alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(April 22, 1991)

#### Amev Capital Corporation, Respondent, v Richard Kirk et al., Appellants.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover on a promissory note guarantee, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered November 22, 1989, as denied their motion to cancel a notice of pendency and further denied their separate motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to join necessary parties.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On this appeal, the defendants argue that the court erred in failing to cancel the notice of pendency which was filed against their home in conjunction with the instant action, by which the plaintiff sought, among other things, to set aside the defendant Richard Kirk’s conveyance of his one-half interest in the home to his wife, the defendant Janet Kirk. Insofar as the judgment demanded in the action would affect the title to real property *(see,*CPLR 6501), we find that a notice of pendency was properly filed. Moreover, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the action had been commenced or prosecuted in bad faith *(see,*CPLR 6514 [b]; *see also, Weksler v Yaffe,*129 Misc 2d 633, 635). Hence, it was not an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion to decline to cancel the notice of pendency.

Nor do we find that the court erred in denying the defendants’ application to dismiss the complaint for failure to join necessary parties *(see,*CPLR 1001 [a]; 1003). None of the persons mentioned by the defendants was necessary in order to accord complete relief between the plaintiff and defendants, nor would such persons have been inequitably affected by a judgment in the action *(see,*CPLR 1001 [a]).

We have reviewed the defendants’ remaining contentions and find none warrant disturbing the provisions of the order appealed from. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
# ^.....

,... ~ 

# ..,.:._ ;,

..._... r

~ 

# . ,....3..

. . . .

. ,.

~ 

# ..

... .

..

.. :

~ .::

.... .k..::

. . 

# . ......... .... ..

. .. ... . ' 

# .

'

.. ....a.......c.... 

# . ..... . ....f.,

.....

... . ~

. . ... . ....._. . ..

..:_. • :3, aT £a ....:.:::.

... ...... . ..!

~ .

.......... .:.

... ::

. ..

. . . ... . ... .. ... ...

~ ..,

.. ~ .:..

.. ~ .

..... ~ ..... ~

.... .... . . . .. . . ..... _...._ .

*

~ ~

'~. ~

. . . .

. ..,..... ~

... :...

. ... .

.. . ....'.,..

.. ~

... ..:

... .':...... ,:

... ~ .... _..

.

~ . ~

.. . . .

.......... . . .... ~ .!

... . . . ~ ..

~ ~ ~j

. .. . ...

.. .

..... ~~~• .

... ........ ...3..

.:

.

.~ 

## ' :.;• •,;. .~;..



## . . ~~ 

## . .a.

- ;.::._• :

, . ..

. r:s..

~ ~
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Devcon International Corp.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
the registration statements listed below of Devcon International Corp. and subsidiaries of our report dated April 15, 2006, except as to Note 1p, which is as of April 17, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Devcon
International Corp. as of December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity and comprehensive (loss) income, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31,
2005, which report appears in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Devcon International Corp.



| |  | Forms S-8 (Registration No. 333-113853, No. 33-59557 and No. 333-92231)
|- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Forms S-3 and S-3/A (Registration No. 333-119158 and No. 33-65235)
|- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ KPMG LLP

February 28, 2008

Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Certified Public Accountants
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems ) ASBCA No. 59658 

) 

Under Contract No. F04701-02-C-0009 et al. ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

Terry L. Albertson, Esq. 

Stephen J. McBrady, Esq. 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

Washington, DC 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Carol L. Matsunaga, Esq. 

Senior Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Carson, CA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 3 November 2016 

f' RK N. STEMPLER 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

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 No. 59658, Appeal of Northrop 

Grumman Aerospace Systems, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### James L. Garrett, Doing Business as J.L.G. Construction Co., Respondent, v Unanimity Construction, Inc., et al., Defendants, and 300 East 4 Co. et al., Appellants.

Motion by plaintiff-respondent for clarification of this court’s order and decision entered April 19, 1990 (160 AD2d 546) is granted, the decretal paragraph of this court’s memorandum decision is vacated, and the following is substituted in its place: "Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), dated November 14, 1988, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and ordered that the mechanic’s lien filed by plaintiff on or about March 2, 1988, against the premises located at 300 East 4th Street, New York, New York, be foreclosed; and judgment of the same court, entered July 7, 1989, following an inquest to determine damages owed by defendants to plaintiff, which, *inter alia,*awarded plaintiff $100,467.25, unanimously modified, on the law, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the defendants 300 *310East 4 Co. and Yoram Finkelstein is denied, without costs, the judgment is vacated as to those defendants, and the order and judgment are otherwise affirmed.”

On the appeal, this court inadvertently reversed portions of the order and judgment granting plaintiff summary judgment as against the defaulting defendant, Unanimity Construction, Inc., and the decretal paragraph of our memorandum decision is accordingly vacated and corrected to reflect that the order and judgment are modified only with respect to the appealing defendants, and otherwise affirmed. With respect to the motion for clarification as to the appealing defendants, this court stated that "there are triable issues of fact in this action for breach of contract, recovery for reasonable value of services and materials and foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien against the property” and that "[ajmong other questions to be resolved” is whether plaintiff complied with the prerequisites set forth in section 8 of the Lien Law (160 AD2d, *supra,*at 547). Accordingly, that issue is not the only one to be resolved at trial, and plaintiff may present evidence to establish the elements of all the causes of action presented in the complaint against the appealing defendants, including any based upon plaintiff’s allegation of a direct contractual relationship with those defendants. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
First Department,

April, 1991

(April 2, 1991)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leopoldo Carmona, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered June 1, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent, indeterminate terms of imprisonment of four and one-half to nine years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was arrested following a routine "buy and bust” operation after he sold 2 glassine envelopes of heroin to an undercover police officer. At the hearing conducted on the motion, Sergeant John McCluskey testified that he arrested defendant within a minute of the sale pursuant to the undercover officer’s description of a male Hispanic with a goatee and mustache who was wearing a long green coat, blue hat and bluejeans. A short time later, the undercover officer made his confirmatory identification. At the close of the evidence, defense counsel urged that the People failed to carry forth their burden of proof because the radio transmission "merely contained a description”, which was based on "an assumption of a buy.” The court denied defendant’s motion, finding that defendant was seized because he fit the description that had been broadcast. The court specifically rejected counsel’s claim that Sergeant McCluskey had not been told that a crime had been committed.

Defendant’s appeal brings up for review the hearing court’s determination of the motion to suppress. Defendant has abandoned his claim that the radio report did not allege a crime had been committed, and now urges that the description contained in the transmission that McCluskey received was too general to support his arrest. The claim now raised on *152appeal is unpreserved, as defendant is advancing a new claim that was not considered or ruled on by the hearing court. *(People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 215.)

In any event, the radioed description contained sufficient specificity and detail to enable the arresting officer to reasonably conclude that defendant was the person described *(People v Nieves,*36 NY2d 396, 401; *People v Mingo,*121 AD2d 307, 309). Further, the almost immediate arrest gave further assurance that no error had been made.

Defendant’s argument that the court gave an impermissibly embellished charge on his decision not to testify is similarly unpreserved *(People v Autry,*75 NY2d 836). Were we to reach this contention, we would not reverse. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Asch, JJ.
EX-10.4.1



 Exhibit 10.4.1 

Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement 

This Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement, effective this 9th day of February 2016 (the “Amendment”), is an
Amendment to the Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement between Brian E. Mueller (“Executive”) and Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (“Company”), collectively referred to herein as the
“Parties”, entered into effective July 1, 2012 (the “Original Agreement”). 

RECITALS 
 WHEREAS,
Executive and Company entered into the Original Agreement effective July 1, 2012, which is scheduled to expire by its terms on June 30, 2016; and 

WHEREAS, Executive and Company wish to extend the term of the Original Agreement through June 30, 2020; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, it is hereby agreed: 

1. Term. Section 3.1 of the Original Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to state as follows: 

“3.1 Term. The employment relationship pursuant to this Agreement shall continue in effect for a period through June 30, 2020,
unless sooner terminated in accordance with Section 7.” 
 2. Continuing Effect. All other terms and conditions of
the Original Agreement, unless specifically amended pursuant to this Amendment, remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties have executed this Amendment by their duly authorized representatives as of the date hereof. 
  

			
	 Grand Canyon Education, Inc.
  

By: /s/ Dan Bachus
 Name: Dan Bachus

Title: Chief Financial Officer
	  	     
  

By: /s/ Brian Mueller
 Name: Brian E. Mueller
XRX-12.31.13-Ex10.e.29


EXHIBIT 10(e)(29)


	
								
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Name: PARTICIPANT NAME
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	Company Name: XEROX CORPORATION
	 

	Award Summary
	 
	 
	Plan Name: Restricted Stock Plan
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Awarded < enter # of shares> RSU of XRX Stock on <enter date>
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Participant
	 
	<name>
	 
	Vesting Schedule
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Stock Symbol
	 
	XRX
	 
	Vest
Date
	Vest
Quantity
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	<vesting date>
	<# of shares>
	 
	 

	Award Date
	 
	<date>
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Awarded
	 
	< # of shares>
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Award Type
	 
	RSU
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Award Description
	 
	Restricted Stock Unit
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Diaz, Also Known as Miguel Calimano, Also Known as Calimano Diaz, Appellant.

Upon reargument, the decretal paragraph of the decision and order of this court, entered February 7, 1991, which reversed defendant’s conviction of burglary in the second degree, criminal trespass in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and remanded for a new trial, is unanimously vacated, and the following is substituted in its place: "Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Albert Williams, J.), rendered January 13, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, criminal trespass in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of five to ten years as to the burglary count, and one year each as to the trespass and burglar’s tools *342counts, unanimously reversed, on the law, and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial ordered on the present indictment solely with respect to the count of possession of burglar’s tools, and the indictment is otherwise dismissed without prejudice to the People re-presenting any appropriate charges to another Grand Jury.”

On the appeal, this court reversed defendant’s judgment of conviction due to prejudicial error, and ordered a new trial, while alternatively holding that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction of burglary in the second degree *(People v Diaz,*170 AD2d 202). As we had dismissed the burglary charge, there is nothing remaining in the indictment to support further prosecution for the lesser included offense of attempted burglary in the second degree under that accusatory instrument *(People v Gonzalez,*61 NY2d 633). We accordingly dismiss the indictment, except as to the possession of burglar’s tools count, with leave to represent any appropriate charges to another Grand Jury. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23

<PAGE>
                                                                      MEMBERS OF
                                                       THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
                                                    CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
[LOGO] REGIER CARR & MONROE, L.L.P.                   THE DIVISION FOR CPA FIRMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS                                   POLARIS TM
                                                                   INTERNATIONAL



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Form S-8 of Guthrie  Savings,  Inc.,  filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on March 1, 1996,  of our report dated April 23, 1999 in this Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB of Guthrie  Savings,  Inc. for the fiscal year ended March
31, 1999.


                                   /s/Regier Carr & Monroe, L.L.P.



June 28, 1999

Wichita, Kansas






<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                          <C>                          <C>            <C>
300 WEST DOUGLAS, SUITE 100 - WICHITA, IANSAS 67202-2994 - 316 264-2335 - FAX 316 264-1489
                            TUCSON - WICHITA - TULSA
                                 www.rcmllp.com
</TABLE>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Intelligence AgencyCOMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE IN DEFENSE OF THE NATION

Search
Search

Search
                    - Facilities Operating Status
                    - Employee Resources

-  Home		 
-  About    -  FAQs             
  -  Organization      -  Locations             
    -  Missile and Space Intelligence Center             
    -  Joint Military Attache School             
    -  Joint Military Intelligence Training Center 
  -  Open Source Intelligence             
  -  Equal Opportunity & Diversity             
  -  History      -  DIA Museum             
    -  George Washington Letters             
    -  Directors of DIA             
    -  The Historians 
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response             
  -  Contact Us 
-  News & Features    -  Articles             
  -  Videos             
  -  DIA in the News             
  -  Threat Reports             
  -  Photo Gallery             
  -  No FEAR             
  -  Podcasts 
-  Careers & Opportunities    -  Career Fields      -  Analysis             
    -  Counterintelligence             
    -  Finance & Acquisition             
    -  Human Intelligence             
    -  Human Services             
    -  Information Technology             
    -  Inspector General             
    -  Legal             
    -  Mission Management             
    -  Office Management & Infrastructure             
    -  Science & Technology             
    -  Security 
  -  Search Vacancies             
  -  Apply to DIA             
  -  Hiring Process             
  -  Internships             
  -  Veteran Programs 
-  Business    -  Contractor Personnel Security             
  -  SIA3             
  -  SITE III             
  -  Innovation             
  -  NeedipeDIA             
  -  Office of Small Business Programs             
  -  Small Business FAQs 

HOMENEWS & FEATURES

Search

Search

                            - All Images 
                            - Other 

                            - Upload Date
                            - Photo Date
                            - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.2 MB)

Tags:AUAB

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
EXHIBIT
32.1



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Point Capital, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June
30, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Eric Weisblum, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:



1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
of the Company.



Date:
August 14, 2017



|By:    | /s/
    Eric Weisblum                                                                  | 
|------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  | Eric Weisblum                                                                          | 
|Title: | Chairman, Chief Executive 
Officer and Director
    
    (principal executive officer) | 



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 2257

GWENDOLINE ATEMKENG , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DOCTORS HOSPITAL, INC., trading as Doctors Community Hospital , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Lydia Kay Griggsby , District Judge. ( 8:19

- cv - 00806

- LKG )

Submitted : January 24, 2023 Decided: March 13, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, KING , and RUSHING, Circuit Judges

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Gwendoline Atemkeng , Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Maxwell Bernas , Atlanta, Georgia , Jay Robert Fries , Baltimore, Maryland , Jacquelyn Lorraine Thompson , FORDHARRISON LLP , Washington, D

. C

. , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2257 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/13/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Gwendoline Atemkeng appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee summary judgment on her complaint filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
19 64, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e

- 17 , and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § § 20

- 601 to 20

- 611 (2022). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s o rder

. Atemkeng v. Doctors’ Hosp

. , Inc. , No. 8:19

- cv - 00806

- LKG (D. Md. Oct. 13, 2021) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-2257 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/13/2023 Pg: 2 of 2