alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Helen L. Wells, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 86127.)

[701 NYS2d 28]

—Judgment of the Court of Claims of the State of New York, County of New York (S. Michael Nadel, J.), entered on or about September 24, 1998, in an action by an attorney to recover a fee for services *180rendered under County Law article 18-B, in favor of claimant in the amount of $24,693.75 plus interest, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence at trial supports the Court of Claims’ findings that vouchers often could not be submitted in timely fashion because of the failure of 18-B Plan employees to promptly process paperwork, that vouchers were often paid even though submitted late, and that in certain circumstances often applicable to claimant, attorneys were actually encouraged to delay submission of vouchers. These findings support the conclusion that the Plan’s refusal to process claimant’s late vouchers was a breach of contract, the only theory claimant pleaded. Indeed, we take that to be, in effect, what the Court of Claims did conclude, given its calculation of the award by application of the statutory rate for 18-B services, and notwithstanding its rationalization of the award as one based on quantum meruit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 10.4

Stanford Microdevices
522 Almanor Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA  94086
408-616-5400

22 October 1999

Thomas J. Scannell
10208 Cass Place
Cupertino, CA  95014

Dear Tom:

I am pleased to offer you the position of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of
Stanford Microdevices (SMI). In this position you will report to the President
and CEO in the SMI corporate headquarters located in Sunnyvale, CA.

Your responsibilities will include the following:

o    FINANCIAL OPERATIONS

     -  Strategic financial management
     -  Capital planning and asset management
     -  Financial control and measurement systems
     -  Accounting and auditing operations
     -  Financial reporting
     -  Tax planning
     -  Cash and treasury management

o    INFORMATION SYSTEMS

o    HUMAN RESOURCES

o    CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

o    SPECIAL PROJECTS AS DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND CEO

<TABLE>
<S>  <C>                 <C>
Your compensation for this position will be:

o    BASE SALARY:        $175,000 with annual reviews

o    INCENTIVE BONUS:    Up to 40% annual bonus

o    STOCK OPTIONS:      200,000 shares at expected strike price of $1.50

o    401K                Eligibility ninety (90) days after start date

o    OTHER BENEFITS:     Standard executive SMI medical, dental, vacation
                         benefits
</TABLE>

<PAGE>   2

<TABLE>
<S>  <C>                 <C>
Other agreements include:

o    Change of Control:  In the event that SMI is acquired (>51% change of
                         control), vesting acceleration for outstanding options
                         will occur

o    Responsibilities:   In the event that you are terminated for any reason
                         other than cause, or in the event that a diminution of
                         duties occurs for any reason other than cause, you will
                         receive six months of base salary as compensation

o    Air travel:         Upon direction from your physician, business class air
                         travel will be provided by the company for all
                         business-related travel
</TABLE>

I am confident that you will make a valuable contribution to the future growth
of SMI.

Please sign below as an acceptance of this offer and of the indicated start
date; return a signed copy to me at your earliest convenience. If you have any
questions regarding this offer or any other questions please do not hesitate to
contact me.

Regards,

Robert Van Buskirk
President and Chief Executive Officer
Stanford Microdevices

I accept the terms of this offer letter.

I intend to start on                                      10-22-99
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                            Date

                                                    /s/ THOMAS SCANNELL
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                       Thomas Scannell



                                      -2-
Case No. 8,117.

#### LATTIMER v. SMYTHE.

[See Case No. S,523.]
No. 54314.

#### Wine Shippers Import Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 155416-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise, issues, and facts herein are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that the merchandise, insofar as it involves the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, is subject to an allowance in duties. The protest was sustained to this extent.
(Reap. Dec. 9026)

Entry No. 907775, etc.

#### Roberts, Reilly *&*Johns *v.*United States

(Decided November 27, 1957)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

The records indicate that there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached to and made part of this deci*701sion were called for hearing, and the cases were consequently ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the records in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case No. 8,119.

#### LAUDERBACH v. The J. M. B. KEHLOR.

[Cited in McCaskey v. The Coal Bluff No. 2, Case No. 8.687. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFractographic Analysis of 60-Nitinol Bearing RacesFracture surfaces on a failed bearing race made from 60-Nitinol (60 wt% Ni - 40 wt% Ti) were analyzed. The bearing had experienced excessive localized heat due to an issue during machining that may have resulted in dimensional distortion. However, the classical fracture features that were identified by scanning electron microscopy and the fracture origins coincided with high concentrations of TiC-based contamination. Lessons learned for processing and quality control are discussed. An attempt to use x-ray diffraction to directly measure residual stresses imparted from the required heat treatment is also discussed.Document ID20180006435Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsStanford, Malcolm K.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredOctober 18, 2018Publication DateAugust 1, 2018Subject CategoryMetals And Metallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN54688E-19522NASA/TM-2018-219905Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 109492.02.03.02.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Keywordsintermetallicsfractographyx-ray diffractionAvailable DownloadsNameType20180006435.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
EXHIBIT 99.1





June 5, 2002





Securities and Exchange Commission


Judiciary Plaza


450 Fifth Street, N.W.


Washington, DC 20549





Re:    Arthur Andersen LLP





Ladies and Gentlemen:





Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arthur Andersen LLP has represented to us the following regarding the audit of our consolidated balance sheet as of March
31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity and cash flows for the year ended March 31, 2002:





The audit was subject to Arthur Andersens quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards; that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audit; and that there was sufficient availability of national office consultation and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur
Andersen.





Sincerely,





Brio Software, Inc.





/s/    Craig Collins





Craig Collins,


Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
33775.

#### QUINN v. THE STATE.

Jordan, Justice.

On November 8,1976 appellant, Mancel Paul Quinn entered a plea of guilty to the offense of burglary and received a five-year sentence. On September 16, 1977, appellant filed a "Writ of Error Coram Nobis” seeking to *430set aside his sentence on the ground that the state had not fulfilled its obligation under a plea agreement. Quinn appeals the denial of this writ.

Submitted June 30, 1978

Decided October 25, 1978.

Mancel Paul Quinn, *pro se.*

*M. Randall Peek, District Attorney, Alton G. Hartley, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Although appellant in his pro se appeal has incorrectly sought relief through the use of a "Writ of Coram Nobis,” *Waye v. State,*239 Ga. 871 (238 SE2d 923) (1977), we have reviewed his single allegation that his sentence has not been correctly implemented and affirm. A review of appellant’s plea transcript discloses that he was told to expect a sentence of five years which could be served concurrently with a previously imposed Alabama sentence. Appellant was also told that the trial court was not bound by any pre-sentence promises and could impose the maximum sentence of twenty years. Appellant received the five-year concurrent sentence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Nichols, C.J., and Hill, J., who concur in the judgment only.*
Cite as 2014 Ark. 317



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. D-12-459
STARK LIGON, AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SUPREME C O U R T C O M M I T T E E O N PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PETITIONER
V.
H E A T H E R P A T R I C E HOGROBROOKS, ARKANSAS BAR NO. 92029 RESPONDENT Opinion Delivered June 26, 2014 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND FOR ENTRY OF FINAL ORDER OF DISBARMENT OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR A SHOW CAUSE HEARING AS TO WHY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND FOR ENTRY OF FINAL ORDER OF DISBARMENT GRANTED.

PER CURIAM Stark Ligon, as Executive Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, petitions this court to impose the sanction of disbarment against attorney Heather Patrice Hogrobrooks. On August 27, 2012, pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Procedures Regulating Professional Conduct, section 13, we assigned Special Judge John Cole to preside over disbarment proceedings involving Heather Patrice Hogrobrooks. Judge Cole found that Ms. Hogrobrooks committed serious misconduct that warranted disbarment. Judge Cole’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed with this court, along with the transcript and record of the proceedings. Briefing commenced and pursuant to section 13(D),Cite as 2014 Ark. 317

Ms. Hogrobrooks was to file the opening brief, which was due to be filed by January 20, 2014. Ms. Hogrobrooks obtained an extension of time and thereafter had until March 6, 2014, to file her brief. Ms. Hogrobrooks tendered her brief on March 17, 2014, but it was rejected as non-compliant. On March 24, 2014, Ms. Hogrobrooks filed a “petition for information regarding the status of appeal” but has filed nothing with this court since that
time. Pursuant to section 13, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the special judge are accepted by this court unless clearly erroneous. Here, Ms. Hogrobrooks failed to file a brief in compliance with section 13(D). By failing to file an abstract and brief, this court’s review is limited to Judge Cole’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. There being nothing before this court to show Judge Cole’s findings of fact to be clearly erroneous, we grant petitioner’s request for a final order disbarring Ms. Hogrobrooks. Her name is ordered removed from the registry of attorneys licensed by the State of Arkansas. She is barred and enjoined from the practice of law in this state. Order of disbarment granted. Stark Ligon , Executive Director, by: Michael E. Harmon , Deputy Director, for petitioner. Heather Patrice Hogrobrooks , pro se respondent.

2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21




             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF LIBERTY GROUP PUBLISHING, INC.


LIBERTY GROUP PUBLISHING, INC.
         o        Liberty Group Operating, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group Arkansas Holdings, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group Arizona Holdings, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group California Holdings, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group Illinois Holdings, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group Iowa Holdings, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group Kansas Holdings, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group Michigan Holdings, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group Minnesota Holdings, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group Missouri Holdings, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group Nebraska Holdings, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group Nevada Holdings, Inc.
                           o         Elko Daily Free Press, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group New York Holdings, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group Pennsylvania Holdings, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group Management Services, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group Louisiana Holdings, Inc.
                           o         News Leader, Inc.
                           Plaquemine Publishing, Inc. (in process)
                  o        Liberty Group Idaho Holdings, Inc.
                           o         Magic Valley Publishing Co.
                  o        Liberty Group North Dakota Holdings, Inc.
                  o        Liberty Group Suburban Newspapers, Inc.
                  o        Mineral Daily News Tribune, Inc.
#### Johni Ruth MARSHALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 01-98-00230-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

June 24, 1999.

*881Stephen Morris, Law Offices of Stephen Morris, Houston, for Appellant.

John B. Holmes, District Attorney of Harris County, Alan Curry, Assistant District Attorney, Houston, for State.

Panel consists of Justices MIRABAL, TAFT, and NUCHIA.

OPINION

MIRABAL, Justice.

In 1995, appellant, Johni Ruth Marshall, pled guilty to aggravated assault, without an agreed recommendation of punishment. The trial court accepted the guilty plea, deferred an adjudication of guilt, and placed appellant on probation for ten years. In 1997, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. In 1998, after a hearing, the trial court found the allegations of the State’s motion to adjudicate true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at two years confinement.

In points of error one and two, appellant asserts the trial court committed error in following article 1.15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming the statute violates her constitutional right to compulsory process. *See*TEX. CODE CRIM. P. ANN. art. 1.15 (Vernon Supp. 1999). In points of error three and four, appellant asserts the trial court erred in entering a judgment of guilty because the record is silent as to her waiver of her right to compulsory process.

Appellant’s complaints come too late. A defendant placed on deferred adjudication may raise issues relating to the original plea proceeding only in appeals taken when deferred adjudication is first imposed. *Manuel v. State,*994 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (designated for publication).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0280 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MIKEL STETSON LETHERMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 7, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 27 2022

10/27/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0280
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DUSHUN DEVON ROBINSON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2541 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed November 30, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Charles E. Roberts, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Strickland v. State, 437 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1983); State v. Richards, 639 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Gray, 633 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Minor v. State, 707 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joseph N. PORTELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 73326.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Hillsboro Division.

Oct. 6, 1998.

Hollingsworth & Riehl, Brunson Hollings-worth, Hillsboro, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Shaun J. Mackelprang, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J. and HOFF and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joseph N. Portell (Defendant) appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury of production of a controlled substance, Section 195.211 RSMo 1994.

In this direct appeal, Defendant seeks plain error review of a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective. Defendant cannot raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a direct appeal. *State v. Kezer,*918 S.W.2d 874, 877 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). Rather, Rule 29.15 provides the “exclusive procedure” by which Defendant may seek relief on this claim. Rule 29.15(a). Therefore, we do *45not review Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

In his other points, Defendant raises several evidentiary issues that are subject to plain error review only. “Plain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered in the discretion of the court when the court finds that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom.” Rule 29.12(b).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the record on appeal and find no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice regarding the points subject to plain error review. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 136990 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



### v SC: 136990 COA: 283228 Wayne CC: 90-011298 LESTER WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing ent itlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

p1117 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2008

Clerk
PUBLIC LAW 115–212—JULY 24, 2018 132 STAT. 1541 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4463: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Mar. 20, considered and passed House. 

June 28, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–212 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6 Doyers 

Street in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Mabel Lee Memorial Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. MABEL LEE MEMORIAL POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 6 Doyers Street in New York, New York, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Mabel Lee Memorial Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Mabel Lee Memorial Post Office’’. 

Approved July 24, 2018. 

July 24, 2018 

[H.R. 4463] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Work-Related Hand Injuries and Upper Extremity Amputations

              																																										United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics.								*Work-Related Hand Injuries and Upper Extremity Amputations : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 2160*.															Washington, D.C: 										U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 												December 1982,												https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5221,				accessed on September 25, 2024.										    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER