alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.17

                               DAVOX CORPORATION

                      CHAIRMAN & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                          SEVERANCE AGREEMENT - 2000

DAVOX Corporation ("DAVOX") will provide to you the following terms and
condition of salary and benefits continuation:

   (1.) DAVOX shall provide medical benefits continuation, at Davox's cost and
        salary continuation at a rate equal to your base salary in effect at the
        time of a qualifying termination, as set forth in subclause 2, or at a
        rate based on the combined value of base salary plus bonus earned in the
        prior year, whichever is greater. Salary continuation shall continue for
        a period of (12) months or until such time as you assume new employment,
        whichever comes first. In addition, you will receive medical coverage at
        Devox's cost, as may be in effect at the time of the qualifying
        termination, commencing upon the date of termination, for a period of
        twelve (12) months or until such time as you assume new employment,
        whichever comes first;


   (2.) DAVOX shall provide continuation of salary and benefits as set forth in
        subclause (1) in the event your employment is terminated for the
        following reasons: (a) economic layoff; (b) downsizing or merger, which
        results in the elimination of your position as Chairman of the Board and
        Chief Executive Officer; or (c) reorganization or merger of Davox which
        would require you to relocate.


Following the effective data of termination, as set forth in writing and
furnished to you by DAVOX, your employment with DAVOX shall cease and you shall
not hold yourself as an employee, agent, or representative of DAVOX.

Continuation of salary and benefits shall further be subject to your compliance
with any then existing company policies and such other terms as may be in effect
between you and DAVOX pertaining to the disclosure of confidential or
proprietary information.

DAVOX has final authority to determine all questions of eligibility to receive
benefits under this arrangement and to interpret and construe the terms of this
arrangement.


Approval:

            /s/ Alphonse M. Lucchese                       3/1/00
            ---------------------------------------        -----------
            Chairman & Chief Executive Officer             Date


            /s/ Michael Kaufman                            2/29/00
            ---------------------------------------        -----------
            Michael Kaufman                                Date


            /s/ Scott Asen                                 3/1/00
            ---------------------------------------        -----------
            Scott Asen                                     Date
#### Timothy W. KITE d/b/a Timothy Kite Enterprises v. GUS KAPLAN, INC. and Gustave Kaplan. GUS KAPLAN, INC. v. TIMOTHY KITE ENTERPRISES.

No. 98-C-0751.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re American Central Ins. Co.;—Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 176,347, 177,856; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. CA97-0057, CA97-0058.

Granted.

KIMBALL, J., not on panel.
33880.

#### BARRETT v. BARRETT.

Argued September 12, 1978

Decided September 27, 1978.

*Wilson & Trotter, William A. Trotter, III,*for appellant.

*McGahee, Plunkett, Benning, Fletcher & Harley, Paul K. Plunkett, C. T. Harley,*for appellee.

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

The husband appeals a judgment holding him in contempt for failure to pay alimony and child support to his former wife and five children. He claims the trial court erred in finding wilfulness and in assessing attorney fees against him. The evidence supports the trial court’s judgment. *Roberts v. Roberts,*238 Ga. 256 (232 SE2d 534) (1977).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

253 KA 06-01240
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRANDY ALEXANDER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KIMBERLY J. CZAPRANSKI, INTERIM CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JOSEPH D. WALDORF OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ERIN TUBBS OF COUNSEL),
FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered February 22, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [12]), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (§ 220.03) and two counts of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (§ 220.50 [2], [3]). Defendant contends that County Court erred in designating the second-drawn juror as foreperson after the original foreperson asked to be relieved of that responsibility, and that preservation of her contention is not required because the court thereby committed a mode of proceedings error. Contrary to defendant’s contention, such a designation, even if erroneous, would not constitute a mode of proceedings error ( see People v Marchese , 261 AD2d 104, 104, lv denied 93 NY2d 1022; see generally People v Agramonte , 87 NY2d 765, 769-770). In any event, defendant’s contention that the court erred in designating the second-drawn juror as foreperson is without merit ( see People v Burgess , 280 AD2d 264, 265, lv denied 96 NY2d 798). Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, in totality and at the time of representation, we further conclude that defendant received meaningful representation ( see generally People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147).

Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the court-2- 253 KA 06-01240

properly denied her severance motion. Defendant failed to preserve for our review her contention that the court erred in denying her motion to sever the counts against defendant and her codefendant, which were joined in a single indictment ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; cf. People v Chestnut , 19 NY3d 606, 611 n 2). In any event, we conclude that her contention lacks merit ( see People v Boyd , 272 AD2d 898, 898, lv denied 95 NY2d 850; see also CPL 40.10 [2]; 200.40 [1]). We also reject the contention of defendant that the court abused its discretion in denying her motion to sever her trial from that of her codefendant ( see People v Clark , 66 AD3d 1489, 1489-1490, lv denied 13 NY3d 906).

Entered: March 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

NAJEE EURE,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF

PROBATION AND PAROLE VS.

ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH SHAPIRO,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 140 EM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of February , 2019, the Application for Leave to File

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

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
Before the Third Division,

August 1, 1938

No. 39131.

#### Petition 5641-R of American Aniline Products, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appeared that the coal-tar dye was classified under paragraph 38, which provides that duty shall be assessed on the United States value or the American selling price. On the record presented it was found that the petitioner was without intention to defraud the revenue or to conceal or misrepresent the facts or to deceive the appraiser. The petition was therefore granted.
- 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 > Life Insurance Selling: Careers for Women as Life Underwriters

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*Life Insurance Selling: Careers for Women as Life Underwriters : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 279*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1961,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5546,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- . ) 

) 

Balfour Beatty/McCarthy, A Joint Venture ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W9126G-10-C-0087 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 61621, 61786 

Eric L. Nelson, Esq. 

Harry Z. Rippon III, Esq. 

Smith, Currie and Hancock LLP 

Atlanta, GA 

Michael P. Goodman, Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Dawn-Carole Harris, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorney 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Fort Worth 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The disputes underlying these appeals were successfully resolved through a 

Board-assisted mediation. The parties' joint motion of August 28, 2019 is granted, and 

these appeals are dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: September 4, 2019 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 61621, 61786, Appeals of Balfour 

Beatty/McCarthy, A Joint Venture, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
No. 44296.

#### Protest 994965-G of Louis Loeser.

Application by plaintiff for rehearing: granted.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1  CERTIFICATION OF RICHARD T. FLENNER, JR.

                            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 Annual Report of GLB Bancorp, Inc. ("GLB") on Form 10-KSB
for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard T. Flenner,
Jr., Chief Executive Officer, President and Director of GLB, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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 results of operations of
         GLB.

         Date: March 18, 2003              By: /s/ Richard T. Flenner, Jr.
                                               -------------------------------
                                                   Richard T. Flenner, Jr.,
                                                   President, Chief
                                                   Executive Officer and
                                                   Director

                                       24
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
#### UNITED STATES v. FOSTER et al. (two cases).*

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Nov. 5, 1948.

See also 80 F.Supp. 479 ; 81 F.Supp. 281.

John F. X. McGohey, U. S. Atty., of New York City (John F. X. McGohey, U. S. Atty., and Frank H. Gordon, Sp. Asst, to U. S. Atty., both of New York City and Irving S. Shapiro, Sp. Asst, to U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C., Edward C. Wallace,, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., and Lawrence K. Bailey, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. G, of counsel), for the Government.

Unger, Freedman & Fleischer, of New York City (Abraham Unger, of New York City, of counsel), for all defendants except Gates, Dennis and Williamson.

Harry Sacher, of New York City, for defendant John Gates.

Abraham J. Isserman, of New York City, for defendant John B. Williamson,

Louis F. McCabe, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Eugene Dennis.

*

 Mandamus denied by the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit Nov. 12, 1948. See 170 F.2d 632.

MEDINA, District Judge.

The affidavit of bias or prejudice herein is stricken. It does not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C.A. § 144 and is insufficient on its face. The colloquy between the Court and counsel had to do with the importance and character of questions of law relating to the sufficiency of the indictment and the time to be allowed by. way of continuance in order that counsel might adequately prepare for the presentation of his points in due course. This discussion was necessarily based upon the assumption that the facts as alleged in the indictment were true. The comments appearing in the excerpts contained in the affidavit show clearly on their face that they were intended and were in fact observations by way of purely legal argument; and this appears still more clearly in the entire colloquy which is hereby made a part of this opinion.1

There was no intention on my part to-express any opinion whatsoever on the guilt or innocence of the defendants or any of them. I had given the case no consideration whatsoever prior to the time that the application for an enlargement of time-within which to make motions came before me on the occasion referred to. I have-not now nor have I ever had any thoughts. *281or opinions relative to the facts of the case.

Had I been conscious of any personal bias or prejudice against the defendants or any of them I would, without waiting for any suggestion by counsel or the filing of any affidavit, have disqualified myself when the case first came before me. I have never understood that discussion of the law Applicable to a case formed a basis for recusation.

1

 Writ of mandamus denied by Court of Appeals, -Second Circuit, 170 F.2d 632, certiorari denied 69 S.Ct. —.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-1008

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Travis Lee McKie lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ Submitted: July 18, 2022 Filed: July 21, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Travis McKie appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a child pornography offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has

1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, then Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, now retired.filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the

reasonableness of the sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that McKie’s sentence was not unreasonable, as there is no indication that the district court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); and the court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range, see United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motions to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
No. 50704.

#### Protest 41990-K of Montgomery Ward & Co. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John*Barr v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protest was sustained to this extent.
April 18, 1945

No. 6132.

#### *M. V. Jenkins*v. *United States.*

Entered at Sumas, Wash. (Reap. Dec. 6090). Motion by plaintiff.
Exhibit 31.1               CERTIFICATIONS

I, Daniel Myers, the Registrant's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Carsunlimited.com, inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amendment to the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Carsunlimited.com, Inc.,

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
report;

4. As the sole certifying officer, I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and I have: a) designed such
disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating
to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of
the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures as of the last
date of the period covered by this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. As the sole certifying officer, I have disclosed, based on my most recent
evaluation, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function): a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the small business issuer's
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
identified for the small business issuer's auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business
issuer's internal controls; and

6. As the sole certifying officer, I have indicated in this quarterly report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: January 6, 2006

/s/Daniel Myers
---------------
Daniel Myers
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
No. 47665.

#### Protest 37420-K of F. W. Myers & Co. (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the merchandise in question consists of standard newsprint paper similar to that the subject of *Myers*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 327, C. D. 631), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1772 was sustained.