alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11658.

#### Hague et al., Exrs., et al. *v.*Hague et al.

Decided October 5, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Muskingum county.

*Mr. John R. Stonesipher*and *Mr. John J. Adams,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Winn &*Bassett, for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.A
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
First Liberty Financial Corp. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 33-24733)
of our report, dated October 30, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements of First Liberty Financial Corp. and Subsidiaries as of
September 30, 1998 and 1997 and for the years ended September 30, 1998, 1997 and
1996, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
                                          PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 
Atlanta, Georgia
December 29, 1998
Table B-2.  Standard Errors of Estimated Percentages for Characteristics of Vacant Rental
            and Homeowner Housing Units:  1998



                                    Estimated percentage

                               1 or     2 or     5 or    10 or    15 or    20 or    25 or
                                 99       98       95       90       85       80       75       50


Vacant rental units........     0.1      0.2      0.3      0.4      0.5      0.6      0.6      0.7
Vacant homeowner units.....     0.2      0.3      0.4      0.6      0.7      0.8      0.9      1.0
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

  <ARTICLE>  5
                          
<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                         1,063,225
<SECURITIES>                   2,553,631
<RECEIVABLES>                  2,178,555
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                    6,674,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              13,297,760
<PP&E>                         2,426,419
<DEPRECIATION>                 1,107,622
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                14,802,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          3,774,784
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<COMMON>                           5,587
<OTHER-SE>                    10,878,394
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  14,802,411
<SALES>                       13,198,284
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              13,198,284
<CGS>                          6,664,670
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  8,392,757
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                (145,426)
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (1,713,717)
<INCOME-TAX>                    (110,060)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (1,603,657)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                  (1,603,657)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.29)

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Nidhi H. Andalon, Chief Financial Officer of Qualstar Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and





(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: August 31, 2011





/s/NIDHI H. ANDALON


Nidhi H. Andalon,


Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


[PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP LETTERHEAD]




May 14, 2001

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

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated May 14, 2001 on our review of interim
financial information of The Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
(the "Company") as of and for the period ended March 31, 2001 and included in
the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is
incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements dated March 27, 1997,
October 28, 1997, April 9, 1998 and June 4, 1998.

Very truly yours,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### Robert Lee HIGHTOWER, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-187.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 4, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LS POWER FUNDING CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 330,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,818
<BONDS>                                        328,021
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           1
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   330,840
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,944
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### WASHINGTON AVENUE FOOD CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. Max MODLIN, husband and surviving spouse of Celia Modlin, Deceased, Respondent.

No. 34849.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 29, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 19, 1968.

*296Fred C. Davant, of Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for petitioner.

Robert Orseck, of Nichols, Gaither, Beck-ham, Colson & Spence, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Washington Avenue Food Center, Inc. v. Modlin et al., Fla.App., 178 So.2d 596. Jurisdiction is laid with the contention that the cited decision conflicts with the opinion of this Court in Slavin v. Kay, Fla., 108 So.2d 462.

The factual background is adequately delineated in the opinion of the District Court under review. We find that the jurisdictional conflict of decisions is present. In our opinion in Mai Kai, Inc. et al. v. Colucci et al., 205 So.2d 291, opinion filed 29th day of November, 1967, we have announced our adherence to our decision in Slavin v. Kay, supra. On the authority of Mai Kai, Inc., the decision of the District Court now under review is quashed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, for disposal consistent with this opinion and our opinion in Mai Kai, Inc. v. Colucci, supra.

It is so ordered.

CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, DREW and THORNAL, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, J., concurs specially with opinion.

ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.

WHITE, Jos. S., Circuit Judge (Retired) dissents with opinion.

ROBERTS, Justice

(concurring specially) :

I concur in the judgment for the reasons stated in Hall v. Holland, Fla., 47 So.2d 889 and because the doctrine of implied warranty is not raised.

ERVIN, Justice

(dissenting):

I would follow without modification the opinion of .the District Court with respect to the question of the liability of Washington Avenue Food Center, Inc., a Florida corporation. I think the District Court’s opinion appropriately sets forth policy considerations supported by legal precedents which are best attuned to provide a remedy for members of the public who suffer injury in cases of this kind. I refer to the text of its opinion from which headnotes 1 to 6, inclusive, are drawn.

WHITE, Jos. S., Circuit Judge

(Retired) (dissenting) :

I respectfully dissent in this case, also, upon grounds stated in dissenting opinion in Mai Kai and Reilly v. Colucci, 205 So.2d 291, filed the 29th day of November, 1967.
#### Howard Isiah GAUSE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-634.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 12, 1972.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender and Michael VonZamft, Legal Intern, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged by information with the crimes of (1) assault with intent to commit murder, (2) aggravated assault, (3) unlawful possession of marijuana, (4) resisting an officer with violence to his person, and (5) unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. *384He was found guilty on counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 and guilty of the reduced charge of aggravated assault on count 1. He was sentenced to terms totalling thirty-five years in the state penitentiary. On this appeal two points are presented. . The first urges error upon the court’s denial of a motion for continuance. The second urges that the sentence constituted an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment in that it was a penalty for defendant’s exercise of his right to trial by jury.

Appellant’s motion for continuance of the trial was made at the onset of the trial. Appellant was arraigned on February 4, 1972. Jury trial was held on April 18 and 19, 1972. An adjudication of insolvency was entered and the public defender was appointed to represent the appellant at the time of his arraignment. Discovery was undertaken by the public defender. Five days prior to trial appellant discharged the public defender and procured private counsel. The ground for the motion for continuance made at the time of trial was that the private counsel had not had an opportunity to fully prepare the case. We hold that the appellant has not demonstrated error because the application for continuance did not meet the test set forth in Moore v. State, 59 Fla. 23, 52 So. 971 (1910). See also Coney v. State, Fla.App.1972, 258 So.2d 497.

Appellant’s second point urges that because the trial court had indicated that it would consider a shorter sentence when a plea bargain was attempted, that it therefore could not legally impose a harsh sentence after a jury trial. The point does not present error because it is apparent that the court was better informed of the particulars and the circumstances of the various crimes after the trial. The direction of the trial court for the prison terms to be served consecutively does not operate to make the sentence constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853, 13 So.2d 458 (1943); Cole v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 902.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

Certification required by Section 302(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Kevin T. Knight, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Nordstrom Credit, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  May 16, 2005                          /s/ Kevin T. Knight
       -------------------                   -----------------------------
                                             Kevin T. Knight
                                             President of Nordstrom Credit, Inc.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 10473]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Armenia!,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about September 20, 2018, until on or about January 13, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register.**

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me                           ( print page 34908)                        by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-10 of July 6, 2018.                

Jennifer Z. Galt,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2018-15656 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Exhibit 10.44.2
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated as of February 23, 1999, amends 
Section 6.1(f) of the Employment Agreement, dated as of February 25, 1997, 
between Northeast Utilities Service Company and Cheryl W. Grise, to read as 
follows:

(f)  "Termination upon a Change of Control" shall mean a Termination of 
Employment during the period beginning on the earlier of (a) approval by the 
shareholders of NU of a Change of Control or (b) consummation of a Change of 
Control and, in either case, ending on the second anniversary of the 
consummation of the transaction that constitutes the Change of Control (or if 
such period started on shareholder approval and after such shareholder 
approval the Board abandons the transaction, on the date the Board abandoned 
the transaction) either:

(i)  initiated by the Company for any reason other than Executive's (w) 
disability, as described in Section 5.1 hereof, (x) death, (y) retirement on 
or after attaining age 65, or (z) "cause," as defined in Section 5.3 hereof, 
or 

(ii) initiated by Executive (A) upon any failure of the Company materially to 
comply with and satisfy any of the terms of this Agreement, including any 
significant reduction by the Company of the authority, duties or 
responsibilities of Executive, any reduction of Executive's compensation or 
benefits due hereunder, or the assignment to Executive of duties which are 
materially inconsistent with the duties of Executive's position as defined in 
Section 1.2 above, or (B) if Executive is transferred, without Executive's 
written consent, to a location that is more than 50 miles from Executive's 
principal place of business immediately preceding such approval or 
consummation; provided, that the imposition on Executive following a Change 
of Control of a limitation of Executive's scope of authority such that 
Executive's responsibilities relate primarily to a company or companies whose 
common equity is not publicly held shall be considered a "significant 
reduction by the Company of the authority, duties or responsibilities of 
Executive" for purposes hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, intending to be legally bound, have 
executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

/s/Cheryl Grise					/s/Michael G. Morris
3/4/99							Chairman, President and CEO
								3/4/99
No. 11000.

#### Mercer, Admr., *v.*White et al.

Decided November 30, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

*Mr. George D. Ingram*and *Mr. Charles*Boyd, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. S. Speaker; Mr. F. E. Grosshans*and *Mr. George T.*Farrell, for defendants in error,

Judg*525merit affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Si-iauck and Price, JJ., concur.
#### Doris Lubell, Respondent, v Samson Moving & Storage, Inc., Appellant.

[737 NYS2d 24]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered April 17, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, to the extent that plaintiff’s damages are limited as set forth in the limited liability provision of the parties’ storage contract.

It is settled that a warehouse, like a common carrier, “may limit its liability for loss of or damage to stored goods even if the injury or loss is the result of the warehouse’s negligence, so long as it provides the bailor with an opportunity to increase that potential liability by payment of a higher storage fee” *(I.C.C. Metals v Municipal Warehouse Co.,*50 NY2d 657, 663; UCC 7-204 [2]).

In this matter, although the storage contract’s limitation provision itself is not signed, the storage contract is executed at the bottom and the valuation section of the contested provision contains handwritten insertions of “$0.30 per pound,” under the subheading “Article/Value,” as well as the handwritten entry “O” entered alongside the printed language “Rate for Excess Valuation * * * Per $100 per Month.” Plaintiff’s representative, who executed the contract, does not deny that the handwritten entries are his, and the contract requires that the value declaration be in the shipper’s own writing. Finally, that part of the storage contract indicating an optional “Charge for Increased Valuation” was left blank by plaintiff

*344Since it is clear that plaintiff agreed to the terms of the contract by executing the document, and since it is also clear that the contract “provide [d] the bailor with an opportunity to increase [the defendant’s] potential liability by payment of a higher storage fee” *(I.C.C. Metals*at 663), we find that the lack of a signature immediately after the limitations clause does not render the limitation ineffectual (see, *General Precision v Burnham Van Serv.,*24 AD2d 271*[affd*19 NY2d 717], citing *American Ry. Express Co. v Lindenburg,*260 US 584). Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.