alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-159124, 333-151365, 333-138420, 333-134542,
333-124969, 333-123816, 333-108009, 333-91072, 333-91070, 333-72194, 333-55520, 333-39928) on Forms S-8 of Occam Networks, Inc. and subsidiary of our reports dated February 23, 2010,
relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, included in and incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Occam Networks, Inc. and subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 2009.

/s/
SingerLewak LLP

San
Jose, CA
February 23, 2010

---



QuickLinks
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7762

KEVIN ELWOOD BULLOCK , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
A. MENDOZA, Acting Warden; FCI WILLIAMSBURG , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 0:21

- cv - 03205

- JFA )

Submitted : September 27, 2022 Decided: October 17, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Kevin Elwood Bullock, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7762 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Kevin Elwood Bullock, a federa l prisoner, appeals the district court’s order and judgment accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on
Bullock’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which Bullock challenged his revocation sentence.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

. Bullock v. Mendoza , No. 0:21

- cv - 03205

- JFA (D.S.C. Dec. 9, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and ar gument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7762 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 978 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 978

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 11, 2003

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
certain Federal annuity computations are adjusted by 1 percentage point 
  relating to periods of receiving disability payments, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ANNUITY COMPUTATION ADJUSTMENT FOR PERIODS OF DISABILITY.

    (a) In General.--Section 8415 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating the second subsection (i) as 
        subsection (k); and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(l) In the case of any annuity computation under this section 
that includes, in the aggregate, at least 2 months of credit under 
section 8411(d) for any period while receiving benefits under 
subchapter I of chapter 81, the percentage otherwise applicable under 
this section for that period so credited shall be increased by 1 
percentage point.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 8422(d)(2) of title 5, United 
States Code (as added by section 122(b)(2) of Public Law 107-135) is 
amended by striking ``8415(i)'' and inserting ``8415(k)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to any annuity

entitlement to which is based on a separation from service occurring on 
or after the date of enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 10, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# Total Factor Productivity

The Total Factor Productivity (PROD3) release presents data on total factor productivity in the private business and private nonfarm business sectors.  Total factor productivity measures the change in output per unit of combined capital and labor.  Preliminary total factor productivity data are published for the most recent year approximately three months after the reference period.  For more information, visit the Productivity home page at www.bls.gov/productivity/.

- Total factor productivity increased 0.7% in 2023, following a 1.6% decrease in 2022
- Total factor productivity decreases 1.2% in 2022, following a 4.0% increase in 2021
- Total factor productivity increases 3.2% in private nonfarm business in 2021
- Multifactor productivity decreases 1.7% in 2020, following a 0.7% increase in 2019
- Multifactor productivity increases 0.9% in 2019, following the same increase in 2018
- Multifactor productivity increases 1.0% in 2018, following a 0.4% increase in 2017
- Multifactor productivity increases 0.9% in 2017, following a 0.6% decrease in 2016
- Multifactor productivity decreases 0.2% in 2016, first decline since 2009
- Multifactor productivity increases 0.2% in 2015, slower growth rate than in 2014
- Multifactor productivity increases 0.7% in 2014, faster growth rate than in 2013
- Multifactor productivity increases 0.8% in 2014, slower growth rate than in 2013
- Multifactor productivity increases 0.9% in 2013, faster growth rate than in 2012
**SEC. File Nos.	333-138648**

**	811-21981**

** **

** **

 

**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

	Washington, D.C. 20549
EX-10.16



 Exhibit 10.16 
 SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 
 Director compensation for
non-employee directors has three components: (1) annual cash retainer for board service, (2) annual cash retainers based on committee chair positions or committee memberships, and (3) annual restricted stock grant. 

The annual cash retainer for board service is $100,000. Retainers for committee or chair service include: (i) $10,000 for each non-Chair member of
the Audit Committee; (ii) $10,000 for each non-Chair member of the Corporate Strategy and Development Committee; (iii) $5,000 for each non-Chair member of the Compensation Committee; (iv) $50,000 for the Board of Directors Chair;
(v) $25,000 for the Audit Committee Chair; (vi) $25,000 for the Corporate Strategy and Development Committee Chair; and (vii) $12,500 for the Compensation Committee Chair. All retainers are paid in quarterly installments in advance on
the first day of the quarter. For calendar year 2012, all retainers were prorated based on the board service commencement date of March 19, 2012. 
 Each non-employee director also receives an annual restricted stock grant issued pursuant to the Company’s 2012 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). In 2012, the value of the annual
restricted stock grant was $100,000, which was prorated based on the board service commencement date of March 19, 2012. The number of shares in the grant is based on the fair market value of the Company’s common stock as of the grant date.
The restricted stock grant vests in three equal installments on March 19 of each year over a three year period, subject to continued service as a director through the vesting dates. The shares also immediately vest in the event of a Change of
Control, as defined in the Plan. 
 Directors are subject to stock ownership guidelines that require that the director must at all times during
service on the board hold shares of the Company’s stock equal to 50% of the aggregate number of shares awarded to the director as director compensation and that have vested. To monitor the guideline, board members are not permitted to sell
shares without Compensation Committee approval.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43536

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

ESTEVAN JUNIOR REYNA

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 514

Filed: May 2, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Bonneville County. Hon. Bruce L. Pickett , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of ten years, with three years determinate , for felony operating a motor vehicle while under the influence and five years, with two years determinate , for felony eluding a police officer,

affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Estevan Junior Reyna pled guilty to felony operating a motor vehicle while under the

influence , Idaho Code § § 18

- 8004, 18

- 8005(9), and felony eluding a police officer, I.C. § 49

-
1404(1)(2)(c) . The district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of ten years, with three

yea rs determinate , for driving under the influence and five years, with two years determinate , for

eluding

. Reyna appeals, contending that his sentence s are excessive.2

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 1 14, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Reyna ’s judgm ent of conviction and sentence s are affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                         421,894
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,356,631
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (40,484)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,767,171
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,662,587
<PP&E>                                       4,598,552
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,250,164)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,598,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          939,751
<BONDS>                                        621,832
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,629
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,927,115
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,598,596
<SALES>                                      3,073,004
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,081,876
<CGS>                                        2,225,943
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,874,091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,807
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                186,978
<INCOME-TAX>                                    74,623
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            112,355
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   112,355
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
65

Table 24. Contribution of wives' earnings to 

family income, 1970-2004

1970.....................................

1971.....................................

1972....................................

1973.....................................

1974.....................................

1975.....................................

1976.....................................

1977.....................................

1978....................................

1979....................................

1980.....................................

1981....................................

1982....................................

1983.....................................

1984.....................................

1985.....................................

1986....................................

1987....................................

1988....................................

1989.....................................

1990.....................................

1991.....................................

1992.....................................

1993.....................................

1994.....................................

1995.....................................

1996.....................................

1997.....................................

1998.....................................

1999.....................................

2000.....................................

2001.....................................

2002.....................................

2003.....................................

2004....................................

34.8

35.2

34.8

32.8

33.5

34.4

31.9

32.6

32.7

32.8

31.3

32.4

32.2

31.9

29.5

29.6

29.9

30.7

28.8

28.4

28.3

29.0

26.0

26.7

27.3

28.4

26.3

26.4

26.1

26.1

27.5

26.7

26.0

25.4

Year

Contribution to 

family income 

(median percent)

26.6

SOURCE: Annual Social and Economic Supplements 1971-2005 Current Population Survey, U.S.

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1857

AILA TUULIKKI LORING, Personal representative of the estate of Seldon 

Loring, deceased; LEILA LORING, on behalf of her deceased father Seldon 

Loring; JAANA LORING MELIA, on behalf of her deceased father Seldon 

Loring,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

SOUTHERN AIR CHARTER COMPANY, LTD., Springdale, Maryland; 

SOUTHERN AIR CHARTER COMPANY, LIMITED, Nassau, Bahamas; ALPHA 

GIBBS,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:16-cv-03844-PX)

Submitted: September 18, 2018 Decided: September 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce Allen Johnson, Jr., Bowie, Maryland, for Appellants. Bruce Plaxen, PLAXEN & 

ADLER, PA, Columbia, Maryland; Joseph Peter Musacchio, KREINDLER & 
2

KREINDLER, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to dismiss 

on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss this 

appeal as interlocutory. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 

541, 545-46 (1949). The order the Appellants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor 

an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 

U.S. 517, 527-30 (1988). Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We further deny the motion to expedite as moot. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 922 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 922

To amend the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 to provide 
   for the liquidation of blocked assets of terrorists and terrorist 
 organizations in order to reimburse the Treasury for the compensation 
                             of claimants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2003

   Mr. Camp introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on 
International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 to provide 
   for the liquidation of blocked assets of terrorists and terrorist 
 organizations in order to reimburse the Treasury for the compensation 
                             of claimants.

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

SECTION 1. LIQUIDATION OF BLOCKED TERRORIST ASSETS.

    Section 406 of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 
(Public Law 107-42; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
    ``(d) Liquidation of Blocked Assets.--
            ``(1) Liquidation.--The President may vest and liquidate 
        assets described in paragraph (2) and use the proceeds from the 
        liquidation to reimburse the Treasury and any account described 
        in subsection (c) for any amounts paid to individuals pursuant 
        to subsection (a) before or after the enactment of this 
        subsection.
            ``(2) Description of assets.--The assets referred to in 
        paragraph (1) are any property and interests in property--
                    ``(A) that are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 
                13224 of September 24, 2001; or
                    ``(B) that are blocked pursuant to section 219 of 
                the Immigration and Nationality Act, any other 
                provision of law, or any other Executive order, by 
                virtue of--
                            ``(i) involvement in, risk of involvement 
                        in, or sponsorship or support for, acts of 
                        terrorism, or
                            ``(ii) ownership or control by, or 
                        association with, persons or organizations who 
                        are involved in, pose a risk of involvement in, 
                        or sponsor or support acts of terrorism.''.
                                 <all>
```
EX-10.9(c)



 Exhibit 10.9(c) 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 
 ARATANA THERAPEUTICS, INC. 
 2010 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 

Approved by the Board of Directors: December 22, 2012 
 Approved by the Stockholders: December 28, 2012 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 2010 ARATANA
THERAPEUTICS, INC. EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of December 28, 2012. 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) and the requisite Stockholders
(the “Stockholders”) of Aratana Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), approved and adopted the 2010 Aratana Therapeutics, Inc Equity Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”) on December 23, 2010; 
 WHEREAS, the Board and the
Stockholders of the Company approved and adopted an amendment to the Plan on October 28, 2011; 
 Whereas, the Board
adopted an amendment to the Plan on September 5, 2012; 
 WHEREAS, capitalized terms
used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Plan; and 

WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 11.2 of the Plan, the Board and the Stockholders desire to
amend the Plan as set forth in this Amendment. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE
IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4.1. Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by replacing 3,250,000 shares with
3,600,000 shares. 

  

	 	2.	MISCELLANEOUS. 

  

	 	a.	No Other Amendment. Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


  

	 	b.	Execution by Facsimile. The exchange of copies of this Amendment and of signature pages thereto by facsimile transmission or by e-mail transmission in portable
digital format, or similar format, shall constitute effective execution and delivery of such instrument(s) and may be used in lieu of the original Amendment for all purposes. 


[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has
caused this Amendment to the Plan to be executed as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	ARATANA THERAPEUTICS, INC.
		
		 	 /s/ Steven St. Peter

	By:	 	Steven St. Peter
	Its:	 	Chief Executive Officer


 [SIGNATURE PAGE TO 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 2010 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN]
##### 



Exhibit 16

Sam May, CPACertified Public Accountant
20283 State Road 7, Suite 300, Boca Raton, Florida 33498
Office: (561) 487-0670 Fax: (561) 852-1646

May 3, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

Gentlemen:

We are in agreement with the statements made by Technology Ventures Group, Inc.
in the attached Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2001, regarding the
change in the registrants independent public accountants.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Samuel F. May Jr., CPA




Samuel F. May Jr.
Certified Public Accountant


-20-
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 587

To amend title 40, United States Code, to add Ashtabula, Mahoning, and 

Trumbull Counties, Ohio, to the Appalachian region. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

Mr. LATOURETTE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To amend title 40, United States Code, to add Ashtabula, 

Mahoning, and Trumbull Counties, Ohio, to the Appalachian region.

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

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONS TO APPALACHIAN REGION. 

4 Section 14102(1)(H) of title 40, United States Code, 

5 is amended—

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘Ashtabula,’’ after ‘‘Adams,’’; 

7 (2) by inserting ‘‘Mahoning,’’ after ‘‘Law8 rence,’’; and 

9 (3) by inserting ‘‘Trumbull,’’ after ‘‘Scioto,’’.

Æ
sec10k123112_10-7b.htm



EXHIBIT 10.7(b)







SCHEDULE A TO EXHIBIT 10.6(b)







The following individuals entered into Executive Deferred Compensation Plans with The Ohio Valley Bank Company identified below which are identical to the Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, dated December 18, 2012, between Jeffrey E. Smith and The Ohio Valley Bank Company filed herewith.








	
Name

	  	
Date of Director Deferred Fee Plan


	  	  	  
	
Thomas E. Wiseman

	  	
December 18, 2012


	  	  	  
	
Scott W. Shockey

	  	
December 18, 2012


	  	  	  
	
Katrinka V. Hart

	  	
December 18, 2012


	  	  	  
	
E. Richard Mahan

	  	
December 18, 2012