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

---

Exhibit 10.2

# Consent of Independent
Auditors

We have issued our report dated
February 3, 2006 accompanying the financial statements of Tracsat S.A. appearing in the
Annual Report of Pointer Telocation Systems Ltd. included in the Annual Report on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005.

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Pointer
Telocation Systems Ltd., on Form F-3 (File No. 333-111019 effective October 13, 2004, File
No. 333-119998, effective November 17, 2004 and File No. 333-126257, effective July 15,
2005) and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-118897, effective September 10, 2004 and File No.
333-113420, effective March 9, 2004).

| |  | /s/ Grant Thornton Argentina S.C.
| |  | ---------------------------------

Buenos Aires, ArgentinaJune
22, 2006



---

---
Exhibit 10.18
 (revised per Ron Raups request and sent to him via email on November 11, 2010)
 Personally Delivered Via Hand
 Personal and Confidential
 
      End of Employment




---



##### 



Separation Pay
     Page 2




---



##### 



Your Release of Claims
  et seq et seq et seq et seq et seq et seq et seq et seq
  Page 3




---



##### 



Notice of Right to Consult Attorney and Twenty-One (21) Calendar Day Consideration
Period
 Notification of Rights under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. Chapter 363A)
and the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.) et seq must
 Page 4




---



##### 



Return of Property
 On-Going Obligations
 Non-Disparagement and Confidentiality
 Remedies
 Non-Admission
 Successors and Assigns
 Enforceability
 Page 5




---



##### 



Law Governing
 Full Agreement
 Acknowledgment of Reading and Understanding
     
 FIRST ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND SIGNATURE
  Page 6




---



##### 




    
    I have read this Separation Agreement and Release carefully.
 
    
    I agree that this Separation Agreement and Release accurately reflects the agreement
between me and MakeMusic with regard to the separation of my employment.
 
    
    I will execute and return to MakeMusic the Second Acknowledgment and Signature sometime
between December 10, 2010 and December 31, 2010.
  /s/ Ronald B. RaupRonald B. Raup SECOND ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND SIGNATURE
  
    
    I have had adequate time to consider whether to sign this Separation Agreement and Release.
 
    
    I have read this Separation Agreement and Release carefully.
 
    
    I understand and agree to all of the terms of the Separation Agreement and Release.
 
    
    I am knowingly and voluntarily releasing my claims against MakeMusic.
 
    
    I have not, in signing this Agreement, relied upon any statements or explanations made by
MakeMusic except as for those specifically set forth in this Separation Agreement and Release.
 
    
    I intend this Separation Agreement and Release to be legally binding.
 
    
    I am signing this Separation Agreement and Release on or after my last day of employment
with MakeMusic.
  /s/ Ronald B. RaupRonald B. Raup Page 7
---

---

Exhibit 14.3



Contadores
públicos y Asesores de Negocios 
Miembro de Grant Thornton
International

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the reference to our
firm under the caption Experts in the Registration Statement Form F-3 (No.
333-111019, 333-119998, 333-126257, 333-143399) and related Prospectus and on Form S-8
(No. 333-118897, 333-113420) pertaining to the Employees Stock Option Plan of
Pointer Telocation, Ltd.

We also consent to the incorporation
by reference therein of our report dated January 25, 2008 with respect to the financial
statements of Pointer Recuperación de México, S.A de C.V, included in the
Annual Report (Form 20-F) of Pointer Telocation Ltd., for the year ended December 31,
2007, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

| | /s/
SALLES, SAINZ - GRANT THORNTON, S.C.
| | ----------------------------------------

| | 
| | 

| | By:
Rogelio Avalos, CPA
| | -----------------------

Mexico City, Mexico April
 7, 2008



---

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statement of operations and consolidated balance sheet and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000919957
<NAME> COMCAST UK CALBE PARTNERS LTD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U. K. POUNDS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.7125
<CASH>                                          63,314
<SECURITIES>                                    61,466
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,260
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,338)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,921
<PP&E>                                         231,616
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,885)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 484,492
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,433
<BONDS>                                        202,626
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           501
<OTHER-SE>                                     238,531
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   484,492
<SALES>                                         31,358
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,428
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (56,981)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (18,432)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (23,627)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (40,575)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (40,575)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (40,575)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.84)
        


</TABLE>
1552.

#### JOHNSON *et al. v.*THE STATE.

A bill of exceptions, in order to confer jurisdiction on this court, must, within fifteen days from the date of the certificate of the judge, be filed in the clerk’s office of the court below. This applies to criminal as well as to civil cases. In the present ease the certificate of the judge to the bill of exceptions is dated November 6, 1908, and was filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court on November 23, 1908. This court is, therefore, without jurisdiction; and the writ of error is dismissed.

Practice in Court of Appeals.

Argued January 14,

Decided January 27, 1909.

*A. G. & Julian McCurry,*for plaintiffs in error.

*James H. Shelton, solicitor,*contra.

Powell, J.

This court has no jurisdiction of a bill of exceptions which has not been presented and filed in accordance with the statute; and hence it becomes its duty to dismiss a writ of error, even in the absence of a formal motion to dismiss, when the-statutory prerequisites have not been complied with. After the court had agreed upon a judgment on the merits in the present case (an affirmance, by the way; so that the plaintiff in error is-not hurt very much after all), we discovered that the clerk’s entry of filing on the bill of exceptions was dated more than fifteen days-after the day on which the judge signed the certificate to the bilL of exceptions; and under *Cook*v. State, 120 *Ga.*137 (47 S. E. 562), this is fatal to jurisdiction in this court.

*Writ of error*dismissed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Royal Spencer ROBINSON

No. 11P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

*16Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Robinson, Royal Spencer.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of January 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
---

---

EXHIBIT 14.3

SALLES,
SAINZ  GRANT THORNTON, S.C.

# Consent of Independent
Auditors

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statements of Pointer Telocation Ltd. (the
Company), on Form F-3 and on Form S-8, and each prospectus constituting a part
thereof, of our report dated January 30, 2007, relating to the financial statements for
Pointer Recuperación de México, S.A de C.V, for the year ended December 31,
2006 included in this Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2006, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

/s/ SALLES, SAINZ - GRANT THORNTON, S.C.

Mexico City, MexicoMay 29, 2007



---

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         106,888
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,808,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                   321,659
<INVENTORY>                                 18,915,101
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,107,731
<PP&E>                                      13,009,567
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,194,338
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,277,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,112,301
<BONDS>                                     23,866,728
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,973
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,228,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,277,797
<SALES>                                     54,660,020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            54,660,020
<CGS>                                       43,802,079
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               43,802,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,028,247
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               396,887
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,594,980
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (148,736)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (148,736)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (328,536)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 7, 2005.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                
      ( print page 55859)    
*1. First Midwest Bancorp, Inc.*, Itasca, Illinois; to acquire Textura, L.L.C., Lake Bluff, Illinois, and thereby engage in providing data processing services, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(14)(i) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 19, 2005.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 05-19033 Filed 9-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Melvin D. Williams, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 21, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 8, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable R. Keith Kelly be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Kelly shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Kelly shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3315

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Priscilla Cordova, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 5, 2008 

 Filed: February 8, 2008

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Priscilla Cordova challenges the 30-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after revoking her supervised release. For reversal, Cordova argues that the

district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors, including the Chapter 7 sentencing recommendations, and by giving too much

weight to her original sentence. We affirm. 
-2-

We conclude that Cordova’s sentence, which is within the statutory maximum,

is not unreasonable, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See 18

U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (authorizing up to 3 years imprisonment upon revocation of

supervised release where original offense is Class B felony); United States v. Mathis,

451 F.3d 939, 941 (8th Cir. 2006) (review for reasonableness is akin to review for

abuse of discretion); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per

curiam) (review of revocation sentences is for unreasonableness); United States v.

Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (listing circumstances in which abuse

of discretion may occur). 

Specifically, the updated presentence report with the advisory Guidelines range

was before the court; the same district judge presided over Cordova’s original and

revocation sentencing hearings; the court was aware of Cordova’s history and

characteristics, including her pattern of relapsing on drugs when not supervised; and

the court properly considered Cordova’s original lenient sentence. See United States

v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court need not mechanically list

every § 3553(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of

supervised release); United States v. Cotton, 399 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2005) (court

properly considered that defendant received substantially reduced original sentence

in imposing revocation sentence in excess of suggested Guidelines range); United

States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir. 2005) (familiarity with defendant’s

history and characteristics is implied when same judge presided over original

sentencing hearing and revocation hearing; district court’s awareness of defendant’s

repeated violations of release condition supported inference that court was aware of

relevant § 3553(a) factors). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
LEWIS v. TRANSIT MANAGEMENT OF CHARLOTTE, et al.

3P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Vernon Sumwalt, Attorney at Law, Mark T. Sumwalt, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Lauren H. Walker, Attorney at Law, for Lewis, Kelly F.

John Brem Smith, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Elizabeth Hilker, Attorney at Law, Tara D. Muller, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Transit Management of Charlotte, et al.

The following order has been entered on the joint motion filed on the 3rd of May 2017 for Leave to Withdraw Petitions for Discretionary Review:

*624"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of June 2017."
In re: J.A.M.

7P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 10, 2017

Richard Croutharmel, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Johnson, Jasmine.

Christopher C. Peace, Attorney at Law, Keith Smith, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Mecklenburg County DSS.

Caroline P. Mackie, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for GAL.

Jacob E. Setzer, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Moses, Travis.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of January 2017 by Petitioner for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of January 2017."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4104

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PAUL F. CALLAWAY, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00124-NCT-1)

Submitted: September 29, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008

Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

A. Wayne Harrison, Sr., LAW OFFICES OF A. WAYNE HARRISON,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner,

United States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Paul F. Callaway, Jr., was sentenced to thirty-three

months imprisonment pursuant to his guilty plea to four counts of

filing false federal income tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C.

§ 7206(1) (2000). He appeals, claiming that the district court

erred in applying a two-level enhancement for abusing a position of

trust under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 3B1.3

(2007). 

This court reviews de novo a district court’s legal

interpretation of whether a defendant abused a position of trust

under § 3B1.3, and reviews its factual findings for clear error.

United States v. Ebersole, 411 F.3d 517, 535-36 (4th Cir. 2005).

Section 3B1.3 provides for a two-level increase “[i]f the defendant

abused a position of public or private trust, or used a special

skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or

concealment of the offense.” An adjustment under § 3B1.3 is

warranted “if the district court determines that [the defendant]

abused a position of trust and that abuse significantly contributed

to the commission or concealment of the crime.” Ebersole, 411 F.3d

at 536 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Callaway is correct that we require the question of

whether a person occupies a position of trust to be addressed from

the perspective of the victim. See United States v. Moore, 29 F.3d

175, 180 (4th Cir. 1994). However, we have also held that there
 3 

can be multiple victims of an offense. See United States v.

Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 203 (4th Cir. 1999). Here, although the

primary victim of Callaway’s offenses was the United States, his

former employer, for whom he provided accounting services, was also

victimized by Callaway’s conduct. 

Accordingly, we affirm Callaway’s sentence. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
Arvel Lee Gentry, a/k/a Arvel Lee Gentry, Orville Gentry, Petitioner v. Gary Brooks, Stephen Franklin, Sandy McDevitt, Van Franklin (life tenant), and J.C. Gentry, Respondents

No. COA16-614

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

AFFIRMED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00018-CV

Crosswater Yacht Club, L.P.; Crosswater Yacht Club Management, L.L.C.;

Crosswater Corporation; Harbor Ventures, Inc.; Rand Forest and Richard Kemp,

Appellants

v.

Charles H. West and Rhonda West, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-07-004294, HONORABLE MARGARET A. COOPER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants Crosswater Yacht Club, L.P., Crosswater Yacht Club Management,

L.L.C., Crosswater Corporation, Harbor Ventures, Inc., Rand Forest, and Richard Kemp have filed

a motion requesting that this appeal be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal.

__________________________________________

Diane M. Henson, Justice 

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed on Appellants’ Motion

Filed: October 14, 2008