alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 15.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-134593, 333-148932, 333-148933, 333-164330 and 333-164331) and Form F-3 (Nos. 333-163353 and 333-164332) of our reports dated March 25, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of EZchip Semiconductor Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2009 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of EZchip Semiconductor Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009.




Haifa, Israel

/s/ Kost, Forer, Gabbay and Kasierer

KOST, FORER, GABBAY AND KASIERERMarch 25, 2010

A member of Ernst & Young Global
July 12, 2021

Summary of proposed change to 25 C.F.R. § 514.4

National Indian Gaming Commission

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requires that tribal gaming operations pay annual fees

derived from the operation’s gross revenues. IGRA defines gross revenues are “the annual total

amount of money wagered, less any amounts paid out as prizes or paid for prizes awarded and

less allowance for amortization of capital expenditures for structures.” 25 U.S.C. § 2717(a)(6).

NIGC regulations clarify that assessable gross revenues include “entry fees (including table or

card fees)” and provide a definition for the “allowance for capital expenditures for structures.”

25 C.F.R. §§ 514.4(c) and (e). Currently, NIGC regulations do not specify whether promotional

credits (free play) that are issued by gaming operations and wagered by patrons should be

included in the “total amount of money wagered.”

The proposed amendment to the Commission’s fee regulation, shown in redline below, would

permit a gaming operation to deduct from “the total amount of money wagered” the amounts the

gaming operation can demonstrate were issued to patrons as promotional credits.

§ 514.4 How does a gaming operation calculate the amount of the annual fee it owes?

(a) The amount of annual fees owed shall be computed using:

(1) The most recent rates of fees adopted by the Commission; and

(2) The assessable gross revenues for the gaming operation's assessed fiscal year.

(b) Assessed fiscal year means the gaming operation's fiscal year ending prior to January 1 of the

year the Commission adopted fee rates.

(c) For purposes of computing fees, assessable gross revenues for each gaming operation are the

total amount of money wagered on class II and III games, plus entry fees (including table or card

fees), less any amounts paid out as prizes or paid for prizes awarded, and less an allowance for

capital expenditures for structures as reflected in the gaming operation's audited financial

statements.

(d) Tier 1 assessable gross revenues are the first $1,500,000 of the assessable gross revenues

from each gaming operation. Tier 2 assessable gross revenues are the amounts in excess of the

first $1,500,000 of the assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation.

(e) The allowance for capital expenditures for structures shall be either:

(1) An amount not to exceed 5% of the cost of structures in use throughout the assessed

fiscal year and 2.5% of the cost of structures in use during only a part of the assessed fiscal year;

or

(2) An amount not to exceed 10% of the total amount of depreciation expenses for the

assessed fiscal year.

(f) The amounts wagered that the gaming operation can demonstrate were issued by the gaming

operation as promotional credits may be excluded from the total amount of money wagered.

(g) Unless otherwise provided by regulation, generally accepted accounting principles shall be

used.
QiONne ‘No,

x 7
5 é
UW ee
S comm

February 27, 2013

Notice of Consultation on Regulatory Review and Consultation Policy
Dear Tribal Leader:

On behalf of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission), we invite you to
participate in a consultation meeting on two notices of proposed rule and our Draft Consultation
Policy. Specifically, we seek input on amendments to the following regulations:

(a) Part 543 — Minimum Internal Control Standards for Class II Gaming; and
(b) Part 547— Minimum Technical Standards for Gaming Equipment Used with the
play of Class II Games.

Through these two notices of proposed rule, the Commission seeks to remedy inconsistencies
between Parts 543 and 547 and to add additional surveillance measures to the kiosks section of
Part 543. Additionally, we would like to discuss changes to the NIGC’s Draft Consultation
Policy, which we have updated for clarity and to streamline the consultation process. We know
that the best results can be achieved after meaningful consultation with Indian tribes and we look
forward to your participation.

The NIGC recognizes and respects the sovereignty of Indian tribes and the government-to-
government relationship that exists between the United States and tribal governments.
Accordingly, the NIGC is committed to implementing the President’s November 5, 2009
Executive Memorandum on Tribal Consultation with Indian tribes and Executive Order 13175
prior to and during any rulemaking process.

As such, we invite all tribal leaders to share their views with the Commission these regulations
and the Draft Consultation Policy at a consultation scheduled for March 27, 2013 in Phoenix,
Arizona, from | to 3 p.m., at the following location:

Phoenix Convention Center
Room West 211AB
100 North Third St.
Phoenix, AZ 85004

For those tribal leaders unable to attend this consultation, we invite you to submit written
comments by e-mail to reg.review@nige.gov, or by U.S. mail to National Indian Gaming
Commission, Attn: Regulatory Review, 1441 L Street, NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 200:

The Commission intends to post comments received and transcripts of each consultation on the
NIGC website under the heading “Tribal Consultation,” on the left-hand side of the NIGC home
page, www.nige.gov.

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 _WWW.NIGC.GoVv

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK


For planning purposes, and to accommodate all who want to attend the consultation, please RSVP
to Rita Homa, Executive Administrator, at (202) 418-9807 or by e-mail at
consultation.rsvp@nige.gov. Information regarding the time and location of each tribal
consultation will be posted on our website.

We are committed to working together on a government-to-government basis to maximize the
results of this process. We look forward to meeting with you should your schedule allow.

Thank you for your interest and participation.

Sincerely,

Tracie L. Stevens Daniel J. Little
Chairwoman Associate Commissioner
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,825]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 21, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by workers of Castec, Inc., North Hollywood, California.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of May 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13907 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
96-1165.

#### State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Information Network v. Shirey.

In Mandamus. On request for oral argument. Request denied.
Exhibit 23.2
 (WF LOGO)ROBERT E. LIST. CPASTEWART J. REID, CPAMICHAEL L. HANISKO, CPADAVID D. QUIMBY, CPAKATHLYN M. ENGELHARDT, CPARENAE M. CLEVENGER. CPAAMY L. RODRIGUEZ, CPASCOTT A. NIETZKE, CPAWALTER G. WEINLANDER, CPAROY A. SCHAIRER. CPAJAMES L. WHALEY, CPAJEROME L. YANTZ, CPAPHILIP T. SOUTHGATE, CPAROBERT J. DUYCK, CPA
 WEINLANDER FITZHUGH
 
    1600 CENTER AVENUEPOST OFFICE BOX 775BAY CITY. MI 48707-0775989-893-5577800-624-2400FAX 989-895-5842www.wf-cpas.comwf@wf-cpas.comOFFICES: BAY CITY, CLAREGLADWIN AND WEST BRANCHRSM McGladrey Network
#### ARMSTRONG v. RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA et al.

Civil Action No. 1139.

United States District Court D. Delaware.

Nov. 30, 1948.

William Prickett, of Wilmington, Del., Alfred McCormack (of Cravath, Swaine & Moore) and Robert W. Byerly (of Byerly, Townsend & Watson), both of New York City, and Walton H. Hamilton, of Washington, D. G, for plaintiff.

C. S. Layton (of Richards, Layton & Finger), of Wilmington, Del., and John T. Cahill, William H. Davis, Stephen H. Phil-bin, and Mathias Correa, all of New York City, for defendants.

LEAHY, Chief Judge.

This is an infringement action. Defendants move under Rule 12(f) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., to strike paragraphs 12 through 14 of the complaint because they are redundant, immaterial, and impertinent. Defendants are charged with being monopolists who are obstructing exploitation of plaintiff’s patents by refusing to accept a license under them and by discouraging others from doing so.

I cannot see at this time the relevancy of paragraphs 12 through 14 on the issues of infringement or validity. They may have bearing on the question of damages.

I shall reserve decision on defendants’ motion to strike. But, I shall rule now that the issue of damages is to be postponed until validity and infringement (as well as 'contributory infringement) have been established in plaintiff’s favor. I am simply applying my opinion in Zenith Radio Corporation v. Dictograph Products Co., D.C., 6 F.R.D. 597. After plaintiff has established validity and infringement, defendants may ask for further consideration of their motion. In passing, the motion may be renewed and included in defendants’ answer.

The effect of the present ruling is that the matters now appearing in paragraphs 12 through 14 will not be presently considered as being in issue, but with one exception. Evidence may be prepared and taken under those paragraphs with respect to the issue of contributory infringement.

An order may be submitted carrying these ideas into effect or the parties may wish to stipulate.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3205 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that fees charged 

for baggage carried into the cabin of an aircraft are subject to the 

excise tax imposed on transportation of persons by air. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2010 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. BEGICH, Mrs. 

MCCASKILL, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. HARKIN, and Mr. SANDERS) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

that fees charged for baggage carried into the cabin 

of an aircraft are subject to the excise tax imposed 

on transportation of persons by air. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Block Airlines’ Gratu5 itous Fees Act’’ or the ‘‘BAG Fees Act’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3205 IS

1 SEC. 2. FEES FOR CARRY-ON BAGGAGE TREATED AS PAID 

2 FOR TAXABLE TRANSPORTATION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (e) of section 4261 of 

4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(5) AMOUNTS PAID FOR CARRY-ON BAG7 GAGE.—Any amount paid for baggage personally 

8 carried into the cabin of the aircraft by a person 

9 shall be treated for purposes of subsection (a) as an 

10 amount paid for taxable transportation.’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment may by this 

12 section shall apply to transportation beginning on or after 

13 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zachary Jeremiah HOOVER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-4019.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 3, 2006.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Zachary J. Hoover appeals the 18-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to a *204criminal information charging him with sexual abuse of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a) (2000). We affirm.

Hoover’s sole argument on appeal is that the Government breached the plea agreement by stating to the court at sentencing that the court did not need to decide whether Hoover should register as a sex offender. Hoover did not object below, and he must therefore demonstrate plain error before he can obtain any relief. *See United States v. Fant,*974 F.2d 559, 562 (4th Cir.1992) (applying plain error analysis in context of breach of plea agreement). In order to do so, Hoover must establish the breach was “ ‘so obvious and substantial that failure to notice and correct it affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.’” *United States v. McQueen,*108 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir.1997) (quoting *Fant,*974 F.2d at 565). Our review of the record convinces us that the Government did not breach the plea agreement in responding to the district court’s questions at sentencing.

Accordingly, we affirm Hoover’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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE
QUARTER-ENDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                         166,489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,066,592
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,357,158
<PP&E>                                       1,267,423
<DEPRECIATION>                                 515,306
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,349,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,213,304
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,394
<COMMON>                                         9,538
<OTHER-SE>                                     124,642
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,349,878
<SALES>                                      1,247,293
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,247,293
<CGS>                                          819,507
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  819,507
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (757,648)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (757,648)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (757,648)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004








In connection with the Quarterly Report of All Grade Mining, Inc. (Formerly Hybred International, Inc.) (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary Kouletas, President of the Company, respectfully certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004, that:





The Report fully complies with the requirements of the section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.














/s/ Gary Kouletas


Gary Kouletas


President (Principal Executive Officer)








Date: November 28, 2011





This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to All Grade Mining, Inc. (Formerly Hybred International, Inc.) and will be retained by All
Grade Mining, Inc. (Formerly Hybred International, Inc). and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

















-20-
|                                                                                    |   | Year      Ended December 31, |    |         |   |         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|---------|--------------|--------|--------------|
|                                                                                    |   | 2004                         |    | 2005         |   | 2006         |   | 2007 |   | 2008 |   |
| EARNINGS                                                                                |   |                    |    |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Income      Before Income Taxes                                                         |   | $                            | 238,226 |         | $      | 202,021      |   | $ | 282,865 |   | $ |  195,613 |   | $ |  166,801 |   |
| Fixed      Charges (as below)                                                           |   |                         | 110,735 |         |   | 118,365      |   |   | 151,874 |   |   |  178,067 |   |   |  225,573 |   |
| Total      Earnings                                                                     |   | $                            | 348,961 |         | $      | 320,386      |   | $ | 434,739 |   | $ | 373,680 |   | $ |  392,374 |   |
|                                                                                    |   |                         |    |         |   |         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| FIXED      CHARGES                                                                      |   |                         |    |         |   |         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest      Expense                                                                   |   | $                            | 99,135  |         | $      | 106,301      |   | $ | 129,106 |   | $ | 165,405 |   | $ |  209,733 |   |
| Credit      for Allowance for Borrowed Funds Used         During Construction |   |                         | 8,100   |         |   | 8,764        |   |   | 17,668 |   |   |  6,962 |   |   |  9,040 |   |
| Estimated      Interest Element in Lease Rentals                                        |   |                         | 3,500   |         |   | 3,300        |   |   | 5,100 |   |   |  5,700 |   |   |  6,800 |   |
| Total Fixed      Charges                                                                |   | $                            | 110,735 |         | $      | 118,365      |   | $ | 151,874 |   | $ |  178,067 |   | $ |  225,573 |   |
|                                                                                    |   |                         |    |         |   |         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed      Charges                                                 |   |                         | 3.15    |         |   | 2.70         |   |   | 2.86 |   |   |  2.09 |   |   |  1.73 |   |
- 3133_001
- 2786-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**IN RE: ESTATE OF MARIO SACCHETTI,**

**DECEASED**

**PETITION OF: LINDA SACCHETTI :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 63 EAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 30th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Al lowance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Donohue did not participate in the decision of th is matter.**