alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
child custody matters, and we will not disturb the district court's custody 

determinations absent a clear abuse of discretion." Ellis v. Carucci, 123 

Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007). This court will not set aside 

district court factual findings if they are supported by substantial 

evidence. Id. at 149, 161 P.3d at 242. The district court found that 

appellant alienated the child from respondent, failed to correct past 

behavioral problems, demonstrated continued poor judgment, and failed to 

adhere to court orders. Contrary to appellant's assertions, these findings 

are supported by substantial evidence, specifically, testimony that was 

presented at the evidentiary hearing on the matter. See id. Moreover, 

there is no indication that these findings demonstrate district court bias or 

an improper acquiescence to the recommendation of the parenting 

coordinator. See NRCP 53 (providing that a court may appoint a special 

master who will prepare a report regarding the matters submitted to 

them). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it 

concluded that the child's best interest would be served by granting 

respondent primary physical custody and limiting appellant's legal 

custody rights. See NRS 125.510(2); Rivero, 125 Nev. at 421, 216 P.3d at 

221 (providing that parents need not have equal decision-making power in 

a joint legal custody situation); Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 241. 

Appellant also argues that the district court abused its 

discretion when it found that appellant had not complied with the terms of 

the prior stipulated order that had conditionally granted the parties joint 

custody provided that appellant begin counseling for herself and the child. 

The district court relied on this finding only as an alternative reason, 

other than changed circumstances, to entertain respondent's motion to 

modify custody. Thus, even if appellant had fully complied with the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A ce 
J. 

stipulation's terms and had joint custody, the district court's principal 

reason for modifying custody—that doing so served the child's best 

interest—would remain unaffected. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

CLAS 

Parraguirre 

J. 

cc: Hon. William S. Potter, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Steinberg Law Group 

Fine Law Group 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(0) 1947A
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph Lubrien, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered November 24, 1959 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed on the law and on the facts and a new trial ordered. It appears to us that, when defense counsel was curtailed at the trial by the learned trial court with reference to the complaining witness’ past use of narcotics, counsel was simply attempting, albeit somewhat ineffectively: (a) to develop chronologically the witness’ continued use of narcotics to the day of the *642alleged crime or to the time of trial; and (b) to show that, when he (the witness), on direct examination, testified that he was not a present user of drugs, he had prevaricated. While the trial court may have been technically correct in limiting further interrogation as to the witness’ past use of narcotics— a fact which had already been developed, nevertheless it would have been relevant to the issue of credibility if the witness’ present use of narcotics had been established (cf. *People*v. *Williams,*6 N Y 2d 18, 28-29). Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the People’s entire ease rested on the credibility of this witness, we are constrained to hold that the interests of justice require a new trial (Code Grim. Pro., § 527). Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur; Beldock, P. J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment, with the following memorandum: Defendant makes no claim that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction or that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The only claim of error is that the trial court refused to permit defense counsel to impeach the complainant’s credibility by fully developing through cross-examination that the complainant had been a narcotics addict at the time of the robbery and at the time of the trial. The excluded testimony referred only to an attempt by defendant to establish the complainant’s use of narcotics, *prior*to the robbery; there was no exclusion of testimony to establish the complainant’s *present*use of drugs. The excluded testimony was merely cumulative. In my opinion, the exclusion was not error.
§ 766.10 Cancellation or suspension of the aviation facility license (OPNAV Form 3770/1). ( a ) *Cancellation.* ( 1 ) If the user fails to comply with the terms of the Aviation Facility License (OPNAV Form 3770/1) or of any applicable regulations, all current Aviation Facility Licenses for that user will be canceled. A canceled Aviation Facility License cannot be reinstated; a new application must be submitted for approval as explained in § 766.7.
( 2 ) If the commanding officer of a naval aviation facility has reason to believe that the use of an Aviation Facility License is not in accordance with the terms of the license he should immediately notify the Chief of Naval Operations, giving the name of the user, the Aviation Facility License number, and citing the circumstances of the misuse.
( b ) *Suspension.* The approving authority, or the commanding officer of the facility, may suspend an approved Aviation Facility License when such licensed use would be inconsistent with Navy/Marine Corps or national defense interests. Whenever possible, the Department of the Navy will avoid suspension of licenses which have been issued for official business or scheduled air carrier use. In all cases, suspensions will be lifted as quickly as possible. A suspension will not have the effect of extending the expiration date of an approved Aviation Facility License.
Case: 1:12-cv-00770 Document #: 42 Filed: 04/17/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:186
Case: 1:12-cv-00770 Document #: 42 Filed: 04/17/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:187
Case: 1:12-cv-00770 Document #: 42 Filed: 04/17/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:188
Case: 1:12-cv-00770 Document #: 42 Filed: 04/17/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:189
# U.S. Department of Education Supplemental Information for the SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance

# 1. Project Director and Applicable Entity Identification Numbers:

Prefix:	* First Name:	Middle Name:	* Last Name:	Suffix:

Project Director Level of Effort (percentage of time devoted to grant): Address:

· Street1:

Street2:

· City: County:

*State: 		  *Zip Code: 		      *Country:

· Phone Number (give area code):	Fax Number (give area code):

· Email Address:	Alternate Email Address

· OPE ID(s) (if applicable)

· NCES School ID(s) (if applicable)

· NCES LEA/School District ID(s) (if applicable)

# 2. New Potential Grantee or Novice Applicant:

N/A. This item is not applicable because the program competition’s notice inviting applications (NIA) does not include a definition of either “New Potential Grantee” or “Novice Applicant.” This item is not applicable when the program competition’s NIA does not include either definition.

For NIA’s that include a definition of “New Potential Grantee” or “Novice Applicant,” complete the following:

a. Are you either a new potential grantee or novice applicant as defined in the program competition’s NIA?

Yes	No

b. If the program competition NIA is giving competitive preference points for a new potential grantee or novice applicant, how many points are you claiming for your application? (the NIA will indicate how many are available)

# 3. Human Subjects Research:

a. Are any research activities involving human subjects planned at any time during the proposed Project Period?

Yes	No

b. Are ALL the research activities proposed designated to be exempt from the regulations?

Yes	Provide Exemption(s) # (s): ⁪ 1 ⁪ 2 ⁪ 3 ⁪ 4 ⁪ 5 ⁪ 6 ⁪ 7 ⁪ 8

No	Provide Federal Wide Assurance #(s), if available:

c. If applicable, please attach your “Exempt Research” or “Nonexempt Research” narrative to this form

as indicated in the definitions page in the attached instructions.

4. **Infrastructure Programs and Build America, Buy America Act Applicability:**

If the competition Notice Inviting Applications (NIA) in section III. 4. “Other” states that the program under which this application is submitted is subject to the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58) (BABAA) domestic sourcing requirements, complete the following:

This application does not include any infrastructure projects or activities and therefore **IS NOT** subject the BABAA domestic sourcing requirements.

This application **IS** subject to the BABAA domestic sourcing requirements, because the proposed grant project described in this application includes the following infrastructure projects or activities:

Construction

Remodeling

Broadband Infrastructure

If this application **IS** subject to the BABAA domestic sourcing requirements, please list the page numbers from within the application narrative where the proposed infrastructure project or activities are described: 

OMB Number: 1894-0007

Expiration Date:12/31/2023

# image1.png
Exhibit 32(b)








CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Progress Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark F. Mulhern, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)           the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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











/s/ Mark F. Mulhern


Mark F. Mulhern


Senior Vice President and


Chief Financial Officer


August 6, 2010





This certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

FIRST TIME VIDEOS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOES 1 – 44,

Defendants.

No. 12 C 1530

Judge Feinerman

[related to Miscellaneous Action pending in

the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia, No. 1:12-mc-00354-CKK]

NON-PARTY COMCAST’S SUGGESTION OF DECISION IN 

RELATED CASE PENDING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Non-Party Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) respectfully submits this 

Suggestion of Decision to advise the Court of an Order in a related proceeding in the United 

States District Court for the District of Columbia – First Time Videos LLC v. Comcast Cable 

Communications, LLC, No. 12-mc-00354 (D.D.C. Dec. 9, 2012). 

Although Plaintiff obtained an ex parte order granting expedited discovery from this 

Court (Dkt. 11), Plaintiff issued the subpoena to Comcast out of the District of Columbia seeking 

the identities of Comcast subscribers who are listed in Exhibit A to the Complaint in the case 

before this Court. After Comcast objected to the Subpoena, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel 

Comcast to comply with that subpoena. (D.D.C. Dkt. 1). The Court was advised of the 

pendency of that motion in the District of Columbia. (Dkt. 26) By Order dated December 9, 

2012, the federal court in Washington D.C. denied the motion filed by Plaintiff First Time 

Videos LLC to compel Comcast to comply with Plaintiff’s subpoena (D.D.C. Dkt. 11; Exhibit A

hereto). 

Case: 1:12-cv-01530 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/10/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:84
Consistent with the Court’s opinion in a nearly identical proceeding, Millennium TGA, 

Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC, Misc. A. No. 12-00150 (RLW), 2012 WL 2371426 

(D.D.C. June 25, 2012), Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered Comcast to provide Plaintiff only the city 

and state of residence for each subscriber associated with an IP address identified in Exhibit A to 

the Complaint as belonging to a Comcast subscriber, which totals thirty-four (34) out of the 

forty-four (44) total IP addresses on that exhibit. 

Comcast will timely comply with Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s Order and provide city and state 

of residence of its subscribers whose identities were sought in the subpoena.

Dated: December 10, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mark W. Wallin

Paul F. Stack

Mark W. Wallin

STACK & O’CONNOR CHARTERED

140 S. Dearborn St., Suite 411

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 782-0690

Of counsel: 

John D. Seiver 

Leslie G. Moylan 

Lisa B. Zycherman

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 800

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 973-4200

Counsel for Non-Party Comcast Cable 

Communications, LLC 

Case: 1:12-cv-01530 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/10/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:85
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 10th day of December 2012, true and correct copies of 

the foregoing document was served via ECF upon all counsel of record:

Paul A. Duffy 

PRENDA LAW INC. 

161 N. Clark Street 

Suite 3200 

Chicago, IL 60601

/s/ Mark W. Wallin

Mark W. Wallin

Case: 1:12-cv-01530 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/10/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:86
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


  Exhibit
   10(i)

  

 CONSENT OF
   INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’

  

 To the Board of
   Directors of

 C.M. Life Insurance
   Company

  

           We
   consent to the inclusion in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to
   Registration Statement No. 333-80991 on Form N-4 of our report dated
   February 14, 2000 on our audit of the Panorama Passage Segment of C.M.
   Multi-Account A as of December 31, 1999 and for the year then ended, and of
   our report February 1, 2000, on our audit of the statutory financial
   statements of C.M. Life Insurance Company as of December 31, 1999 and for
   the year then ended, which includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the
   use of statutory accounting practices, which differ from generally accepted
   accounting principles. We also consent to the reference to our Firm under
   the caption “Experts” appearing in the Statement of Additional
   Information.

  

 DELOITTE
 & TOUCHE 
 LLP

  

 Hartford,
   Connecticut

 April 24,
   2000
** **

**Exhibit 10.10**

** **

**2nd AMENDMENT TO**

**LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT**

 

This 2nd AMENDMENT TO LOANAND SECURITY AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is dated as of February 5, 2002 and isentered into by and between BancTec, Inc. (“Borrower”), Heller Financial, Inc.,in its capacity as Agent for the Lenders party to the Loan and SecurityAgreement described below (“Agent”), and the Lenders which are signatorieshereto.

 

 

WHEREAS, Agent, Lenders andBorrower are parties to a certain Loan and Security Agreement dated May 25,2001 (as such agreement has from time to time been amended, supplemented orotherwise modified, the “Agreement”); and

 

WHEREAS, the parties desireto amend the Agreement as hereinafter set forth.

 

NOW THEREFORE, inconsideration of the mutual conditions and agreements set forth in theAgreement and this Amendment, and other good and valuable consideration, thereceipt and suffiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties heretohereby agree as follows:

 

1.     Definitions. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment, unless otherwise definedherein, shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.

 

2.     Amendments. Subject to the conditions set forth below, the Agreement is amended asfollows:

 

Subsection 11.1 is amendedby deleting the definition of  “Agent’sAccount” in its entirety and inserting the following in lieu thereof:

 

“Agent’s Account” means thatcertain account of Agent, account number 50-263-200 in the name of Agent atBankers Trust Company in New York, New York ABA No. 021001033, for the benefitof BancTec, Inc. or such other account as may be specified in writing by Agentas the “Agent’s Account”.

 

3.     Ratification.  Theterms and provisions set forth in this Amendment shall modify and supersede allinconsistent terms and provisions of the Agreement and shall not be deemed tobe a consent to the modification or wavier of any other term or condition ofthe Agreement. Except as expressly modified and superseded by this Amendment,the terms and provisions of the Agreement are ratified and confirmed and shallcontinue in full force and effect.

 

1

----

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto havecaused this Amendment to be duly executed under seal and delivered by theirrespective duly authorized officers on the date first written above.

 

 

 

 

| BancTec, Inc.                                |
|----------------------------------------------|
|                                         |   |
| By:                                          |  /s/Brian Stone |
| Title:                                       | Brian Stone, Chief  Financial Officer |
|                                         |   |
| HELLER FINANCIAL, INC.,

as Agent and Lender |
|                                         |   |
| By:                                          | /s/ Linda Tuttle |
| Title:                                       | Linda Tuttle, Sr. Vice  President |

 

2

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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 1999 and the consolidated statement
of operations for three months ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                         JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                   2,391,400
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            1,812,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                              2,457,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         6,864,800
<PP&E>                                                   8,837,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                           4,779,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          10,923,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1,203,700
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    8,293,400
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                 5,400,000
<OTHER-SE>                                              (5,954,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            10,923,700
<SALES>                                                  2,245,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         2,245,500
<CGS>                                                    2,019,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            2,019,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           152,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          32,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             41,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         41,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                41,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0
        


</TABLE>
1819.708 Contract clauses. (NASA supplements paragraph (b)) ( b ) ( 1 ) The contracting officer shall use the clause at FAR 52.219-9 with its Alternate II when contracting by negotiation.
Exhibit 32.2

 

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

 

I, Michael S. Sarner, Chief Financial Officer of Capital Southwest Corporation, certify that, to my knowledge:

|  | 1. |  | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2016, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016 (“accompanied report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|----|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. |  | The information contained in the accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |
|--|----|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|                         |   |                    |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| Date:  November 8, 2016 | By:    | /s/ Michael S. Sarner   |
|                         |   | Michael S. Sarner       |
|                         |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
# September 2023 FOIA Log
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse

 Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street

 Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850

www.ca7.uscourts.gov

FINAL JUDGMENT

November 15, 2013

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No.: 13-1407

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

RITA A. CRUNDWELL, 

Defendant - Appellant

 Originating Case Information:

District Court No: 3:12-cr-50027-1

Northern District of Illinois, Western Division

District Judge Philip G. Reinhard

The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED in accordance with the decision of

this court entered on this date.

form name: c7_FinalJudgment(form ID: 132)

Case: 13-1407 Document: 00712129201 Filed: 12/09/2013 Pages: 1

Case: 3:12-cr-50027 Document #: 160 Filed: 12/09/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1039