Ltd.
      of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 123R “Share-Based
      Payment,” effective January 1, 2006.


*/s/
                Somekh Chaikin*Somekh
                ChaikinCertified
                Public Accountants (Isr.)Member
                Firm of KPMG InternationalTel-Aviv,
                Israel
              June
                27, 2007
#### McADORY v. WATSON.

(Decided November 25, 1913.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. E. C. Crowe.

No counsel marked for appellant.

Roscoe Chamblee, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
Addendum                                            Confidential
Information


December 12, 1996                            EXHIBIT 10.43


Mr. Kent Leichty
ALDI Inc.
1200 North Kirk Road
Batavia, IL  60510-1477

Dear Kent:

Applied Intelligence Group, Inc. (AIG) is pleased to present this Addendum
(Addendum) to our Arrangement Letter (AL) to ALDI Inc. (ALDI) dated
August 3, 1995 and signed by Mr. Michael Curry on August 22, 1995 for
the purchase of merchandise from AIG.  This Addendum is considered part of,
and is governed by, AIG's AL to ALDI dated August 3, 1995.

DISCOUNTS

This section details the discounts for IBM merchandise AIG will provide to
ALDI within the terms of this Addendum.  Discounts specified in the
August 3, 1995 AL will continue in effect and are restated below.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                Item               Percentage
                                       of
                                    Discounts
                <S>                        <C>
                POS Terminals              37%
                Controller                  9%
                Hardware/Features
</TABLE>

                NOTE:  Final price is calculated by applying the
                discount to the Base/List price, but cannot be less
                than AIG's cost plus 4%.

EXPIRATION OF AGREEMENT

This section replaces the Expiration of Agreement section of AIG's
Arrangement Letter to ALDI dated August 3, 1995.

     The AL will continue in effect until December 31, 1997.  Any
modifications to the agreement are subject to approval by both parties.  The
agreement can be canceled by either party with 30 days written notice.  The
responsibilities for payment of fees, merchandise warranty, all limitations
of liability, all terms regarding ownership of products and techniques, the
rights and remedies clause, resolutions of disputes, hiring of personnel, and
the restrictions regarding confidentiality, shall survive the expiration of
the agreement.

APPROVAL

This Addendum and its terms and conditions are agreed to by both
ALDI Inc. and AIG on this day.

Applied Intelligence Group, Inc.             ALDI Inc.

                /S/Rick Place            /S/Kent Leichty
                
                  Rick Place                 Kent Leichty                  
                  Account Executive          Corporate Director Scanning
                                             Systems         
                                
                December 12, 1996            Jan 10, 1997
                
                               


APPLIED INTELLIGENCE GROUP, INC.           1        3800 Benson Road,
Edmond, OK  73013-0417
BAC asserts that, pursuant to this court's holding in Leyva v.

National Default Servicing Corp., 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 1275, 1277- 79 (2011), only those documents required under NRS 107.086(4) are held to a "strict compliance" standard, and therefore strict compliance with the FMR 11(3) requirements that do not appear in NRS 107.086(4) are not mandatory. The Sheffields, however, do not rely on FMR 11(3), but instead point to NRS 645C.730(1) in support of their argument. NRS 645C.730(1) states, in pertinent part, that

[i]t is unlawful for an employee, director, officer or agent of an appraisal management company to influence or attempt to influence the development, reporting or review of an appraisal through. . . [a]y. . . act or practice that impairs or attempts to impair an appraiser's independence, objectivity or impartiality. Pursuant to NRS 645C.600, the provisions of NRS 645C.730 "do not apply to . . . [a] person, limited-liability company, partnership, association or corporation other than an appraisal management company which, in the normal course of its business, employs persons for the performance of real estate appraisal services." (Emphases added.) Here, BAC's use of the services of LandSafe does not place BAC within NRS 645C.034(1)'s definition of an appraisal management company. Rather, BAC functioned more as a "corporation other than an appraisal management company" when it employed LandSafe to perform the real estate appraisal for purposes of mediation and compliance with the FMRs.
See NRS 645C.600.

Under the FMRs, BAC was only required, as the beneficiary, to "produce an appraisal" of the property at issue in the foreclosure for the purpose of mediation negotiation. See FMR 11(6). Thus, BAC was under no specific duty to provide an appraisal that benefited the Sheffields.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2J.

Even if we were to determine that BAC qualified as an "appraisal management company" pursuant to NRS 645C.034(1), BAC did not commit an act that attempted "to impair an appraiser's independence, objectivity or impartiality." NRS 645C.730(k). The FMRs merely required BAC to produce an appraisal for purposes of mediation, which it did.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the issuance of a foreclosure certificate. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Hardesty

. a.AA Parraguirre

cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge Mark L. Mausert Pite Duncan, LLP Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 3
# L_2010018EN.01000901.xml

| 22.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 18/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 18/9

---

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2009 — Amending Budget No 2

(2010/22/EU)

EXPENDITURE

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Appropriations 2009 | Amending budget No 2 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | STAFF |
| 1 4 | TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE | 216 500 | 222 900 | 439 400 |
| | Title 1 — Total | 4 931 500 | 222 900 | 5 154 400 |
| 2 | FUNCTIONING OF THE AGENCY |
| | Title 2 — Total | 505 200 | | 515 200 |
| 3 | OPERATING EXPENDITURE |
| 3 0 | GROUP ACTIVITIES | 727 500 | –77 400 | 650 100 |
| 3 2 | OTHER OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES | 467 000 | –95 500 | 371 500 |
| 3 3 | OPERATIONS OF THE COOPERATION SUPPORT DEPARTMENT | 376 000 | –20 000 | 356 000 |
| 3 5 | OPERATIONS OF THE TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT | 1 110 000 | –30 000 | 1 080 000 |
| | Title 3 — Total | 2 680 500 | – 222 900 | 2 457 600 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 8 117 200 | 0 | 8 127 200 |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Appropriations 2009

Amending budget No 2

New amount

1

1

STAFF

STAFF

1 4

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE

216 500

222 900

439 400

Title 1 — Total

Title 1 — Total

4 931 500

4 931 500

222 900

222 900

5 154 400

5 154 400

2

2

FUNCTIONING OF THE AGENCY

FUNCTIONING OF THE AGENCY

Title 2 — Total

Title 2 — Total

505 200

505 200

515 200

515 200

3

3

OPERATING EXPENDITURE

OPERATING EXPENDITURE

3 0

GROUP ACTIVITIES

727 500

–77 400

650 100

3 2

OTHER OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES

467 000

–95 500

371 500

3 3

OPERATIONS OF THE COOPERATION SUPPORT DEPARTMENT

376 000

–20 000

356 000

3 5

OPERATIONS OF THE TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT

1 110 000

–30 000

1 080 000

Title 3 — Total

Title 3 — Total

2 680 500

2 680 500

– 222 900

– 222 900

2 457 600

2 457 600

GRAND TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL

8 117 200

8 117 200

0

0

8 127 200

8 127 200

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Brown, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), rendered February 4, 1985, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree (two counts), and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Justice Lazer has been substituted for the late Justice Gibbons *(see,*22 NYCRR 670.2 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to be established.

During the course of her summation, the prosecutrix exceeded the bounds of proper advocacy by implying that the defendant’s stipulation that the victim had been raped and sodomized was a stipulation that the victim had told the *322truth, and by improperly bolstering the victim’s testimony. The prosecutrix further exceeded proper bounds by telling the jury that if the victim’s testimony was not enough, "then there’s something terrible, something terribly wrong with you”.

In a close case such as this, where the victim was able to see her assailant only briefly, the incident took place around midnight on a rooftop, and the description the victim gave of her assailant differed from the defendant’s actual appearance two days later, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix’s over-zealousness was harmless. Consequently, a new trial is warranted *(see, People v McCann,*90 AD2d 554; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Lazer, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Hooper, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carol Lewis, Appellant.

*751We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2022224EN.01016001.xml

| 8.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/160 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/160

---

P9_TA(2021)0476

Hague Convention (1980) on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction: accession of Jamaica *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 November 2021 on the proposal for a Council decision authorising the Member States to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the accession of Jamaica to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (COM(2021)0363 — C9-0334/2021 — 2021/0179(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2022/C 224/25)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2021)0363), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2021)0363),

| — | having regard to Article 38, fourth paragraph, of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 38, fourth paragraph, of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,

| — | having regard to Article 81(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0334/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 81(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0334/2021),

| — | having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice (1) on the exclusive external competence of the European Union for a declaration of acceptance of an accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice (1) on the exclusive external competence of the European Union for a declaration of acceptance of an accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,

| — | having regard to Rule 82 and Rule 114(8) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 82 and Rule 114(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0299/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0299/2021),

| 1. | Approves the authorisation for the Member States of the European Union to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the accession of Jamaica to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, as well as to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---

(1)  Opinion of the Court of Justice of 14 October 2014, 1/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2303.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ABOR
SOFTWARE CORPORATION CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF
INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          13,028
<SECURITIES>                                    19,143
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,035
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (925)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,728
<PP&E>                                          16,527
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,808)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,280
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,202
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,658
<SALES>                                         16,111
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,111
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,616
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,966
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (39)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,761
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,022)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,529
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,739
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


     Net income per common share of $0.61 for the year ended June 30, 1998 was
calculated by dividing net income of $1,069,480 for the year ended June 30, 1998
by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding of 1,763,678.  Net
income per common share of $0.46 for the year ended June 30, 1997 was calculated
by dividing net income of $831,586 for the year ended June 30, 1997 by the
weighted average number of common shares outstanding of 1,790,311.  Because the
conversion was not effective until November 22, 1996, earnings per share data
for the year ended June 30, 1997 is comprised of the earnings for the post-
Conversion period.  The number of shares purchased by the ESOP which have not
been allocated or committed to be released to participant accounts are not
assumed to be outstanding in calculating the weighted average number of common
shares outstanding.
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see

2 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please

3 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other

4 deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the

5 filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

8 Plaintiff-Appellee,

9 v. NO. 31,362

10 KEVIN WAYNE CLASS,

11 Defendant-Appellant.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY

13 Thomas A. Rutledge, District Judge

14 Gary K. King, Attorney General

15 Santa Fe, NM

16 for Appellee

17 Jacqueline L. Cooper, Acting Chief Public Defender

18 Will O’Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender

19 Santa Fe, NM

20 for Appellant

21 MEMORANDUM OPINION

22 WECHSLER, Judge.

23 Defendant appeals his misdemeanor convictions for aggravated driving while
2

1 under the influence of intoxicating liquor (refusal) and for failing to maintain traffic

2 lane. [RP 103] Our notice proposed to affirm, and Defendant filed a timely

3 memorandum in opposition. We remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s arguments and

4 therefore affirm. 

5 Defendant continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his

6 conviction for aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

7 See NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102(D)(3) (2010). In support of his argument, Defendant

8 refers to State v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 129, 428 P.2d 982, 984 (1967), and State v.

9 Boyer, 103 N.M. 655, 658-60, 712 P.2d 1, 4-6 (Ct. App. 1985). [MIO 2] For the

10 same reasons provided in our notice, we affirm. In doing so, we acknowledge

11 Defendant’s position that reasons other than intoxication affected his driving and

12 performance on the field sobriety tests—such as his assertions that his headlights were

13 obscured by caliche, that the lane markers were faded and difficult to see at night, and

14 that he had back and knee injuries. [MIO 3] The jury, however, was free to reject

15 Defendant’s version of the incident. See State v. Sutphin, 107 N.M. 126, 131, 753

16 P.2d 1314, 1319 (1988) (recognizing that the factfinder weighs the evidence and may

17 reject the defendant's version of the incident). 

18 Based on our notice and the foregoing, we affirm. 

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
3

1 _______________________________

2 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 

3 WE CONCUR:

4 __________________________________

5 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge

6 __________________________________

7 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

....-;:::> • 

3:16-CR- OQ054-J51Z 

v. 

ERIC F. OELKERS, 

Defendant. 

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES 

COUNTl 

(Escape) 

(18 U.S.C. § 75l(a)) 

INDICTMENT 

18 U.S.C. § 751(a) 

On or about September 28, 2015, in the District of Oregon, defendant ERIC F. 

OELKERS did knowingly escape from custody in the Northwest Regional Re-Entry Center, an 

institutional facility in which he was lawfully confined at the direction of the Attorney General 

by virtue of a judgment and commitment of the United States District Court for the District of 

Oregon upon conviction for the commission of Felon in Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(l ); 

Ill 

I II 

Ill 

Case 3:16-cr-00054-BR Document 1 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 2
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 751(a). 

Dated this---.2 ____ day of February 2016. 

Presented by: 

BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

United States Attorney 

ATHANS. HAUB, OSB #76165 

ssistant United States Attorney 

Indictment 

A TRUE BILL. 

Page2 

Case 3:16-cr-00054-BR Document 1 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 2
# C_2022081EN.01011401.xml

| 18.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/114 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/114

---

P9_TA(2021)0306

EU/Argentina Agreement: modification of concessions on all the tariff rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 June 2021 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Argentine Republic pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union (06837/2021 — C9-0170/2021 — 2021/0054(NLE))

(Consent)

(2022/C 81/16)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (06837/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (06837/2021),

| — | having regard to the draft agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Argentine Republic pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union (06838/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Argentine Republic pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union (06838/2021),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0170/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0170/2021),

| — | having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4), and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4), and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A9-0175/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A9-0175/2021),

1.

Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement;

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Argentine Republic.

---