alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1-iLLO PR 06-0422 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF 

KEVIN L. MILLER 

MAY 2 4 2022 

Ca4tlitItilZo&c,Iurt siato rif Montana 

Kevin L. Miller has petitioned the Court to waive the three-year test requirement for 

the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) for purposes of Miller's 

application for admission by motion to the State Bar of Montana. By rule, applicants for 

admission by motion must provide evidence of the requisite score on an MPRE taken 

within three years preceding the date of the application for admission. Rule VII.A.9, Rules 

of Admission. 

Miller passed the MPRE in 2006 when seeking admission to the practice of law in 

Ohio and went on inactive status in 2008. In 2007, Miller was admitted to the State Bar of 

Illinois and is currently an active member in good standing. The petition states that Miller 

has practiced law for 15 years "without any ethical or disciplinary issues in any 

jurisdiction." Good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Kevin L. Miller to waive the 

three-year test requirement for the MPRE for purposes of Miller's current application for 

admission by motion to the State Bar of Montana is GRANTED. 

The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to Petitioner and to the Administrator of 

the Board of Bar ExamiT4at the State Bar of Montana. 

DATED this 2--9 day of May, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

05/24/2022

Case Number: PR 06-0422
gt J:st4!1::iL
EXHIBIT 10(j)





AMENDMENT NO. 1


TO THE EMPLOYEES STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN OF


AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC. AND


ITS DESIGNATED SUBSIDIARIES


(As Amended and Restated Effective August 1, 1999)





Pursuant to the power reserved to it in Section 13.1 of the Employees Stock Ownership Plan of American Water Works Company, Inc. and Its
Designated Subsidiaries, as amended and restated effective August 1, 1999 (the Plan), American Water Works Company, Inc. hereby amends the Plan, effective July 1, 2001, as follows:





1.    Appendix B to the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety in the form attached hereto to add Long Water Island Water Corporation, Northern
Illinois Water Corporation, Northeast Indiana Water Company, and St. Louis County Water Company as designated subsidiaries.





To
record the adoption of this Amendment No. 1 to the Plan, American Water Works Company has caused its authorized officers to affix its corporate name and seal this 18 th day of December, 2001.








(Corporate Seal)



AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC.By:

/s/    W. Timothy PohlW. Timothy Pohl






---

APPENDIX B


LIST OF DESIGNATED SUBSIDIARIES


American Water Works Company, Inc.


American Commonwealth Company


American Water Resources, Inc.


American Water Services, Inc.*


American Water Works Service Company,
Inc.


Arizona-American Water Company


California-American Water Company


Greenwich Water System, Inc.


Connecticut-American Water Company


Hampton Water Works Company


Massachusetts-American Water Company


New York-American Water Company, Inc.


The Salisbury
Water Supply Company


Hawaii American Water Company


Illinois-American Water Company


Northern Illinois Water Corporation


Indiana-American Water Company, Inc.


Northwest Indiana Water Company


Iowa-American Water Company


Kentucky-American
Water Company


Long Island Water Corporation


Maryland-American Water Company


Michigan American Water Company


Missouri-American Water Company


Jefferson City
Water Works Company, Inc.


St. Louis County Water Company


New Jersey-American Water
Company, Inc.


New Mexico-American Water Company, Inc.


Ohio-American Water Company


Pennsylvania-American Water Company


Tennessee-American Water Company


Virginia-American Water Company


United Water Virginia, Inc.


West Virginia-American Water Company


Bluefield Valley Water Works Company


---

*    Participating only
with respect to certain grandfathered employees.
Test Type Report # Test System Comments ResultsBacterial reverse mutation assay (Ames)DuPont20711BacteriaGLP;GuidelineThe test substance was not mutagenic in the Bacterial Reverse Mutation Assay (Ames)test usingSalmonellastrains TA98, TA100, TA1535, and TA1537 and E. coli strainWP2uvrA with and without S9 activation.Completed Studies CAS RN 407-60-3 - submitted with the PMN
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1370
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:1371
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:1372
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:1373
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:1374
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:1375
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:1376
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:1377
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:1378
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:1379
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:1380
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:1381
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:1382
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:1383
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

Applied Micro Circuits Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-35408, 333-41572, 333-47185, 333-48912, 333-48914, 333-53282,333-57202, 333-71878, 333-74787, 333-76767, 333-92507, 333-99623, 333-110075, 333-114327, 333-130589, 333-140052, 333-147297, 333-171960) on Form S-8 of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation of our report dated May 9, 2011, with respect to theconsolidated balance sheets of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation and its subsidiaries as of March 31, 2011 and 2010, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in thetwo-year period ended March 31, 2011, the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2011, which report appears in the March 31, 2011 annual report on Form10-K of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Mountain View, California 

May 9, 2011
## EPA Reg. No. 228-606

(formerly 1812-458)
#### In the Matter of Joseph Valentino, Appellant, v. Paul D. McGinnis, as Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term entered in Albany County, denying petitioner’s application for an order that he be released from prison on May 5, 1962 instead of May 13, 1963, as determined by the Parole Board. Petitioner was convicted of burglary in the third degree on April 12, 1948 and given a reformatory sentence with a maximum of five years. He was paroled on June 12, 1950. While on parole he was convicted of vagrancy on February 23, 1951, and was charged with parole violation. On March 22, 1951 he received a suspended sentence on the vagrancy charge and was lodged in the Albany County Jail. He was indicted for burglary, third degree, in Albany County on March 24, 1952, and upon a plea of guilty was sentenced to a maximum of 10 years. When he was received at Clinton Prison the Parole Board charged him with one year on the 1948 conviction because of parole violation. It is appellant’s contention that his time on the 1948 conviction continued to run during the time he was confined to the Albany County Jail, although his time spent there was credited on his Albany County sentence. It appears that appellant owed more than two years on the 1948 conviction and sentence, and even if his contention is correct the Parole Board had full authority to require him to serve one additional year for the violation of his parole. Order unanimously affirmed. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Jacob Oliner et al., Petitioners, v. Frank H. Coyne, as Official Referee of the Supreme Court, et al., Respondents.

Application by petitioner, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to restrain respondent, Hon. Frank H. Coyne, Official Referee of the Supreme Court, from signing a judgment of foreclosure and sale in a certain action now pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County. Application denied. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 214.503 Procedures.
Borden Institute Home

About the Textbooks

Published Volumes

Ordering Information

Author Information

Related Websites

Contact Information

Search

Published Volumes

# **Rehabilitation of the Injured Combatant, Vol 1**

### Contents

Front Matter 

 Foreword by The Surgeon General

Preface  

**Patient Flow in a Theater of Operations**

####  Section I:Physiatry, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Military 

    - Physiatry, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: Historical Developmentand Military Roles
    - Physical Therapy in a Wartime Environment 

#### Section II: Rehabilitation of the Injured Combatant

    - Rehabilitation of the Upper Limb Amputee
    - Rehabilitation of the Lower Limb Amputee 
    - Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation
    - Traumatic Brain Injury
    - Cranial Neuropathies: Electrodiagnosis and Management
    - Rehabilitation of the Combatant with Musculoskeletal Disorders

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Index

 

Download Adobe Reader to view PDF documents.

External Links DisclaimerPrivacy & Security Notice
<PAGE>

                         FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (the "First Amendment")
is dated this 16th day of August, 1999, by and between DigitalConvergence.com
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Scott Carlin (the
"Executive").

         WHEREAS the Company and the Executive have executed that certain
Employment Agreement dated August 16,1999 relating to the employment of
Executive as the President, Media, of the Company (the "Base Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS the parties hereto desire to amend the Base Agreement in
accordance with the provisions of Section 11.5 thereof.

         NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Base Agreement is hereby
amended as follows:

         1.       The first full sentence of subsection 3.4.1. is hereby
                  amended to read in its entirety as follows:

         "3.4.1.  Pursuant to one or more stock option agreements (hereafter
                  referred to as the "Stock Option Agreement") dated the date
                  hereof, the Company shall grant to Executive stock options,
                  under and pursuant to the Company's 1999 Stock Option Plan,
                  to purchase one thousand seven hundred fifty (1,750) shares
                  of its common stock, $.01 par value ("Common Stock"), at a
                  price of Two Thousand Eighty-Five Dollars ($2,085) per
                  share."

         2.       Subsection 3.4.2. is hereby deleted in its entirety. All
                  references in the Base Agreement to Section 3.4.2. are hereby
                  deleted.

         3.       The balance of the Base Agreement shall remain in full force
                  and effect from and after the date hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have duly executed this
Agreement as the date first above written.


                                         DIGITALCONVERGENCE.COM INC.

                                         By:  /s/ Michael Garin
                                            -------------------
                                         Its: President
                                             -------------------

                                         SCOTT CARLIN

                                         Signature: /s/ Scott Carlin
                                                    -----------------
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2
 AXCESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
NOMINATING AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE CHARTER
 Purpose
  Membership
  Role and Responsibilities
  1.
    
    Reviewing Board structure, composition, and practices, and making
recommendations on these matters to the Board.2.
    
    Reviewing, soliciting and making recommendations to the Board of Directors and
stockholders of the Corporation with respect to candidates for election to the Board of
Directors.3.
    
    Reviewing Board Committee composition and practices and making recommendations
on these matters to the Board.4.
    
    Reviewing succession planning for the Chief Executive Officer and other key
executive officers.5.
    
    Performing such other tasks as may be authorized by the Board of Directors.
  Meetings
  Dated and approved by the Board of Directors on this 22 nd day of February 2005.
#### 2001.301 Policy.

Policy, procedures, and guidance of an internal nature will be promulgated through internal NRC issuances such as Management Directives or Division of Contracts and Property Management Instructions.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 14 , 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 17 -00978- CR

AKEEM ALAJUWON GREEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1445761

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

Appellant was indicted for burglary of a habitation. The State agreed to abandon two enhancement paragraphs in exchange for appellant’s guilty plea without an agreed recommendation as to sentencing. The trial court sentenced appellant to 16 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal. The trial court entered a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in which the court certified that appellant waived his right of appeal. See Tex. R. App.2

P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears

v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ; Jones v. State , 488 S.W.3d 801, 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (upholding waiver of right to appeal because defendant received consideration for waiver by State agreeing to abandon one of two enhancement parag raphs).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Busby. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
#### Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., Respondent, v. Neil Simon et al., Appellants.

Appeal from order entered on September 24, 1963 unanimously dismissed, as moot. Order, entered on April 21, 1964, denying defendants’ motion for judgment dismissing or for summary judgment on the first cause of action for inducing breach of contract and granting the motion as to the second cause of action for a declaratory judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants. The first cause of action is for wrongfully inducing the breach of a contract between plaintiff and defendants Simon and Ellen Enterprises, Inc. The defendant parties to the basic contract are not liable in tort; their liability is solely for breach of the contract. Hence, the action does not lie against defendants Simon and Ellen Enterprises, Inc. *(Lager*v. *Su Su Fashions,*10 A D 2d 832.) *864Defendants Simon and Ellen Enterprises, Inc., deny they entered into the alleged contract. Plaintiff, therefore, is unable to establish that said defendants would have performed under the alleged contract but for the alleged interference of defendant Paramount Pictures Corporation. *(Rice*v. *Manley,*66 N. Y. 82, 87; *Stewart & Co.*v. *Marcus,*124 Misc. 86, 89, affd. 220 App. Div. 828.) In addition, defendants Simon and Ellen Enterprises, Inc., successfully asserted in this action the Statute of Frauds as a complete defense to the action on the contract alleged in the original complaint. Thereby is demonstrated said defendants’ present unwillingness to abide by the alleged contract. Moreover, the affidavits establish that the alleged contract was negotiated by a theatrical agent whose authority to contract in his behalf is denied by Simon, the playwright, whose play is the subject of the contract. Immediately on advice of plaintiff’s claimed contract, Simon repudiated it and the agent’s authority to enter into it. In the circumstances, it is patent that Paramount did not fraudulently interfere with the alleged contract. *(Jennings*v. *Burlington Ind.,*19 A D 2d 877; *Stewart & Co.*v. *Marcus, supra.)*Con cur—McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.
Record of Conference Call

From: Johnson, Mary 

Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:03 PM 

To: Johnson, Mary; Hutson, Nick; Culligan, Kevin; Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: FW: Call with Judy Sheahan (US Conference of Mayors) - Differences between the two GHG 

proposals for new EGUs 

When: Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:00 PM-2:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). 

Where: 866-299-3188; Conf Code is 9195415536

Meeting was attended by:

Judy Sheehan (USCM) – phone

Dave Gatton (USCM) – phone

Mary Johnson (EPA) – phone

Bob Wayland (EPA) – phone

Nick Hutson (EPA) – phone

Purpose: As a follow-on to the intergovernmental update briefing "Rulemaking for GHG Emissions from 

EGUs" on Feb. 26, Judy Sheahan (US Conference of Mayors) requested that we explain the differences 

between the two GHG proposals for new EGUs.
#### CALL v. CASE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Landlord and Tenant—Eviction—Surrender—Questions op Fact—Conflicting Evidence—Review.

Questions, in a suit for rent, as to whether the escape of smoke and sewer gas into the leased apartment amounted to an eviction, and as to whether the lease was canceled and the premises surrendered at the landlord’s request, are questions of fact, as to which the appellate court will not review conflicting evidence.

Appeal from City Court of New York.

Action by William Call against Elizabeth Gertrude Case. From a judgment for defendant, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

A. S. Gilbert, for appellant.

Avery, Schlessinger & Paul, for respondent.

FREEDMAN, P. J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover for four months’ rental of an apartment under a lease made by the defendant expiring October i, 1902, the defendant having surrendered the premises prior to May 1, 1902, and having paid the rent up to that time. The making of the lease and the amount of unpaid rent was admitted, and the sole issues submitted to the jury were two, viz.: (1) Whether there was a constructive eviction by reason of the escape of smoke and sewer gas into the apartment; and (2) whether the lease was canceled by the plaintiff, and the premises surrendered at his request. These were questions of fact (Hall v. Irvin, 78 App. Div. 107, 79 N. Y. Supp. 614), and the testimony upon this question was conflicting, and the jury found in favor of the defendant. The testimony in the case contains 25 pages, and the charge of the judge 4, and not an objection or exception was taken by either party during the trial, or to any portion of the charge. The only exception appearing in the record is the one taken to the refusal of the trial judge to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, made by plaintiff’s counsel. Neither party made any request for the direction of a verdict, and there is not the slightest reason for claiming that the verdict is against the weight of evidence, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### 22.101 Labor relations.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Gary Hanley

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−01612

Honorable Ruben Castillo

Fifth Third Bank

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, June 19, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez: Status hearing set for 6/19/12 is

stricken. Settlement Conference set for 10/2/2012 at 02:00 PM. Judge Valdez requires full

compliance with the Court's Standing Order on Settlement Conference found on Judge

Valdez's website available at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov, or the parties can contact courtroom

deputy, Yolanda Pagan, at 312/408−5135 for a copy. Failure to comply with the

provisions of the Court's Standing Order may result in the unilateral cancellation of the

settlement conference by the Court. Absent leave from the Court, cancellation will result

if the Plaintiff fails to submit to chambers copies of the settlement letters four days prior

to the settlement conference. Because of the volume of settlement conferences conducted

by Judge Valdez, once a settlement conference date has been agreed upon, no continuance

will be granted without a motion showing extreme hardship.Mailed notice(yp, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 25 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:68
#### 1.707 Signatory authority.

When a D&F is required, it shall be signed by the appropriate official in accordance with agency regulations. Authority to sign or delegate signature authority for the various D&F's is as shown in the applicable FAR part.