alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Carol Gilman, Appellant, v Nassau County Civil Service Commission et al., Respondents.

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Nassau County Civil Service Commission, dated February 16, 1989, which disqualified the petitioner from taking the examination for the position of Procurement Supervisor, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), dated January 18, 1990, which confirmed the determination and dismissed the proceeding on the merits.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner was employed by the Nassau County Department of Public Works in the position of Clerk Typist III. The responsibilities for this position included the maintenance of a "running inventory of control of supplies, forms, [and] equipment”. The petitioner had also held other positions in which her duties included the ordering of office supplies.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the respondent Nassau County Civil Service Commission did not act arbitrar*669ily or illegally when it determined that the limited experience which the petitioner had obtained in the inventorying or ordering of office supplies in connection with her prior employment was insufficient to qualify her for the position of Procurement Supervisor. That position entails responsibilities which are both wider in range and more complex than those inherent in the essentially clerical position of Clerk Typist III. Since the respondents’ determination has a rational basis, the proceeding was properly dismissed *(see, e.g., Matter of Canava v Keyes,*62 AD2d 997). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
##### 



AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO THE
SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC.
PARTNER AGENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT
   11.

    The following provision shall be added under Section IX. General Provisions:
 M.

    Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by both parties, each party agrees that during
this Agreement and for a period of one (1) year after the termination or expiration of this
Agreement, it shall not directly or indirectly recruit, solicit or hire any employee of the
other party, or induce or attempt to induce any employee of the other party to discontinue
his or her employment relationship with the other party.
 12.

    The word treaty shall be deleted from Exhibit B, Legend, Table 1, Line 1.13.

    The following clause shall be deleted in its entirety from Exhibit B, Legend, Table 1, Line
1.:
  14.

    Exhibit B, Legend, Table 1, Line 15. shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:
     SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC.BY:
    
    /s/ William S. LoderNAME: William S. LoderTITLE: Senior Vice President, Chief Underwriting OfficerRISK TRANSFER HOLDINGS, INC.BY:
    
    /s/ Paul R. HughesNAME: Paul R. HughesTITLE: Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 18.1





February 28, 2011





Board of Directors


Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc.


180 East Broad Street


Columbus, Ohio 43215





Dear Directors:








We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form 10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.





We have audited the consolidated financial statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 and issued our report thereon dated February 28, 2011.  Note 2 to the financial statements describes a change of the Company's annual goodwill impairment test date from December 31 to October 1, which is considered a change in accounting principle.  It should be understood that the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another for selecting the annual goodwill impairment test date  has not been addressed in any authoritative accounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence below we have relied on management's determination that this change in accounting principle is preferable.  Based on our reading of management's stated reasons and justification for this change in accounting principle in the Form 10-K, and our discussions with management as to their judgment about the relevant business planning factors relating to the change, we concur with management that such change represents, in the Company's circumstances, the adoption of a preferable accounting principle in conformity with Accounting Standards Codification 250, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections .








Very truly yours,











PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                         500,944
<SECURITIES>                   251,145                <F1> 
<RECEIVABLES>                  529,219
<ALLOWANCES>                   0
<INVENTORY>                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               0
<PP&E>                         13,229,629             <F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                 1,461,422
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 13,238,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          276,855
<BONDS>                        673,674                <F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0
<PREFERRED>                    0
<COMMON>                       12,288,189             <F4>
<OTHER-SE>                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   13,238,718
<SALES>                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               426,707                <F5>
<CGS>                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  189,560                <F6>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               9,932                  <F7>
<LOSS-PROVISION>               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                0
<INCOME-TAX>                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            0
<DISCONTINUED>                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<CHANGES>                      0
<NET-INCOME>                   227,215
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                  0





<FN>
<F1>   "SECURITIES" REPRESENTS INVESTMENT IN JOINT VENTURE
<F2>   "PP&E" REPRESENTS INVESTMENT IN REAL ESTATE [LAND AND
           BUILDING]
<F3>   "BONDS" REPRESENTS MINORITY INTEREST IN JOINT VENTURE
<F4>   "COMMON" REPRESENTS TOTAL PARTNERS CAPITAL
<F5>   "TOTAL REVENUES" REPRESENTS RENTAL, INTEREST, AND OTHER
          INCOME
<F6>   "TOTAL COSTS" REPRESENTS TOTAL EXPENSES
<F7>   "OTHER EXPENSES" REPRESENTS MINORITY AND EQUITY INTEREST
           IN JOINT VENTURES' NET INCOME
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit (23)(i)

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT






We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-57577 of Borden, Inc. on Form S-3 of our reports for each of Borden, Inc.,
Borden, Inc. and Affiliates, Borden Foods Holdings Corporation and Wise
Holdings, Inc. each dated February 12, 1999 appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Borden, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Columbus, Ohio
March 29, 1999
Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP 

4828 Loop Central Drive, Suite 600 

Houston, Texas 77081 

Main: 713-844-3400

 

April 15, 2015 

Via E-File

The Honorable Christopher A. Prine, Clerk 

First Court of Appeals 

301 Fannin 

Houston, Texas 77002-2066 

Re: Letter Requesting Status Information in Case No. 01-14-00914-CV; Jay Cohen v. 

Midtown Management District; In the First Court of Appeals, Trial Court Cause 

No. 2013-16814. 

Dear Clerk:

On December 10, 2014 the Court instructed Appellant to pay, or make arrangements to 

pay, the reporter’s fee on or before January 9, 2015. However, the Court’s electronic docket does 

not reflect whether Appellant complied, and therefore, I write to ask if such compliance has in fact 

occurred. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Nick Nicholas

cc: Mr. George F. May (via e-mail to george@towmeymay.com)

 Mr. Jason L. Bailey (via e-mail to jbailey@pbfcm.com) 

Edward J. (Nick) Nicholas Direct: 713-844-3405 Fax: 713-844-3504 Nick.Nicholas@lgbs.com

ACCEPTED

01-14-00914-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/15/2015 10:15:33 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/15/2015 10:15:33 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
ACCEPTED

03-14-00679-CR

4878652

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/14/2015 11:36:35 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS 

EX PARTE 

• 

NO. 03-14-00679-CR 

LESLIE PARKER JONES 

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS: 

COMES NOW, Keith S. Hampton and Leslie Parker Jones, and files this his 

Motion to Dismiss Appeal, pursuant to Rule· 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Pro~edure, and in support thereof, would show the Court the following: 

I. 

Leslie Parker Jones was found guilty of aggravated assault in Cause No. DD1-DC-08-303025 on January 22, 2009. He was sentenced to ten years of 

community supervision. On October 24, 2014, Appellant filed his notice of appeal 

from writ proceedings conducted pursuant to Article 11.072 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure. 

II. 

After a careful review ofhis appeal, Appellant and his counsel move to dismiss 

the appeal. 

------~ ~- - --------

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/14/2015 11:36:35 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
III. 

This Motion to Dismiss Appeal is filed in duplicate and pursuant to Rule 42.2, 

the duplicate should be sent to the Travis County District Clerk. 

Respectfully submitted, 

,-. / I , ) /(\ ! - ..,! / ~~} l & J 

KEITH S. HAMPTON 

Attorney at Law 

1103 Nueces Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

(512) 476-8484 (o) 

(512) 762-6170 (c) 

(512) 477-3580 (±) 

keithshampton@gmail.com 

SBN# 08873230 

" SLIE PARKER JONES, Appellant 

• 

By affixing my signature above, I, KEITH S. HAMPTON, hereby certify that 

a true copy of Motion to Dismiss Appeal has been delivered to the Travis County 

District Attorney's Office on this day, April13, 2015. 

- --- - - --- - ----------
NUMBER 13-14-00351-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant,

v.

JAMES BANUELOS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 117th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, the State of Texas, by and through its District Attorney, the Honorable

Mark Skurka, has filed a motion for dismissal of its appeal pursuant to Rule 42.2 of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this 

Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 
2

Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be 

entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the 

16th day of April, 2015.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-659V

Filed: March 26, 2015

Not for Publication

*************************************

TAMMY DURRE, *

*

 Petitioner, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision based on

 * stipulation of fact

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Edward M. Kraus, Chicago, IL, for petitioner.

Lara A. Englund, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On March 26, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner asserts that she did not 

incur any costs in pursuit of her petition. Petitioner submitted an application for attorneys’ fees 

and costs to respondent on January 26, 2015. During informal discussions, respondent raised 

objections to certain items in petitioner’s application. Based on these objections, petitioner

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.
2

amends her request for attorneys’ fees and costs to $22,500.00. Respondent does not object to 

this amount. The undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards 

$22,500.00, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the 

form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Edward Kraus, Esq. of the Law Office of Chicago 

Kent in the amount of $22,500.00.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2015 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
(b) (4) (b) (4)
(b) (4) (b) (4) (b) (4) (b) (4) (b) (4) (b) (4)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**DARRYL JONES,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 92 EAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 23rd day of August, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


 

 Exhibit 10(i)

 






INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT

 



To the Board of Directors of




Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company


 



        We consent to the use in this Post Effective Amendment No. 8 to Registration Statement No. 33-83798 on Form N-4 of our
report dated February 15, 2002 for the LifeTrust Segment of Massachusetts Mutual Variable Annuity Separate Account 3 and of our report dual dated March 1, 2002 and March 9, 2002 respectively, on Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (which
report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs referring to the use of statutory accounting practices and the change of certain accounting practices as a result of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of
Insurance’s adoption of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual effective January 1, 2001, all of which practices differ from accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America), appearing in the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in such Statement of Additional Information.


 

DELOITTE & 
TOUCHE 
LLP

 

Hartford, Connecticut



April 25, 2002
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE I

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 1

THE INSTITUTIONS

SECTION 5

SECTION 5

THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Article 252

(ex Article 222 TEC)

(ex Article 222 TEC)

The Court of Justice shall be assisted by eight Advocates-General. Should the Court of Justice so request, the Council, acting unanimously, may increase the number of Advocates-General.

It shall be the duty of the Advocate-General, acting with complete impartiality and independence, to make, in open court, reasoned submissions on cases which, in accordance with the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, require his involvement.

---
Cite as 2015 Ark. 169

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. D-15-240

IN RE MICHAEL A. MAGGIO

ARK. BAR NO. 90015

Opinion Delivered April 16, 2015

PETITION TO SURRENDER

ARKANSAS LAW LICENSE

PETITION GRANTED.

PER CURIAM

On recommendation of the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, we

hereby accept the voluntary surrender, in lieu of disciplinary proceedings, of the license of

Michael A. Maggio of Conway, Arkansas, to practice law in the State of Arkansas. In his

petition to voluntarily surrender his license to practice law, filed with this court on March 20,

2015, Mr. Maggio acknowledges that he pleaded guilty to the felony offense of Bribery

Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B). Mr.

Maggio also states that he wishes to avoid the expense, stress, and publicity of further

addressing his conviction.

The name of Michael A. Maggio shall be removed from the registry of attorneys

licensed by the State of Arkansas, and he is barred and enjoined from engaging in the practice

of law in this state.

It is so ordered.
2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-14-2015

In Re: Jason Smart-El

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This April is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University

School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of

Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Jason Smart-El" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 376.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/376
HLD-004 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1111

___________

IN RE: JASON EMANUEL SMART-EL,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 1:13-cv-00164)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

February 20, 2015

Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, GARTH and BARRY, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 14, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Jason Emanuel Smart-El filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we 

direct the District Court to rule on a motion that he had filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255. The District Court has since granted Smart-El’s § 2255 motion. In light of the 

District Court’s action, the question Smart-El presented is no longer a live controversy, 

so we will dismiss the petition as moot. See, e.g., Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

974 (3d Cir. 1992); see also Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 

(3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a 

plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to 

grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”)
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | The Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Capital Southwest Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“accompanied 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 accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |

|                          |
|--------------------------|
|                          |  |  |
|                     |   |   |
| Date:  December 20, 2019 | By: | /s/ Michael S. Sarner |
|                     |   | Michael S. SarnerChief Financial Officer |