alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
    We  consent to the incorporation by  reference in the Registration Statement
of U  S WEST,  Inc. on  Forms S-3  (File Nos.  33-50047, 33-50047-01,  33-50049,
33-50049-01,  33-51427, 33-62451, 33-57889 and 33-63087)  and on Forms S-8 (File
Nos. 33-43362, 33-56895,  33-55289, 33-56709, 33-63089,  33-63093, 33-63085  and
33-63091)  of our report, which includes  an explanatory paragraph regarding the
discontinuance of accounting for the operations of U S WEST Communications, Inc.
in  accordance  with  Statement  of   Financial  Accounting  Standard  No.   71,
"Accounting  for the  Effects of  Certain Types  of Regulation,"  in 1993, dated
February 12, 1996,  except for  Note 4,  paragraph 3, as  to which  the date  is
February 27, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of U S
WEST,  Inc., as of December 31, 1995 and  1994, and for the years ended December
31, 1995, 1994 and 1993, which report is included in this Annual Report on  Form
10-K.  We also  consent to  the incorporation by  reference of  our report dated
February 12, 1996  on the  related consolidated  financial statement  schedules,
which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
    We  consent to the incorporation by  reference in the Registration Statement
of U  S WEST,  Inc. on  Forms S-3  (File Nos.  33-50047, 33-50047-01,  33-50049,
33-50049-01,  33-51427, 33-62451, 33-57889 and 33-63087)  and on Forms S-8 (File
Nos. 33-43362, 33-56895,  33-55289, 33-56709, 33-63089,  33-63093, 33-63085  and
33-63091)  of our report, which includes  an explanatory paragraph regarding the
discontinuance of accounting for the operations of U S WEST Communications, Inc.
in  accordance  with  Statement  of   Financial  Accounting  Standard  No.   71,
"Accounting  for the  Effects of  Certain Types  of Regulation,"  in 1993, dated
February 12, 1996, on  our audits of  the combined financial  statements of U  S
WEST  Communication Group, as of  December 31, 1995 and  1994, and for the years
ended December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993, which report is included in this  Annual
Report on Form 10-K.
 
    We  consent to the incorporation by  reference in the Registration Statement
of U  S WEST,  Inc. on  Forms S-3  (File Nos.  33-50047, 33-50047-01,  33-50049,
33-50049-01,  33-51427, 33-62451, 33-57889  and 33-63087) and  on Form S-8 (File
Nos. 33-43362, 33-56895,  33-55289, 33-56709, 33-63093,  33-63089, 33-63085  and
33-63091)  of our report, dated February 12,  1996, except for Note 5, paragraph
3, as to  which the date  is February 27,  1996, on our  audits of the  combined
financial   statements  and  Supplementary  Selected  Proportionate  Results  of
Operations of U S WEST  Media Group, as of December  31, 1995 and 1994, and  for
the  years ended December 31,  1995, 1994 and 1993,  which report is included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
/s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
Denver, Colorado
March 27, 1996
Exhibit 10.1

 

	
 
    	

    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
207 N Goode Ave Ste   500

Glendale, California   92103

Phone 626 304-2000

Fax 626 792-7312
    
	
February 25,   2016
    
	
 
    
	
 
    


 

Dean Scarborough

[Address]

[Address]

[Address]

 

Dear Dean:

 

The Board of Directors and I are pleased to confirm the details of your new position of Executive Chairman of the Board, effective May 1, 2016, subject to your election by the Company’s stockholders at the 2016 Annual Meeting.

 

Specific details of this offer are as follows:

 

Base Salary:  As of May 1, 2016, your new annualized rate of pay will be $875,000, paid semi-monthly.  As of January 1, 2017, provided you remain employed at that time, your new annualized rate of pay will be $230,000, paid semi-monthly.

 

AIP Award:  You will continue to be eligible to be considered under Avery Dennison’s Annual Incentive Plan (“AIP”) to participate at a 100% of base salary opportunity level.  This new AIP award will be applied on a pro-rated basis effective May 1, 2016, subject to applicable withholdings.  The first portion of your 2016 AIP award (January – April) will be based on the 125% opportunity associated with your current role.  You will no longer be eligible to participate in the AIP after the 2016 fiscal year.

 

Long-Term Incentive (LTI):  Under the Company’s executive incentive compensation program you will be eligible to be considered for an annual long-term incentive award with a value opportunity equivalent to approximately 300% of your base salary effective with the 2016 grant on February 25.  This long-term incentive award will be delivered via a mix of Performance Units and Market-Leveraged Stock Units.  After the 2016 fiscal year, you will only be eligible to receive an annual LTI grant with a target value of $140,000, delivered via Restricted Stock Units (RSUs), consistent with the annual grant made to non-employee directors.  All plan provisions will be followed for both the 2016 and 2017 LTI grant.

 

Executive Benefits:  Your current Executive Benefits will cease as of May 1, 2016.  These benefits include the Executive Benefit Allowance, Annual Executive Physical, Executive Long-Term Disability (LTD) Plan, and Executive Supplemental Life Insurance.  In addition, you will no longer be covered by the Company’s Executive Severance Plan and Key Executive Change of Control Plan.  The Financial Counseling and Tax Preparation benefit, up to $25,000/year, will be provided to you, while serving as Executive Chairman.

 











 

You will continue to be entitled to the benefits generally available to Company employees in accordance with applicable plan provisions.

 

Congratulations on your new role.

 

Please sign and date this offer letter below and return it to Anne Hill.

 

Sincerely,



David Pyott

Compensation and Executive Personnel Committee Chair

 

cc:                            Anne Hill

LeeAnn Prussak

 

 

	
Accepted by:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date:
Ne

4
\

,
Se SANTEE
} t

Ve y



Ne mavranty © mace by te Gamas of aed Memagement of
‘te Matos



‘ho warmey i waco by the aman of Lane Managerseet or



Ax)

p te acy

pe Pa Park



Map 7S

patel ntorretce ray not Feet Natena! Map Accemcy
Sousaem The ehonsts soy oy ephian w@tre! ares



EI Camino Real de Tierra Adentro NHT

Logend
anariy uate by fo Bowes cf L2ed Ws eaperestor
Sie AN Sece nee eoeey mee = 77~ Deine Lecaton
tmywereen cf foen cols tr vcs eo geet
‘sms dnt poowae fr Yana ya 97 = Probable Location N

Seatat mbenation Fay af rest Natora| Map Accamcy Se speculative
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 21 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following list sets forth the name of the Registrant and each of its
subsidiaries, the states or other jurisdictions under which they are organized,
and the percentage ownership of the voting securities of each corporation by its
immediate parent.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

        NAME OF CORPORATION AND STATE                                        PERCENTAGE OF VOTING SECURITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           UNDER WHICH ORGANIZED(1)                                            OWNED BY IMMEDIATE PARENT(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                                                           <C>
F&M BANCORP

   FARMERS & MECHANICS NATIONAL BANK (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
     -- Key Holdings, Inc.

     -- Key Management, Inc. (Delaware)
     -- MD General Insurance Agency, Inc.
     -- Keller Stonebraker Insurance, Inc.
        -- Charles S. Gardner Insurance Agency, Inc. (Pennsylvania)
        -- JRH Insurance, Inc.
     -- Potomac Basin Group Associates, Inc. (District of Columbia)
     -- TBT Title VIII, Inc.
     -- Central Maryland Service Corporation
     -- Founders Mortgage Company, Inc.
     -- C&F Insurance Agency, Inc.

   HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
     -- CLC Associates, Inc.
        -- Keystone General Partnership
     -- Family Home Insurance Agency, Inc.
     -- Home Appraisals, Inc.
</TABLE>


(1) ALL CORPORATIONS ARE ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND
    UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

(2) EACH COMPANY OWNS 100% OF THE OUTSTANDING COMMON STOCK (OR PARTNERSHIP
    INTEREST(S) AS THE CASE MAY BE) OF EACH OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES EXCEPT CLC
    ASSOCIATES, INC., WHICH OWNS AN 80% GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST IN KEYSTONE
    GENERAL PARTNERSHIP.
Exhibit 32.1  Certification 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 of NSTAR (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas J. May, Chairman, President and Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:(i)the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: October 29, 2009By:/s/ THOMAS J. MAYThomas J. MayChairman, President andChief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1

                           [Letterhead of Porat & Co.]

                                                                  March 27, 2000

Arthur Andersen & Co.
1345 Avenue of the Americas
New York, N.Y. 10105

Gentlemen,

                 Re: Consent of Independent Public Accountants
                        of Hod Hasharon Sport Center Ltd.

As Independent public accountants of Hod Hasharon Sport Center Ltd, we hereby
consent to the incorporation of our report included in this Form 10-K, into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statement File No, 33-51023, and No.
55137.

                                                         Porat & Co.


                                                       /s/ Porat & Co.
                                             Certified Public Accountants (ISR.)
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

GRACE BARRETTA

- BIONDO and MARIA

BARRETTA

- AMATO,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants, UNPUBLISHED July 28, 2022

v No. 356890

Macomb Probate Court

MARGARET J. SHELLENBARGER, LC No. 2020

- 235429

- CZ

Defendant

- Appellee.

Before: J ANSEN

, P .J., and O’B RIEN and H OOD , JJ.

H OOD

, J

. ( concurring )

.

I concur in the analysis an d legal conclusions contained in the majority opinion with one exception. I would not assess costs against plaintiffs’ attorney for vexatious litigation because the appeal has not satisfied any of the standard s under MCR 7.216(C) (1)

. MCR 7.216(C)(1) provi des:

The Court of Appeals may, on its own initiative or on the motion of any party filed under MCR 7.211(C)(8), assess actual and punitive damages or take other disciplinary action when it determines that an appeal or any of the proceedings in an appeal wa s vexatious because

(a) the appeal was taken for purposes of hindrance or delay or without any

reasonable basis for belief that there was a meritorious issue to be determined on appeal; or

(b) a pleading, motion, argument, brief, document, record filed in the case or any testimony presented in the case was grossly lacking in the requirements of propriety, violated court rules, or grossly disregarded the requirements of a fair presentation of the issues to the court.- 2

-

Illuminating is this Court’s statement t hat it “will grant such damages only in cases of clear abuse of the appellate processes.” Detroit Auto Inter

- Ins Exch v Ayvazian , 62 Mich App 94, 103; 233 NW2d 200 (1975) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 1

Here, the majority has not precisely st ated the basis for its conclusion that vexatious litigation sanctions are appropriate, and I do not believe that one exists. The basis for the costs appears to be the conclusion that res judicata precludes plaintiffs’ arguments on appeal related to coerci on and undue influence, since the probate court previously determined there was no such evidence in the action admitting the wills to probate , and

p laintiffs did not appeal that decision. Although sanctions under MCR 7.216 are discretionary, it cannot b e the case that a conclusion that res judicata bars a claim automatically triggers this discretion. MCR 7.216(C)(1) appears to require more , such as a purpose of delay, a lack of any reasonable basis for believing the issue had merit, or grossly lacking i n the requirements of propriety or fair presentation of the issues

. See MCR 7.216(C)(1). I do not believe any of these aggravating factors to be present.

For these reasons, I concur in the result and dissent as it relates to award of costs for vexatious litigation.

/s/ Noah P. Hood

1 Although cases decided before November 1, 1990, are not binding precedent, MCR 7.215(J)(1)

, we nevertheless can consider them as persuasive authority. In re Stillwell Trust , 299 Mich App 289, 299 n 1; 829 NW 2d 353 (2012).
From: Michael Caldwell

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 12:06:10 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Michael Caldwell
Portland, Oregon
From: 

Joseph Stolle <joseph@shellengr.com> 

To: 

Nathan Topham/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: 

sstotts@stinson.com 

Date: 

06/22/2011 04:40 PM 

Subject: 

Re: Main stack height in Shell Modeling

330' is the GEP height, 550' is the actual height for the main stack. Thanks for 

the info on EP58. 

Joe 

Joseph A. Stolle, PE 

Shell Engineering 

(913)898-3000 

Cell (816)377-2470 

On 6/22/2011 3:19 PM, Topham.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov wrote: 

Hi Joseph, 

I've noticed that in your source parameters that you submitted in your comments you 

modeled the main 

stack height at 100.75 meters. This is about 330 feet whereas I was under the 

impression that the main 

stack height was 550 feet (as found in your MO EIQ). 

Is 330 feet an accurate number? If it's not the actual stack height, why was it used

in the model run you 

submitted in your public comments? 

Also, just as an FYI, the 2008 and 2009 EIQ also lists the release height of EP 058 

(dross 

transfer/storage) as 530'. One of the comments you submitted on the modeling we 

performed for the 

proposed rule stated that the actual release height is around 25' and that 530' was 

incorrect. If this is the 

case, you may want to fix this error in your next EIQ. 

Nathan Topham 

Environmental Engineer 

US EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MIG 

Page 1
Phone - (919)541-0483 

Page 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 9, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00584

- CV

Raynelle MCCATHERN

, Appellant

v.

IVY APARTMENTS

, Appellee

From the County Court a t Law No. 10

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CV01871

Honorable David J. Rodriguez , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. We ORDER that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal.

It is so ORDERED on November 9, 2022

.

_____________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of November, 2022

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Robinson Financial
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Rick L. Catt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
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) 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 result of operations of
         the Company.



By: /s/ Rick L. Catt
    ----------------
Name:  Rick L. Catt
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002





                                       25
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00633

- CR
Ramon Aguilar Jr. v. The State of Texas

On a ppeal from the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 1112

- 16

- I

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this c ause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. February 28, 2 019
No. 152.

#### Robinson *v.*Minnesota.

*Joseph Robbie*for petitioner.

*Walter F. Mondale,*Attorney General of Minnesota, *Charles E. Houston,*Solicitor General, and *John P. Frank*for respondent.

Supreme Court of Minnesota. Certiorari denied.
From: crmichals@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:12:11 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Christopher Michals

Arlington, VA 22206