alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of James Myers, Appellant. Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 1, 1977, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying the claimant from receiving benefits, effective March 18, 1977, on the ground that he lost his employment through misconduct in connection therewith. Claimant, a truck driver for a retail furniture store, arranged with his employer to be absent from work on March 18, 1977 in order to attend the funeral of a member of his family. He had also arranged to leave work early on March 17, 1977 in order to provide transportation for some family members arriving at the airport. After completing some deliveries, claimant arrived at the retail store in Levittown at approximately 1:15 p.m. and was directed by his supervisor to load certain items in the truck for delivery to the warehouse in Hempstead. Claimant did not believe he could load the truck and still have time to meet his relatives at the airport. Consequently, claimant drove the empty truck to the warehouse where his car was parked and thereafter left for the day. Due to the fact that claimant had taken the empty truck to the warehouse, his supervisor had to be taken by car to the warehouse. The supervisor then returned with the truck to the store, loaded the truck and then drove the truck back to the warehouse. Claimant was discharged for taking the empty truck to the warehouse instead of taking a bus or some other means of transportation. The board found that claimant lost his employment due to misconduct and disqualified him from receiving unemployment benefits. We disagree. The question of whether the reason advanced for a claimant’s discharge from employment amounts to "misconduct” is always open for review *(Matter of Love [Ross],*54 AD2d 775). Claimant testified that it was his normal procedure to take the empty truck and leave it at the warehouse at the end of the day. It is also clear from a reading of the record that claimant was not told to take some other means of transportation back to the warehouse on the day in question. In our view, claimant’s taking of the truck back to the warehouse resulted from poor judgment but did not amount to misconduct so as to disqualify him from receiving benefits. There is no evidence that claimant was derelict in his duties and the alleged misconduct arose out of a single isolated incident. No specific rule was breached by claimant and he took no action after being warned against it. We conclude, therefore that there was no misconduct on claimant’s part so as to disqualify him from receiving benefits (see *Matter of Clum [Ross],*61 *941AD2d 870). Consequently, the decision of the board must be reversed. Decision reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### Essex Real Estate Corporation, Appellant, v Charles J. Piluso et al., Respondents.

Appeal, as limited by appellant’s brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 24, 1978, as dismissed appellant’s 26th cause of action, which seeks to impose liability against Charles J. Piluso on the basis of money lent, on the ground that it was time barred by the Virginia Statute of Limitations. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Special Term properly dismissed appellant’s 26th cause of action on the ground that it was time barred by the applicable Virginia Statute of Limitations. The affidavit of defendant Charles J. Piluso, alleged by plaintiff to be an acknowledgment of the debt, was not sufficient to start the Statute of Limitations running anew because (1) it did not admit liability for a debt presently due, and (2) it was made to someone other than the creditor and was not shown to have been made with the intent to benefit the debtor or influence the creditor (see *Layman v Layman,*171 Va 317; *Bickers v Pinnell,*199 Va 444). We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Mangano, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
        3.2(a)
 
 
 By
        order
        of the Board of Directors of PhotoMedex, Inc., Section 6.01 of the By-laws
        was
        amended on October 30, 2007, to read as follows:
 
 “Section
        6.01. CERTIFICATES. Except as otherwise provided by law, each stockholder
        shall
        be entitled to a certificate or certificates which shall represent and certify
        the number and class (and series, if appropriate) of shares of stock owned
        by
        him in the Corporation. Each certificate shall be signed in the name of the
        Corporation by the Chairman of the Board or a Vice-Chairman of the Board
        of the
        President or a Vice President, together with the Treasurer or an Assistant
        Treasurer, or the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary. Any or all of the
        signatures on any certificate may be a facsimile. In case any officer, transfer
        agent or registrar who has signed or which facsimile signature has been placed
        upon a certificate shall have ceased to be such officer, transfer agent or
        registrar before such certificate is issued, it may be issued by the Corporation
        with the same effect as if such person were such officer, transfer agent
        or
        registrar at the date of issue. Each share of stock, however, shall be eligible
        for record of ownership, and transfer of ownership, by book-entry under a
        Direct
        Registration System that complies with Nasdaq rules; while entitled to a
        certificate, a stockholder shall not be required to have a
        certificate.”
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 3229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00657]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11300]


Notice of Public Meeting To Prepare for International Maritime 
Organization Session

    The Department of State will conduct a public meeting at 10:00 a.m. 
on Wednesday, February 10, 2021, by way of teleconference. Members of 
the public may participate up to the capacity of the teleconference 
phone line, which will handle 500 participants. To access the 
teleconference line, participants should call (202) 475-4000 and use 
Participant Code: 415 533 25#. The primary purpose of the meeting is to 
prepare for the seventh session of the International Maritime 
Organization's (IMO) Sub-Committee on Human Element, Training and 
Watchkeeping (HTW) to be held remotely, February 15-19, 2021.
    The agenda items to be considered include:

--Adoption of the agenda
--Decisions of other IMO bodies
--Role of the human element
--Implementation of the STCW Convention
--Comprehensive review of the 1995 STCW-F Convention
--Development of amendments to the STCW Convention and Code for the use 
of electronic certificates and documents of seafarers
--Development of measures to ensure quality of onboard training as part 
of the mandatory seagoing service required by the STCW Convention
--Development of measures to facilitate mandatory seagoing service 
required under the STCW Convention
--Biennial status report and provisional agenda for HTW 8
--Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for 2022
--Any other business
--Report to the Maritime Safety Committee

    Please note: The Sub-committee may, on short notice, adjust the HTW 
7 agenda to accommodate the constraints associated with the virtual 
meeting format. Although no changes to the agenda are anticipated, if 
any are necessary, they will be provided to those who RSVP.
    Those who plan to participate may contact the meeting coordinator, 
Mr. Kenneth Doyle, by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9f2dcd7d7dccdd197d397fdd6c0d5dcf9cccadade97d4d0d5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="48032d26262d3c206622660c2731242d083d3b2b2f66252124">[email protected]</span></a>, by phone at 
(202) 372-1046, or in writing at 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, 
Stop 7509, Washington DC 20593-7509.
    Additional information regarding this and other IMO public meetings 
may be found at: https://www.dco.uscg.mil/IMO.

Jeremy M. Greenwood,
Coast Guard Liaison Officer, Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-00657 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-09-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1
                            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                         CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Search Financial Services, Inc.
(f/k/a Search Capital Group, Inc.)
Dallas, Texas


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting a part of this Registration Statement (Form S-3) of our report
dated May 10, 1996, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Search
Capital Group, Inc. appearing in the Company's Transition Report on Form 10-KA
for the period ended March 31, 1996. Our report contains an explanatory
paragraph regarding a change in accounting principle.

We also consent to the reference to us under the caption "Experts" in the
Prospectus.


                                                /s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

                                                    BDO SEIDMAN, LLP


Dallas, Texas
June 3, 1997
<PAGE>   2
                            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                         CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Search Financial Services, Inc.
(f/k/a Search Capital Group, Inc.)
Dallas, Texas


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting a part of this Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the
Search Capital Group, Inc. 1994 Employee Stock Option Plan of our report dated 
May 10, 1996, relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedules 
of Search Capital Group, Inc. appearing in the Company's Transition Report on 
Form 10-KA for the period ended March 31, 1996. Our report contains an
explanatory paragraph regarding a change in accounting principle.



                                                /s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

                                                    BDO SEIDMAN, LLP


Dallas, Texas
June 3, 1997
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.3
 AXCESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
WHISTLEBLOWER POLICY
 Purpose
  
    
    establishes guidance for the receipt, retention, and treatment of verbal or
written reports received by the Company regarding accounting, internal controls,
auditing matters, disclosure, fraud and unethical business practices, whether
submitted by Company employees or third parties (Allegation), and
    
    establishes guidance for providing Company employees a means to make Reports in a
confidential and anonymous manner, and
    
    makes clear the Companys intention to discipline, up to and including
termination of employment, any person determined to have engaged in retaliatory
behavior,
  Receipt
  Procedures
   i.
    
    Who is the alleged wrongdoer?ii.
    
    How serious is the alleged wrongdoing?iii.
    
    How credible is the allegation of wrongdoing?




---



##### 



Delegation of Authority With In the Audit Committee
  Interpretation
  Retaliation
  Audit Committee Review of Reports
  Reporting Allegations
  Dated and approved by the Board of Directors on this 22 nd day of February 2005.
(July 6, 1960)

#### Gerald Belfert, Appellant, v. Peoples Planning Corporation of America, Respondent.

Order dated January 18, 1960, granting motion of defendant to strike out supplemental reply and granting judgment dismissing the first cause of action, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. The oral options exercisable by the appellant alone constitute the contract one not performable within a year. *(Harris*v. *Home Ind. Go.,*6 A D 2d 861; *Supplee*v. *Hallanan,*14 Mise 2d 658, affd. 8 A D 2d 708, motion for leave to appeal denied 8 A D 2d 794, and 7 N Y 2d 705.) A contract not performable within a year is unenforcible unless in writing and signed by the party to be charged. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally and Bastow, JJ.; Valente, J., *761diss.ents in the following memorandum as follows: I would reverse the order dismissing the first cause of action as barred by the Statute of Frauds because, in my opinion, there were sufficient facts presented by plaintiff to entitle him to a trial of the issue of the existence of an enforeible employment agreement. There are triable issues not only as to the nature of plaintiff’s contract, but also as to whether the writings in the case at bar, taken in connection with oral testimony, which may be offered, can satisfy the Statute of Frauds. (See *Crabtree*v. *Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.,*305 N. Y. 48.) [22 Mise 2d 753.]
215.404-75 Fee requirements for FFRDCs. For nonprofit organizations that are FFRDCs, the contracting officer— ( a ) Should consider whether any fee is appropriate. Considerations shall include the FFRDC's— ( 1 ) Proportion of retained earnings (as established under generally accepted accounting methods) that relates to DoD contracted effort;
( 2 ) Facilities capital acquisition plans;
( 3 ) Working capital funding as assessed on operating cycle cash needs; and
( 4 ) Provision for funding unreimbursed costs deemed ordinary and necessary to the FFRDC.
( b ) Shall, when a fee is considered appropriate, establish the fee objective in accordance with FFRDC fee policies in the DoD Instruction 5000.77, DoD Federally Funded Research and Development Center Program.
( c ) Shall not use the weighted guidelines method or an alternate structured approach.
[63 FR 63800, Nov. 17, 1998, as amended at 88 FR 80466, Nov. 17, 2023]
EXHIBIT
32.2




Statmon
Technologies Corp.




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


19 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Statmon Technologies Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Geoffrey P.
Talbot, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:




(1)        The
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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/
      Geoffrey P. Talbot /s/Geoffrey
      P. TalbotChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      19, 2009




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be
retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 99.1

   STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
             SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Modern Technology Corp.,
(the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Arthur Seidenfeld, Chief Executive and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify that:

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

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

/s/ Arthur Seidenfeld
---------------------
Arthur Seidenfeld
Director, President, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer

October 18, 2002

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### William WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Collie Rushton, Warden; C.E. Pratt, Lieutenant; A. Wright, Sgt., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 07-7697.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 20, 2008.

Decided: June 11, 2008.

William Washington, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, Doyle, O’Rourke, Tate & McDade, P.A., Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Washington appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying *236relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Washington v. McCormick Corr. Inst.,*No. 0:07-cv-00026, 2007 WL 3046696 (D.S.C. Oct. 16, 2007). 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.*
The Reports and Resources lists additional U.S. Department of Education Resources  on a variety of ED publications, most available online, that set forth the rights   of students and others to be free from discrimination based on race, color,   national origin, sex, disability and age. 

**OCR Reports & Resources****ED Pubs On-Line Ordering System****Database of ED Publications in ERIC****ED Legislation, Regulations, and Policy Guidance****National Center for Education Statistics Electronic Catalog**More information about **ED Publications and Products****Archived Information**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

PRAIRIE POINTE CONDOMINIUM )

ASSOCIATION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 3115

)

QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Prairie Pointe Condominium Association (“Prairie Pointe”)

has filed its Answer to the Counterclaim brought against it by

defendant QBE Insurance Corporation (“QBE”). Although that

pleading was filed about 10 days ago, this Court’s more than

full-time involvement in an ongoing trial and contested motions

has disabled it from addressing some problematic aspects of that

responsive pleading. With the case on trial having gone to the

jury yesterday afternoon, this Court can turn to issuance of this

memorandum order to address matters that Prairie Pointe must

cure.

To begin with, Prairie Pointe has declined to respond to a

number of the Counterclaim’s allegations about provisions of

QBE’s insurance policy that is at the heart of the parties’

dispute by asserting that “the insurance policy speaks for

itself” (Answer ¶8-12). That cop-out violates Prairie Pointe’s

obligation under Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b)(1)(B)--and see

App’x ¶3 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D.
276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001).

Next, Answer ¶6 has inexplicitly (and impermissibly)

departed from the plain roadmap marked out by Rule 8(b)(5) as the

basis for a deemed denial of an opposing parties’ allegations. 

In that respect see App’x ¶1 to State Farm.

Lastly, Prairie Pointe has again evaded its Rule 8(b)(1)(B)

obligation in its responses to Counterclaim ¶¶17, 23 and 24 by

characterizing the allegations there as “conclusions of law.” 

Again that is an impermissible shift and avoidance--see App’x ¶2

to State Farm.

This Court frequently addresses such deficiencies by

requiring an entire do-over by counsel, because piecemeal or

splintered pleadings make it more difficult to see just what is

and what is not at issue (in contrast to being able to review a

self-contained pleading for that purpose). In this instance,

however, only the paragraphs in the Answer referred to in this

memorandum order are stricken, and Prairie Pointe is given leave

to file an amendment to its Answer (not a full-blown selfcontained Amended Answer) on or before June 21, 2013. 

But at the same time, there is no reason that Prairie Pointe

should be required to pay for its counsel’s errors of the type

described here. Accordingly, no charge is to be made to Prairie

Pointe for the time and expense involved in correcting the

earlier pleading, and Prairie Pointe’s counsel are ordered to

2
advise their client to that effect, with a copy of counsel’s

letter to be transmitted to this Court’s chambers (purely for

informational purposes, not for filing).

___________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 11, 2013

3
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDefinition and preliminary design of the LAWS (Laser Atmospheric Wind Sounder), volume 2, phase 2Accurate knowledge of winds is critical to our understanding of the earth's climate and to our ability to predict climate change. Winds are a fundamental component of highly nonlinear interactions between oceans, land surfaces, and the atmosphere. Interactions at these interfaces are the focus of much climate change research. Although wind information is critical for advancing our understanding, currently most of our description of atmospheric motion is obtained indirectly - i.e., derived from observations of temperature and moisture through geostrophic relationships. Direct measurement of winds over the globe is limited to land-based rawinsonde surface stations and a few ship/aircraft reports. Cloud track winds using satellite imagery are calculated but must be used with great care. The LAWS mission objective, therefore, is to provide diurnal and global direct observations of winds - an observation that will incrementally enhance our knowledge of the earth's climate and physical processes responsible for its change. This document is Volume 2 of the LAWS Phase 2 Final Study Report and describes the definition and preliminary design of the LAWS instrument, together with details of the laser breadboard program conducted during the last 18 months of the program.Document ID19930007434Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 30, 1992Subject CategoryMeteorology And ClimatologyReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:184485NASA-CR-184485Accession Number93N16623Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-37589Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19930007434.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024