alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17

- 1731 Filed January 10, 2018

IN THE INTEREST OF L.S., Minor Child, D.S., Father, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Craig M.
Dreismeier , District Associate Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.
AFFIRMED.

Scott D. Strait, Council Bluffs, for appellant father. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and John B. McCormally, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Marti D. Nere n stone, Council Bluffs, guardian ad litem for minor child.

Consi dered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ.2

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge. A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, born in
2015 . He (1) challenges the grounds for termination, (2) argues the State failed to make reasonable reunification efforts, and (3) contends termination was not in the
child ’ s best interests. We will address all three contentions together. The district court terminated the father ’ s parental rights pursuant to several statutory grounds. We may affirm if we find clear and convincing evidence to support any of the grounds. In re S.R. , 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
We focus on Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2016) , which requires proof of several elements, including proof the child cannot be returned to the parent ’ s custody. When the child was five months old, she sustained a fractured skull and
subdural hematoma at the hands of her mother ’ s live

- in boyfriend. The depa rtment of human services intervened. At the time of the assault, the child ’ s father was at the Iowa Medical and Classification Center awaiting imprisonment on a sentence for willful injury

. He was subsequently incarcerated and remained in prison until February 2017. Meanwhile, the child was adjudicated in need of assistance and r eceived extensive services. Initially, she remained with her mother, but she was later transferred to the care of her maternal grandmother and the grandmother ’ s husband. On his release, the child ’ s father met with the department and was advised to participate in drug testing and other reunification services. He attended the permanency hearing in April 2017 , and, according to the department ’ s case3

manager, apologized “ for no t being able to do the things that he needed to do. ”
He had no contact with the department in the ensuing five months. We conclude the department made reasonable efforts to reunify father with child, but the father failed to cooperate. See In re C.B. , 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000) (observing reasonable ef forts is part of ultimate proof ). We further conclude the child could not be returned to the father ’ s custody. See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h)(4). Finally, because the father did not know the child, made no effort to get to know the child, and did not take steps to ensure he would be a safe caretaker of the child, we conclude termination was in the child ’ s best
interests. See In re P.L. , 778 N.W.2d 33, 39 (Iowa 2010).
We affirm the termination of the father ’ s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
**SEATTLE	SEAPLANES**

1325	Fairview	Ave	E Seattle,	WA		98102

February	28 th 2013

To	Whom	It	May	Concern:

Please	accept	this	letter	as	an	exemption	request	from	the	requirement	for	a separate	testing	program	for	our	air	tour	operations.

Per	the	exemp tion	instructions	the	following	information	is	being	provided:

**A)** Seattle	Seaplanes 1325	Fairview	Ave	E Seattle,	WA 98102 Telephone	: 206

- 32 9

- 9638 Fax: 206

- 325

- 5885 E

- mail: lindachrysler@hotmail.com

**B)** This	request	letter	is	for	exemption	from 14	CFR	91.147	titled:	Passenger carrying	flights	for	compensation	or	hire.

**C)** Extent	of	relief	is	to	combine	Seattle	Seaplanes	Part 191	tour	pilots	with Chrysler,	James	safety	sensitive	personnel	in	the	same	DOT	random	drug	and alcohol	testing	pool.		This	would	allow	better	control	of	Seattle	Seaplanes employees	as	a	whole	and	allow	our	sma ll	company	with	limited	person n el	the ability	to comply	with	regulations	in	a	more	efficient	manner.

**D)** This	request	will	benefit	the	public	as	a	whole	by	allowing	our	small	staff to	utilize	its	experts	to	oversee	a	single	drug	and	alcohol	progra m.		It	will prevent	us	from	assigning	the	responsibilities	to	personnel	that	are	less	suited	to oversee	such	a	large	regulatory	requirement	such	as	drug	and	alcohol	testing program	and	all	of	the	regulations	that	go	with	it.

**E)** As	paragra ph **D** states, safety	would	be	increased	by	allowing	are designated	experts	to	handle	those	duties	they	are	suited	for.		The	level	of	safety would	be	at	least	equal	to	if	not	increased	by	better	over	sight	and	compliance.February	28,	2013

Page	Two Exemption Request Seattle	Seaplanes

**F)** To	summarize	for	the	Federal	R egister ;	Seattle	Seaplanes	would like	to request	an	exemption	from	14	CFR	91.147	by	being	allowed	to	combine	Seattle Seaplanes part	91	pilots	with	Chrysler	Jam es	Part	135

, safety	sens itive	personnel ,	in the	same	DOT	Random	Drug	and	A lcohol	testing	pool.			All	of	the	same	drug/alcohol testing	rules	and	regulations	will	still	apply	to	all	pilots	and	mechanics	in	the combine	pool.

**G)** T his	request	for	a	combined	drug	program	should	b e	fairly	common	for	a company	such	as	Seattle	Seaplanes	that	have	multiply	departments	that	contain safety	sensitive	positions.		Simply	stated,	why	have	3	or	4	people	performing	the same	exact	functions	for	a	company	that	has	so	few	safety	sensitive	employ ees? This	exemption	will	prevent	this	and	allow	a	more	complete	oversight	of	the regulations	and	a	much	easier,	therefore,	safer	compliance.

**H)** Although	Aviation	is	a	World	W ide	industry

, Seattle	Seaplanes	will	only conduct	our	drug/alcohol	testing	w ithin	the	50	states	of	the	USA.		Any	flights beyond	US	borders	will	be	conducted	by	employees	tested	and	regulated	here within	the	US.

Thank	you	for	your	consideration.

Sincerely	yours,

Linda	D.	Chrysler
EXHIBIT 99(b)

Independent Accountants' Report





The Board of Directors

HSBC Finance Corporation:



We have examined management's assertion that the servicing of mortgage loans owned by Household Mortgage Loan Trust 2002-HC1 (the loans) has been conducted by HSBC Finance Corporation, successor by merger to Household Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated July 3, 2002 (the Agreement) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004.  Management is responsible for the assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and in compliance with the audit guide for audits of non-supervised mortgagees approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (to the extent that the procedures in such audit guide are applicable to the servicing obligations set forth in the Agreement), accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about HSBC Finance Corporation's compliance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.



In our opinion, management's assertion that the servicing of loans has been conducted by HSBC Finance Corporation, successor by merger to Household Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated July 3, 2002 as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects.



This report is intended solely for the information and the use of the addressee, the trustee(s), rating agencies, and others, as applicable, in accordance with the Agreement.





/s/ KPMG LLP



March 1, 2005



Management Assertion





As of and for the year ended December 31, 2004, the servicing of mortgage loans owned by Household Mortgage Loan Trust 2002-HC1 has been conducted by HSBC Finance Corporation, successor by merger to Household Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated July 3, 2002.





|/s/ Steve Smith
Servicing Officer
HSBC Finance CorporationMarch 1, 2005
Date | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 









|/s/ Michael Holcomb
Chief Financial Officer -
HSBC Finance Corporation - Mortgage ServicesMarch 1, 2005
Date | /s/ Greg Gibson
Managing Director - Operations -
HSBC Finance Corporation - Mortgage
ServicesMarch 1, 2005
Date
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 

JOINDER AGREEMENT 

September 10, 2021 
 By
executing this joinder, the undersigned hereby agrees, as of the date first set forth above, that the undersigned (i) shall become a party to that certain Letter Agreement, dated November 19, 2020 (as may be amended or restated from time
to time, the “Letter Agreement”), by and among Zanite Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), Zanite Sponsor LLC (the “Sponsor”), and the executive officers and directors of the Company, solely with
respect to paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 7(a), 7(c), 8, 9 and 10 of the Letter Agreement, and shall be bound by, and entitled to the rights provided under, the terms and provisions of such sections of the Letter Agreement as an Insider (as defined therein)
solely with respect to the 5,050,000 Class B ordinary shares of the Company held by it (the “Founder Shares”); and (ii) shall become a party to that certain Registration Rights Agreement, dated November 19, 2020 (as
may be amended or restated from time to time, the “Registration Rights Agreement”), by and among the Company, the Sponsor and the other Holders signatory thereto (as defined therein), and shall be bound by the terms and provisions
of the Registration Rights Agreement as a Holder and entitled to the rights of a Holder under the Registration Rights Agreement and the Founder Shares shall be “Registrable Securities” thereunder. 

[Signature Page Follows] 












 
			
	By:	 	 /s/ Patrick M. Shanahan

		 	Patrick M. Shanahan


 ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED: 

ZANITE ACQUISITION CORP. 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Steven H. Rosen

		 	Name: Steven H. Rosen
		 	Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer

  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Kenneth C. Ricci

		 	Name: Kenneth C. Ricci
		 	Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer

 [Signature Page to Joinder Agreement]
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P.

34(a)(2). 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 8, 2009 *

Decided December 8, 2009

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 09

‐ 1973

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee,

v.

BRIAN K. MCMUTUARY,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 97 CR 25

‐ 1

Elaine E. Bucklo,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Brian McMutuary helped two accomplices rob the bank where he worked of

$277,000. McMutuary had access to the vault and knew when currency shipments arrived,

so the district court assessed a 2

‐ level upward adjustment for abuse of a position of trust.

See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. The court sentenced McMutuary to a total of 195 months’

imprisonment, and we affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. See United States v.

McMutuary

, 217 F.3d 477 (7th Cir. 2000). McMutuary later filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. 

### NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 09

‐ 1973 Page 2

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduced sentence; he claimed that after Amendment 580, which revised the

commentary to § 3B1.3, he no longer would be subject to the increase for abuse of a position

of trust. The district court concluded that it lacked authority to grant relief, and McMutuary

appeals that decision.

Amendment 580 took effect in 1998 after McMutuary’s sentencing. The amendment

resolved a circuit split and adopted the majority view that defendants who deceived their

victims by pretending to hold positions of trust they did not occupy are equally deserving

of the 2

‐ level increase. See U.S.S.G. app. C, vol. 2 at 12

‐ 13 (2003) (Amendment 580). The

Sentencing Commission also used the opportunity to sharpen the language of the existing

commentary; one change was to say that § 3B1.3 “does not”—instead of “would

not”—apply to an ordinary bank teller. Id. The substitution of would for does

, says

McMutuary, made the adjustment inapplicable to him.

That contention is frivolous, but also irrelevant. The Sentencing Commission alone

decides which amendments will apply retroactively, see 28 U.S.C. § 994(u), and the

Commission exercises that power by listing retroactive amendments exhaustively in

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). Braxton v. United States

, 500 U.S. 344, 348 (1991); United States v.

Cunningham

, 554 F.3d 703, 708 (7th Cir. 2009). Amendment 580 is not listed, and thus

McMutuary cannot benefit from it.

AFFIRMED.
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 the annual report of NuRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K/A for the year ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Harin Padma−Nathan, 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:





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 the Company.





Date:
March 30, 2010





/s/ Harin Padma−NathanName:
              Harin
      Padma−NathanTitle:
              President
      & Chief Executive Officer(principal
      executive officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

LEXINGTON LUMINANCE LLC

Plaintiff,

v.

ELLIOTT ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC.

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-546-ADA

ORDER

Came on for consideration the unopposed motion of Defendant Elliott Electric Supply, Inc. 

(“Defendant”) for an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiff’s 

Complaint for Patent Infringement [ECF 1] filed on June 17, 2020 by Lexington Luminance LLC 

(“Plaintiff”). The Court, after having considered the motion, the record, and applicable authorities, 

and noting that Plaintiff is unopposed to the relief sought by the motion, concludes that the motion 

should be granted. Therefore,

The Court ORDERS that Defendant’s motion for extension of time be, and is hereby, 

GRANTED, and that the deadline for Defendant to answer or otherwise plead in response to the 

Plaintiff’s Complaint for Patent Infringement be, and is hereby, extended until August 10, 2020.

THE COURT SO ORDERS.

Signed this ___ day of July, 2020.

 

_______________________________

JUDGE ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00546-ADA Document 7-1 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 1
### Certification Statement

1, Gerald D

. Reid, Assistant Attorney General, hereby certify that the RACT State Implementation Plan amendments for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the attached State Implementation (SIP) submittals have been adopted in accordance with all relevant requirements of the Maine Administrative Procedures Act and were lawfully adopted by theBoard ofEnvironmentalProtection onAugust 20, 2009.

Gerald D

. Reid, A .A.G . 11 Date
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Maxim Tyorkin, M.D., as Assignee of Autar Mainwatty, Appellant, v<br><br>against<br><br>GEICO General Insurance Company, Respondent. Appellate Term Docket No. 2015-01203 Q C Lower Court # 707323/2014 Law Offices of Emilia I. Rutigliano, P.C., Marina Josovich, Esq., for appellant. Law Office of Printz &amp; Goldstein, Lawrence J. Chanice, Esq., for respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O'Connor, J.), entered March 26, 2015. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>In support of its cross motion, defendant established that its denial of claim form had been timely mailed (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]). Furthermore, contrary to plaintiff's argument, the affirmed peer review report submitted by defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the injury treated by plaintiff was not causally related to the accident in question. Thus, defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a doctor which failed to meaningfully refer to, let alone sufficiently rebut, the conclusions set forth in the peer review report (<a href="../2009/2009_51495.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co.</i>, 24 Misc 3d 136</a>[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2009]). In light of the foregoing, we need not consider the parties' remaining contentions.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.</p><br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: March 29, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         287,719
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,618,901
<ALLOWANCES>                                    35,024
<INVENTORY>                                  1,602,302
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,583,051
<PP&E>                                       4,451,062
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,137,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,896,737
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,834,133
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,063,149
<COMMON>                                     2,998,685
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,896,737
<SALES>                                      7,593,023
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,593,023
<CGS>                                        4,608,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,608,660
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,941,942
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              92,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (49,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (49,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (49,700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
[Letterhead of KPMG LLP]                Exhibit 99.2a




                         Independent Accountants' Report


The Boards of Directors
CitiMortgage, Inc. and CitiMortgage Asset Management, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
management assertion, that CitiMortgage, Inc. and subsidiaries and CitiMortgage
 Asset Management, Inc. (collectively referred to as the Company), complied
with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers
 Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing
standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards specified above and performing
such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2005 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


                               /s/ KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
March 3, 2006




[Letterhead of CitiMortgage, Inc.]



Management Assertion


As of and for the year ended December 31, 2005, CitiMortgage, Inc. and
subsidiaries and CitiMortgage Asset Management, Inc. (collectively referred to
 as the Company), has complied, in all material respects, with the minimum
servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's
Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for this
 same period, the Company had in effect a fidelity bond policy of $300 million
and errors and omissions policy in the amount of $50 million.


Very truly yours,



/s/ Bill Beckmann
---------------------------
President & Chief Operating Officer of CitiMortgage, Inc.


/s/ Herb Gover
---------------------------
Executive Vice President, North America Consumer Assets Operations


/s/ Paul Ince
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer of CitiMortgage, Inc.



March 2, 2006