alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Attachment
AC-99.1





Audit
Committee Report








Turner
Valley Oil & Gas, Inc.


6160
Genoa Bay Road Duncan


B.C.
Canada V9L 5Y5


Form
Type: 10-KSB


AUDIT COMMITTEE
REPORT





The Audit
Committee of Turner Valley Oil & Gas, Inc. composed of the Corporation's
Board of Directors. The members of the Committee are Christopher Paton-Gay,
Donald Jackson Wells and Joseph A. Kane. The Committee recommended, subject to
stockholder ratification, the selection of the Corporation's independent
accountants.





Management
is responsible for the Corporation's internal controls and the financial
reporting process. The independent accountants are responsible for performing an
independent audit of the Corporation's consolidated financial statements in
accordance with the generally accepted auditing standards and to issue a report
thereon. The Committee's responsibility is to monitor and oversee these
processes.





In this
context, the Committee has met and held discussions with management and the
independent accountants. Management represented to the Committee that the
Corporation's financial statements were prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles, and the Committee has reviewed and discussed the
consolidated financial statements with management and the independent
accountants. The Committee discussed with the independent accountants matters
required to be discussed by the Statement on Auditing Standards No.
61.





The
Corporation's independent accountants also provided to the Committee the written
disclosures required by Independence Standards Board Standard No. 1, and the
Committee discussed with the independent accountant that firms
independence.





Based
upon Committee's discussion with management and the independent accountants and
the Committee's review of the representation of management and the report of the
independent accountants to the Committee, the Committee recommended that the
audited consolidated financial statements be included in the Corporation's
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.





Dated:
March 31, 2008





Christopher
      Paton-Gay
            
            Donald
      Jackson Wells
            
            Joseph
      KaneChristopher
      Paton-Gay
            
            Donald
      Jackson Wells
            
            Joseph
      Kane
#### Granite Management and Disposition, Inc., Respondent, v Alexander S. Sun, Appellant, et al., Defendants. Granite Management and Disposition, Inc., Respondent, v Alexander S. Sun, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[634 NYS2d 48]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered on or about August 19, 1994, which, *inter alia,*denied defendant mortgagee’s motion to dismiss the complaints in these foreclosure actions for lack of personal jurisdiction and to vacate the receiver’s appointment, and granted the receiver’s cross motions for a turn-over by defendant of all rents collected since the date of the receiver’s appointment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

No issue of fact exists warranting a hearing on whether service was properly made pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). The affidavits of plaintiff’s process server state that he served one Jennifer Wang Sun, originally believed by the process server to be defendant’s daughter but later determined by plaintiff to be his wife, at defendant’s apartment. The defendant’s affida*187vit, which claims that the only copy of the summons and complaint he received came in the mail, that a copy of the papers were left in a box in the front hall of the building, and that no one of suitable age and discretion was served on his behalf, fails to show that no one named Jennifer Wang Sun could have been in his apartment at the time of the alleged service. Since proper service does not require that the defendant actually receive the paper from the person served, defendant’s belief that no one of suitable age and discretion was served could be due simply to the fact that Ms. Sun never delivered the papers to him or told him that she had them. Defendant does not deny that he knows someone named Jennifer Wang Sun or even that someone may have been in his apartment at the time of the alleged service. The affidavit of "Ling Xu”, which states that she is a tenant of the apartment where the service was allegedly made and that she found the only copy of the summons and complaint she received stuffed in the door to the apartment, but does not indicate whether she is defendant’s wife, whether she knows a Jennifer Wang Sun, or whether a person by that name could not have been present in defendant’s apartment at the time of the alleged service did not suffice to raise an issue of fact.

Defendant is not entitled to the rent he collected after the receiver’s appointment and before his qualification *(Ronbarst Realty Corp. v Boardwalk Owners Corp.,*177 AD2d 436). Nor in the absence of prejudice to defendant should the receivership be invalidated simply because the receiver first contacted defendant the day before his bond was filed to advise of his appointment and of a court order that commanded defendant not to collect future rents (CPLR 2001). The contact in question, while slightly premature, was ministerial in nature and did not affect defendant’s rights. We would also note that the bond, although not yet filed, had been procured before the contact *(cf., Cubita v Westchester Furniture Exch., 88*Misc 2d 497). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.
|                                                                            |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                            |  |  |
| Name                                                                       |   | Jurisdiction |
| Medley Small Business Fund, LP (formerly known as Medley SBIC, LP)         |   | Delaware |
| Medley Small Business Fund GP, LLC (formerly known as Medley SBIC GP, LLC) |   | Delaware |
| Medley SLF Funding I LLC                                                   |   | Delaware |
| MCC Investment Holdings LLC                                                |   | Delaware |
| MCC Investment Holdings AAR LLC                                            |   | Delaware |
| MCC Investment Holdings AmveStar LLC                                       |   | Delaware |
| MCC Investment Holdings Omnivere LLC                                       |   | Delaware |
| MCC Investment Holdings Sendero LLC                                        |   | Delaware |
December 20, 1954

No. 58646.

protest 205147-K.

#### Louis Greenberg & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Abstract 58482. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
#### Watson *v.*Beaver Dam Drainage District.

In Banc.

Mar. 14, 1949.

(39 So. (2d) 309)

B. B. Allen and Cooper. & Harper, for appellant.

Neill, Clark & Townsend, for appellee.

Roberds, J.

Beaver Dam Drainage District was organized, and is operating, under the provisions of Article 2, Title 19, Vol. *6914, Mississippi Code 1942, Annotated. The Commissioners adopted a resolution finding that it was necessary for the canal and ditches therein to be cleared of obstructions, extended, widened and deepened in order to preserve the drainage system, and that, to do this work, it was also necessary that the Commissioners borrow $9,000, and that a tax be levied against the lands in the district for the purpose of repaying the borrowed money. They filed a petition in this cause praying that the chancery court authorize this work to be done, the borrowing of the money and the assessment of a tax against the benefits to the lands located in the district. Both the adopted resolution and the petition filed by the Commissioners stated that there were lands outside of the district which had been, and were then being, benefited by the drainage system. Such outside landowners, however, were not named, nor their lands described, and no notice given them and they did not appear. In other words, the hearing was had as though no such outside benefited lands existed. Certain of the landowners in the district appeared and objected to the chancery court granting the relief prayed for by the Commissioners until and unless the lands outside the district which had received, and were then receiving, benefits from the district were brought into court and a hearing had as to whether such outside benefited lands should be assessed with their proper proportion of the taxes to make said improvements. Contestants offered proof to show that there were outside lands so benefited, but the chancellor refused to hear that evidence, sustained the petition and dismissed the protests.

 The case is controlled by the opinion this day handed down in the case of Hobbs v. Moorhead Drainage District, Miss., 39 So. (2d) 307. The only substantial difference in the two cases is that in the Hobbs case there was deleted from petition affirmative statements that there existed lands outside the district receiving benefits from the drainage system, although the objections con*692tain- such, affirmative statements, wherehs in this cáse both the resolution and the petition of the Commissioners, as well as the objections, contain such allegations.

Reversed and remanded.
## SERVE D MAY 4,201 0 U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N ^^^^' ^ OFJRA : !>^CRWIO

N OFFIC EO FHEARING S ' WASHINGTON , D C
IN TH EMATTERO F 

### WEBC O Aircraf

t Compan y FA A DOCKE T NO
. CP09CE000 1 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No
. FAA-2009-083 9 

### ORDE R CONTINUIN G CAS E

AN D AMENDIN G PROCEDURA L ORDE R Responden t

ha s filed amotio n for

continuanc e settin g fort

hther e i s acompanio n cas e befor e th e Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Boar d(NTSB ) concernin g relate dissue s betwee n th e parties
. Responden t ha s als o averre dth e outcom e o f th e NTS B cas e may influenc e th e parties ' vie w o f thi s cas e whic hma y eliminat e th e nee dfor atria l i n thi s matter . Complainan t

ha s no t responded
. WHEREUPON , th e withi n filedmotio n havin g bee n rea dan dconsidere di t b e an di s hereb y ORDERE D a s follows : 1
. Thi s matte r

i s continue dfromth e hearin g date s o f Jun e 2 an d3 , 2010 ; 2
. Thi s matte r

wil l b e rese t

for hearin g i n January 2011 , i f necessary ; 3
. Paragrap h# 2 o f

th e Procedura l Orde r

i s amende da s follows :

.. . O n o r before Decembe r

31 , 2010 , th e partie s shal l conclud e al l discovery including , bu t

no t limite dto , depositions , documen t production , response s t o productio n request s and/o r interrogatories
. I f

th e partie s canno t resolv e adiscovery dispnte^he y shal l submi t th e disput e t o th e undersigne dfo r

resolutumi n atin0fy )

Goodwi n

U.S
. Administrativ e Law Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No
. CP09CE000 1 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Robert Weber , Presiden t Webc o Aircraf

t Company , Responden t 113 4 N.Olive r

Roa d Newton , K S 67114-944 6 EdwardA
. McConwell , Respondent' s Counse l McConwel l La w Office s 592 5 Beverl y Mission , K S 6620 2 TEL : 913-262-060 5 FAX : 913-262-065 2 Davi dKessler , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , ACE-7 , Centra l Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n DO T Building , 90 1 Locust , Roo m50 6 Kansa s City , M O 64106-264 1 TEL : 816-329-376 3 FAX : 816-329-377 1 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Advisor : 202-366-213 9 Legal Assistant : 202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e tli e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000, Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430
.
#### James A. Farley *et al.,*App’lts, *v.*The Union Mut. L. Ins. Co., Resp’t.

*B. J. Moses, Jr.,*for app’lts; *Merritt E. Sawyrn',*for resp’t.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concur, except Haight, J., not sitting.

Affirming 2 N. Y. State Rep., 620.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8567 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to regularly promote programs under chapter 31 of such title. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2024 

Mr. ALLRED (for himself, Mr. DONALDS, Ms. MANNING, and Mr. COSTA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to regularly promote programs 

under chapter 31 of such title. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Informing Veterans 

5 on Education for Transitioning Servicemembers Act’’ or 

6 the ‘‘Informing VETS Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8567 IH

1 SEC. 2. INFORMATION CAMPAIGN REGARDING VETERAN 

2 READINESS AND EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM. 

3 Section 3116 of title 38, United States Code, is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following new sub5 section: 

6 ‘‘(c) The Secretary shall regularly promote programs 

7 under this chapter by— 

8 ‘‘(1) sending a letter to each veteran entitled to 

9 such a program that explain educational benefits of 

10 such programs; and 

11 ‘‘(2) providing a side-by-side comparison of ben12 efits between such programs and educational assist13 ance under chapter 33 of this title— 

14 ‘‘(A) with each letter under paragraph (1); 

15 and 

16 ‘‘(B) on a publicly accessible website of the 

17 Department.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18

[Danka Logo]

November 20, 2000

Mr. Michael Gifford
11216 Tamiami Trail North
PMB334
Naples, FL 34110

Dear Michael:

     This Letter will confirm the agreement between you and the Danka Business
Systems, PLC, Board of Directors, to perform the duties of Chief Executive
Officer of the Company until a permanent Chief Executive Officer is found or
this Letter Agreement is otherwise terminated by either party. Your powers and
duties for the Company shall be those powers and duties customary to the Chief
Executive Officer in similar publicly held corporations and you will report to
the Board of Directors.

     The Company shall pay you the sum of Five Thousand & 00/100 Dollars
($5,000.00) per day for those days you perform services for the Company. Please
submit a bi-weekly statement to Keith Nelsen in the Legal Department which
identifies the number of days worked and expenses incurred and you will be
reimbursed within ten (10) business days. You will be reimbursed for all
reasonable and necessary business expenses, both while staying in St. Petersburg
on Company matters and during other travel related to Company matters,
including: hotel, meals, travel and transportation to and from your home in
Naples, Florida. All payments will be by direct deposit from the Company into
such account as you identify.

     This Agreement will be effective as of October 11, 2000, and shall continue
in effect until terminated by either party upon seven (7) days notice, or
immediately upon mutual agreement.

     The parties acknowledge that you are a member of the Company's Board of
Directors and will abide by all directives of the Board regarding independence
and other similar issues.  The relationship created under this Agreement is that
of an independent contractor and not as an employee.

     The Board appreciates your willingness to serve in this capacity.  If you
have any questions regarding this arrangement, please direct them to me as Chair
of the Human Resources Committee.

                                               Very truly yours,


                                               /s/ C. Anthony Wainwright
                                               -------------------------
                                               C. Anthony Wainwright

11201 Danka Circle North
St. Petersburg, FL 33716

                                       1
DENY and Opinion Filed January 15, 2021

In the

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00023-CV

IN RE JOSEPHINE MARIE WORLEY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-52296-2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Carlyle

Relator’s January 12, 2021 petition for writ of mandamus complains the trial 

court refused to hear a second amended motion to suspend the final divorce decree. 

Based on the petition and the record before us, we conclude the relator has failed to 

show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that she has no adequate 

appellate remedy.1 Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.2

210023F.P05

 

1

In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus 

standard).

2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

/Cory L. Carlyle/

CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
#### Commonwealth *v.*Oakley, Appellant.

Argued May 2, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*565May 28, 1969:

*Thomas P. Hamilton, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Tram Nedurian, Jr.,*Assistant District Attorney, with him *Ralph B. D’lorio,*Assistant District Attorney, *William- R. Tool, Jr.,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *Stephen J. McEwen, Jr.,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

Judgment of sentence is affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1




Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Re:  Global Energy Group, Inc.
     Form 10-KSB

Gentlemen:

As independent auditors, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report
and to all references to our firm included in or made a part of the Global
Energy Group, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Very truly yours,


/s/ Baumann, Raymondo & Company, P.A.

Baumann, Raymondo & Company, P.A.
Certified Public Accountants
Tampa, Florida
April 14, 2003
#### In the Matter of Denise Farrell and Another, Infants.

Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County,

November 21, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Cornelius Farrell,*petitioner *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

Bertram R. Gelfand, S.

Petitioner seeks successor letters of guardianship of the person and property of two infants, a brother and sister.

The infants’ parents are deceased. Letters of guardianship of the person and property of the infants were issued by this court on October 9, 1968 to the infants’ paternal grandmother with whom they then resided in Bronx County. Thereafter, the guardian moved with the children to the State of New Jersey. The guardian died on October 24, 1977. The infants presently reside with petitioner, their paternal uncle, who is a domiciliary of the State of New Jersey.

There is express statutory authority for the appointment of a guardian of the person, or property, or of both, of an infant *19who is a nondomiciliary of this State, provided the infant has property situated in New York (SCPA 1702, subd 2). At the present time, there are funds on deposit in each estate held jointly in the name of the deceased guardian and the guardian clerk of this court.

The applications, insofar as they seek successor letters of guardianship of the property of the infants, are granted. The accounts shall, in each instance, be held jointly in the name of the successor guardian of the property of the infant and the guardian clerk of this court.

With regard to the applications for successor letters of guardianship of the person, consideration must be given to the fact that the infants now reside in the State of New Jersey. In New York, the rule is well settled that a guardian appointed by virtue of the statute of one State cannot exercise any authority in another State over the person of his or her ward *(Wuesthoff v Germania Life Ins. Co.,*107 NY 580; *Woodworth v Spring,*4 Allen [86 Mass] 321; *Morrell v Dickey,*1 Johns Ch 153; *Matter of Van Dyk,*33 NYS2d 776; *Matter of Feltrinelli,*159 NYS2d 563; *Matter of Papazoglou,*NYLJ, July 11, 1973, p 14, col 6). Accordingly, it would be more appropriate under the facts presented for letters of guardianship of the person to be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in the State of New Jersey where the infants presently reside.

The applications for successor letters of guardianship of the person are denied without prejudice to a further application for the same relief, if in the future the infants should have more significant contact with this State other than having funds on deposit in New York.
EXHIBIT 32.1





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


(18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Aeolus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, John L. McManus, Principal
Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael P. McManus, Principal Financial
and Accounting Officer of the Company, each 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 his 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.




Date:
February 6, 2009




__/s/ John L.
McManus_______


John L.
McManus


President
and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)










Date:
February 6, 2009




­­__/s/ Michael P.
McManus_____________


Michael
P. McManus


Chief
Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary


(Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer)








THIS CERTIFICATION “ACCOMPANIES” THE
QUARTERLY REPORT, IS NOT DEEMED FILED WITH THE SEC AND IS NOT TO BE INCORPORATED
BY REFERENCE INTO ANY FILING OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS
AMENDED, OR THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED (WHETHER MADE BEFORE
OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE ANNUAL REPORT), IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY GENERAL
INCORPORATION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUCH FILING. A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS
CERTIFICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE
COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF
UPON REQUEST.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOHN KEYS,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 107 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2019, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or 

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.